Jump to content

Object 685 Amphibious Light Tank


WulfPack
 Share

I'm for 8.0 at the highest MAYBE 7.7 at the lowest, I do think that the PT-76 should be 6.7 because it can go up or down either way honestly the thing that makes it so annoying is a HEAT-FS slinging tank at 5.7 if they did it for armor then please by all means lower the br of the Leopard so it fights WW2 vehicles. 

 

PT-76, as 6.7? Are you crazy? Yes, lets compare to T92: 

 

T92:

Power/Wt: 20.2

Top Speed: 35 mph

Reload: 5s

Ammo: Really good APDS/HEAT-FS, for equal tier battles.

Notable qualities: Extremely low profile, 50 BMG turret

 

PT-76:

Power/Wt: 17.1

Top Speed: 25 mph

Reload: ~5.5s

Ammo: Only saving grace = HEAT-FS

Notable qualities: The only tank that can "swim", however, its design requires it to have a very large appearance to displace more water than it weighs, bad gun depression, and hand-cranked turret.

 

As you can see..... It's inferior in every single respect to the T92. It suffers 3.1 HP/Ton (A lot), compared to the T92, it has 10mph lower speed than T92, it has 10% more reload than T92, and, it has far worse ammo choices than T92, as well as being extremely large profile.

 

 

 

Not to mention, your comparison of PT-76 HEAT-FS (Entered ~1954) is a very poor one when made against T92. The velocities are nearly ~700m/s versus 1,100 m/s. that's a BIG difference, and makes the T92 FAR easier to aim with.

 

 

 

 

 

And to say Leopard deserves to fight WW II vehicles? These are 1951 (PT-76) and 1950-1955 for the T92... It's not like the leopard was finalized in 1965 or anything.... All I can hope is that you were being sarcastic, and it just went completely over my head.

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT-76, as 6.7? Are you crazy? Yes, lets compare to T92: 

 

T92:

Power/Wt: 20.2

Top Speed: 35 mph

Reload: 5s

Ammo: Really good APDS/HEAT-FS, for equal tier battles.

Notable qualities: Extremely low profile, 50 BMG turret

 

PT-76:

Power/Wt: 17.1

Top Speed: 25 mph

Reload: ~5.5s

Ammo: Only saving grace = HEAT-FS

Notable qualities: The only tank that can "swim", however, its design requires it to have a very large appearance to displace more water than it weighs, bad gun depression, and hand-cranked turret.

 

As you can see..... It's inferior in every single respect to the T92. It suffers 3.1 HP/Ton (A lot), compared to the T92, it has 10mph lower speed than T92, it has 10% more reload than T92, and, it has far worse ammo choices than T92, as well as being extremely large profile.

 

 

 

Not to mention, your comparison of PT-76 HEAT-FS (Entered ~1954) is a very poor one when made against T92. The velocities are nearly ~700m/s versus 1,100 m/s. that's a BIG difference, and makes the T92 FAR easier to aim with.

 

 

 

 

 

And to say Leopard deserves to fight WW II vehicles? These are 1951 (PT-76) and 1950-1955 for the T92... It's not like the leopard was finalized in 1965 or anything.... All I can hope is that you were being sarcastic, and it just went completely over my head.

Then you should ask soviet engineers to make better military vehicles in 1950s.

This thing should be nowhere near middle WWII tanks BR.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should ask soviet engineers to make better military vehicles in 1950s.

This thing should be nowhere near middle WWII tanks BR.

The problem is that the PT-76 wasn't designed to fight tanks. Its gun was a last defense against lightly armored APCs. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the PT-76 wasn't designed to fight tanks. Its gun was a last defense against lightly armored APCs. 

That is a perfect reason to fight 1943 tanks. /s

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a perfect reason to fight 1943 tanks. /s

I still think that 6.7 br is a bit insane, I'd like 6.3 a bit more.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should ask soviet engineers to make better military vehicles in 1950s.

This thing should be nowhere near middle WWII tanks BR.

 

I don't think you understood what I just said....

 

the PT-76 is AWFUL, and it's ONLY saving grace is LOW velocity HEAT-FS. 

 

Here, let me make another comparison for you:

 

Pz. IV F2 (BR 3.3)

Power/Wt: 13.5

Top Speed: 27 mph

Reload: 6s

Ammo: Really good APCBC/APCR, even for 4.3 battles.

Notable qualities: An amazing gun.

 

APCBC: 740m/s 135-85mm 

APCR: 920m/s 175-90mm

HEAT: 450m/s 100mm

 

PT-76 (BR 5.7)

Power/Wt: 17.1

Top Speed: 25 mph

Reload: ~5.5s

Ammo: Only saving grace = HEAT-FS

Notable qualities: The only tank that can "swim", however, its design requires it to have a very large appearance to displace more water than it weighs, bad gun depression, and hand-cranked turret.

 

APCBC: 660m/s 110-65mm

APCR: 950m/s 145-75mm

HEAT-FS: 700m/s 200mm

 

 

Hopefully you can see that, just comparing the numbers, a Panzer IV F2, on paper, could be seen as nearly equivalent to a PT-76. If it wasn't for the HEAT-FS, the Panzer IV F2 would be the far superior tank, at more than 2 entire br lower. 

 

Not to mention.... You don't even have a PT-76

 

Edit: I take that back. You've played all of two games in your PT-76..

 

I still think that 6.7 br is a bit insane, I'd like 6.3 a bit more.

 

No, PT-76 is suitable for battles against Maus and M103, please, feed them.

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understood what I just said....

 

the PT-76 is AWFUL, and it's ONLY saving grace is LOW velocity HEAT-FS. 

 

Here, let me make another comparison for you:

 

Pz. IV F2 (BR 3.3)

Power/Wt: 13.5

Top Speed: 27 mph

Reload: 6s

Ammo: Really good APCBC/APCR, even for 4.3 battles.

Notable qualities: An amazing gun.

 

APCBC: 740m/s 135-85mm 

APCR: 920m/s 175-90mm

HEAT: 450m/s 100mm

 

PT-76 (BR 5.7)

Power/Wt: 17.1

Top Speed: 25 mph

Reload: ~5.5s

Ammo: Only saving grace = HEAT-FS

Notable qualities: The only tank that can "swim", however, its design requires it to have a very large appearance to displace more water than it weighs, bad gun depression, and hand-cranked turret.

 

APCBC: 660m/s 110-65mm

APCR: 950m/s 145-75mm

HEAT-FS: 700m/s 200mm

 

 

Hopefully you can see that, just comparing the numbers, a Panzer IV F2, on paper, could be seen as nearly equivalent to a PT-76. If it wasn't for the HEAT-FS, the Panzer IV F2 would be the far superior tank, at more than 2 entire br lower. 

 

Not to mention.... You don't even have a PT-76

 

Edit: I take that back. You've played all of two games in your PT-76..

 

 

No, PT-76 is suitable for battles against Maus and M103, please, feed them.

And how is this even scratching what I am talking about.

It has been made way after any PzIV ceased production. You want it at low BR? Fine, give it 1.3BR in AB, I don't care.
Realistic and Simulator battles are there not to just look pretty and fool people into paying money, but to give either 'semi' realistic or 'semi' simulator grade feel to this game. 

And fighting Tigers, PzIV and whatnot alongside T-34 and IS-1 tanks in Kursk with post war something-ish that you can't clearly categorize, because people designing it couldn't make their mind is NOT simulator, or even realistic feeling.

And don't get me started with PT-76 appearing in SB lineups that diverge from 1943 to 1955+ in years.

 

And to be honest, pulling statistic on anybody who is not using them to prove you right is a **** move and only showing you are holding to your opinion by your nails without good arguments yourself.

Edited by juraleona
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is this even scratching what I am talking about.

It has been made way after any PzIV ceased production. You want it at low BR? Fine, give it 1.3BR in AB, I don't care.
Realistic and Simulator battles are there not to just look pretty and fool people into paying money, but to give either 'semi' realistic or 'semi' simulator grade feel to this game. 

And fighting Tigers, PzIV and whatnot alongside T-34 and IS-1 tanks in Kursk with post war something-ish that you can't clearly categorize, because people designing it couldn't make their mind is NOT simulator, or even realistic feeling.

And don't get me started with PT-76 appearing in SB lineups that diverge from 1943 to 1955+ in years.

 

And to be honest, pulling statistic on anybody who is not using them to prove you right is a **** move and only showing you are holding to your opinion by your nails without good arguments yourself.

 

 

No, I know exactly what you're talking about, and am currently wondering how you got to level 100, without realizing MM is performance based and has nothing to do with era?

 

If you want some historical matches, where one side is stacked 100 deep in the queue, and the other side has three people, you can go to the "Events" tab and play there. 

 

 

 

---

Want to know why I pulled your stats?

 

Because I've made two -VERY- fair, -VERY- clear comparisons between the PT-76, T92, and Pz. IV F2.  I could care less if you played your PT-76 10 times, 20 times, 100 times, and died + lost every single battle. I pulled your stats page up to see if you drove your PT-76 enough to know where it should sit, and across two games, I'm unconvinced. 

 

 

Something else that I refuse to believe is just a "happy coincidence"... You're a good player. I'm not saying that sarcastically, you actually have 2:1 KD's (or more) in most of the vehicles you play. Any good player can do decently in a vehicle. If the PT-76 was such a monster at 5.7, your KD would be north of 2:1...... but your stats in the PT-76 are bad. So, it should still fight at 6.7+?

 

 

 

you are holding to your opinion by your nails without good arguments yourself.

 

P.S., my argument is based on in-game performance of the vehicles, which in this context, is perfectly valid.

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are starting to diverge off topic with all of this discussion of the PT-76 and next to no mention of the Object 685 in the past several messages.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to implement this vehicle lower than 7.7

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to implement this vehicle lower than 7.7

I don't think anybody is advocating a br lower than that for this vehicle at this point.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least this machine can survive heavy machine gun fire.

As long as it's not 12.7 AP to the sides or rear.

Edited by WulfPack
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are starting to diverge off topic with all of this discussion of the PT-76 and next to no mention of the Object 685 in the past several messages.

 

Eh, sorry. Just a bit frustrated that the obvious was ignored.

 

I don't think anybody is advocating a br lower than that for this vehicle at this point.

 

I wouldn't either. It seems like a bit of a russian M551, if I'm honest.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't either. It seems like a bit of a russian M551, if I'm honest.

This is the Russian M551.  :)s

pTUkTlz.png

Edited by WulfPack
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, some kind of amphibious 152mm airborne tank. Still havent figured out what it's called, though.

That sounds interesting.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, some kind of amphibious 152mm airborne tank. Still havent figured out what it's called, though.

 

 

What in the world is that?

From what I've gathered, It was a "technology demonstrator". If I had to guess, It was to make sure the Object 934's chassis could take enough recoil force to mount the 125-mm.

Edited by WulfPack
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered, It was a "technology demonstrator". If I had to guess, It was to make sure the Object 934 chassis could take enough recoil force to mount the 125-mm.

Still interesting nonetheless 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds interesting.

From what I've gathered, It was a "technology demonstrator". If I had to guess, It was to make sure the Object 934 chassis could take enough recoil force to mount the 125-mm.

 

http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=56707

Some of you may remember the Obyekt 934 Airborne Amphibious Light tank (The evolutionary predecessor to the 2S25 SPRUT-SD and co-contender in a procurement tender that brought about the Oby 685 light tank -> Oby 688 -> BMP-3). Interestingly enough it seems the designers were not content with the light tank role and tried to develop a heavy airborne self propelled gun to provide fire support to Soviet Airborne troops. Turns out they swapped out the D-33 100mm tank gun (2A48-1) with a D-20 152mm Howitzer. The resulting vehicle was an 18 ton air droppable SP 152mm howitzer with the same capabilities of the 2S3 Akatsiya. According to some Russian forums the chassis appears to have actually been able to hold up under the beating handed out by the D-20. 

[Spoiler]

l-3xy6qgcKg.jpg

DKPQ7A9.jpg
JolfcmC.jpg[/Spoiler]

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=56707

Some of you may remember the Obyekt 934 Airborne Amphibious Light tank (The evolutionary predecessor to the 2S25 SPRUT-SD and co-contender in a procurement tender that brought about the Oby 685 light tank -> Oby 688 -> BMP-3). Interestingly enough it seems the designers were not content with the light tank role and tried to develop a heavy airborne self propelled gun to provide fire support to Soviet Airborne troops. Turns out they swapped out the D-33 100mm tank gun (2A48-1) with a D-20 152mm Howitzer. The resulting vehicle was an 18 ton air droppable SP 152mm howitzer with the same capabilities of the 2S3 Akatsiya. According to some Russian forums the chassis appears to have actually been able to hold up under the beating handed out by the D-20. 

[Spoiler]

l-3xy6qgcKg.jpg

DKPQ7A9.jpg
JolfcmC.jpg[/Spoiler]

I should clarify something. This "Object 934 armed with D-20" was not ordered by or for the VDV.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anyone ask, No it can't be added. It was likely tested in the early 80s, amongst the other problems.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...