Jump to content


The T-32 needs a little love....


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Blackgunner #21 Posted Apr 21 2017 - 07:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11827 battles
  • 2,754
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

The weird thing about the T32 is that it was actually designed to use a 90mm, not the 105 top gun.  This is reflected ingame by actually taking LONGER to load the 105 on the T32 than on the T29, of which the T29 was specifically designed to use the 105.

 

Honestly, I think the 105 should be made an optional gun choice, and the top gun should be the 90mm of the Pershing.  This would buff its 90mm from 160 base pen to 190, making it a viable weapon system.


Edited by Blackgunner, Apr 21 2017 - 22:35.


pepe_trueno #22 Posted Apr 22 2017 - 23:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 37970 battles
  • 5,869
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 21 2017 - 07:11, said:

The weird thing about the T32 is that it was actually designed to use a 90mm, not the 105 top gun.  This is reflected ingame by actually taking LONGER to load the 105 on the T32 than on the T29, of which the T29 was specifically designed to use the 105.

 

Honestly, I think the 105 should be made an optional gun choice, and the top gun should be the 90mm of the Pershing.  This would buff its 90mm from 160 base pen to 190, making it a viable weapon system.

 

thats not a bad idea but its DPM has to be increased significantly, otherwise it will end as a crapier caernarvon and that thing is already bad enought.

Fr33kzilla #23 Posted Apr 24 2017 - 05:19

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 21 2017 - 07:11, said:

The weird thing about the T32 is that it was actually designed to use a 90mm, not the 105 top gun.  This is reflected ingame by actually taking LONGER to load the 105 on the T32 than on the T29, of which the T29 was specifically designed to use the 105.

 

Honestly, I think the 105 should be made an optional gun choice, and the top gun should be the 90mm of the Pershing.  This would buff its 90mm from 160 base pen to 190, making it a viable weapon system.

WRONG! The T29 has a rate of fire of 5.26, the t32 has a RoF of 5.66: the T29 reload time is 11.40 seconds, the t32 reload time is 10.60 seconds.

 

Putting the 90mm of the Pershing into the t32 would only cause another problem. An under powered gun again. The Pershing gun has about 80 Less alpha AND 8mm LESS pen.   That's NOT a good idea at all. Sorry, but that's actually a very bad idea.

 

If they only replace the T5e1 105mm for the T5e1m2 gun in the Patton it would fix  most of the problems. Plus, it would give you incentive to go down one line and be able to unlock a gun in another line, either from the medium line unlocking for the heavy line, or vice versa.  I acn't see why this is such a debate. Making this simple change brings the gun up very close to the stats of the guns from the heavy tanks from other nations. It doesn't make the t32 OP, it'll still be less in some areas for some nations, and less in other areas for other nations. But the point is, it will be close, in other words MORE BALANCED. I don't see what's so bloody difficult to understand and see about how simple and good this change would be. Maybe more people would play teh t32 instead of nothing but the russian and german heavy tanks. Gee, wouldn't that be nice for a change.



Blackgunner #24 Posted Apr 24 2017 - 16:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11827 battles
  • 2,754
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011
At the time of the original post; the T32's 105 had a RoF of under 5.  Stealth buffs ftw?

zarg12 #25 Posted Apr 24 2017 - 17:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20160 battles
  • 877
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostClydeCooper421, on Apr 17 2017 - 16:25, said:

 

Ha

 

Most american tanks don't use a hyphen in their designation. e.g. M103 T110E5 M4 M4A3E8 T57 T67 T71 T54E1 M10 M24 T37 T20 T29 T32

 

Most russian tanks have hyphens e.g. T-34 T-34-85 T-43 IS-3 IS-2 IS-4 IS-5 IS-6 IS-7 IS-8 T-54 T-62A 

 

So yeah, use the hyphen correctly. 

 

Actually, historically that is a myth. Hyphens were used at will, it's just a naming convention WG did to make things less confusing.

Bandit_Bill #26 Posted Apr 24 2017 - 19:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12409 battles
  • 38
  • [PPC] PPC
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012
If the OP wants to buff the T32 what about a buff to its accuracy and gun handling? .41 is pretty bad, .38 would help make it feel better as would a buff to shot disperaion. There are plenty of other ways to buff the tank in a meaningful way then with just giving it more raw pen.

Fr33kzilla #27 Posted Apr 28 2017 - 02:30

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

View PostBandit_Bill, on Apr 24 2017 - 19:05, said:

If the OP wants to buff the T32 what about a buff to its accuracy and gun handling? .41 is pretty bad, .38 would help make it feel better as would a buff to shot disperaion. There are plenty of other ways to buff the tank in a meaningful way then with just giving it more raw pen.

I'll take what I can right now. The gun is just horrible. It doesn't have the velocity of the guns like on british tanks which give them a good damage ability, nor does it have the shear size of shell like the IS-3 does. It's a jack of all trades master of none. The pen and damage are dependent on 2 things, it's velocity and size, for the most part. It's supposed to pen 198mm, but it doesn't, even at close range. I just had 2 shots NOT pen a kv-2's turret front. One shot didn't pen the spot right under the gun, where the weakspot map says is only 75mm, and the other shot didn't pen just to the side of the gun, where the weakspot site says is 75mm + mantlet of 110mm = 195mm, and still no pen. But I get what you are saying about the other stuff too.

 

That's why if they switched to the T5e1M2 gun, it would solve a LOT of the problems.

198mm pen to 218mm pen

.41 disp to .4 disp

320 damage to 390 damage

5.66 RoF to 6.0 RoF

2.3 aim time to 2.0 aim time.

 

Each change isn't huge, except the alpha, in of itself, but together, they would make the T32 much better and actually viable. Hell, they could keep the alpha the same but make the other changes and I'd still be happy. The T5e1 is a crap gun for a T8 heavy tank. It's ok for T7, as it is very comparable in performance to what other tanks have. But tier 8, it just plain sucks horribly. And to NOT fix it after this long, only PROVES WG is deliberately engaged in keeping the T32 weak so that the russian and german tanks can easily wipe them out when they meet. Hell, in an earlier match, I had to put 4 side shots and 1 frontal shot into a T8 Emil1 to kill it. 5 shots for crying out loud! An IS-3 would have hit it twice and boom, dead. If it was french or swede, it would have hit it 3-4 for every one of your shots. Point is, the T32's gun SUCKS for it's level. We know it. WG knows it. WG doesn't care. Just as long as those precious Russian and German tanks dominate everything.

 

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 24 2017 - 16:57, said:

At the time of the original post; the T32's 105 had a RoF of under 5.  Stealth buffs ftw?

Wrong. It was the same as it is now. The T32 has ALWAYS been a little faster loading for....a long time now. From what I have found, it was nerfed in 2012, not buffed. Unless you can PROVE there was a change, I call BS on your part.



Fr33kzilla #28 Posted Apr 28 2017 - 05:14

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

I just found out something. And it's something a weeee bit fishy I'd say. The T32 front armor is listed as only 127mm, which is 5 inches. In fact, in real life it was 203mm, or 8 inches. And we are NOT talking about the turret. I'm talking about the HULL. Yet, the IS-3 on the other hand, only had a max armor thickness of 6.75 inches. So, i reality, the T32 was better protected, but in the game, WG chose to make it LESS protected. Oh, I see the numbers, and that the armor is sloped. But, doesn't WG realize you can decrease the thickness of the armor and it will still keep some of it's effective armor because of it's angle?

 

So, IRL, T32 wouldn't be penetrated. In game, it's thin as Professor X's hairline and a prime target to fire on. Meanwhile, IS-3, IRL easily penetrated by german 88 guns, but in game,.....BOUNCE BOUNCE "We didn't even scratch them!"

 

Hmmm, a weeee bit biased there WG huh?



Fr33kzilla #29 Posted May 02 2017 - 21:09

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

Just bounced a shell of a CROMWELL. Ya ok, the gun is fine. I'm just imagining that it sucks. Right?

 

NO T8 should EVER bounce a shell on a T6 medium or light tank EVER.



Fr33kzilla #30 Posted May 05 2017 - 07:06

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

I'm NOT giving up until you guys at WG finally stop treating the American tank  lines like [edited]. You do! When it comes to American tanks it's: oh no no no, we can't do that. That's not historically accurate." But when ti comes to your precious German and Russian tanks it's: "well you know, we HAD to keep the game balanced." (in favor of the tanks WE like that is.)

 

What do I have to do, paint myself blue and run naked in front of your corporate office screaming "It's bloody WAR!".

 

Sheesh. Fix the American guns! Start with the T32.


Edited by Fr33kzilla, May 05 2017 - 07:07.


flowerpower210 #31 Posted May 05 2017 - 07:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19196 battles
  • 388
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

The T32 is fine. At first, I found the penetration to be underwhelming, but then, I got the hang of it (double tap the 2 key).

 

It is a seriously great tanks. The turret is absolutely reliable (except for some ultra high penetration cheek shots) and it has a decent gun. Just compensate when you can't pen.



SuperTankDriver #32 Posted May 05 2017 - 13:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 20028 battles
  • 3,708
  • Member since:
    03-26-2012
You don't need to make a post everytime you bounce a shot.

Secondly, if you're bouncing off cromwells and KV-2s, that's your [edited]skill, and in that case 20mm more pen won't help you.

3rdly, I wouldn't mind patton's gun with 320 alpha on the T32. Would make it competitive.

SpectreHD #33 Posted May 06 2017 - 04:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,562
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 24 2017 - 23:57, said:

At the time of the original post; the T32's 105 had a RoF of under 5.  Stealth buffs ftw?

 

Using the stock or upgraded turret actually alters the ROF.

 

View PostBandit_Bill, on Apr 25 2017 - 02:05, said:

If the OP wants to buff the T32 what about a buff to its accuracy and gun handling? .41 is pretty bad, .38 would help make it feel better as would a buff to shot disperaion. There are plenty of other ways to buff the tank in a meaningful way then with just giving it more raw pen.

 

If we look only at the gun, you would think with the horrid penetration, it'd get better accuracy to make hitting weakspots better. But no, it has worse penetration than the IS-3.

 

Okay fine, with crap accuracy one would think it has to go close range and brawl, aside from having piss poor hull armour, it also has piss poor mobility which makes brawling difficult.

 

Really, I see two options if it were to keep the poor penetration. Improve the mobility, or improve the accuracy.

 

Alternatively, it should get the 90mm that's on the T26E5 Patriot. Good penetration, accuracy and decent DPM.

 

Another alternative is to up tier the T29 to tier 8 so the devs don't have to downgrade the 105mm to fit into Tier 7. The T32 can then be placed as a bridge vehicle between the medium and heavy lines.



PrimarchRogalDorn #34 Posted May 06 2017 - 21:20

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 715
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostFr33kzilla, on Apr 27 2017 - 23:14, said:

I just found out something. And it's something a weeee bit fishy I'd say. The T32 front armor is listed as only 127mm, which is 5 inches. In fact, in real life it was 203mm, or 8 inches. And we are NOT talking about the turret. I'm talking about the HULL. Yet, the IS-3 on the other hand, only had a max armor thickness of 6.75 inches. So, i reality, the T32 was better protected, but in the game, WG chose to make it LESS protected. Oh, I see the numbers, and that the armor is sloped. But, doesn't WG realize you can decrease the thickness of the armor and it will still keep some of it's effective armor because of it's angle?

 

So, IRL, T32 wouldn't be penetrated. In game, it's thin as Professor X's hairline and a prime target to fire on. Meanwhile, IS-3, IRL easily penetrated by german 88 guns, but in game,.....BOUNCE BOUNCE "We didn't even scratch them!"

 

Hmmm, a weeee bit biased there WG huh?

 



Fr33kzilla #35 Posted May 07 2017 - 18:11

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on May 06 2017 - 21:20, said:

 

 

Hmm, interesting. I found a site that listed the front armor at 203mm, or 8 inches. It didn't specify whether it was the upper or lower, it just said "frontal armor". I'll look for it again so I can quote it here and dispute it's voracity. But this IS indeed interesting.



SuperTankDriver #36 Posted May 07 2017 - 18:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 20028 battles
  • 3,708
  • Member since:
    03-26-2012

View PostFr33kzilla, on May 07 2017 - 17:11, said:

 

Hmm, interesting. I found a site that listed the front armor at 203mm, or 8 inches. It didn't specify whether it was the upper or lower, it just said "frontal armor". I'll look for it again so I can quote it here and dispute it's voracity. But this IS indeed interesting.

 

Effective armor turns out to be 203-204mm after you apply the angle, so that's what the site must've said.

 

It's important to know whether the armor number you're seeing is Effective armor or Base/Actual armor.



Fr33kzilla #37 Posted May 08 2017 - 05:01

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

View PostFr33kzilla, on May 07 2017 - 18:11, said:

 

Hmm, interesting. I found a site that listed the front armor at 203mm, or 8 inches. It didn't specify whether it was the upper or lower, it just said "frontal armor". I'll look for it again so I can quote it here and dispute it's voracity. But this IS indeed interesting.

 

Ok, I found 4 sources that differs with the armor thickness:

https://en.wikipedia.../T32_heavy_tank

http://tanknutdave.c...t32-heavy-tank/

http://world-war-2.w...uper_Heavy_Tank

http://www.wwiivehic...-heavy-tank.asp

 

 

And that 203 figure isn't exactly 8 inches either, it's: 7.9921259843 inches



Fr33kzilla #38 Posted May 08 2017 - 05:03

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015
Well ok, whatever then. Don't really care, I just want that dang gun upgraded. It's pathetically weak for it's tier and in comparison to it's piers.

PrimarchRogalDorn #39 Posted May 08 2017 - 05:16

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 715
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostFr33kzilla, on May 07 2017 - 23:01, said:

 

Ok, I found 4 sources that differs with the armor thickness:

https://en.wikipedia.../T32_heavy_tank

http://tanknutdave.c...t32-heavy-tank/

http://world-war-2.w...uper_Heavy_Tank

http://www.wwiivehic...-heavy-tank.asp

 

 

And that 203 figure isn't exactly 8 inches either, it's: 7.9921259843 inches

 

None of those reference anything, really. The Wikipedia article just links to the TankNutDave page, which doesn't source anything. The WWII wikia page links to the WWII Vehicles page, which doesn't really source the correct books.

 

The image I posted is from Hunnicutt's book on US heavy tanks. I can also link a test report from the Ordnance Department that Chieftain found on the T32 confirming the armor thickness of 5" on the upper hull. Here we are



Fr33kzilla #40 Posted May 08 2017 - 07:07

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15296 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on May 08 2017 - 05:16, said:

 

None of those reference anything, really. The Wikipedia article just links to the TankNutDave page, which doesn't source anything. The WWII wikia page links to the WWII Vehicles page, which doesn't really source the correct books.

 

The image I posted is from Hunnicutt's book on US heavy tanks. I can also link a test report from the Ordnance Department that Chieftain found on the T32 confirming the armor thickness of 5" on the upper hull. Here we are

 

Well ok, but who is this Hunnicut? Never heard of him. As far as Chieftain goes, I couldn't care less what he says. No offense. But he's part of WG, and I refuse to believe anything they say as fact anymore. They have no credibility with me anymore. And after reading said report that cheiftain found, the report only says "to 5" at 54 degrees at the vehicle front plate." It doesn't CLEARLY say the forward upper front plate. Is it likely? Yes probably it is. But this brings to question, why and where are all these other people getting a thicker armor amount for this same spot? But do I really care? No. IT doesn't change my opinion that the gun in this tank is insufficient at best, horrible at worst case. It's a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of gun.

 

And furthermore, considering that the US heavy tank line is the only one it has, whereas the other 2 big and original nations both have 2 heavy tank lines, the american line has less room to be mediocre.And in MY own experience, the t32 is one of the least seen heavy tanks at this level.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users