Jump to content


Badger looking really weak still?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

teamoldmill #1 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 14295 battles
  • 11,131
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

https://ritastatusreport.live/2017/11/08/fv-251b183-coming-in-patch-9-21/

 

Fairly slow, 34 kph. 235 max effective armor in most of upper, lower even worse. Two small 305 mm spots. Can be penned frontally by any tank it faces without much difficulty. Good standard pen, bad premium pen. Slow traverse. Trying to think how this will make a difference besides long range sniping? People were saying it will be some massively armored based because of the max 305 mm armor, but a T95 it simply is not. We really need a weak sniper tank as the end of this line? Was hoping the armor model was not the release model, but doesn't look like it. A slow lumbering low hit point sniper tank with little armor. Bah.

 

 



Apache1990 #2 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 32797 battles
  • 6,294
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Memewhile supertest Tortoise has enough armor to challenge TD guns now, particularly when using depression to increase slope further.

simba90 #3 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13060 battles
  • 635
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View Postteamoldmill, on Nov 14 2017 - 20:27, said:

https://ritastatusreport.live/2017/11/08/fv-251b183-coming-in-patch-9-21/

 

Fairly slow, 34 kph. 235 max effective armor in most of upper, lower even worse. Two small 305 mm spots. Can be penned frontally by any tank it faces without much difficulty. Good standard pen, bad premium pen. Slow traverse. Trying to think how this will make a difference besides long range sniping? People were saying it will be some massively armored based because of the max 305 mm armor, but a T95 it simply is not. We really need a weak sniper tank as the end of this line? Was hoping the armor model was not the release model, but doesn't look like it. A slow lumbering low hit point sniper tank with little armor. Bah.

 

 

 

Thats 235 angled.

Effective armor should be over 300.



KaSt_Patton #4 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23626 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
all casement tds are trash

Apache1990 #5 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 32797 battles
  • 6,294
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostKaSt_Patton, on Nov 14 2017 - 14:35, said:

all casement tds are trash

 

Good thing most TDs are instead casemated.



teamoldmill #6 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 14295 battles
  • 11,131
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postsimba90, on Nov 14 2017 - 19:34, said:

 

Thats 235 angled.

Effective armor should be over 300.

 

I don't think so, that is effective armor when looking at it.... anyone?

Apache1990 #7 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 32797 battles
  • 6,294
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View Postteamoldmill, on Nov 14 2017 - 14:40, said:

 

I don't think so, that is effective armor when looking at it.... anyone?

 

If you mouse over in tank inspector, it gives effective armor from the camera's point of view.  But the color code is for raw armor thickness before sloping.



_Brew_ #8 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17688 battles
  • 1,796
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

Also, the 305mm areas were recently buffed to 355mm on SuperTest.

 

And the gun went from 400 alpha to 480 alpha with a 1.2 second increase in reload time.

 

You can see the updated stats here:

https://thedailybounce.net/2017/11/10/world-of-tanks-9-21-supertest-fv215b-183-replaced-by-fv217-badger/



redjkent #9 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:57

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 64907 battles
  • 403
  • [Y2KBB] Y2KBB
  • Member since:
    07-24-2014
this tank is going to be awesome this is my favorite type of td, love tanks that can go hull down too

The_World_Needs_A_Hero #10 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 20:58

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 7053 battles
  • 1,183
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View Post_Brew_, on Nov 14 2017 - 20:57, said:

Also, the 305mm areas were recently buffed to 355mm on SuperTest.

 

And the gun went from 400 alpha to 480 alpha with a 1.2 second increase in reload time.

 

Yes. Dez Games just went over this in a new vid this morning. It also has the best base DPM in the game now. Weak it is not. 

lightball20 #11 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 21:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 25307 battles
  • 3,185
  • [R3TRO] R3TRO
  • Member since:
    02-18-2013

View Postteamoldmill, on Nov 14 2017 - 11:40, said:

 

I don't think so, that is effective armor when looking at it.... anyone?

 

Effective is the armor # that it tells you if you look at it. But the armor color is just the flat unangled thickness. Pull up a tank yourself in tank inspector and you will see the color doesn't change when you move the tank around. Only the number changes.

Edited by lightball20, Nov 14 2017 - 21:22.


teamoldmill #12 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 22:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 14295 battles
  • 11,131
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postlightball20, on Nov 14 2017 - 20:21, said:

 

Effective is the armor # that it tells you if you look at it. But the armor color is just the flat unangled thickness. Pull up a tank yourself in tank inspector and you will see the color doesn't change when you move the tank around. Only the number changes.

 

If it is indeed 235 mm thick, not effective, this will be fun, but situational. I still find it hard to believe, that would make almost the entire front of the tank extremely tough and WG doesn't like that.

simba90 #13 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 22:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13060 battles
  • 635
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View Postteamoldmill, on Nov 14 2017 - 22:29, said:

 that would make almost the entire front of the tank extremely tough and WG doesn't like that.

ah hahahaha hahahaha

you're killing me.

Have you been living under a rock for the last 12 months.



leadtag101 #14 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 22:39

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9039 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    10-28-2012

View Postteamoldmill, on Nov 14 2017 - 22:29, said:

 

If it is indeed 235 mm thick, not effective, this will be fun, but situational. I still find it hard to believe, that would make almost the entire front of the tank extremely tough and WG doesn't like that.

 

Better be tough I've been busting my balls for this fv215b 183.

At least until they take the Nerf bat to it and beat the crap out of it!


Edited by leadtag101, Nov 14 2017 - 22:42.


teamoldmill #15 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 22:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 14295 battles
  • 11,131
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postsimba90, on Nov 14 2017 - 21:34, said:

ah hahahaha hahahaha

you're killing me.

Have you been living under a rock for the last 12 months.

 

This a joke post, right? Is a tiny handful of tanks in game that are actually tough frontally. Tiny. And it sure is not the UK TD line as a whole. Mediums can generally tear any tank in the game apart at any range frontally but for few perfect hull down situations. Yes, Maus got buffed, it needed it. Although, looks like AT7, AT8 and AT15 as well as Tort getting some armor buffs, that is good.

 

If not going to have a turret, you need something to be competitive.


Edited by teamoldmill, Nov 14 2017 - 22:46.


MountainLion1 #16 Posted Nov 15 2017 - 04:06

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 18983 battles
  • 1,026
  • [TMBPK] TMBPK
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014
I just got the 183 a couple of days ago, what a terrible grind it was. I really don’t expect muct out of the new Tier X tank, it will probably be slower than a snail with weak spots all over. The only reason I did the grind was to get the 183 due to the fact that it is so unique. The Badger will probably just end up sitting in my garage collecting dust. See y’all on the battlefield.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users