Jump to content


WZ-111 and 112


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Brohammer #1 Posted Mar 04 2016 - 23:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27337 battles
  • 1,317
  • [M-M-E] M-M-E
  • Member since:
    01-05-2013

Can someone please explain to me why the WZ-111 has godlike spaced armor on it's side while the 112 gets a slim piece of crapabove it's tracks? 

 

They're exactly the same hull, minus the upper front plates and track design, but one seems to get the crapend of the stick.

 

And really, the only thing the 112 has going for it is a more effective UFP and slightly more powerful engine which doesn't actually make a difference due to terrain resistances. 



mattwong #2 Posted Mar 04 2016 - 23:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
Sometimes, one tank is just worse than another.  It's like asking why the 59 Patton exists when you could buy a Patton KR or a T-34-3.

SchnitzeITruck #3 Posted Mar 04 2016 - 23:58

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 755 battles
  • 1,119
  • Member since:
    11-20-2015

Because the 112 and 113's side armor is [edited] up.

https://i.imgur.com/y35770X.png


Edited by SchnitzeITruck, Mar 05 2016 - 00:02.


Trumpy_McTrumpface #4 Posted Mar 04 2016 - 23:59

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 1162 battles
  • 829
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016
I was reverse sidescraping in the WZ-111 today against tier 8 heavies at point blank range and bouncing like crazy.

Brohammer #5 Posted Mar 05 2016 - 00:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27337 battles
  • 1,317
  • [M-M-E] M-M-E
  • Member since:
    01-05-2013

View Postmattwong, on Mar 04 2016 - 15:55, said:

Sometimes, one tank is just worse than another.  It's like asking why the 59 Patton exists when you could buy a Patton KR or a T-34-3.

 

The Patton KR isn't really comparable, but the Type 59 and 59 Patton still have the exact same hull and hull armor values. 

 

The T-34-3 has a weaker hull frontally by 10 and for the side by 30. While I could complain about these two as well, the T-34-3 should probably have a bit of a drawback for having much better alpha than the Type 59, but as the WZ-111 and 112 are identical in all aspects except the two mentioned above, it simply doesn't make sense to me.


Edited by Brohammer, Mar 05 2016 - 00:02.


EDog22 #6 Posted Mar 05 2016 - 00:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22607 battles
  • 357
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011

The reason for its spaced armour is well... At the time china was basically copying off Russian tanks... This one is basically a attempt to improve upon the soviet T-10.Got this off the wiki.

 

So in all... China basically trying to be Russian...



Agentt_Orange #7 Posted Mar 05 2016 - 00:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22370 battles
  • 303
  • [F_B_P] F_B_P
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013
Don't know the answer to your question OP, but the WZ-111 is a fun, fun tank.  Faster than an IS-3, bounces shots like an Is-6, has the gun of the IS-3, preferred MM and makes great credits.  I was lucky enough to get one when they had it as a reward about a year ago (paid $20 USD 'cause I didn't want to grind the Chinese and Japanese lines at that time) and it WAS worth it!!!  The BIA crew is nice... but my crew is on it's 4th perk.  I guess I'll work on getting the "free crew" but not worried about it. 

Balaise #8 Posted Mar 05 2016 - 01:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 52206 battles
  • 130
  • [ELIT3] ELIT3
  • Member since:
    02-29-2012

I have both tanks. I prefer my 112 to my WZ-111. 

I prefer the stronger full frontal armor of my 112. As long as you protect your lower plate, the 112 is more reliable in hull down position.

You can shoot in the angled upper front plate of the WZ-111 if you are positioned a little bit above target or slightly off-center.

 

But dont get me wrong, both tanks are quite good. At least, they totally fit my playstyle.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users