- 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.
Thanks to *anonymous guy* for showing me that livejournal.ru post - you guys should really sign so I know who to thank occasionally :)
So, I think we do know another part of what will come in 0.8.6: equipment rebalance. See further.
- so, the Russian (yet another) World of Tanks ripoff is getting sued by Wargaming for plagiarism (SS: TBH, quite rightfully so)
- the devs did think about limiting the maximum amount of gold ammo carried by a tank, but decided not to do it in the end
- T32 and M46 are considered balanced
- when setting the landscape on minimum settings, you might get glitches, such as shells flying into the ground because on higher setting, there is some terrain mold or something, which is invisible in lowest settings. The reason for it was that the developers discovered that on some very weak computers, players modified the ingame settings manually in game files to reach the same thing: a significant FPS increase. That's why it was implemented officially, despite the fact it can cause terrain bugs. Storm states that if this setting is too buggy for you (despite the fact Wargming fixed the worst bugs), move the landscape graphics setting up one point.
- an engine can catch fire on any damage (above some - small - threshold, f.x. lowtier machineguns and autocannons), it doesn't have to be yellow to catch fire And now Storm's answers from the livejournal post:
- detailed armor scheme for each tank will eventually be implemented into the hangar
- breakable objects that cause vehicles to slow down a lot (fences, walls) will be fixed
- railways will be "sunk" into the ground so they don't limit tank movement in any way
- the base structure (SS: that crap in the middle of each base that blocks shells) won't be removed
- the mechanism for (AP/APCR) shells to actually punch thru soft cover (fences, etc.) instead of being eaten by it will be implemented in 0.8.6, but the covers itself will be fixed in separate patches (SS: eg. the mechanism will be only programmed, but not activated)
- spall liner will be re-made in 0.8.6 (it will be different for various tanks, it will absorb from 15 to 30 percent HE/ramming damage)
- there will be "other options" for those who fear arty (artyphobes)
By EnsignExpendable
Continuing my Q&A feature, here is the #3 batch of questions!
Q: Can you list all the proposed KV-4 blueprints, their implementations in-game, their actual speed, and armour schematics? What tiers can they be implemented in?
A: I don't have all of them, but I do have some. Data on the designs is a little sparse. For some, not even their creator is known. There are twenty of these things, so I'll cover the interesting ones.
Fedorenko's design. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the dome turret. Speed: 21.6-38 kph
In game, Fedorenko's design would be roughly the same, except with a bigger weak spot where the 45 mm turret is. It is hard to talk about viability of the design in-game, as armour layouts are unknown.
Kruchenyh's design. 107.7 tons, 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm in the smaller turret. Speed: 35 kph. Front armour: 180 mm.
This tank has a bit more data on it. Also similar to the current KV-4, with a bit less gun depression due to the center turret. The armour and weight are about the same as the current in-game KV-4. The speed is a little higher.
Buganov's design. 107 mm gun, 45 mm gun in the smaller turret. Speed: 36 kph.
This KV-4 is a little faster and shorter than the one in game. The designer apparently hated gun depression with a passion, as none is found here.
Shashmurin's design. 107 mm gun in the hull, 76 mm gun in the turret. Speed: 35 kph.
Shashmurin's design takes an M3 Lee-like approach: big gun in the hull, small gun in the turret. This thing had little advantages over any of the other designs.
Tarapatin's project. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the upper turret. Speed: 35 kph.
This is another TD-like project. The armour is reduced to 125 mm. Maybe this can be a tier 7, if it doesn't get the huge gun.
Mihailov's project. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the hull. Speed: 50 kph.
Mihailov's project combines speed with firepower. The useless 45 mm gun is removed, along with its weak spot. The tank itself is lighter than the one in the game, at 86.5 tons. This isn't even the fastest project, Sychev's KV-4 would go 55 kph (sadly, no blueprint is provided).
As you can see, all KV-4s are roughly the same. Some of the weaker armoured ones might do well at tier 7, but there is not very much spread.
Q: Is the current 107 mm top gun on the KV-4 close to reality?
A: Let's take a look at Soviet 107 mm guns. The top gun is the "107 mm high power gun". It gets a pretty impressive 188 mm of penetration at 1000 meters, against armour sloped at 30 degrees. Since WoT measures penetration against flat armour at 100 meters, I'm going to have to do some approximations.
The ZiS-6 gun in game gets 167 mm of penetration. The ZiS-6 in that document gets 115 mm of penetration. Assuming the ratios hold, the longer gun in WoT should have about 273 mm of penetration. The in-game gun only has 227 mm of penetration. Russian Bias, why have you abandoned me!?
Q: Are there Russian tanks similar to the Sturmtiger? I have read about the RBT-5 and a KV variant with Katyusha rockets.
A: There were self propelled T-34 mortar projects, both less than and greater than the Sturmtiger caliber. There was also a 400 mm mortar project for the T-34 and KV-1S, but they didn't have the armoured casemate of the Sturmtiger. A project existed to mount the BM-13 rockets on a KV-1, but it never went anywhere.
As for the RBT-5, it was an interesting tank indeed. While keeping its 45 mm gun, it was equipped with two 250 kg "tank torpedoes", capable of the same destructive power as 305 mm guns, capable of taking out enemy heavy tanks and concrete bunkers. The rockets were aimed with the standard gun sight. The 45 mm gun was used to acquire the range, and then the rockets would be fired after converting it using a table. The range of these rockets was up to 1500 meters. However, the rockets were vulnerable to bullets, shells, and shrapnel, so the project was axed.
Another rocket BT project was developed, a BT-5 with 132 mm rockets. Rather than being produced for some combat purpose, it was produced to determine the effect of rocket exhaust on the tank and its crew. Turns out that it was harmless, but was unacceptable in terms of fire safety. The project was discontinued, but the data gathered was used in the Katyusha program.
As for direct equivalents of the Sturmtiger, I don't know of any. The largest caliber the Soviets put in a tank expected to participate in close combat was 203 mm.
Q: I heard about the successor of the T-39, the T-42, and I was wondering if there is any info about it.
A: The T-42 was not a successor, but a predecessor to the T-39 (the T indexes are not sequential). The story of the T-42 begins in 1930, when the USSR invited foreign specialists to consult with on tank building. One of these specialists was German engineer Eduard Grote. The, as SerB puts it, "gloomy Teutonic genius" seems to be set on ridiculously heavy tanks, as Grote proposed a 1000 ton tank in 1931 with either three or six turrets, two 304 mm guns, four 152 mm and 76 mm guns, and two 45 mm guns, with a crew of 40 people. This proposal was denied. Grote proposed a slightly more reasonable tank, only 75 tons. There were only three guns, two 45 mm, and one 76 or 100 mm. The tank crew was 10 people. Based on this project, he also designed a heavier tank, the T-42. The tank's mass was 100 tons, armour up to 70 mm. The main gun, 107 mm in caliber, would be placed in a center turret, that could rotate 270 degrees. A 76 mm gun was placed in the front turret, which could rotate 202 degrees. A 45 mm gun was placed in the rear turret, which could rotate 278 degrees. The tank was planned to be accelerated to 30 kph with a 2000 hp engine. It could also cross up to 2 m deep rivers with a watertight hull and turrets.
As of fall of 1931, it was decided that Grote's services are no longer required.
That's it for now! Keep sending those questions in to tankarchives@gmail.com, or post them in the comments.
First, a quote from The_Chieftain on 8.6 (27th April, 12:05):
Well, I've seen the 8.6 notes, and they are far more significant than I
had been led to believe. Arty is, as the devs on the Russian forum
reported, getting a major re-work, some things I think are good, some
not so good. We'll see how it pans out. Arty isn't the only thing
getting significantly changed either. The 'nuclear' comment is somewhat
justified.
Now I am curious :) Truth to be told, I expect some change of gold-ammo-for-creds type: useful for some but controversial for others. Sexton I and Excelsior are also scheduled to appear.
- 0.8.6 confirmed to come out in June 2013 (on RU server anyway)
- there is no difference between early (pre-war), wartime and post-war armor quality in game
- there will be some upcoming changes in mods (SS: related to the new artillery hack mod), "follow the news" (SS: one proposed solution was a "mod certification", without which the mod won't be accepted)
- the fact that when your game client crashes and your tank gets destroyed by leaving the battle even if the victory is certain (for example, last enemy tank just died) resulting in a loss/draw is fine according to devs
- US "Hunter" tank destroyer won't be implemented
- SerB regarding the players actually being able to make money while using exclusively tier 5 gold derp shells: "Good players have the right not to lose credits while shooting gold shells. And the bad players must either train harder or not use gold shells at all."
- if you dismissed some crews until now, you won't get them back even if the option to buy back the dismissed crews is introduced, because data about them are not being stored
- Q: "We want better quality models" A: "Want realism? Join the army."
- the next global update (SS: as big as for example the patch that introduced physics) will be 0.9.0
- no plans to introduce 100 percent crew training for credits
- if you experience lag when switching from arcade to sniper mode and vice versa, apparently your computer is at fault, there is no such bug in WoT
- it's possible that there will be some special company-level archivements ("awards") implemented in time
- devs do track the amount of various tanks sitting in player garages
- tier 10 Chinese vehicles are doing fine statistically
- Historical battles will come eventually. Hardcore mode: "Want hardcore? Join the army."
- maps bigger than 1x1 introduction is limited by the existence low-end player computers
- German M10 Panther will recieve the US Star as its emblem instead of the cross, it's planned
Well here I go attempting to answer the questions I think I can answer. Questions like will X be introduced and when are unknown to me.
Q:Why did America pursue autoloading designs and why weren't the accepted?
The advantages of autoloaders included a smaller crew, a smaller vehicle, and a very good burst of fire could be attained was the major reasons behind the pursuit of autoloaders. A combination of slow development, teething issues, and faster development and production of conventional designs spelled the doom of early American autoloaders.
The US never gave up on the autoloader though and now you can see it in use with the M1128 MGS.
Q:Was the M4 with the M26 Turret tested, if so how did it perform? It seems like that vehicle wasn't tested. It was more of a test of wether an 90 mm Sherman was possible(it was). However M26 itself would be ready by the same time if production of the M4 90 mm was pursued, so it was abandoned . Q:What gun is mounted on this modified T34? The_Chieftain said this when he stumped us NA Forum goers. "To put you guys out of your misery, it was a T34 with the T123E3 (T57 tank cannon) on a rigid mount " Q: Is another US Heavy Line possible? It is entirely possible. The US had designs such as the K Proposal, the TS-6, and the T96. However it would be a stretch and isn't likely to happen(at least not within the foreseeable future) in WoT IMO. Q: Why did American tanks have unusually heavy turret armor compared to other nations? The US adopted the practice of hull down fighting early on. The heavy turret armor combined with good gun depression means that American Vehicles can hull down over hills exposing only their heavy turret armor. Q:Why did the M60 have thin hull armor compared to its Soviet counterparts? It really didn't. The first M60 was only slightly less protected than the T54(The M48 was more protected than the first M60s as well) while later versions such as the M60A1 were on par with their Soviet counterparts. Q:What could be some US Premium TDs? Well any of the vehicles I proposed in my 3rd TD Line thread are all possible candidates except for the higher tiered ones. The M56 Scorpion is likely and the T88 is already planned. The T88 however might become an artillery piece for all I know. Q: Are there any plain silly US tank proposals? The US had a bunch a stranger projects including nuclear powered tanks(TV-8 and R-32), twin gunned tanks(the SARAH), the half AFV/half helicopter FALCON, the ASTRON Project, and the Yoh tanks are all some weird designs. I am planning on an article for these guys so no pics for now. Q: Was the early Cold War 90 mm gun effective versus T-54/55s? Also how was the penetration of the "long" 90 mm guns? The HEAT rounds were more than capable of defeating the frontal armor, you still need to fire a good shot. Otherwise it would be best to use flanking maneuvers to fire into the weaker side armor. The T-54 armor was extremely tough and it wasn't until the late 1950s that US tanks could defeat T-54 with relative ease without HEAT with the 105 mm M68. The Penetration figures for the 90 mm guns is very close to historical already in game. I would also like to point out that in 1949 a British Liaison questioned the use of the 90 mm gun in the M46 Patton, he pointed out the 20 pounder was a more effective weapon. However 'Murica went along with the 90 mm. Q: What was the actual T110E3 suppose to be like? The T110E3 would be fairly mobile for a ~50 ton vehicle and could easily reach 30 km/h+ speeds. It would have thick armor but not the 300+ we have in game. The mantlet however is extremely thick(229 mm) and heavy(2 tons). The gun was to be the T123(aka M58) 120 mm. Q: Any info on the T42 Medium? The T42 was born out of the T37 Light Tank. It retained the overall dimensions of the T37 but had thicker armor and a 90 mm gun. The hull and the gun are the same as the T69 without the autoloader. The turret design is the same as the top turret on the M46. Q: How was the armor of the T95 Medium? The T95's frontal hull ranged from 76 to 127 mm on the LFP at a slope of 45 degrees and 95 mm on the upper plate at a slope of 65 degrees. The side armor is pretty weak. The strongest point of the side hull armor is 102 mm at a zero slope, most parts of the side armor are much weaker being 37-51 mm thick at a zero degree slope. The armor is rolled and cast homogeneous steel, silica fused armor was planned but the T95 was cancelled before that could be done. The turret armor of the T95 is extremely good. The mantlet is upwards towards 381 mm thick and the frontal turret is 178 mm thick at a 60 degree slope. Q: What is likely to happen to the T23? If the T23 is not included in a second US Medium line it is safe to say it will NOT be a tier 8 or tier 7 premium. The historical T23 would have a 560 hp engine and the 76 mm gun, that would be way too underpowered for a tier 7. If the T23 becomes a premium it would likely be a tier 6. Don't worry though, the US has enough medium designs to use as a tier 7/8 premium medium. Q:What ever happened to the T110 series? A full wooden mock-up was produced but by that time the M103 was being put into service and the US shifted from the heavy T110 series in search for lighter weight heavy gun tanks(such as the T96, T77, and the XM60). Q: What does all the Ms, Ts, Es, and As stand for? I don't exactly remember the exact meaning but here is what they approximately mean. M~= Production Model T~=Test E~= Modification A~=Version Q: What guns could be on the M41 Walker Bulldog in WoT? My speculation is that the stock gun is the T94 from the upgraded M24. The historical M32 gun is a must and has the same ballistics as the T71's top gun and is likely to be the middle gun. The M41 90 mm from the M48 Patton is also likely to be the top gun. Q: Is the upgraded M46 the M47? If not what could become of the M47? A common misconception is that the M47 is represented by the upgraded M46. This isn't exactly the case. You see the upgraded M46 is the M46E1 which is an M46 hull mated with the T42 turret. The T42 turret went under slight modifications before it was the same as the M47 turret. The M47 also has a unique hull which is slightly more effective than the M46 hull. IMO the M47 could be a tier 8 premium or possible a tier 9 regular tank in an alternate medium line. The M47 might still be redundant. Q: Were there any plans to improve the T28/T95's mobility? Short Answer: No. Q: Why is the 105 mm on the M103? The T5E1 isn't on the M103 for historical purposes. It is there for grinding. Q: Were there any US Superheavy tanks beside the T28/T95? The US actually proposed a ~150 ton vehicle in 1945 sparked by the Maus, E-100, and to some extent the IS-3. It was a radical design using a semitrailer like hull layout. The planned armament was to be the 155 mm T7(with a minimum requirement of a 105 mm gun). The armor was to be as much as possible.
Q: Any info on the T77? The T77 was an actual project using the M48's hull. It used a lightweight version of the turret used on the T57 and the same 120 mm gun. It used a rigid gun mount and fired an 8 round drum. 10 extra rounds were held in the turret and the hull. The project started in 1953 and ended in 1957 due to slow development and the changing requirements of the US Military. Two T77 turrets were produced but were scrapped.
Q: How many rounds could the 90 mm Hellcat hold? Not exactly sure, however it is doubtful that it could hold much than 30 rounds.
The "Buff my tank!" articles are meant as an historical way to look at
some tanks considered underpowered in game and ways to improve their
combat abilities discussed by the original german engineers.
Beware that while being sometimes ironic in tone, the article treats
about both costs and benefits of every choice and it most likely will
never be listened by WG as suggestion.
Today we will take a look at another popular german tank, the Panther.
A classic sniping medium, the Panther has often been object of complaints for being poor at closer ranges and having low agility.
Historically, the Panther was a proto-MBT, basically halfway between medium and heavy tanks.
Agile enough for fast tactical relocation, reasonably armored and with good firepower for its introduction, its main enemy was often the unpolished status of many components, rushed to the battlefield without being properly tested and resulting in many tanks being lost before contact with the enemy.
Of course that did not stop german engineers to keep improving on it and even bringing some wildly experimental technology on it, including but not limited to IR sights for night fighting.
Using Spielberger's "Panther & its variants" and "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945", we will explore some solutions adopted or planned in order to push the Panther forwards to its very design limits.
Protection:
On June 4th 1942, Hitler expressed doubts about the 80mm inclined armor and requested that all vertical front surfaces should be at least 100mm thick.
In February 1943 it was also proposed to increase the front glacis plate to 100mm thickness, which would have added approximately half ton of weight.
This would basically give the tank near Panther II protection levels and definitely make the tank unbalanced as tier VII medium as it would be better armored and more mobile than the Tiger.
Mobility:
The HL 230 engine was originally planned to be made from light weight alloys (alluminium?), so some engine weight could be shaved off in theory.
An hydro-dynamic transmission like that of the E-Series was also planned, increasing tank agility on soft terrain.
In December 1943 Daimler-Benz planned to use a MB-507 engine with 850HP on the Panther chassis.
In January 1945 the 850 HP Maybach HL 234 was planned to be mounted.
Those modifications would basically be the ones implemented in game for the Panther II, yet something even crazier was considered:
From 14 Semptember 1944 until February 1945 experimental development went into trying to fit a gas turbine the Panther's engine compartment.
The turbine development went into different stages from GT 101 to GT 103 and while successful into mounting the engine, fuel consumption was about twice as the original engine, leading to putting fuel tanks in most free space in the tank.
This engine would provide an amazing 1150 HP but as it was bigger than the standard engines and took a lot more fuel storage, it would be balanced by an high fire risk, likely at least 50%.
This would make the tank even more of a glass cannon, meaning that exposing anything else other than the turret would mean a huge fire risk.
IMHO this last solution should have gone into the recon Panther in order to compensate for the hopelessy huge size as anyway light tanks have to rely on not being hit.
As a bonus, it would have its own unique engine sound:
Firepower:
The planned 75mm L/100 is already in WOT, however it's not the only gun improvement planned for the Panther.
In November 1944 the 88mm L/71 was planned to be installed in a Panther schmaulturm, although this was already in game when Panther was one tier higher.
Given that the long 88 was being redesigned for the task to improve shell handling, it would translate into a pretty low DPM in game.
A semi-automatic loader was also proposed and the prototype manufactured, which would have allowed a ROF of 40 RPM as long as the loader could keep the pace.
Now, this could be implemented as a new gun and balance as a 4 round drum loader or with some worsened soft stat, depending on developer mood.
In June 23 1944 a 15cm STUH 43 was proposed to be mounted in a standard Panther turret:
This would make the Panther an excellent troll tank although with likely huge reload times.
I'd personally see the SturmPanther as a TD, where it could be otherwise balanced.
Conclusion:
IMHO the tank is balanced for its specialist role of sniper medium.
A slightly different gun choice could help the tank in the brawling role, however most upgrades would basically cross the tier balance, meaning it would have to give up somewhere else.
- apparently no special steps will be taken to increase the amount of less popular tanks, such as the Minimaus, Maus, FV4202 etc.
- when rebalancing tanks, the opinion of players is not taken into account
- SerB states that the counter-artillery hack doesn't really work
- ingame VK2801 is not related in any way to Daimler Benz
- Japanese tree: "when it's done it's done"
- the amount of free XP gained each battle automatically will not be increased
- Q: "Have the Spitfires been uncovered in Myanmar?" A: "No. Unfortunately the comrade who pulled us into that enterprise turned out to be no comrade at all."
- regarding the "digital" Chinese camouflage: for now there are no plans to introduce such a camouflage pattern for other nations
- the lowtier tank map limit doesn't apply to tank tiers, but rather battle tiers (SS: eg. M22 Locust can get to Westfield, as demonstrated by the asking Russian player)
- apparently, the Chinese will have a "Type 100" tank destroyer with either a 100mm or 122mm Chinese gun (SS: absolutely no idea what this is about, I have never seen such a tank mentioned anywhere, but SerB was recently on a meeting with players, maybe it's some reference from there, will ask the guy who asked the question in first place)
- it's possible there will be a second British medium branch implemented (what will be its tier 10 is unknown)
- "superpremium" accounts (that would give twice as big bonuses as regular accounts) are not planned, as to the other proposed PA buffs: "no comment for now"
- SerB states that there will be no more "pay to win" in the game, WG is focusing on selling comfortable levelling up, but it's just fine if you play for free
- SerB: "the option to change the account e-mail lowers the account's security level"
- according to SerB, the Indienpanzer frontal upper/lower armor meeting point is not bugged
SerB's night session turned out to be quite a trollfest
- the main skill indicator will remain the winrate according to SerB, value of the player won't shift towards for example XP per battle or accuracy
- exact mechanism of teamkilling penalties won't be disclosed, so players don't invent was how to exploit it
- according to SerB, the base capture time is the same on all encounter mode maps (SS: according to several reports, there might be a bug, making the Prokhorovka encounter base capturable too fast), but this bug will be investigated... eventually
- the re-worked regular fire extinguisher will make the vehicle on fire "tick" a bit before engaging, modules will be damaged just like it is now
- historical battles won't contain top tier vehicles at first
- entire game style (mechanics) won't be fundamentally changed in the future
- the balance between T-44 and T-34-2 122mm guns is fine according to SerB (SS: the Chinese gun reloads cca 3 seconds faster)
- IS-7 won't get a "historical" ROF buff
- according to SerB, player proposals are considered, but players mostly propose crappy ideas
- drowned tanks are more expensive to repair, because drowning destroys all modules and those cost credits to repair too
- Q: "Will there be premium tanks with autoloaders?" A: "If needed. And we decide what is needed without players having to agree with us."
- Q: "Will Wargaming under SerB develop a walking mech game?" A: "If needed. And Viktor Kisliy decides what's needed."
- apparently, the T57 Heavy with gold rounds being overpowered is only a marginal issue ("What a horror...")
- Q: "Leopards at tier 9 and 10 suck" A: "Don't play Leopards"
- the delay between the base capture and end of battle won't be removed, it's there intentionally
- alternative medium branch for Americans, French and Soviets confirmed, "when it's done it's done"
- when fuel tank module HP drops to zero, they caught automatically on fire (SS: some player mentioned a case where they were "destroyed", yet nothing happened)
- the only thing that influences the drowning countdown is the height of the hull ("if I recall correctly") (SS: in other words, hermetically sealed tanks have no advantage when going into water)
A few things Overlord mentioned in his latest post:
- Overlord states that it's not clear what should be done to improve the quality of average gamers
- significant 8.6 general arty rebalance confirmed
- tier 9 and 10 profitability won't improve
- Overlord and other community people do realize the failure of EU Q&A in mind, Overlord stated:
"True that, people are not equal -
they have different (cultural, family, etc) backgrounds and abilities
so they can't be treated equally - that's why you shouldn't bash on
Serb's style of communication for instance. Adding to that, we, as a
developers (speaking only for devs here), have extremely limited
resources in terms of communication. Yup, English, ofc can be covered -
that wouldn't be a problem, but probably no more. And smth is usually
better than anything. So, generally speaking, language treatment could
be slightly different, e.g. basic set of languages would get standard
support while English-speaking resources could provide smth more."
and
"Blunt RU->EN
translation would probably do for starter, it wouldn't be a professional
way of doing things. I admit there are issues with the current
workflow. I'm still hoping for improvements that should follow after our
San Francisco meeting back in March. There should be place for direct
dev-player-dev communication."
- historical battles should contain PVE elements
- CW's are planned to be revamped to "involve more players" (SS: on RU server there is a talk of Clanwars being changed so huge clans and alliances are not dominating anymore)
If you feel like it, leave Overlord your feedback on 8.5, but please, be polite... thanks :)
I have added a new FAQ section on the top of the page. If you want to ask a question, look there first, maybe it was already answered. I will update it regularily.
You can go there either by clicking on "FAQ" button right next to the home button, or you can go here. If you have a feeling some important thing is missing, please post it into the comments of this article.
So I would like to perform a Q&A secession here about the American Tanks that are currently in, planned, or could be in WoT. So please leave your questions in the comments and I should have answers in a day or two.
- 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
By EnsignExpendable Disclaimer: this article contains only the historically justified reserves for buffing the T-28. I do not necessarily believe that any of these buffs are possible, likely, or necessary, either individually or put together. Buff My Tank segments are for entertainment purposes only.
The T-28 is one of the older tanks in this game, both by development time (most of the world was still on FT-17 clones in 1932), and by being in one of the first tech trees that were introduced. Through its long service in the Red Army, it was continuously modernized, but the T-28 in the game has remained the same (aside from losing its 85 mm gun). Let's see if we can apply some modernizations to the in-game tank.
Probably the most well known modification of the T-28 is the T-28E (ekranirovanniy, with screens). These tanks received additional armour plates, welded on to the existing armour. Instead of the in-game 30 in the front and 20 on the side, which even the weakest gun in the game has no problems with, the armour would grow to a respectable 80 in the front and 40 on the sides. This amount of armour actually matters, and will not be easily penetrated by tier 1 guns anymore.
Various T-28s were developed with increased speed. The T-29, which was a T-28 with a Christie suspension, could reach 57 kph. The T-29-4 could reach 72 kph. The T-29-5 could reach a blazing 81 kph.
In 1935, a hydromechanical transmission was developed for the T-28. Such a transmission would boost the agility of the tank (see the long-lost PzIV Hydro).
The tank was also modernized in 1935, into the T-28A. The T-28A could reach 68 kph (compare to the 45 kph the in-game T-28 is capable of) on the same suspension type.
I previously mentioned an 85 mm gun. Some of you, if you have been playing long enough, will remember the F-30 85 mm gun on the T-28. However, that is old news. The T-28 also saw tests of the F-39 95 mm gun. The ballistics of the gun were to be the same as the 95 mm divisional gun F-28. However, work on the 95 mm guns ceased in favour of 107 mm guns, and the F-39 didn't make it to mass production. This doesn't stop us in World of Tanks, however, so let's keep speculating. The F-39 gun was 39 calibers in length, which, although not a lot, got the shell to 650 m/s. It was estimated that the shell would penetrate 65 mm of armour angled at 60 degrees from a distance of 1000 meters. In similar estimates, the F-32 gets 43 mm of penetration under those conditions. Assuming the ratios hold, the penetration of the F-39 would be approximately 100 mm at 100 meters, against flat armour (given the in-game penetration of 67 mm for the F-32 gun). This is still lower than the ZiS-4, which is currently the top gun on the T-28, and still lower than the F-30 85 mm gun (that made its way to the KV-1). A F-39 gun with a lower much lower ROF, but much greater damage, wouldn't be overpowered for the T-28.
Here we go, an 80 mm armoured beast, flying around at 81 kph, with a 95 mm gun :) That ought to make the T-28 not suck.
Sources:
Popov et al, Builder of War Machines, Lenizdat, 1988, pp 38-52
Solyankin et al, Soviet Medium Tanks 1924-1941, Zeughaus, 2007, pp 32-41
you probably have noticed the EU thread (or its mutations) on matchmaking. It's pretty good - if you have a question about MM, you really should check it out.
However, it only originally had a partial MM table for 8.5. Here's a full one (in Russian), the categories at each tier are (from top): lights, mediums, heavies, arty, TD's.
- Q: "Why are people with less than 1000 games played driving around in Object 907?" A: "I beg for forgiveness that we forgot to consult with you the criteria for distributing the test vehicles and the testing methods"
- when SerB is playing, he carries cca 10 golden shells with him and shoots them when needed, but Victor Kisliy is apparently shooting gold shells all the time: "He's not a poor man, he can afford it"
- Q: "Will you introduce account unification? I am asking because a friend of mine moved abroad and I use his account" A: "People ask for a long time about this option. That is people like account hackers, greedy players, who want to transfer tanks exclusive to newbies to their main account and people breaking the EULA, like you and your friend. What do you think, should we grant their request? :)"
As for that twat reviving the old Q&A thread on the EU forums, up to you, whether you want to read your news there or not, but that guy is one of the butthurt Czech trolls and one of the worst pieces of shit from CZ forums (and that's something already), and since I've been getting some "nice" Czech fanmail lately again, you can imagine what is the motivation behind the thread necromancy.
Alright, getting back to the "sharing the misery" post from yesterday evening about how the proposed EU Q&A could work (this is the thread the whole issue is about), because an interesting post appeared:
What would be tremendously helpfull would be one person, that speaks English and Russian with following jobdescription:
1. Follow RU side Q&A and compile and translate most intresting info
to English (and then to other languages by other WG emplyees or
community as necessary). Basically what Silent Stalker is doing now in
his blog.
2. Follow EU side Q&A and give answer to questions that have been
already answered on RU side by devs (no need to reask them). Possibly
give also his own opinion and generally make us feel that someone is
listening to us. (Currently some feedback is acted upon and some not,
but there will go months before anything happens and people don't even
know if any WG employee has read their concerns. Then all of a sudden
something changes. This is quite frustrating. Simlpe "noted" would help
in this.)
3. Gather intresting unanswered questions on EU Q&A and send them to
developers (and translate them to Russian if needed) for answers.
This could be done with US side, so that same person would do same job
for them also. Basically just liasoning job between English speaking
community and Russian speaking developers. I wouldn't mind having same
with other supported languages also, but EN-RU is the most important
because most of community can speak English.
Why do I get back to this? Because this is the best proposal/summary I've seen to date. This is how I would want it to look like, if it was up to me. A few points to "polish" it a bit though:
For one, translating is really not enough. Overlord stated today that he'd like for the translations to be a start. I disagree. Literal translations wouldn't work, the person responsible has to interpret too. Why? Two reasons:
- first one is a bit complicated: during one translating session, a question is answered with statement A, a page later another question is answered with statement B, that effectively denies statement A, thus statement B is correct, but literal translation would include both statements A and later statement B. Typical example: SerB/Storm "premium account buff" exchange this wek. It's confusing as hell. Ideal solution therefore is for the translator to read statement A, to read statement B and interpret both the A and B as only B. This is by the way where most of the whine about my incorrect translations comes from: something is later denied, I combine both statements into one answer, which is "B" and people whine "A" wasn't translated. It was, I just decided to ignore it in favour of B. Of course, I CAN interpret things wrongly, but it's not because of the language. Well, not mostly anyway (from what I heard from Russian players who aren't inherently hostile to me, the mistake ratio is quite good).
- another reason for interpretation is that during the literal translations, SerB/Storm would end up sounding like aggressive morons. What works for RU doesn't work for EU/NA
Obviously, one way would be to skip the answers where SerB/Storm is trolling, but that's hardly possible. Why? Because even negative answers ("this won't be implemented") have their value, if only for players to know what not to expect and not to ask such stuff again.
Another important part Gnomus caught very well is the constant communication. It's important to keep talking (writing) even when there is not that much to say, because players won't feel abandoned that way.
Naturally, the person who would do such a thing would have to recieve a "developer" status in order to make the things he/she says "legit" (if someone random started doing this, the reaction would probably be "fuck off, we want developers").
But yes, I believe what Gnomus proposed is exactly what EU server needs. Plus, it would put no additional requirements on the developers (unless the amount of questions passed from the EU server would be too big - but that would be that person's job to sort out the useless crap). Obviously, all this would have to happen only in English, there is NO way how to do this in all the supported languages. That's simply not doable, that would be up to the people stepping up (as mentioned in the first post on this topic).
today we are going to have a look at one tank that appears on the WoT forums in regular intervals (quite correctly) as a candidate for a tier 5 premium tank - the Nahuel. When I wrote about the Patagon tank some time ago, I wrote that the Nahuel is basically a Sherman knock-off. This caused some amount of disagreement - and rightfully so, because I was wrong. But let's have a look at this interesting vehicle.
The full name of the vehicle is "Carro de Combate Medio Nahuel D.L.43" and it is one of the first Argentinian armored vehicle attempts. Pre-WW2 Argentina generally wasn't exactly the most industrially developed country in the world, therefore it was capable of producing only generally very simple designs and constructions. It's no wonder that the army was - by the time WW2 broke out - equipped only with foreign made vehicles. By that time, the army sought to purchase the French, British or even Czech vehicles to arm itself, but as the war came closer, no tanks were available to buy, since all the armies tried to arm themselves at all costs. Some serious negotiations took place between Argentina and Czechoslovakia over the purchase of the LT-38 light tanks, but before any agreement could be reached, Czechoslovakia was already occupied and produced tanks exclusively for the Germans.
Other attempts to acquire modern technology were practically thwarted by Americans, who suspected Argentina of nazi sympathies and were not interested in strengtening the Axis forces any further - that's why they basically blocked any Argentinian attempts to buy armor abroad.
This import quasiban led to the Argentinian decision to actually develop their own medium tank. The decision took place in 1942 (a committee to ovesee the development was estabilished) and in 1943, the actual project was accepted. Lt.Col. Baisi was charged with its proper development. This man would later become celebrated as the "father of the Argentinian armored corps" and handled the development well.
The project itself was definitely inspired by the M4 Sherman design, but the similiarity was only superficial - the "guts" of the vehicle were completely different. The design work went really fast, even for 40's standards: a wooden mockup was ready in 45 days and the first prototype saw the light of day in only 2 months. The project was named "Nahuel". Apparently, it's supposed to mean "Tiger" in the language of Argentinian natives (Indians), but after looking for a while, I discovered that there can be an alternative translation as "Jaguar". Indeed, some sources translate it as "Jaguar", but that's not really important.
The hull of the Nahuel was welded from armored plates. The turret was cast - a technology which did cause the Argentinians some trouble, but in the end, they managed to make it. The armament was a 75mm Krupp howitzer.
The first prototype trials - at first the hull was tested without the turret attached - ended well, the vehicle performed admirably. The vehicle was presented to public during a 1943 coup anniversary military parade on 4.6.1944 in Buenos Aires - first 10 Nahuels were ready by then. In the end, a total of 16 vehicles were produced in the Arsenal Esteban de Luca in Buenos Aires between 1943 and 1944. By 1944 however, Argentina officially "switched sides" and became an ally of the USA. As a result, American surplus Shermans were imported en-masse and there was no need to produce more Nahuels (especially since the late model Shermans were superior in most respects).
In the end, the Nahuel served until 1962, when the last one was decommissioned. Most were scrapped, some served as training targets and sadly not a single vehicle survived until now.
Parameters
Weight: 35 tons
Engine: 500hp Lorraine Dietrich 12E.B.
Maximum speed: 40 km/h
Armor: 25 to 80mm
Armament: Krupp model 1909 field gun (75mm L/30) with the ROF of 10 shots per minute, according to some sources these guns were replaced after the war by Bofors 75mm L/40 guns, 1x 50cal MG, 3x7.62mm MG's In World of Tanks
Since the probability of introduction of some South American tree is very, very low, this vehicle would make a nice tier 5 American premium medium tank. Its mobility is decent and while the gun is inferior to the Sherman, it could still work. Plus, I think I recall correctly that some developer said at some point that Nahuel might appear. In any case, it's a nice piece of South-American engineering and it shouldn't be forgotten.
In December 1942, the Technical committee of the Main Artillery Command of the Red Army developed technical/tactical requirements for a self-propelled artillery gun, equipped with a twin-linked pair of 122mm M-30 howitzers. These requirements then went to the OKB-172 factory, based in Perm, where by the end of April 1943, a project for the twin-barrelled SPG based on T-34 was developed. It recieved a factory designation of SU-2-122.
Just like with the KV-7, the main point of the idea was the possibility to fire in salvos. In order to implement this idea, a price had to be paid: the T-34 hull was prolonged by one roadwheel and the weight was increased to 35 tons. After considering advantages and disadvantages, the aforementioned committee decided to scrap the SU-2-122 project, not even a prototype was built.
So, it was past midnight and I was just browsing the EU forums and stumbled upon this thread. The thread itself - while justified - is not exactly groundbreaking, but Ectar's answer in it (grats on the new avatar picture, EU flag - lovely, it fits WG EU more than you know) is interesting. Basically, it's just another batch of moaning as to why they can't do officially what this blog does unofficially - but it's all nicely put together.
I will quote Ectar from the abovementioned post:
"Feedback is very important, however the English speaking community on
this forum isn't the only community we have to look out for. Because the
English speaking section covers multiple countries its a very busy
forum section, however the German and Polish sections for example are
also pretty massive, get a lot of traffic, and their feedback, questions
and views are also important.
For everything you want to see for the English speaking section,
consider also that our other language communities also deserve that
level of interaction. Seven officially supported languages, that each
deserve to be treated equally. We appreciate that across our national
forums not everything is in line with each other and we're doing what we
can to bring things together."
What he wrote, does that sound right to you? Well... it reminded me of another quote, this time from Winston Churchill:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Now, I won't put the connection between a (Bela)Russian game and socialism (that would be way too obvious), but - isn't the thing going on on EU forums simply equally sharing of misery? Like socialism, this forum attitude started with a reasonable idea: "Let's make everyone equal". Well, yes, the thing is, not everyone IS equal. Sorry, if that comes as a shock to you, but it's like that. People who don't speak (at least) English are simply limited. English is the world language, not Russian, not Chinese (well, not yet anyway), but English is.
Therefore, it's absolutely justifiable in my eyes for English-speaking people to have more attention (news, developer answer etc.) than various language mutations, because it's the one world language people of Europe learn at schools. Western feedback, guides, videos, streams... a lot of that is in English. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume English speaking people are better informed anyway than the various language forum mutations, visited by people who actually don't speak English. What does this mean for the Q&A? It means one thing: English speaking people have much higher chance of asking reasonable questions than people who don't speak English. In other words: restricting the Q&A questions to English-only would actually most likely improve their quality.
But for some reason, this doesn't apply to Wargaming EU. Wargaming EU seems to think that since it's not right to prefer one "supported" language over another and since they can't do a quality Q&A in all supported languages (which is completely true, they can't, that would be crazy), instead of offering ONE quality Q&A in English, they decided for a socialistic solution of equal misery sharing: noone gets shit. The current Q&A just sucks and it won't improve, because Wargaming is restricted by their own rules.
The obvious counterargument is: "But if we do it in English, info won't get to all the languages, right?" Wrong.
Look at this blog for example: it gets translated (practically daily) to Czech, Polish, German (I haven't visited your community ever since the ban, but they actually had guys such as Raguel and Stormshadow doing this even before I started myself last year), French (hey Lactose), Spanish (if I remember correctly), but also Chinese and Vietnamese, funnily enough. Each community has "their" person, who stepped up and started translating it to their native language and those people have my respect too for doing it.
The same thing would happen, if what this blog does was done officially. Or if Q&A was available only in English. Players from various nations would simply step up, WG EU would get happier customers and overall the info level would rise all across the board. Instead of official sharing of... well... nothing, you'd get unofficial sharing of information, which in turn helps to build the community around the fans who step up. But of course, that won't happen.
Why? Because (unless WG EU hires an extra person to do the Q&A), it would actually require an EFFORT. Yea, I know, this is the part where I get told WG EU guys are working very hard and all that. Not convinced. It would be doable and I could retire :) (yea, been thinking about that a lot lately).
PS: Ectar's moaning about NA developers not being developers is also BS. Technically, he's "right", but the difference is, The_Chieftain speaks with NA players practically daily (and as a human being too, not "this won't happen and fuck off" SerB-style) on various development topics (for example, today, he said an interesting piece of info that apparently, Tiger might get a rebalance eventually - no, I don't know anything more, but he's working on something). It works there. It can work on EU too.
- the option to restore sold tank crews after you get your account back (if you become a victim of account theft/hacking) will be implemented relatively soon
- there will be a protection from accidental crew dismissal implemented, but not soon
- today's RU server minipatch doesn't cause 8.5 replays not to run (SS: not sure this concerns EU/NA)
- the possibility to load the autoloader with various shell composition (SS: for example 2 AP and 3 HE) will not be implemented
- the possibility for players to make maps won't be implemented: "To be original and interesting is not enough, they have to be worked-on. And to search amongst the thousands of "my school and house" map proposals for one decent proposal and to polish it for gameplay on top of that is much more expensive than to make the map ourselves"
- the M4A2E4 Sherman elevation/depression rollback in 0.8.5 (from 0.8.4 values back to 0.8.3) happened correctly: the depression was returned to the old one too (from -5 to -10), it was just forgotten in the patchnotes
- according to devs, Maus is doing fine statistically. It will be buffed just a bit (not significantly) and it won't happen too soon, the buff has low priority
- premium tier 8 vehicles won't come in first half of 2013, but in second they will
- Serene Coast and Komarin will return in 2nd half of 2013, they will both be changed a lot
- Sexton was moved to 8.6, because just like the rest of the arty it will be rebalanced
- all arty vehicles will be completely rebalanced in general
Author: Priory_of_Sion Instead of tanks, I would like to discuss the Anti-Tank Rifles(ATRs) of the world. The ATR was designed to kill tanks, a job that most failed to due reliably. After it became clear that these weapons were more of a burden than a help they disappeared from the battlefield. The first ATR originated in Germany, the Mauser "Tank-Gewehr" Model 1918. The Mauser 1918 was an enlarged Mauser pattern rifle with a very long barrel, a heavy butt, a bipod, and a 13x92SR T-Patrone round. It was very large weighing 39 lbs(17.7 kg) and was 66.13 inches long(1680 mm). The Mauser 1918 allowed German Infantry to battle against the Allied armored vehicles which were immune to most machine gun and rifle fire. The Mauser 1918 fire the 13 mm round at 913 m/s and could penetrate ~25 mm of armor at ranges up to 200 meters. It was a single shot design.
The Mauser 1918 evolved into the standard German ATRs of WWII, the Panzerbuchse Modell 38(PzB38) and the Panzerbusche Modell 39(PzB39). The PzB38 combined a necked down version of the 13 mm round of the Mauser 1918 and combined it with a new 7.92 mm design(7.92x95 Patrone 318). The PzB38 and the PzB39 were single shot designs. The PzB38 saw service in the Polish campaign and had marginal success. The PzB39 was a simplified version to ease production. The PzB38 was 51 inches(1295 mm) long and weighed 35 lbs(15.88 kg) while the PzB39 was 62.25 inches long and weighed a little over 27 lbs(12.35 kg). These ATRs had little success versus any vehicle with actual armor only penetrating ~30 mm at 100 meters with an impressive 1210 m/s to 1265 m/s muzzle velocity. A little more detailed look at the ammo shows that the Germans actually copied Polish ATR ammo and started using Polish type ammunition instead of theirs after realizing the Polish ammo was clearly superior. The Germans also had developed a tear gas capsule which was a complete failure, no reports of enemy soldiers being exposed to the tear gas have ever surfaced. The Allies only found out about the tear gas round by capturing ammunition.
The SS41 is a very rare German ATR design which was actually developed by the Czechs in Brno. It was made in very small numbers by the Waffen SS and is one of the first bullpup designs that was ever used by any military. It had a 5 to 10 round magazine and a very awkward reload system(see below). This complicated the manufacturing and exposed the breech to more dirt and dust. It had sightly less muzzle velocity compared to the PzB38/39 and was obsolete by the time it saw combat in 1941.
Here is how you reload the SS41, brought to you by world.guns.ru: "to open the breech, shooter first has to unlock the barrel from the breech by rotating barrel counter-clockwise; this is done by turning the pistol grip, which is attached to the barrel, right and up. Once barrel is unlocked from stationary breech, it can be pulled forward by pushing the pistol grip to the front. If the spent case is present in the gun, it remains stationary against the breech, held by extractor. Once the barrel is fully forward, the spent case is free to fall out of the gun. Barrel then is pulled rearward, and upon this movement it picks up the fresh cartridge from the box magazine, which is attached to the stationary stock / cradle at the angle. Once the barrel is in its rearmost position, enclosing the fresh round in the chamber, it can be locked to the breech by turning the pistol grip down. Now the rifle is ready to be fired."
Before I talk about the last German ATR I must talk about the Swiss Solothurn S-18/100. The S-18/100 was developed in the early 1930s and was to fire the massive 20x105B round. The S-18/100 fired semi-automatically from either a 5 or 10 round magazine. It was 69 inches long(1760 mm) and weighed 99 lbs(45 kg). The S-18/100 fired the massive 20 mm round at 762 m/s and could penetrate ~27 mm of armor up to 300 meters. The S-18/100 was used by Italian and Hungarian forces in WWII.
The reason why I talked about the S-18/100 first is that the German Panzerbuchse Modell 41(PzB41) was a German modification of the Solothurn. The PzB41 made it into production due to the realization that the PzB38 and 39 would be obsolete within a year. The PzB41 fired a 20x138B round at 731 m/s which could penetrate 30 mm of armor at 250 m. The PzB41 however was a complete flop. The main Soviet vehicles including the T-34 were all but immune to the PzB41. The Italians used it in 1943 with limited success.
The Finnish developed one ATR of note, the Lahti Model 39. The Lahti was modified from a 20 mm AA gun and fired the same round as the Solothurn ATRs. The Lahti had a 10 round magazine and was suppose to fire semi-automatically, however it is entirely possible fire automatically with a cyclic rate of 500 rpm(which helped convert the Lahti bak into an AA weapon). This weapon was 88 inches(2232 mm) long and weighed 94 lbs(42.1 kg). The Lahti fired the 20 mm round at 900 m/s and should have superior penetration compared to the Swiss/German 20 mm designs. Only a couple of Lahtis saw service in the Winter War and were moderately successful versus early Soviet armor. By the time of the Continuation War the Lahti was useless versus T-34s and mainly used versus lightly armored vehicles and emplacements.
The British meanwhile developed their own ATR in the mid 1930s called the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle designed by Enfield. It was originally called the Stanchion but was later renamed the Boys after Captain H.C. Boys, one of the chief proponents in the weapon's creation. Issued in 1936 the Boys saw service in France, North Africa, and the Far East. The Boys fired a .55 caliber(13.99x39B) round at over 800 m/s, this allowed for penetration upwards to 23 mm at ranges up to 100 meters, it did this via a bolt-action system with a 5 round magazine. The weapon weighed 35 lbs(16 kg) and was 64 inches(1575 mm) long. The Boys was produced up until 1943 and was a staple weapon of the Home Guard. The Boys also saw usage versus weakly armored early panzers and Italian tanks in France and North Africa. It was also used by the USMC Raiders which actually reported the destruction of Japanese flying boats by the Boys ATR. The Desert Rats also carried the Boys ATR. Both Finnish and Russians also received shipments of Boys ATRs. The last known usages of the Boys dates to the Korean War when the Boys where converted to fire .50 BMG rounds and were successful long range weapons against Chinese forces, even later some saw usage in the Yugoslav Conflicts.
The Polish ATR which used high velocity lead rounds which performed much like HESH rounds. Maroszek Kb Ur wz.35. This ATR was developed in secret in late 1935 and over 6000 copies were issued to Polish Forces before German/Soviet Occupation. The Maroszek fired a 7.92x107 round which could penetrate 20-30 mm of armor at up to 100 meters at 1290 m/s. It held 5 rounds in a detachable magazine. This was more than enough to defeat German Panzer Is and IIs. The Polish tried their best to create the lightest ATR in the world, the Maroszek was 69 inches(1760 mm) long and weighed just over 20 lbs(9.1 kg). In my opinion the Poles created the best ATR ever made and could have been very successful if its use was more widespred.
The Japanese also tried to produce an ATR but ended up making a small support weapon. The Type 97 was a huge weapon weighing upwards to 152 lbs(68.93 kg- almost as much as me) and was 82.5 inches(2095 mm) long. The Type 97 was an automatic(usually fired semi-automatically) weapon firing 7 rounds from a vertical magazine, these rounds were 20x124 mm rounds. The 20x124 fired at 693 m/s and could penetrate some of the USMC light tanks in the Solomon Islands and were reported to be in use in 1939-40 in China. The Type 97 was quickly put out of service and many were converted to the Type 98 which fired a more powerful 20 mm round and was mounted on a wheeled carriage.
Lastly we have the Soviet ATRs. The Degtyarov PTRD and the Simonov PTRS were both developed and put into production around the same time right after the start of Operation Barbarossa. The 14.5x114 mm round fired by both rifles proved very effective, penetrating armor up to 40 mm at 100 meters. The Dehtyarov PTRD was a much more simple design compared to its brother and was more reliable in combat. These ATRs also made the usage of side skirts widespread among German AFVs and was one of the causes that led to the Panther II project in 1943. These guns were known to be used by the Chinese/DPRK forces in the Korean War and it is entirely likely that small numbers have seen action throughout the Cold War and into the Yugoslav Conflicts. The PTRD was a single shot weapon while the PTRS fired semi-automatically from a 5 round magazine. The PTRS weighed ~46 lbs(20.9 kg) and was 82.9 inches(2108 mm) long while the PTRD weighed ~38 lbs(17.3 kg) and was 79 inches(2000 mm) long.
Hey DeathMongrel
Feel free to add/correct my info.
Sources: Military Small Arms of the 20th Century by Hogg and Weeks world.guns.ru rifleman.org.uk
Seriously, RU server has Olga Sergeevna (yea, she's back):
US server has Pico Mause and what does EU server get? Ecturd. Not sexy. Why can't the EU server get some pretty moderator like that?
Preferably someone who's not...
....and who doesn't fix competitions... :)
Okay, on more serious note: the US show is great. The_Chieftain is a great guy and despite what he thinks of me (as you can imagine, I am not the most popular person with WG), I respect him a lot (just like Overlord).
This show is just... I don't know. Funny (so are the short weekly newsreels the US server has). I guess I should be grateful for getting my ass banned on the EU server, without that, I'd never have noticed the US forums. I just wonder what's the real difference between the US and EU forums. From what I can tell, they both have their share of decent people and their share of retards, they both have their legends (Garbad, the T110 thread for the US, "professional pro gamerers" and "garage sluts" for the EU).
What I am really missing on the EU server are short newsreels like the US server has. Back in December 2012, Czechout mentioned that there might be a short videoblog series coming, featuring the EU community organizers. Now, I think that's not a bad idea (back then I didn't like it very much because the idea was to make it about the inner World of Tanks EU office works and not about the game), if it focuses on the game itself, can be combined with the community organizer persona. Like this:
See? It's not that hard.
That brings me again to another sore spot of the EU forums: the Q&A answer thread. This time it's interesting. As usual, most answers were known in advance, but the AMX 1948 was confirmed (that never happened before!). New upcoming game modes confirmed? Well that's odd... because Storm (or SerB) answered not so long ago there are no such plans. The repair costs for artillery were also said to be rebalanced. E-25 - "soon"? How soon? Not in 8.6 I think. Does that mean that 8.7 will be German tank destroyers? And no Swiss tanks for EU tree? What the HELL? Swiss tanks were mentioned earlier by SerB.
I don't know. Confusing. I'll ask a Russian friend to confirm some of the stuff in the official Russian Q&A thread. Standby.
Porsche received on 21st of May 1942
the order to produce a 100 ton Panzer. The initial name for the project was »Mammut« -
the German word for mammoth. This was the natal hour of the Maus, the first
documented reference of “Pz. Kpfw. Mäuschen” was the 17 of July 1942 ...
[2]
Only 2 and a half month after receiving the order Professor Porsche
prepared the first design drawing on June 4, 1942. It had the number K 3381 and was done by
Ing. Leopold Schmid. The designation from Porsche for the project was “Porsche
Typ 205”. The drawing showed a streamlined tank with up to 120mm armor and 120
tons weight. [1]
The turret’s weight alone was 23 tons, carrying
a massive 15cm KwK L/40 – with some modifications done to the ammunition. The
weight of the projectile was decreased from 43kg to 34kg to increase ROF to 4-5
rounds per minute and the muzzle velocity to 845 m/s. As an alternative, a
12,8cm L/50 with a muzzle velocity of 810 m/s was also considered during the
development of the tank. [2]
The powerhouse was driven by an air-cooled 16-cylinder
diesel engine, with a comparable propulsion system to that of the Tiger (P) –
every track was boosted by a single electrical engine. The ground pressure of
the vehicle was 0,92 kg/cm². There was also a shortened variant of the blueprint of drawing
number K 8331 [1]. This one however hasn’t been discovered yet.
This is what we currently know about the
earliest of the Maus’ prototypes.
Further values I can read out of the book [1]
(without guarantee, the drawings are still too small to read most of the values) - just to give a rough idea of the vehicles armor values. Armor values are based on interpolation, and
the assumption that the confirmed 120mm [1] are on the front of the hull.
Hullarmor:
120/100/100
The upper front plate is sloped back at 55°.
The lower one is at an 45° angle, both are just as thick. Effective armor values
with current World of Tanks “normalization” are 187mm and 157mm respectively. The upper side armor is sloped back at 20°, the lower
one is vertical with the tracks and another plate with 40-50mm behind them. The rear is as thick as the sides and rounded.
Turretarmor:
120/120/80
The turret front is just as the Löwe’s covered
by a huge gun mantlet. The turret sides are very thick possibly even ticker
than the frontalarmor.
This might also explain the weight of 120 t,
the armor is all round pretty good and not much thinner than on the front. The
size of the vehicle is comparable to the E100, just a lower profile and maybe a
bit shorter. [1]
However it’s still quite a bit smaller than the
tremendous Maus.
The gun depression is 7° - with the assumption
that drawing K3882 shows the same gun depression.
Is there a spot for it in World of Tanks?
Definitely. Zarax already placed it in his
reworked Porsche techtree at T8, which seemingly is a good spot for it. The
armor is fine at T8, with relatively thick sides it would be quite tough for
mediums but heavys of the same tier would have little trouble penetrating it
from the front. During the development of the Maus many engines were
considered, there is probably one which fits a 120t tank at T8 very well. As
speed limit I would suggest 25 km/h.
Also, it offers a good variety of guns. The
8,8cm KwK 43 L/71 is a decent stock
gun, upgradeable to both a 10,5cm KwK L/70 (current Löwe gun) or as an
alternative the 12,8 cm L/50. (both historically verified, [2])
The 12,8cm L/50 could be similiar to the B-13-S2 (gun of the SU-100Y, T6 tank destroyer) - which also shoots a relatively slow projectile with a large diameter.
Sources:
[1] Michael Fröhlich: Kampfpanzer Maus – der überschwere Panzer Porsche Typ 205
