Jump to content


The Chieftain is useless.


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Godroyah2000 #41 Posted 29 April 2019 - 04:22 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15075 battles
  • 58
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014
I just think this thing needs to be more mobile. I was driving side by side with a Super Conq. today and  the difference was... negligible. Seriously don’t get how that is supposed to make up for having a trash turret. If the thing could swing its weight around more quickly that’d be one thing, but it can’t. Relegated to second-line long range  support, and there are a lot of maps where that potential would simply be wasted.

BigHundy #42 Posted 01 May 2019 - 02:19 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9707 battles
  • 3,884
  • [FCCM]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2016

My biggest issue with the Chieftain was Arty.

The roof of this thing must be made of paper.

 

The first game I played in it I was one shot on the move by a M53.

And it was all down hill from there.

 

However, if there are no arty, and you can work a ridge, it's a very strong tank indeed.

I just always ran into arty.


I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol, and cheap women. The other half I wasted -  W.C. Fields

 

On the last day of your life, don't forget to die.

 


TsprinTs #43 Posted 06 May 2019 - 01:09 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38542 battles
  • 613
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015
This tank needs mobility buff.

fozfactor #44 Posted 06 May 2019 - 02:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 59014 battles
  • 2,396
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostTsprinTs, on 06 May 2019 - 08:09 AM, said:

This tank needs mobility buff.

 

Yes. Just 2kph more reverse speed and some reduced ground resistance would be fine for me. 

non nobis solum


TsprinTs #45 Posted 07 May 2019 - 01:01 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38542 battles
  • 613
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015

View Postfozfactor, on 06 May 2019 - 09:37 AM, said:

 

Yes. Just 2kph more reverse speed and some reduced ground resistance would be fine for me. 

 

problem is mk6 needs to climb up a slope to use its gun depression. But whenever it goes up a slope its engine stalls...slow down way too much to make it ineffective.

Slacker 1965 #46 Posted 12 May 2019 - 01:17 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 34331 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    05-21-2015
From someone that lived in a tank for a while when the Chieftain was in use, the slope armor is much too thin vs reality and the ammo rack was one of the safest storage set up of its generation.  Mobility should b3 much better as well.  Brits won tank  competions every year with this tank.  But in WOT it is just below average.

Godroyah2000 #47 Posted 23 July 2019 - 03:16 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15075 battles
  • 58
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostTsprinTs, on 07 May 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

 

problem is mk6 needs to climb up a slope to use its gun depression. But whenever it goes up a slope its engine stalls...slow down way too much to make it ineffective.

Agreed; for a tank that’s supposed to be a ridge line sniper, it really doesn’t do it very well. It climbs  hills like a snail; combined with the lower profile that means a long, slow crawl over a hilltop to even get the gun to bear, despite the 10 degrees of gun depression. The Conqueror both tier 9 and 10 outperform the Chieftain on hills without breaking a sweat... which doesn’t leave the Chieftain much of a niche that something else doesn’t already do better. If the Chieftain was just able to hold its speed a bit better (I agree earlier comments about lowered terrain resistances, though a bit of a hp/t buff would also be swell) the lack of heavy armor would be mitigated better. I really don’t think the turret would need to be touched as long as it could get around easier. Right now it just feels like a medium that ate too many cheese burgers. Gun is great but that’s really it; it needs to be able to shift its weight and relocate better and right now it can’t do that very well. And honestly hills are more of a hindrance than help more often than not.



Funktastic Ed #48 Posted 26 July 2019 - 08:23 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 700
  • Member since:
    11-21-2014

I'm gonna talk about the original Chieftain MkVI, not its enhanced versions from the 80's., because apparently it is the MK VI they made.

 

The Chieftain had wet-storage by default, so its ammo rack should be really hard to detonate, it happened to me several times running it, while it never happened to me in an IS4 or a AMX30B, very unlikely if we talk about realism.

 

The Chieftain was not a fast tank, i'm sorry to desapoint you guys, but that's true, it was not as fast as a LEopard 1, or an AMX30 or a T-55 and that's normal.

It had  850h power (ingame it has only 760hp) and its mass power was 13,6 h/t, 43 km/h on road means a lot less with on land with that few mass power, so no, it was not an agile tank at all.

I would add to this that the engine was the main issue the Chieftain had, although WG could give it its historical 850hp.

 

The Chieftain was the response to the Soviet T-55, all its armor was made to deflect any 100mm Russian shoot up to 1000m, and no it was not more thick than what we have in the game, the front had 85mm angled at 18°, exactly same as ingame, 18° mean that its effective thickness is about 250mm to an horizontal shot.

 

So overall it is kind of a realistic adaptation WG made here.

Problem is that all these concept tanks and unsorted versions they put in the game are not, most of them are way better than existing tanks wich is unlikely.

 

I agree that the Chieftain is painful to play, the problem is not the tank, the problem is other tanks that are over the top.

 

 

 


Edited by Funktastic Ed, 26 July 2019 - 08:38 AM.

"Idiots dare everything, that's how you really know they are."

Joseph270965 #49 Posted 26 July 2019 - 01:45 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 39090 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    04-29-2016

View PostFunktastic Ed, on 26 July 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

I'm gonna talk about the original Chieftain MkVI, not its enhanced versions from the 80's., because apparently it is the MK VI they made.

 

The Chieftain had wet-storage by default, so its ammo rack should be really hard to detonate, it happened to me several times running it, while it never happened to me in an IS4 or a AMX30B, very unlikely if we talk about realism.

 

The Chieftain was not a fast tank, i'm sorry to desapoint you guys, but that's true, it was not as fast as a LEopard 1, or an AMX30 or a T-55 and that's normal.

It had  850h power (ingame it has only 760hp) and its mass power was 13,6 h/t, 43 km/h on road means a lot less with on land with that few mass power, so no, it was not an agile tank at all.

I would add to this that the engine was the main issue the Chieftain had, although WG could give it its historical 850hp.

 

The Chieftain was the response to the Soviet T-55, all its armor was made to deflect any 100mm Russian shoot up to 1000m, and no it was not more thick than what we have in the game, the front had 85mm angled at 18°, exactly same as ingame, 18° mean that its effective thickness is about 250mm to an horizontal shot.

 

So overall it is kind of a realistic adaptation WG made here.

Problem is that all these concept tanks and unsorted versions they put in the game are not, most of them are way better than existing tanks wich is unlikely.

 

I agree that the Chieftain is painful to play, the problem is not the tank, the problem is other tanks that are over the top.

 

 

 

 

Well, nice historical analysis, I did not know this and thank you for it, as I like realism in the game.

 

I was bit suspicious it is like you said. To tell the truth, there should be different approach from WG side when creating new tanks. Especially those ones done by "only blueprints", "only prototype", "prototype proved faulty" etc. They becoe here as very strong whoch, against real tanks is bit unfair and impossible to become in reality. By papaer there is anythiong to make up, but only practise shows...

 

So e. g. when "prototype proved fauty", why not to arrange it in the model, too :-)?



Koncorde #50 Posted 26 July 2019 - 08:25 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24921 battles
  • 1,752
  • Member since:
    06-08-2014
To my knowledge, the Glacis was  4.5", or around 125mm, with an effective armour of 380mm at 70 degrees. This is what is quoted via most sources I could see.

Otherwise agree that the issue is the frankentanks that exist in the game skewing tier X performance out of the wazoo.

MilitaryGoose05 #51 Posted 04 September 2019 - 05:48 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13540 battles
  • 295
  • Member since:
    07-08-2015
Revisiting this old thread simply to remark that the Chieftain now seems to have been power crept, I'm regularly getting games with 15-20 hits, and maybe 3 penetrations if I'm lucky. Firing gold.

Funktastic Ed #52 Posted 04 September 2019 - 08:15 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 700
  • Member since:
    11-21-2014

View PostMilitaryGoose05, on 04 September 2019 - 05:48 PM, said:

Revisiting this old thread simply to remark that the Chieftain now seems to have been power crept, I'm regularly getting games with 15-20 hits, and maybe 3 penetrations if I'm lucky. Firing gold.

 

Do you auto aimlock ?

If you do, just don't.

Or do it only when on a flanking or ambush attack.

When you auto-aimlock the shooter aim for the hull, and the problem is that default APCR and HEAT (wich is unrealistic) are very slope sensitive.

In most front target exchange you'll hit slopped surfaces, you'd better aim manually and with the great accuracy try to hit tiny weakspots.

Also choose squared targets (E100, TypeV Tortoise etc...) when using HEAT.

Way harder to do than to tell, i know.


Edited by Funktastic Ed, 04 September 2019 - 08:18 PM.

"Idiots dare everything, that's how you really know they are."

MilitaryGoose05 #53 Posted 04 September 2019 - 11:19 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13540 battles
  • 295
  • Member since:
    07-08-2015

View PostFunktastic Ed, on 04 September 2019 - 08:15 PM, said:

 

Do you auto aimlock ?

If you do, just don't.

Or do it only when on a flanking or ambush attack.

When you auto-aimlock the shooter aim for the hull, and the problem is that default APCR and HEAT (wich is unrealistic) are very slope sensitive.

In most front target exchange you'll hit slopped surfaces, you'd better aim manually and with the great accuracy try to hit tiny weakspots.

Also choose squared targets (E100, TypeV Tortoise etc...) when using HEAT.

Way harder to do than to tell, i know.

 

 

Nope, no auto aimlock. But yeah I suspect I'm getting in fights head to head with other tanks and not hitting the weakspots.

 

Is it a tank that's only really good when you get out on a flank? I'm really struggling to make it work right now, my performance in it has been terrible thus far.



SchildMESSER #54 Posted 27 September 2019 - 01:55 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24713 battles
  • 351
  • [NWO]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

I bought the chieftain because i had over 50 million silver and more than enough exp on my Conq, and man i was disappointed :( this tank is trash.

I hoped it was sth like a Patton or Cent AX but it is nearly as slow as the S.Conq but without armour it´s hull is complete garbage and even the turret is weak ( not the cupola just the turret),

it is the first tier 10 tank im tempted to sell, the 50B hull seem stronger. I can bounce shells more reliable in my 50B.:sceptic:


Edited by SchildMESSER, 27 September 2019 - 01:56 PM.

You may want to check out this 

3MOE: 32Tanks  100% damage standing: Pz4H, Vk 36 01, Tiger 1, Tiger 2, E75, E100

 

 


nicodeimous #55 Posted 27 September 2019 - 02:45 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 2565 battles
  • 1
  • [7BDR]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2019

I like the tank, only driven a few times.  Historically I was already aware it wasn't a solid performer - its why it was replaced.  Its overseas use by the Arab country's further illustrated it was a very situational tank at best.  So I did the grind so I could have a Chieftain :)

 

Game wise I've no issues with it - I just play it like a sluggish medium.



Jb6534 #56 Posted 19 November 2019 - 10:00 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33385 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    12-24-2016
Personally I think the chieftain is a really good tank. Solid turret armour but not impenetrable, amazing gun handling and reliable view range. I definitely wouldn't say it is useless. The only thing I don't like about it is the engine, it would be good if it had some good engine power, like 16-17 hp/t instead of 13. It's around 200-250 extra Horsepower on the engine.

Edited by Jb6534, 19 November 2019 - 10:02 AM.

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users