Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 30, 2013

30.4.2013 part 2

- the Chinese Type 100 tank destroyer is nothing else but a Soviet SU-100, license-manufactured (or perhaps only imported to) in China
- some time ago, the game mechanics allowed the engine to burn after any hit (regardless how small), it was changed (a threshold for needed damage per hit was added) because lowtier vehicles burned too much after being hit by rapidfire autocannons
- the Maus speed was set "according to the data coming from its developers"

Storm confirmed this is completely correct - a player called Crueldwarf explains how the mantlet works:

This post was related to the tier 8 medium tank mantlets (specifically Indienpanzer mantlet thickness whine). Basically, all tanks have "empty space" (a zone with very thin armor) behind their mantlet, as demonstrated by the picture above. The difference is, Pershing has much thicker mantlet than other tier 8 meds and T-44 has only a small "empty" space behind the mantlet.

Basically, Pershing second turret has a 203mm thick mantlet in the center and 57mm thick on the rims, but the rims overlap with the turret armor that is 101mm thick, making the armor there 158mm thick in effect. The thickest parts (where the mantlet center overlaps with the turret armor - very thin), the armor is 304mm thick.

The T-44 (both turrets) has only a 120mm thick mantlet, but the "hole" behind it is relatively small. Only the center of the mantlet is completely penetrable. The rims that overlap with the turret armor make the armor effectively 240mm thick - and that is difficult to break.

The Indienpanzer has a 130mm thick mantlet (in the center), but the hole behind it is very large. Additionally, the mantlet rims are only 100mm (inner rim) and 55mm (outer rim, as shown on the picture) thick. The huge "hole" is the price to pay for very good elevation and depression. In effect, only a very small part of the mantlet is cca 170mm thick, the rest (notably the center) is 120-130mm thick. Generally, the mantlet of the Indienpanzer is very thin for its size.


  1. So basically you can shoot it's mantlet and still get damage done. Lol.

    1. ...and any number of other tanks if you manage to hit the gun/MG/scope slit(s); both my VK36 and T-43 have been penned at the mantlet that way, for example.

      On that one one look at the historical photos of the thing says the Maus has a sodding huge hole in the front turret to accommodate its silly gun combo...

    2. Thats why you shoot an angled Maus through the gun mantlet ....

    3. Woras,after
      I was compelled to ask for a medical asisstance :-) couldnt stop coughing


    4. @Steiner011:
      Never eat or drink when watching hilarious videos :D

  2. Anyone who looked at the Indien-Panzer blueprint would have figured this out. There is literally no armor behind the mantlet except for the gun mount.

    1. I wonder if tanks with very good gun depression would suffer the same effect

  3. Wait, the Pershing model I've seen on gamemodels3d shows 101.6mm armour for the mantlet edges.

    BTW, this is why the KV-4's second turret has a much better mantlet than the stock one: the slit for the gun is much, much narrower.


  4. - the Maus speed was set "according to the data coming from its developers" lol, data from developers that were smoking something similar to paint.

    1. ...Are you trying to imply that the Maus was going to be somewhat mobile?

    2. Probably the opposite: Even 13 km/h seems unlikely given the weight of the Maus. Yet, it's 20 km/h in WoT.

    3. while you smoke something similar to sewage

  5. Thanks for redistributing my answer for wider audience. You're doing a right work here.


    1. could you publish also other mantlet armour?

    2. You can view them yourself by latest version of WoT Tank Viewer.

  6. I was gonna post this on the Forums, but every time I do, my shitty winrate gets even worse and my accuracy goes to 25pct.

    Its all in my head though......

    This is a post regarding the Fail Lowe.

    A tanker asked if this was coming to the game????

    Yea, i was able to give WarGamming some slack because this was a game, purely for entertainment reasons, but I have changed my perspective.

    After 8.5 and seeing this hypocricy I have conconcluded that Human Nature will always prevail.

    Reminds me of Palestine.

    The Russians are doing the same thing. The Is3 was never on par w/ the Tiger II. These Cold war russian tanks are so Over powered its a joke. It actually makes the game more interesting fighting the Communists lies and Propaganda.

    Anyone shot an IS6 lately? The Tiger II doesnt bounce that much off the front, lmfao.

    I see this and it just re affirms my belief that people are selfish and self Serving. Even in a Video Game.

    Now I look at Russians and think of Palestinians.......

    Instead of just putting a normal, natural turret on the E100, you give us a tier ten based on a Premium.

    Your own reasons for justifying premiums undermines the whole FailLowe concept.

    Just because its a game doesnt mean you get to Lie, cheat and manipulate us, (steal).

    If its just a game, make it as real as possible, not create your own historical platform for your opinion. Your making Russians look like Liars....... Hello, Palestine.

    Your making your people look bad. YOU have to have some honesty, or no ones going to respect you.

    You have a responsibility to be honest or you risk the possibility of being percieved as dishonest. What ever your intentions are.

    Your going to write after this that Im the jerk, its all me..... im an asshole an uninformed.

    Yea, Im the one trying to ramm a failed napkin design down the public forum on global scale.

    Im the problem, me, this one guy. Not your Fail Lowe.

    Typical Russians.

    They say "Never Forget",

    I say, I will never forget Palestine.........


    1. They are Belorussians, totally different bunch...
      They history is crap (unlike the Russian), the only good thing happened with them was the Soviet Union...

    2. The IS-3 was never on par with the Tiger II? What are you smoking? Which heavy tank do you think had the most influence on Western tank development postwar? Why do you think did the Americans and British develop the M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks? Why do you think did the later versions of the AMX 50 have the pike nose?

      I can assure you that the IS-3 was of far greater influence in tank development than the Tiger II.

    3. Agree with cwijan90, while I'm no soviet fan, the IS-3 was indeed a ground-breaking design in its times while King Tiger was not AND even the German commanders themselves considered this tank to be excessively heavy beyond usefulness

    4. @cwjian90 "The IS-3 was never on par with the Tiger II? What are you smoking?"

      Guy got point, KT got slightly better armor, far more better gun and bigger ammo storage, only mobility is better in IS3. From soviet WW2 designs similar to KT (in armor protection, mobility and weight)was IS4.

      "Why do you think did the Americans and British develop the M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks?"

      It would be very strange than Western countries would develop tanks in contrary to their Eastern enemy but to the well defeated enemy. Besides Conqueror was only upgunned version of Caenvareon (which in turn is rooted in late WW2 developments), M103 in turn was a part of bigger tank family (T41, T42, T43 and T43 got same sferoidal hull as later M48) which development started at the end of 40's - pretty late to be influenced by, don't you think? All influence you can bring to M58 gun in both tanks.

      "Why do you think did the later versions of the AMX 50 have the pike nose?"

      I'm rather sure that french engineering takes far more greater inspiration from germans than soviets.

    5. The Germans used no pike noses, genius. (Also the supposed "super engine" the French picked up from the Germans failed to deliver, even after a decade of further R&D.) And the Caernarvorn was only ever a placeholder, a Conqueror hull with a Centurion turret, that filled in while the proper turret was being developed; IIRC most of them were refitted into proper Conquerors once that was ready.

      As for KT vs. IS-3, get real. The 122mm had FAR more punch than the 88mm, doubly so in terms of HE power - a not unimportant consideration for a breakthrough tank. Which is also why the Soviets were willing to accept the poor ammo load; extended engagements away from resupply weren't in the job description. Anyone's guess about the armour, but in tests the 122mm serioursly smashed up a captured KT while when the Israelis ran into Soviet surplus IS-3s in the Sinai they found their American tanks' 90mm guns struggling with them which is porbably indicative.

      Plus the IS series came in a much smaller ergo cheaper and harder to spot and hit package.

      Oh, and the Anon who started this chain needs to stop A) sucking ass B) talking out of his ass and defecating out of his mouth C) making bizarre associations that make no sense at all D) fishing for worthless emotional-appeal points with the above.
      Also Not Your Blog.

    6. As for KT vs. IS-3, get real. The 122mm had FAR more punch than the 88mm, doubly so in terms of HE power - a not unimportant consideration for a breakthrough tank.

      in terms of armor damage yes but the 88 had much better pen
      also the 122 was so powerfull because late war german steel was*****wich cause the armor to crack easly

    7. also its not a surprise that the american 90mm were struggling sovietics tested both the 88mm kwk43 and the 152mm from a su/isu 152 and the armor didnt cracked or was penetrated is3 was easly better than the king tiger in everything but penetration

    8. @Kellomies "The Germans used no pike noses, genius."

      Suspension, gun, armor scheme, engine vs pike nose - for me it looks like germans influenced french engineers more.

      "Anyone's guess about the armour, but in tests the 122mm serioursly smashed up a captured KT "

      And captured IS didn't menage to defeat Panther - which puts us to question who is lying better.

      "they found their American tanks' 90mm guns struggling with them which is porbably indicative."

      On HVAP rounds? Doubtful.

    9. HVAP are worth nothing vs slope found on IS-3, HEAT failed to fuse due the US piezo fuses failing at angle grater then 60deg.
      Israelis killed them at short range (~500m) with flanking shots. Same way you do in WoT with mediums.

    10. Don't really matter if you don't, technically speaking, *penetrate* if the tanks's out of action all the same, Anon. Such as now due to massive spalling having turned the crew into raspberry jam.

      And we are talking about the pike nose *specifically*. The French had a fleet of ex-German Panthers plus a pile of more-or-less researched next-gen components for Panther- and KT-style hulls, of course they were going to use those as much as they could; don't mean shit in this context. (Ofc none of that ultimately led to anything anyway, since the Maybach engine failed to deliver and the avant-garde "oscillator" tanks were ultimately abandoned in favour of the conventional if uncompromising AMX-30... and feel free to explain what part of the Bat. Chat. 25t or AMX-13 was German-influenced?)

      As for IS-2 vs Panther, I call BS on that; quick look at dem books (Osprey to the rescue again) turned up a "kill range" of some 1.5km for the matchup (incidentally same source mentions ~500m for the T-34/85).

      You can doubt all you want but that doesn't change what was written about the Israelis' experiences with the IS-3 one bit.

    11. Yes, if the IS-3's armour was shittier than the Tiger II's why then did the Western Allies bother developing guns better than the 20-pounder? Why do you think were the 105 and 120 mm guns developed? Because of two tanks: the T-54 and the IS-3.

      The IS-3 had far superior tactical and strategic mobility to the Tiger II, a far better ballistic shape, and a gun comparable to the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 once APCBC became available in 1945 with far better HE capability.

      If anything, it was the Panther that had the most influence on French design postwar, but even the French found the Panther to be an automotive pile of junk.

  7. Centurion's mantlet is also pretty beastly- 200mm in the centre third (vertically), the edges are overlapping for 100mm + 165mm armour.


    1. Shame the rest of the tank is a heap of ammo-rack shit.


  8. some offtopic:

    one Developer say that 0.8.6 will be as significant as 0.8.0, yet i do not see why... maybe You found something?

  9. So i was right about the type 100 being just a su-100 copy, like the type t-34 story.

    1. Great, more dull copies.

    2. Nobody forces you to play them you know. And if you don't, then for most practical intents and purposes they're just the appropriate Soviet tanks with new paint jobs.

    3. One thing. I am curious will the SU-100 Chinese version will have 300mm HEAT at tier 6? That would be ridiculous, but I see no reason why not, as all the rest of Chinese 122mm guns have this ammo.

    4. I would buy it, lol.

  10. Overlord posted something nice about 8.6

    OverlordApril 30, 2013 at 8:08 PMMimei Otonashii,agree that gold rounds situation has somewhat gone out of hand - and that's one of the issues we are going to address soon. Come back in 8.6 to check out.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.


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