Supertest: AMX 65t




Tier: 8 (Regular, part of a new tree)
HP: 1400
Engine: 1000 hp
Mass: 65 t
Power-to-weight: 15,38 hp / t
Max speed: 40 / 20 km / h
Hull turning speed: 25 °/s
Turret turning speed: 29,2 °/s
Terrain resistance values: 1,534 / 1,726 / 2,397
View range: 360 m
Radio range: 750 m

Hull armor: 100 / 80 / ? mm
Turret armor: 250 / 80 / ? mm

Gun: 120 mm SA46

Alpha Damage: 400 / 400 / 515
Penetration: 257 / 325 / 65 mm
Rate Of Fire: 4,74
Damage Per Minute: 1896,1
Reload time: 12,658 s
Accuracy: 0,384
Aiming time: 2,59 s
Depression/Elevation: -8 / +13

Gun: 100 mm SA47

Alpha Damage: 300 / 300 / 415
Penetration: 232 / 263 / 50 mm
Rate Of Fire: 6,844
Damage Per Minute: 2053,1
Reload time: 8,767 s
Accuracy: 0,329
Aiming time: 2,19 s
Depression/Elevation: -8 / +13




More pictures:


63 thoughts on “Supertest: AMX 65t

  1. Sar far it looks like they went with the Russian philosophy of big 120-ish derp gun triumphs all.

    The gun has no penetration and damage forntier 8. I’m more interested in the armor to see if it has any. My guess is that its not armored well.

    I can also safely say that a new French heavy line is coming soon.

    Liked by 3 people

        1. Dpm isn’t that bad, if it is, like someone else mentioned, the stock turret, 1818dpm is more than T34’s 1600, with even more penetration, same accuracy and better aimtime.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Terrible DPM? Wow, you have some strict requirements. As it stands, it would have the 9th best penetration of all 26 T8 heavies. In other words you think that the 17 other T8 heavies with lower DPM like the IS-3 or AMX 50 100 are completely useless due to their low DPM?


            1. Yes, it does. 1835 to be exact. This has 1896. This is not an autoloader, so it will be able to mount rammer too and thus keep the advantage.

              While the difference is only 60DPM, I’d still like to think that you agree the base DPM to be higher than that of the IS-3.


              1. Being “technically correct” is irrelevant when the purpose of the example was about “Low DPM heavies”, which it it barely is. It’s not low either. It is limited but not low.


        3. It has more DPM than the Caernarvon. Also more turret armor, more speed, better hull armor. Because fuck the british some more, eh WarGaming? But the point is, the DPM is enough, with that penetration and turret armor, If you don’t like to play it liek that, fit the 100mm. Valid choices, both of them.




        but w8…whats the effective armor of the cupola on that turret?
        cause if its not pennable by 175 pen. i’m gonna be pissed at 59 patton getting anal’d by WG even more.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. This thing has worse terrain resistance than the IS-7. Literally shoot its 80mm of side armor or 100mm of ufp armor and you’ll probably autopen as long as you’re not shooting it from some sort of ridiculous angle. Like come on now. All it has going for it armor wise is the turret atm.


              1. thats what they said for IS-3…..and yet i need 190+ pen to get through that. T-34-3’s 175 pen wont work… all…..

                so its fair to say i don’t trust WG not to make this another “immune to tier 6 and 7s, and tier 8 prems with prem mm and no gold” tank……


            1. Clicking on that pic I really hoped the other turret would look better. Unfortunately I’ll have to stick with my assessment of “kill it before it lays eggs.”
              Seriously, that must be the ugliest tank I have ever seen.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. They are adding the 65 tonner?
    Wait, they are adding a new frog line?
    Oh boy, paper armor all the way, time to prepare the super high explosive shells for maximum damage! :D

    This specific tank though, I liked its turret design. It’s… unique.
    Despite being frog.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Well the turret is strong alright, but the hull? Not overly so.
        That and its sides are paper, and most often the arty shells hit the sides.
        See where I’m going with this?..

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Well I think it’s safe to say it doesn’t have any armor, as long as those cupolas are present. Really low HP, gun is comparable to likes of E75. Bad gun handling, bad DPM. Lots of changes needed for it to become competitive.


      1. True, it’s not as bad as I though compared to other T8 HT’s. Probably because T8 is meh as a whole.
        Still, compared to the IS-3, worse frontal armor and turret armor, worse mobility, comparable DPM and gun handling. Less HP, worse side armor.


    1. Alright, seeing the armor layout,I’m getting excited.

      Still looks like they slapped a lowe turret on an amx 100 and beat the front in with a wrecking ball.


  4. It think it is stupid to give it 400 alpha and 257mm pen, and then bad gun handling and reload. Lower alpha, pen and reload to make it balanced. We dont need this high alpha BS tanks.


    1. Maybe they’re like the td line, and you’re supposed to use the middle gun. That looks like a non auto version of the amx 50 100s gun.


  5. I guess it is already balanced according to the sandbox parameters, the super high pen being explained by the new BULLSH*T penetration loss over distance


  6. as far as i know, the image shows only the flat armor, so the effective thickness may be more than you guys are thinking, since it got a pretty sharp frontal hull angling.
    test the effective armor before saying it got weak armor lol =P


    1. Well the angles look exactly like AMX 50 120. Which has 90mm/~ 135 effective. So this with 100mm will have ~150mm of effective armor.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s