Supertest: T-50-2 (Full Stats)

The T-50 tank was developed by the design office of the Kirov plant. The project turned out to be difficult to produce. Characteristic features of the vehicle were the shape of the armor (similar to that of the T-34) and the radiator in the shape of a horseshoe.

T-50-2. Initial stats:

Tier: LT-6, USSR, premium
HP: 580
Engine: 480 hp
Mass: 16 t
Maximum load: 18 t
Power-to-weight: 30 hp / t
Max speed/Min speed: 65 / -23 km / h
Hull turning speed: 38 °/s
Turret turning speed: 50,1 °/s
Terrain resistance values: 0,863 / 0,959 / 1,822
View range: 370 m
Radio range: 730 m

Hull armor: 37 / 37 / 37 mm
Turret armor: 52 / 52 / 52 mm

Gun: 57 mm ZiS-4

Alpha Damage: 85 / 85 / 95
Penetration: 118 / 165 / 29 mm
Rate of fire: 20,857 rounds/minute
Damage per minute: 1 772,9
Reload time: 2,877 s
Accuracy at 100 m: 0,403
Aiming time: 1,92 s
Depression/Elevation: -7 ° / +25 °


More pictures:

0 thoughts on “Supertest: T-50-2 (Full Stats)

  1. I reckon this will be a premium that will be sold in stead of being a marathon/mission reward etc…

    If the first it\’ll be a hard kick in the nuts for all those former T-50-2 drivers, that got shafted when WG pigheadedly pushed through replacing the old T-50-2 with the butt ugly and out of place MT-25.

    If WG would be sensible of once in they entire f\’ing existence they would replace the MT-25 with this one making the tech tree line logical in progression again between the T-50 and the LTTB.

        1. That is true! Be it the only thing 😛

          Though it\’s so oddly unique in appearance, it completely does not logically fit in the tech tree.
          So the logical thing to do would be to replace it again with the tank that does fit in, historically, chronologically en technology wise.

          Same can be seen with the French heavy tank content: 65t ivs the premium M4 49.
          Those two logically should have been switched. An in appearance unique prototype tank should be the premium content. At least in my reality 😛

            1. Sebastianul, are there any news about the upcoming premium tank trade in? I\’m interested wether we can get the ELC EVEN 90 by trading in one of our prem tank. I ask this cause I want to buy two premium tanks from the store and one of them never came to trade in, but I was hoping ELC 90 being new, it would be put up for trade. So that way I would only have to buy one prem tank and buy 4000 gold for the trade in for ELC 90.

          1. Like Udes and Strv S1. But, you know, tier 8 isn\’t keeper. So it\’s fine with WG logic to have tier 8 premium that is similar to tier 10 tank. That\’a why they put Pantera P.44 instead of Progetto 46, although Progetto is better in every way, therefore, should be standard tech tree tank.

    1. the T-50-2 was removed because players asked for historical accuracy, if so the T-50-2 would be much slower and use a 45mm cannon, if you want to blame someone blame the guys that were afraid of WT and though WoT had to compete with them in historical accuracy
      while I do not support completely made up modifications, unless they are the only option to make a tank work at a certain tier, the fact is that there has to be a balance between representing vehicles as they were IRL and how they could become, in fact back then the players were so scared for now reason because right now even Gaijin has thrown the \”historical accuracy\” of WT into the trash and have made some additions that work better gameplay wise
      moral of the story?
      WoT was right to think «when absolutely needed, put gameplay above all else»

      we could ask for them to make the T-50-2 a marathon-now/premium-after vehicle but we all know players have dreamed about it\’s return that the possibility for profit is too high for them to miss this chance, while in reality not being the same vehicle we once had (no longer reaches 70+kph, and can\’t play like before due to physics)

      1. \”put gameplay above all else\”

        Yeah, i wish they used this rule when considering gold ammo, op tanks,…

        1. there was one dev that early 2017 talked about how he would like to implement damage values depending on the type of ammo used, however it seems he was removed from the team that decides what to add to the game

          it\’s a good idea BUT it has it\’s limitations with \”gold\” HE and \”gold\” HEAT, lowering the damage of \”gold\” APCR would be a easy solution for it but HE and HEAT don\’t work like that, you can\’t nerf damage or pen on gold HE and HEAT and so I don\’t know how they would work around it, maybe nerfing the ballistic properties (muzzle velocity, arc, ricochet chance, etc), but there\’s too much I could talk about it and so I will cut it short not to annoy anyone

          I know how I would do it but have no idea how he had planned it before

          1. also, when I mentioned «gameplay above all else» I meant in the way they added new tanks to the game (like giving it more powerfull engines when they were not even considered, like in the T-50-2 case), it does not apply to most of everything else

          2. HEAT damage is adjusted very easily technically, but very hard practically. You could make that HEAT damage is mitigated by internal modules. Say, you flanked someone and you want to shoot some HEAT up the ass, but the damage is heavily reduced and “eaten” by the engine. Or you’re trying to shoot ruski medium frontally and damage is reduced by their frontal fuel tanks, that’s exactly why they’re there after all. But then you need to remove a large portion of RNG which calculates what module is being hit. And we all know that WG fucking loves RNG.

      2. Personally I\’ve never really minded if tanks (at least modules and such) in this game were not historically correct, as long as the tank resembled history (so I do count protoypes and such) and tech tree progression is logically designed between tanks.

        The MT-25 thus stands out as not fitting into the line, between the T-50 and the LTTB. While the T-50-2 does in looks by: profile and technological resemblance, between the T-50 and the LTTB.

        Same goes for the \’M4 49\’ and the \’65t\’ heavy tanks.
        The first should not have been made a premium and this would have made the tech tree logical: M4 45 > M4 49 > M4 51. Then the 65t would be the perfect premium tier 8 (not the turd it is now).

        What I remember from back in the day is that there was 60/40 a split in what players wanted in regards to the T-50-2.
        Not necessarily because of the loss of the \”race car tank\”, but due to the MT-25 not logically fitting in the tech tree, due to it\’s bizar non fitting looks.
        Others, like you mentioned, indeed liked the MT-25 only because it did away with Indy-50-2 race car.

        Coming back to WG\’s choice.
        The \”T-50-2 = premium move\” does makes a lot of sense knowing WG, as it will net them much more revenue due to it\’s mythical status then to make it a standard tank again and switching it for the MT.

  2. Let\’s not forget that the T50-2\’s legendary status was when WG did not have it\’s current physics system in place.
    I did not get to play it as I started playing the patch after it\’s removal, but I am absolutely positive that while obviously it has nostalgic value (which will be exploited as it should, WG is here to make money), it will be a disappointment when people will have a very tough time handling the thing.

  3. Its worse than Type64 in every possible way. This is not a Tier6, they just took a Tier5 and changed the 5 to 6. Dissapointment incoming. And if they make it a prem Tank, this will be the last nail into WoTs coffin.

    1. Well, nothing is as good as Type 64 at tier 6 because Type 64 os overpowered as balls. It was a very good tank before LT rebalance and since it wasn’t touched you’re pretty much looking at a tier 6,5 if not tier 7 light tank.

  4. If the top speed was 72 kph like it used to be and it could turn well without tipping this would be an easy sale. But alas. Not to mention there\’s going to be hidden stats like stock engine modifiers that will reduce the mobility even further (compare the T92 to the Bulldog for instance). And of course the view range and DPM are both disappointing. It pains me to see a legend being made into a mediocrity.

  5. \”Power-to-weight: 30 hp / t
    Max speed/Min speed: 65 / -23 km / h
    This is not T-50-2!
    T-50-2 has maximum speed of 72km/h and Ptw of over 37hp/t!
    WtF is WG thinking?

Leave a Reply