Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 26, 2013

26.4.2013 part 2

Just a quick pre-midnight batch

- 88mm L/71 did not fire HEAT projectiles
- armored cars apparently won't appear
- Soviet D-25 gun won't get "historical" accuracy (SS: it was more accurate than it is depicted in the game)
- AMX ELC won't get a fully traversable turret
- player's won't apparently be "forced" to watch the training videos

Nothing else for today guys.


  1. well, I once read that, if the turret of the ELC would be fully traversable, it would chop off the head of the driver. ;)

    1. Actually, there was an experimental version of ELC with such a turret, but I don't remember much details.

    2. It probably sent the turret flying after firing the 90mm

    3. The ELC AMX had fully traversable turret but it could use that option and shoot only while stationary, on the move it was like that Swedish thing.. the S-tank

    4. Well then how the heck would the driver know where to drive if his optics are mounted on the turret ??

      The same magic goes to T110 E4 and E3.
      If he's positioned in the same place as is in E5 then where's his optics ? If he's in the superstructure, well ok for E3 bu what's going on when E4 rotates turret to one side ? This paradox always bugged me and I'm a huge fan of T110 E3


    5. To sum things up for some people here.
      ELC with such turret could fire 360 degrees all around. But only when stationary - because driver was _IN_THE_TURRET_ - doubling for loader. To let him drive turret had to be rotated to 0 position and locked. Then he could reach his gears. While in the move firing was still possible - because gun mounting allowed gun to be moved for few degrees left and right (no more than 5 degrees - quoting from the head). Not so easy to implement in game - so WG went easiest way - give more horizontal movement for the gun in all conditions and not bother with full turret rotation.


    6. @anon above:
      WTH are you on re E3? The driver appears to very obviously sit to the right of the gun, judging by the periscope cluster.

      As for the E4 which basically has the same general outline and layout except the rectangular superstructure has been turned into a limited-traverse turret though, I got nuthin'. But then from what I've gathered from this blog WG more or less pulled the whole vehicle (save for the index number) outta their derrieres which certainly explains the dubious engineering...

  2. For those who don't know, the D25 had accuarcy similar to the L71 in real life.

    1. For those who don't know D25 had a RoF of 2 rounds per min

    2. However it could not use this accuracy as much as the L71 because of worse gunsights.

    3. Soviet gun sights where on pair with German ones and eventually got superior at the end of the war. So yes the D25 could actually use it's accuracy it was however only in the beginning of the war when the Soviet industry where moving and had to produce tanks at rapid speed meaning lower quality of everything which meant that tanks weren't often equipped with radio's or proper sights.

    4. The D25 did NOT have a RoF of 2 IRL. I don't know where people are getting this stat from [probably Wikipedia], but the 2RPM figure comes from a 122mm cannon that featured a screw breach. The actual IS-2's gun featured a sliding breach and could achieve RPM's of 4-5 depending on the crew.
      Its RoF in game is accurate.

    5. But fact is that its RoF was comparatively slow. And that was because it used separate loading ammo (you didn't load complete shell with casing, but instead first a actual round and then propellant), so effictively ammount of work in order to fire the gun was doubled for loader. And yet Russians deemed 4 men crew with lone loader sufficient.

    6. That's probably all true, but never the less the IS-2 could still fire well beyond the oft-cited 2RPM.

    7. Carl Zeiss ftw if you say russkies got on par with german optics i need proof.


    8. There were experiments with single piece D-25 ammo. The rate of fire decreased.

      RE: accuracy of the D-25: here you go

    9. Some discussion about optics:

    10. If they were so good why did the soviets copy the german optics by the end of the war?

    11. They did? Sauce plox.

      Though even if so just because German telescopes were better doesn't mean the Soviet ones were *bad*... I do know they had quality problems with the armoured glass used in the vision ports early on, but that's an entirely different issue.

    12. They didn't copy them, they where based on them. Very different approaches and why not? They where effective, they worked so why not base them on German gun sights?

      Germans copied and based countless of their war machines and equipment of other nations.
      Why do you think sloped armor was adapted by Germany? Cause of the success of T-34, but it wasn't copying it. They where just taking the idea of it and slapped it on their tanks.

    13. Did they? Source?

    14. Bactracking a bit to the topic of RoF, it just occurred to me but wasn't 2 rpm more like what the ISU-152 (or the unacceptably cramped T-44-122 with its very long unitary cartridge) pulled...?

    15. Hahaha! Sloped armor was invented basically at the same time when armor itself was invented...Germans (or for that matter, other nations involved in WW2) certainly knew about sloped armor. They DID incorporate it in their designs but not to extent Russians did, until 1943. Sloped armor is not The Best Thing In Universe© - it limits turret ring diameter (limiting future turret and gun upgrades), results in cramped crew compartment (lowering crew effectiveness and chances of escape etc.) and usually results in smaller, more compact tank designs. So, even if that lowers chance of being hit, if you do get hit, it increases the chance for catastrophic damage. Germans rightfully chose better combat effectiveness over some extra armor protection. They had guns, optics and trained crews to engage enemy armor at ranges it could not even retaliate.

      And yes, they copied German optics (from captured Tigers in 1943.). However, they lacked quality of originals (mainly in department of lens grinding and coating) but at least decreased the advantage Germans enjoyed for greater part of conflict. Spotting, estimating range and aiming at enemy tank from 2km away is not an easy task with 2x sight...

      OT:"Germans copied and based countless of their war machines and equipment of other nations."

      From whom did they copy an AK-47 and its countless clones (SturmGewehr 44 ripoff), among others, M60 machine gun (MG34/42 ripoff), modern soldier's helmet (Stahlhelm ripoff), modern MBT (Panther tank), modern submarine (U-Boat XXIII), jet aircraft etc. - to name but a few?


    16. Keep your own delusion to yourself, please.

      And Panther was a largely failed design, period.

    17. @AM:
      Sloped armour is Older Than Feudalism actually, since it didn't take very long before the first bronze helmets evolved into nice conical and rounded shapes blows were wont to glance off. There's similarly good practical reasons why Medieval plate cuirasses (which aren't *quite* Older Than Gunpowder but pretty close) have a disticntly "keeled" shape at the front.

      More recently sloped armour was used in warship turrets and internal armour belts long before even sci-fi writers and particularly creative military men had started thinking about what we now know as "tanks".

      Anyways, much of what you write is frankly horse cakes. Quick look at the relevant designs says the Germans made exactly ZERO use of sloped armour in tanks before their startling run-in with the T-34 - at which point no less a notable than Guderian (IIRC) suggested flat-out copying the damn thing albeit ofc with whatever refinements were thought suitable and necessary. As we know that didn't happen but several of the candidates offered for the Pz V program were basically unapogoletic derivations of the basic design, notably the Daimler-Benz offering and the Skoda T-25 - and the MAN design that was chosen wasn't all that shy about the influences either.

      Also I call BS on that turret-ring thing. Quick examination of various tank designs says it's limited by the width of the hull *between the tracks*; whether the sponsons that extend over the latter are slab-sided or sloped (or entirely absent) doesn't appear to be of any importance.
      *Storage space* is a whole different issue for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with the most elementary geometry: give the over-track sponsons a 45-degree slope (making their cross-section a right-angled triangle) and the useful volume they provide just got cut in half compared to slab-sided ones (ergo of more or less square cross-section) of the same width and height.
      Might be wrong but I don't think sloping the hull glacis plate (or the turret front for that matter) is going to affect the usable internal volume too much; you can always stretch the hull a bit if need be and whatever weight is added by the altered dimensions ought to be more than compensated for by the greater *effective* armour thickness for the same *absolute* thickness of plate where it counts the most.

      Also the Panther was frankly a fukken st00p1d design. The basic concept was sound, but somewhere along the line it had malformed into a bruiser that weighed almost as much as an IS-2 while having but a 75mm gun and sides made of paper (nevermind now a chronically fragile final drive) - talk about less bang for your buck, and more to the point for the tonnage of steel and amount of fuel consumed. Neither were in exactly ample supply in wartime Germany, all the more so as producing both consumed appalling amounts of coal which was the lifeblood of not only the industry but of the whole *society*. The Tiger II basically repeated the same basic flaws in a larger form.

      Meanwhile the Allies and Soviets were working on proper medium tanks of similar or lesser tonnage with 90 to 100mm guns and way more cost-effective layouts...

    18. Also the AK-47 owes nothing to the StG44 beyond the general concept, do your damn homework; the M60 is kind of a fail GPMG and well-nigh the sole weapon of the class mechanically influenced by the MG34/42 delayed-blowback design (outside most of the H&K catalog ofc - the founders were former Rheinmetall engineers); AFAIK only the US military's PASGT Kevlar helmet directly shares shape with the Stahlhelm and that may have been due to convergent evolution from the same design concerns rather than direct imitations; the Panther -a medium tank far too large for its role and firepower designed as part of the Old Skool light-medium-heavy triad- has fuck-all to do with modern MBTs; and as far as jets went, go read up a bit on the Gloster Meteor and Lockheed P-80 before spouting fanboi nonsense.
      Also for shit and giggles look up the failed Gewehr 41 and how exactly the rather better Gew. 43 came about...

      As far as the submarines go you're actually kinda correct (though you're probably thinking of the ocean-going Type XXI rather than its coastal little brother), but then again it's not like other navies needed to invest so heavily in such "naval guerilla weapons" at the time anyway (OTOH they put a whole lot of effort into ASW...); the Germans had to rely heavily on them since their surface assets were basically uselessly bottled up in their harbours.
      Also, aircraft carriers.
      NUCLEAR WEAPONS.[/CivGandhi]
      By extension nuclear power in general.
      "Zero generation" light amplification (invented by the British and AFAIK used to reconnoiter the Normandy beaches; the active IR both the Germans and Americans tinkered with is different tech).
      And so on.

    19. You have to make difference between gunsights and observation devices.
      1. Gunsights:
      Early war Germans had advantage in gunsights - main advantage was not some mithical optic quality, as all were adequate for task, but in fact sight was articulated. Both Germans and Soviets used 2.5x for their gunsights.
      Early Soviet gunsighs, as well as arty sights were made on German (Zeiss) machinery. Compared to that British used 1x (no magnification!) sights for their tanks, while US also used low magnification (IIRC 1.1 and 1.5x) gunsights.
      Soviets (and British also!) copied design of TzF5 gunsight, ie. articulated part.
      Later Soviet gunsights were articulated and had 4x magnification with good view quality (but as noted glass quality was quite adequate on all gunsights used in WW2).
      Germans introduced variable magnification 2.5/5x, which was nice development, giving them still slight advantage.
      British, just as Soviets copied German gunsights, but still with 2.5x mag.
      US was obsessed with combined periscope/telescope gunsights and improved them to dual magnification IIRC 1.1/4x.
      So at the end of war, all had quite comparable gunsights, with Germans having slight advantage on late Panthers/Tiger 2. Pz-IV, T-34-85 and Cromwell gunsights were basically identical.

      Observation devices.
      Early war Germans started good, as did British, with copy of Polish made observation device copied by Vickers and Zeiss.
      Soviets ignored this part, but they started catching up, with post-1943. tanks heving more observation devices then German tanks:

      Driver - two MK-4 wide-angle periscopes, direct vision slit
      Gunner - TSh-17 articulated, 4x, 16deg FoV gunsight, MK-4 rotary, wide-angle periscope.
      Loader - MK-4 rotary, wide-angle periscope , PU gunsight on rear-turret DT MG.
      TC - TC cupola with direct vision slits + MK-4 rotary, wide-angle periscope on rotary hatch.

      Compare that to Panther or Tiger 2 and Allied tanks and you might understand how French realized post-war that Panther is blind compared to Sherman, and other then gunsight has no optics advantage over it - best gunsight in world is worth nothing when you don't have enough periscopes to spot target for gunner.

      As for long range gunnery, note that Carrius says that IS-2 had no trouble hitting them @ 2km.

    20. Thanks for more in-depth post, bojan.

      You mixed a couple of things:
      1. Germans sold license, and equipment, to Russians in 1920s. They even had a co-op business before war started, but it was about building microscopes. Mind you, that equipment and designs were licensed, thus a generation behind. When war broke out they were obsolete, but to Russians, better than nothing. During early successes, Germans also captured various key facilities, like Izyum factory for producing optical glass in Kharkov, Ukraine. It was not until spring of 1944. that Russians started to catch up and equip good optical devices on their main tanks (T-34-85 and IS-2).

      2."but as noted glass quality was quite adequate on all gunsights used in WW2"
      At normal combat ranges (800m +/-) differences are small enough to not give distinct advantage. What about shooting at 2km+ distance? Optical quality not being advantage? Quality/precision of ranging reticules? Have you ever looked through scope at those distances? You want every single bit of performance from your sights at those ranges. And this is with modern equipment which is light years ahead of what they used in WW2.

      3. Panthers being blind? I simply don't understand what you meant by this remark. They actually had better gun sights AND observation devices (better optical quality, magnification, and FOV) than any tank of WW2. It was also first operational tank to be equipped with night vision devices. And like almost every German tank it had prominent commanders' cupola, something that Allies were very slow to incorporate into their designs. What French/Americans didn't like was that GUNNER had to always look through sight that had magnification, and thus, lower field of view. On American vehicles, gunner's sight had no magnification, and thus larger FOV. Theoretically, larger FOV enables gunner to acquire and fire at targets more quickly. But nothing a teamwork between crew members can not solve. Germans certainly had no problems with it. It was just different philosophies.

      4. Like I said, in 1944. Allies started to catch up. This is not being disputed.


    21. 1. And again - Soviet gunsight optic quality stayed good, except for part of 1942. Soviet observation devices in 1941-1st half '43. sucked. I have seen PaK40 gunsight as well as ZiS-2 gunsight, both WW2 made (1944 and 1943). Both are comparable, if anything Soviet one is slightly better during dusk.

      2. Again, optic quality was adequate. How did IS-2 obtain hits @ 2km that people like Carrius talk about if their optics were not good for that range?

      3. Yes, Panther (and Tiger 2 even more) were blind. Gunner had only his gunsight and other then TC none had all-around vision (rotary wide angle periscopes). French found that during testings, Panther took 3 x longer on average then Sherman to spot target. Once target was spotted Panther had some advantage (stadiometric scale).

      4. In 1944. Allies couth up and even surprassed Germans in some areas (observability from tank).

      Again, sure Germans were No.1 in gunsights for whole war, but Allies were able to catch up and make difference largely academical.
      Also Soviets were actually better then British/US for the most of war, especially early British sights were atrocious, with no magnifications and narrow FoV. No wonder T-34's TMFD-7 gunsight looked like wonder to British in 1942.
      In observation devices Germans started good with TC cupola with observation slits, but UK/US passed them by already by late 1943, Soviets by early 1944. due the use of rotary wide-angle periscopes (Google Vickers Tank Periscope), something Germans never did en-mass.
      So, 1944 - Allid tanks had easier time finding target, German tanks had easier time engaging it once it was found.

    22. Random aside: what *is* the practical significance of the articulated gunsights anyway? They're often mentioned and the contemporary engineers clearly put a lot of effort into them, but what was the specific benefit?

    23. With basic telescope gunner has to "chase" sight up and down as gun elevates, as telescope is fixed to gun..
      With articulated sights head is moves with gun while body stays fixed, easing gunners work.

  3. > - 88mm L/71 did not fire HEAT projectiles

    Wait, what Gr. 39/3 HL then for? But just 90 mm of penetration.

    1. Jentz & Doyle *do* mention in "Osprey New Vanguard 1 - Kingtiger Heavy Tank" the 39/43 HL being sometimes used as a sort of early HEDP munition, though, which sorta seems to suggest it was available for the L/71 too (unless they're for some reason plain wrong in that detail obviously). Doesn't make it terribly relevant for the game ofc...

  4. >- Soviet D-25 gun won't get "historical" accuracy (SS: it was more accurate than it is depicted in the game)
    Russian Bias strikes again...

    1. This might have to do with a certain overpowered Tier 6 heavy that would be even more overpowered if the gun were given greater accuracy.

    2. Hey, historical accuracy, what can you do.

      Besides, many guns have variable accuracies depending on what tank they are on. If you remember the T-34-85 with the D-10T, the bloom on that thing was enormous.

    3. "We don't buff russian accuracy" -> "russian bias" *facepalm*

      Do those stupid cry kids even read what they whine about?

  5. - player's won't apparently be "forced" to watch the training videos

    bad decision WG, after tier 3, if some1 want to buy a tank, there should be a specific obligatory tutorial for that kind of tank, or the videos + a small test to see if they understood what it said.

    1. Just a massive flashing PRESS SHIFT when you buy your first arty should do wonders.

    2. agreed, i think the battle tutorial is already enough, and the press shift could be even displayed as a popup when buying your first arty on the garage..

    3. War Thunder rewards tutorials with a small amount of gold (if all tutorial finished, the player can buy 2 days of premium or a new garage slot from it).
      Same would be nice in WoT.

    4. Well, if You complete recently introduced tutorial You also get some Gold (IIRC 300) & Credits.

    5. no1 that i know got gold after the tutorial. only some credits.

  6. I hope ELC get pivot :/

  7. Why do people still ask about armoured cars. I want them too but the devs have been clear for ages.

    1. Maybe because only WG is lazy so much, they just write "that's too hard to implement" while their competitor have a lot better tanks/other armored vehicles before implementing them as playable. WT already has tanks, armored cars and halftrucks looking better than in WoT

    2. "looking better than in WoT"

      Are u playing an other WT than everyone else? Or are u playing WoT on minimum settings?

    3. I suggest anyone who wants armoured cars and/or halftracks in the game first go play the Men of War game series a bit. That teaches you a few things about some rather important differences regarding the *turning radius* of wheeled vehicles compared to tracked ones, and should help make it abundantly clear why ACs would NOT be viable in a WoT battlefield (all the more so given their comparatively puny armour and firepower and terribly vulnerable tires).

      I imagine light-tank drivers would be happy to have such easy prey around though... >:D

    4. Well, thx to WG's coding abilities I can't play WoT on "better" graphics, while with the same fps I'm playing WT on medium.
      Have you ever seen those vehicles up close in WT?

  8. "- 88mm L/71 did not fire HEAT projectiles"

    Yep. High-velocity HEAT projectiles were not technically feasible until after WWII when piezoelectric fusing was invented. Notably, the Jagd E-100 and E-100 seem to be benefiting from some really rapid alt-history German research in this area...

    "Soviet D-25 gun won't get "historical" accuracy (SS: it was more accurate than it is depicted in the game)"

    In-game accuracy doesn't work at all the way it does in real life. You can't even compare the two.

    For starters, there's a difference between "precision" and "accuracy." Many people don't grasp this difference, but strangely their ignorance does not stop them from pontificating about tank combat.

    Accuracy offset of the mean point of impact from the intended point of impact. Precision is how closely the impacts group about the mean.

    In terms of pure mechanical precision, all the tank guns from the WoT era should basically be capable of grouping 100% of their shots onto a tank-sized frontal silhouette from map corner to map corner. Conservatively, a tank's front is 95x130 inches. At 1560 yards (map corner to map corner) that comes to 6.5 minutes of angle Y axis dispersion, which is well within what could be manufactured back then. That's like, AK-47 accurate. It's not even remotely difficult to manufacture a gun tube that precise, not even under duress in the mid '40s.

    The real problem is accuracy, or getting the mean point of shell impact onto the point of aim. Ballistic trajectories are much more curved than most people realize, probably because most people are stupid and lazy and haven't bothered to work out the math. Even a very high velocity gun like the 75mm L70 KwK42 could easily miss a tank-sized target at a kilometer or so if the range estimation were off. The trajectory is really that curved.

    Therefore, the most important factors in WWII long-range tank gunnery were shell velocity and range estimation accuracy. These were glacially slow and laughably primitive by modern standards, and thus hit probability in the field was quite poor even though the gun was more than up to printing cloverleaf groups at whatever distance.

    This chart from Technology of Tanks explains it quite well:

    It's not the gunsights, it's not the crew, it's not the gun, it's the damn rangefinder.

    1. AFAIK for the most part rangefinder = gunsight (in the period concerned), or more specifically the stadiametric scales therein to help the gunner guesstimate the distance. I understand the commander's optics had something similar. And then there was always the tried and true "one long one short" bracketing method.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.