Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Mar 27, 2013

VK7201 Part Deux

Hello everyone,

best of to react before this gets out of hand :) In the morning, I published an article "VK7201 - fake or not", where I wrote about the history of the VK7201. I expected some more outrage, but instead, some people just took it.

Without further ado: I made the thing up.

Well, not totally everything - I mean, the general part about the Lowe tank is true, even the Spielberger's book exists, but there was never any such a thing as "Feldhaubitze auf Infanterieunterstützungfahrgestell" - I made the name "Failowe" up too.

Why did I do it? Because generally speaking, if you cite reputable sources and publish it as "serious material", noone will doublecheck the sources and very few people will question it. And that's what I believe Yuri Pasholok did with this design. He simply pulled it out his ass (god knows why, there were many more historical and interesting vehicles) and when he got called on his bullshit, he started squirming. Neither the Panzer Tracts nor Spielberger's book on special tank variants mention anything about a rear-turreted 120ton supertank with 200+ mm frontal armor and 150mm L/38 (what was considered for the Lowe was the L/40). It's a fake and Wargaming should feel shame for peddling this crap.

Of course, as any good fake, it has SOME part of the truth. The vehicle is obviously modelled as a Lowe variant (turret) by Krupp (internally, it's referred to in WG as VK7201(K) ), the model comes from the early "Leichter Lowe" impressions (VK7001), but as the name suggest, 7201 means "72 tons, 1st design" - so it doesn't even make sense to name a 120 ton tank like that. Could have such a design existed in the mind of some Krupp engineer? Sure, but the fact it could have existed doesn't mean it did. I can understand why Wargaming filled some slots with "less-than-real" tanks such as the E50M - simply because it was needed and no other vehicle was found to fit, but making the vehicles randomly up? Uh... no.

Anyway, that's the end of the rant. I will keep on calling the VK7201 a Failowe - it's fitting, a fake name for a fake tank.

86 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Stupid Blog..........

      Delete
  2. april fools 5 days earlier ? ^^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I with it was as funny :) I mean.... the Failowe will appear after all.

      Delete
    2. You should have saved it until april fools

      Delete
    3. I had watched this fabrication of yours from the beginning with high intetest, so now I guess a "Bravo" is in place.

      As I said in the beginning, you are a trickery one :-)

      Delete
  3. Really SS, as I keep saying rear turrets were not restricted to only the Leichter Löwe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, I have no fucks to give :|

    I think you are just wasting your time trying to find logic and/or historical accuracy in WG's decisions.

    PS Somehow your Captcha is alot more reasonable last few days.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is stupid. Making things up in an informative site is just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Before Failowe WG did another out-of-ass fantasy tank - T28 Prototype.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thing the real T28 proto would be cool too.
      But of course an upgunned one.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget the FV 215B heavy tank

      Delete
  7. I have the strange feeling that WG ordered GPG to build a new game based on WoT concept, but with totally made up tanks
    why believe this, because it would be a lot easier to balance them, create a tank or series of to fit exact roles and spots in the tech tree
    so tech trees can have complete branches from 1 to tier 10 of heavy/meds/TDs/lights

    will this actually come to life, we shall see

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Future tanks? Steam punk tanks?
      Either way - we'll see.

      Delete
    2. Actually something loosely based on Gear Krieg (basically WWII + combat walkers) could be interesting and fits the GPG mould quite well.

      Delete
  8. When the first faillöwe pictures came up my first thoughts was: wtf...
    second thought was like: hmm maybe the do something interesting like a switch of the t8 premium löwe with that model(leichter löwe t8 premium: no armour,good speed,e100 gun / schwerer löwe as a t10 HT with a high pen gun on par with other nations HTs)

    That would cause lots of rage and shitstorm but would be, at least somehow, reasonable.

    But this strange thing... i just dont get it...i mean...speechless

    ReplyDelete
  9. Has anyone questioned himself : why WG is doing this? april's fools?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They make enough retarded stuff for all year.

      Delete
  10. I started to get worried, 'cause that gun looks never like a infantry field howitzer! That thing would weight a few tonnes and the infantry could never set something like that in motion.

    But a cool trick ;)
    Sounds a bit paranoid that you did it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. WG.net should be ashamed of more than just that, but feeling shame requires some sense of morale, I guess ... nobody needs more tanks being pushed in this game. These are only targetted at long time players to make them spend more money on this game. So apparently these are WG.net's main source of income from WoT. Now instead of listening to them and improving this game where it really needs it, they push more superfluous tanks in their faces. Nahui, WG.net.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nahui, WG.net.

      xD Yeah - send them to where they belong.

      Delete
  12. I don't see why WG couldn't do this:

    - Make the Krupp line everybody's been hoping for (Leichte Lowe Tier VII, W1661 Tier VIII, W1662 Tier IX)
    - Move the E-100 to the Tier X position (the turret is a Krupp design after all)
    - Make the 15cm L/38 the stock gun, and add the 15cm L/40 as an upgraded gun (in a nutshell, this gun would have more pen but a slower RoF), and remove the 12.8cm L/55
    -Replace the E-100 with the E-75M (If WG thinks the E-50M was plausibly designed, why not add some more roadwheels and armor?)

    Slakrrrrrr

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - Move the E-100 to the Tier X position (the turret is a Krupp design after all)
      Are you drunk or just sarcasm that E-100 is bullshit tank?

      -Replace the E-100 with the E-75M.

      Replace this replace that. Place even uparmored E-75 vs IS-7 and then see who wins.....

      Delete
    2. So Hilary Doyle's books are a bad source? Good to know someone told me as soon as they did.

      The E-75M would have very good frontal armor (160mm at 60*), and could probably mount the 12.8cm L/61 as a top gun. As far as i'm concerned this would make it a formidable tier 10 heavy tank.

      Delete
    3. 160 at 60* would make 320 of effective.
      But what about manouverability and LFP?

      Not to mention catches fires from front ;)

      Delete
    4. No, SS means that just because someone says "Mr. Doyle said this and that", you shouldn't believe it at face value and check the actual source itself.

      Delete
    5. I actually wrote the reply to him, Kankou. Sorry for not writing my name at the end of it and causing confusion.

      Slakrrrrrr

      Delete
  13. You know,honestly,I dont *really* care as long as there is a *chance* this thing was developed,but what about I do care is, that its a terrible,terrible,terrible idea to add it as a frakking CW unlock,I dont want to play CWs for a Lowe-looking tank,really,I dont...I wouldve grinded a line of copies,spent a lot of money,but CW..._NO_

    ReplyDelete
  14. +90% of player dont care... They play the game, and im not tank exper, so im dont care is fake or not fake, is prototype or somthink other shit... so dont care....
    SS you just make big shit from fly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you dont care, why you keep tracking info here then?? Go play star wars if you like fiction...

      -Tristan

      Delete
  15. Funny, but I had a feeling you were trolling and some text was weird, couldn't understand but after reading the comments thought you were serious.
    And well yes, people trust reliable sources, because if something was really wrong some other expert would point out, raise doubts and so sooner or later truth would arise, but until someone else (that really knows about the topic) opposes the other people will trust the given information. (Would you yourself distrust someone you do trust on topic you don't know much about?)

    P.S. I there any god damn way to edit these after publishing?

    ReplyDelete
  16. SS leave the "trolling" to SerB, otherwise you're lose credibility just like he did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's not like I am paid for it :) Besides, that's what this article is about!

      Delete
    2. Do you even comprehend what you just said?
      How could developer who knows everything whats going on about game and its content can lose credibility?

      SerB's trolling is just saying "This information is not yet declassified" in a manner of pissed of man because of idiots around.

      Delete
    3. LOL wtf did I just read?

      Delete
    4. Read again if you don't understand. Asking dumb questions is one thing which deserves what it gets, but SerB's retarded brainfarts as a response to legitimate questions is what makes people like me (ofc. not everyone) restore to another sources and disregard anything SerB says about game mechanics because he doesn't know what's under the hood of his own car (like the thing he said about tracks reducing AP's damage, if he doesn't see a difference between penetration potential and damage caused, well, no comment).
      "How could developer who knows everything whats going on about game and its content can lose credibility?"
      That's the problem, he doesn't know. He's either trolling, or spreading bullshit about game mechanics like he doesn't know how it works, that neither helps the players nor makes him more credible.
      As for SS, well, I trust you Frank because you have some knowledge that allows you to tell apart useful info from crap, but when you start the so called "trolling" or "being funny" by making things up to see how many people will know better, my reaction is that next time I read your article I will take it with a grain of salt and wonder if it's serious or an attempt at being amusing.
      Anyway, just my opinion on the general matter - I'm not hurt or offended by this particular "stunt" because I don't give a shit about the whole VK 7201 affair (inb4 "butt hurt & stop crying").

      Delete
    5. Russian company - behavior still echoes from cold war. But we didnt expect them to share any bit of information for free, did we?

      Delete
    6. Wow someone got pissed off. To be honest, the way SerB treats his customers can only happen in Russia. You have to sell a very good product to pull that off in my country...
      Most customers would just walk away and SerB would get treated for autism.

      Xander

      Delete
  17. I kinda got suspicious when you said it was actually called a failöwe, nice troll though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got me too :D F.a.I. Lowe :D

      But not as cool as Auflukrungenflakschnitzelhindenburgpanzer Panther.

      Delete
    2. didnt I ask you not to post that name again? I have almost died laughing about it a couple of times now :)

      Delete
    3. Yeah when someone asks how I killed first person:
      "He died of laugher" :D

      Delete
    4. GDI Woras... your killing me...

      "But not as cool as Auflukrungenflakschnitzelhindenburgpanzer Panther."

      NEMO.

      Delete
  18. In b4 it turns out that SS is actually SerB on what turns out the most complicated and long lasting troll project in the history of trolling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont think SerB knows english very well - he is the most russian as russian can be :D

      Delete
    2. Except he's not Russian.

      Delete
    3. And his English is perfectly fine, at least in written form.

      Delete
  19. I find it incredibly dumb to publish a nonsense article like that to prove a personal point that is irrelevant to many people.

    You are absolutely right that people don't want to go and read the material you referenced, because what would be the point? I (and I'm sure many other readers) read your website as a way to quickly and with low effort get useful and hopefully dependable information. If now you expect me as a reader to go check everything you write to make sure you are not making things up, then I might as well spare me the effort of reading your site and go use Google Translate on the Russian forums myself.

    What makes it even worse is that it is a petty personal point you are trying to make. Probably more then half the players (and I'm being conservative here) and a similar number of your readers care very little about the historical (in)accuracy of the game, but you are willing to troll your own readership to prove a point. And really, to whom are you doing that? And to what effect? Do you think trolling your readers is going to make WarGaming change their ways? I doubt it. Do you think people who weren't annoyed with historical inaccuracies will suddenly start caring about that? Again, I doubt it. Personally, I think the only thing you have accomplished is reduce the trust your readers have in you and the stories you publish.

    If you want to have an April Fools joke, that's fine, but this shit is just stupid, immature and detrimental to your own reputation. I personally never _relied_ on your site telling me the truth and don't base any decisions on it, but now I wonder what the value of your information is at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of my teachers said - "If a person dont have a sense of humor - his IQ is zero".

      So be glad QuietStalker made a big joke - proves that he is not brain-full-of-fuck siema.

      And also - I dont see you do anything to make information better so stfu and deal with it :D

      Delete
    2. If I posted it on 1st April, noone would believe it :)

      Come on, dude, cheer up. Besides, if most of the players don't care about the historical aspect, they probably didn't read it in the first place. Yes, it was trolling, but then again, why so serious :)

      Brace yourselves, April is coming!

      Delete
    3. dammit SS.. and the guy before him.. damn "anti-bot" protection.. you out-run me xD

      Delete
    4. I didn't bother to read it tbh, because the whole story interests me not at all.
      Frank, this your blog, and you are entitled to do what you like. However, you are known as an independent source with much integrity.
      In summary, it wasn't very funny when I read the 'sting' blog above (I gave you a small smile...you know...just raising the lips at the corners) and it will make people wonder next time they read your stuff if implausible. If I had read and believed it, you would have made me a feel a fool. Is that how you want your readers to feel ?

      Anyway, keep up the good translation work.

      Delete
    5. "proves that he is not brain-full-of-fuck siema" - in contrary to the author of this quoted statement, who must have had his brain dead since or before birth to even come up with a shit of that magnitude.

      Delete
    6. who must have had his brain dead since or before birth to even come up with a shit of that magnitude.

      What the hell is your problem? Seems like someone didnt get sex yesterday :D

      Delete
    7. If girs would know you read blogs about a tankgame in which fake tanks are discussed you would have none either. It kinda turns them off..

      -Tristan

      Delete
  20. Non-commercial, leaking and not leaking, quoted and gained status etc. A very good troll to cheer up people from the grumpiness, but sadly WG will stay WG and they will not do reasonable things...

    Yes I'm still mad about how they 'balance' tanks ... That supertest thing... is BS ...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ha ha ha! Oh wow the number of people with burrs up their arses over the fact that SS tricked is amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Frank,
    While amusing to you to publish misinforamtion like this was entertaining I feel that you have done yourself a disservice.
    You are one of my reliable sources outside of WG for information on World of Tanks. It would have been better done on 1/4/13.
    at least I would not feel as betrayed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Relax, it was the last such trollpost here. But I believe now you can appreciate the full extent of disgust people who care about historical realism feel, when Wargaming feeds us such BS.

      Delete
  23. I totally like ur attitude SS!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anybody want to bet that someone at wargaming ends up using SS' "facts" as the vehicle's history? :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20 credits on that one, mate.

      Delete
  25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp0RvEVD9w

    ReplyDelete
  26. Who is Yuri Pasholok and why is he considered an expert? When does access make one an expert? Central Archives of Ministry of BS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He uses advanced search in Google.

      Delete
  27. We all know how (Russian) history works. :P But your post was a nice lesson. :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. stupid CW tanks , they should fix the T10 we have now not ade more

    ReplyDelete
  29. Now... should we double check your "part deux" in some external sources ?

    You have made my day. Thanks for reminding me how big fool I am. Mr Wells would be proud of you :-).

    Y.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sure can :) The Lowe is covered in Panzer Tracts 20-1 and Spielberger's Special panzer variants as far as I know.

      Delete
  30. http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3087/6d3b3ed07692.png

    ReplyDelete
  31. You just made yourself look like a fool. This blog was considered by many to be a respectable source of information on future developments, now its just another one of those fail sites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel free to stop reading, that's your choice, mate. As I said, I did that to prove a point, which I proved. Maybe now when WG brings us some more fantasy designs, players will be a bit more sceptical.

      Delete
  32. Guys, he always posted reliable information regarding the game and the mechanics. He made one post to show everyone how wargaming maybe "researches" information on tanks and their developments. Sure he trolled some of us hostric buff but do you all really think he will just bullshit everyone from this point on?



    ReplyDelete
  33. I like tanks, but I also like to keep it a little bit of realism. Fake tank specs, ok, but fake tanks just take the soul out of this game for me. It's like watching a movie about WW2 and just when it gets interesting some spaceship full of aliens take Berlin right before Stalin does...

    It just doesnt make sense...

    -Tristan

    ReplyDelete
  34. I dont know what did you want to proove, Silent. I suppose most people reading your blog doesnt care that much about the realism in WoT. All we want is the information about the game so we come here and read the valuable news that are not announced in EU community. And you always did great job until now.

    With your strage "game" you lose trust and credibility among your readers. From the very trusted source you have just became one of the sources that spreads gossips.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do you know perhaps from where the usual Löwe with turret on back pic comes from? http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/lowe.jpg

    I have been under the impression that this drawing is 'historical'. If it is historical then you can hardly say the design was pulled out of their ass (except the armor values), if it's not can you enlighten me on where that pic came from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said the rear-turret Lowe is a fake. I said there was no 120-130 ton rear turretted Lowe with 200mm+ armor, the early concept on that picture was designed for 70 tons.

      That actual picture is a wooden mockup of a very early Lowe stage by Krupp and comes from numerous sources, probably originally from Doyle. If you check the hull and gun dimensions from the Panzer Tracts table however, you'll see that the heavy Lowe variants mentioned there are all mid turret.

      Delete
    2. So it's basically an 'inspired design' like E-50M or T28-prototype. Not completely from imagination but not completely from drawings either.

      So yeah it might not be on the same level as other prototypes but calling it a fake kinda overdoes it. What should we call E-100 krokodil then because that is as fake as fakes get (completely modern design).

      Delete
  36. Awesome! The name Failowe should have been a clue...
    I wonder if WG know about the experiments with rocket powered Valentine tanks...

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't get the hate for the Failowe -design- either. Even the troll article showed the historical drawing that the Failowe was borne from, which proves that the design did at least exist on paper, even if its stats are all wrong. WG had made stuff up from much less: the T28 Prototype was made off an artist's impression even and not a designer's sketch, and yet I don't hear much disgust or rage over that design.

    I do agree that ruining your blog's reputation by having a pettily made troll article is in bad taste. There are other ways where you could have put across your disgust for the Failowe design without making your reader base look like fools.

    ReplyDelete