Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 17, 2013

Commonwealth Uncommons - High Tier Vehicles

Author: OhSlowpoke

End Tier Vehicles
Conqueror, Centurion Mk7 and Chieftain tanks.

As a rather... biased player of British Vehicles I want to make a case for a couple of replacement vehicles, or alterations to existing tanks. I've got a couple of ideas, mainly for end-tier tanks within the British tree.

For starters, for better or worse, the first Tier 10 tank of mine was the FV4202.

Perhaps not the best idea? Not the most awful tank at T10, but its lack of an “effective” gold round hampered my play and made me a laughing stock within my clan at my inability to properly engage heavy tanks. My second T10 (the FV183) has some of them cringing and others curiously asking me.

“Just what were the British thinking?”

This isn't helped by the mostly fictional FV215b (120mm), either, which received a buff that seemed to hurt, rather than help it.

First, a little bit of education on British doctrine, then, some suggestions for some vehicles and some changes to existing tanks.

The British Doctrine – Post WW2 Era

The British and the Germans seemed to switch doctrines post-war (or, more accurately post-Korea) Where the ultimate second world war German design of a medium included a powerful gun and decent armour (as seen in the Panther or mythical E50 design), the British chose the more lightly armoured Comet and Centurion tanks.

European powers after the war (particularly Germany and France) did not believe that armour protection was as important as speed and firepower and saw the rapid increase of armour penetration (including HEAT rounds and anti-tank guided missiles) as the death of armour. The assumption was that armour could never be developed as fast as the guns and ammunition that could defeat it.

The British experience couldn't have been any more different. Experience in Korea showed that tanks absolutely should be sufficiently armoured, for fear of being knocked out by light or medium artillery, or tanks that may have been many generations behind. During early development, the British had a specific request that the new tank could be able to defeat hits from “medium artillery” (one could assume in the range of 105mm-120mm) with suitably thick frontal armour at extreme angles to provoke deflections and maximize the armour’s effectiveness. They also demanded that gun depression should be no less than -10 degrees, and elevation at least +20- experience also gained in the hills of Korea.

The Chieftain Tank


Early Production Leopard (left) and Prototype Chieftain (right)

An important note was that the British felt during that time frame that the best weapon to kill a tank is, in fact, another tank (this should be done at range, with a tank that is markedly superior to it's competition) while the Germans considered the best killer of tanks to be a highly specialized vehicle, either a self-propelled gun such as the Jagdpanzer series or a vehicle carrying missiles.


A mock up for the FV4201. This extremely early prototype would make a good T9 tank




120mm Gun. A Pike nose. Low Profile. What's not to like?
 

Many of the techniques required to build the FV4201 were tested in the FV4202, such as the reclined “supine”driver's position and the mantlet-less turret. With it's strange, tiny turret, 120mm gun, and an almost Russian-looking pike nose, it would make an interesting tank.



This is the only armour scheme I've been able to find. The listed 120mm of armor may be just the “pike” on the nose of the tank, much like other British vehicles. I believe this to be the earliest 1959 production chieftain.

Armour effectiveness, if the 72 degree angle is taken into account, with a 120mm thickness, would be as high as 388 or, if the listed 85mm is true, a still respectable 275mm thickness from line of sight. And while it has a well angled upper frontal plate, its lower plate is 76mm at 45 degrees- barely enough to protect it from low-tier threats. Upper plate would be 100% autobounce. Its engine would most likely be an early version of the Leyland L60, which was plagued with faults, poor horsepower and the tank's rapid increase in weight only made this worse.
An early prototype of the Chieftain. Note how low the suspension is.

The early prototype of the Chieftain would be an interesting vehicle. With well angled frontal armour, an angled and sloped turret, low overall profile and respectable gun, early Prototypes were armed with the L1A1 gun, later with the improved L11 gun. It would have a rather unimpressive engine, a top speed of 40 kph
(governed, as normal) with a rather unsatisfactory HP out of it's engine and poor power-to-weight ratio.

The actual Chieftain is not actually outside of what is allowed in world of tanks, particularly the early versions. It has no composite armour, it still has a rifled gun, traditional gun sighting systems (not too dissimilar from the Centurion) and is powered by a rather conventional multi-fuel engine.  Prototypes P1-P6 were built in 1959 and onwards and data was assembled from these vehicles to produce the production Chieftain.




FV215b (120)

This vehicle is actually a disaster. I'm sure this isn't news to most people but it's a mostly fictional vehicle. The 215b programme was designed to mount the massive 183mm gun onto a chassis for testing purposes, and the rear-mounting was required to balance the weight of the huge gun across the chassis. What sense is there in rear-mounting the Conquerors turret onto the rear when it fits in the centre just fine?

It's current armour isn't historical and was simply added by wargaming to make the tank feel more like a heavy. Perhaps the tank's model shouldn't be wasted as it isn't outside the realm of possibilities, considering the mere existence of the Caernarvon.

My suggestion is a gameplay based one, mainly. Speaking from a game design standpoint, the problem with the current FV215b is that it doesn't have a niche. It just doesn't do anything that the T110E5 does better- aside from a tiny bit more DPM, inferior armour, poor gun layout and engine fires, I suppose. I think perhaps moving the vehicle as a Future T10 Tank Destroyer for a possible Turreted line would be best.

Return it's armour to pre-buff levels, flip it's gun stats with the current Tortoise's gun. You could lower it's health to 2200 – 2300. You'll have an interesting T10 TD that relies not on alpha (like many of the TDs), and yet, not an autoloader. Rather, you'd have a TD that can reliably hit a target every 6 seconds for a reasonable amount of damage with good soft stats (accuracy on the move, turret rotation accuracy, gun accuracy, penetration, etc.).

Much like the 183 is a TD that seems exclusively designed for close range “blooping” of targets, the 215b (120) would ideally be specialized in long range plinking, weak armor and a poor turret layout and lowish health would balance out the good DPM, Penetration, Accuracy, and Aim-time.

But, what would replace it in the current “heavy” slot? I've got a proposal, but not nearly enough detail.


FV4202

FV4202 was mainly a testbed vehicle for the Chieftain.


The FV4202's problem in game is twofold. It is absolutely underwhelming in every bit of it's hard stats. It's gun, armor, speed, camo value and otherwise. There are tanks that do what this vehicle does better at every turn.

For starters, I do not have an understanding of where, exactly, wargaming has figured that the FV4202's speed was governed to 40 km, like the Centurions' was. Perhaps it was an assumption, of course, given the standard British doctrine- but with a 20 hp/tonne ratio, one could imagine that the extra horsepower and lightened weight could have been easily used to increase the speed of the tank anywhere from 45 – 50 kmh. If someone has proof that the 4202's speed had a governer, I'd love to see it, but in my research, it wasn't. In fact, I've failed to find the actual listed top speed of the tank. It seems wargaming may have simply copy-pasted the governor from the Centurion.

The second problem with the 4202 is the gold round. HESH on the 183 is extremely good because it has relatively high penetration numbers and a huge damage pool, neither of which it has on the 4202. Most player reviews and subjective testing has shown that it is simply an ineffective choice, it's poor penetration and unremarkable damage pool makes it a poor choice to use over the standard armour penetration round. This could be easily solved with a buff that might be a bit unhistorical- increasing the armour penetration of the HESH round to 250-270mm would make the round a lot more consistent. A further increase of it's damage to perhaps 500-520 damage would help as well.

Two small changes could easily make the 4202 a wonderful, effective vehicle and maintain its usefulness during clanwars as well as pub-matches without simply slapping a HEAT round on as a gold.


AFV Weapons Profile Chieftain and Leopard Development - Lt-Col Michael Norman
AFV Weapons Profile Chieftain and Leopard Description- Lt Col Michael Norman
Chieftain - Rob Griffith


----- Next time, Vickers Tanks, Maybe some Australian stuff!


64 comments:

  1. the FV215b hull's tendency to fire isn't "engine fire", it is fuel tank, considering it doesn't need a vertical stabilizer or gun laying drive I use the enhanced fuel tank (fill with CO2) module, which makes it catch fire no more regularly than a normal tank seems to, albeit the way fuel tank fires with a sufficiently massive hit to the front will still set a fire automatically but with the amount that must be done to do this when using the fuel tank module it's more just a feature of how the vehicle will ultimately die, much like like the IS-3 often seems to go with an ammo-rack explosion on the last hit..

    I like the F'b (i call her Phoebe [Fee-Bee]) alot, and while it is very close to a T110E5 the damage output is more than a tiny boost, the ability to extend that DPM to a longer range shouldn't be underestimated and believe it or not the map i consider my Phoebe most dangerous on on clan wars in Himmelsdorf since while it's top speed is slightly slower than the american it still moves faster and with greater agility over short distances making it a better flanker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ps. all that said I'm not saying it should remain as it is, I still watered at the mouth when i heard the rumors of Chieftain prototype replacement.. I just think that this fantasy FV is the best one of the 3 in game and should be respected for as much as that is worth..

      Delete
  2. There is simply put, no reason not to use the Chieftain P6 as the tier 10 heavy, it's a production tank with a long service history and performance figures that are pretty much in-line with other tier 10's.

    yes, it's nigh impenetrable frontally and yes that L11 gun will be really fucking scary but Chieftain has lackcluster side armor and the LFP is fairly easy to get at, while it's certainly thick it's nowhere near impenetrable.

    i dont buy the whole "MUST BE PRE-59!" deal either, we have the Type 62 and AMX-13/90, both significantly newer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that dated thing was never a rule, it's just something they said for an easy explanation.. the thing they don't want is modern technology and they draw the line at smooth bore guns (firing rocket or rocket-like rounds) and composite/reactive armour.. though i am given to believe this line has been stepped on with one of the Russian guns, that one still could fire contemporary rounds so in-game still works (T-62a ; which SerB and others didn't want to implement at all but felt forced)

      Delete
    2. the Chieftain P6/mk. 1 had none of those things, what it did have is one of most effective armor layouts before the widespread composite/ERA usage as well as a 120mm/L55 gun with enough punch to make baby Stalin cry.

      we are getting the M60, so why not the Chieftain ?

      Delete
    3. yeah the talk of the Chieftain was supposedly from something one of the developers said outside of official announcements.. it's nowhere near ready but as far as I understand what's going on, they are having a closer look at the one at Bovington or intending to at any rate.. it's definitely not a "soon" feature but one day it will probably come, though whether it is a replacement or a 2nd heavy remains to be seen, as does almost everything about it..

      Delete
  3. I would sacrifice my left nut if they replaced the turd FV215b with the Chieftain prototype...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. chieftain is too weak to be heavy in WOT, imho they will change fv4202 with chieftain, they have almost same chassis

      Delete
    2. But the Chieftain prototype's turret is stronger and will move more ponderously, and even if they give it the L1a1 gun it has more firepower than the L7 even if they buffed it.

      They should buff the 4202 imo, and replace the FV215b. Any incarnation of the Chieftain would play much more like a heavy tank than the Centurions / FV4202. And you cannot discredit the extreme angles on the armor, I would hardly call it "too weak to be heavy in WOT"...

      Delete
    3. Fine joke, would you like to try again ?

      look at the weight and armor layout of the Chieftain, along with the engines. the early Chieftains where slow, with a capital S, the 450bhp engine gave it 40kmph on a good day, down hill with the wind at its back but the cross country performance was more churchill like until the 70's engine upgrades to 750bhp-850bhp engines.

      Delete
  4. ....and maintain its usefulness during clanwars.....

    i loled so hard on this, fv4202 in Cw, rly ? Dear SS, you should play few CW battles before you start speaking about them dude.

    anyway nice article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This wasn't wrote by SS.
      And the 4202 isn't useful in CW.

      Delete
    2. Guys from my clan, who have all Tier X meds say that FV4202 is actually the best one.

      Delete
    3. sure. trolololo

      Delete
    4. Just tell me, what makes it the best one? Speed? DPM? Armor? Gold ammo? Accuracy on move? Bugged hitzones?

      Delete
    5. Actually I find it great also, reason it is not used in CW's is the lack of high-pen gold shell. You know, "269 pen with regular shell is just not enough, boohoo, it just dings". I'd say the pen is good enough, HESH on the other hand is useless. Rather than buff the pen they should buff the dmg, from my experience the HESH shells penetrate fairly good and fv is a med so you will be shooting enemies' arses a lot so 210mm pen is enough.. Wouldn't mind the pen buff either though- :P
      -Kehvon_Poro

      Delete
    6. It has the best winratio now, so tell me who is trolling ?

      http://wot-news.com/stat/server/ru/norm/ru

      Ps. Winratio is better then one of 121 so your hypothetical arguments about being new would be invalid.

      Delete
    7. Kehvon_Poro: Well, with 40kph, u cant flank much. HESH is absolutely rubbish, they should fix it or add the possibility to use regular HEAT.

      Puchacz: Only few people grind british medium tree because you must use to brain to play their tanks. The other think is underpowered FV itself (cant use in CW). As result, noobs dont play this tank(hard grind for them). Only skilled players or british tank lovers play it. So that´s why it has relatively high W/R.

      Delete
    8. @anon
      One might think it is hard, but tell that to my playstyle :P, and yes as I said earlier HESH could use a buff.

      1 thing I forgot to mention is that I usually use the HESH against frenchies which are so soft that no flanking is needed.

      -Kehvon_Poro

      Delete
    9. I don't know, both winratio stats, and my calnmates who have it claims that it is the best X tier med (they enjoy great gun depression, and we commonly use it on CW). I would rather believe it is so, then listen to some random whining (as people would whine about every tank anyway). 121 have worse winratio, but it is confirmed, that most people use it with Typ 59 crew experienced with 4+ perks.

      Delete
    10. Kehvon_Poro: I have tried using them against french tanks too but several +-10 HP shots on batchat (not tracks) changed my plans.

      Puchacz: Patton has same depression, bouncy turret and better DPM + OTM accuracy. I dont think it is whining as usual (buff my tiger or buff my IS7). There MUST be reason, why so few players grind FV, dont u think?

      Delete
  5. I can see a chieftain on the horizon, when someone asked about the frankenstein 215b the chieftain admitted it was fictional and made up by WG.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FV215b is alright as a sidescrapper if anything. But the Maus does that better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks the article.
    Can't see them implementing the L11 in game, but Chieftan Prot with L1A1 is definitely the answer for T10 heavy. I just have a feeling that they will use it for a second T10 heavy rather than as a replacement.
    The FV4201 "mock-up" picture was actually a scale model showing design ideas, a pre-prototype if you will. Did you find any plans for it ? I sense WG are struggling for plans for second line, so any help you can give would be useful (and Listy).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice article, enjoyed the read.
    I found the British medium & TD lines a pleasure from start to finish.
    The 600 damage rolls are nice with the 105mm HESH rounds, the 9 damage rolls aren't so nice.

    TitanLegion
    (Proud Fv4202 & Fv215b(183)owner)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fix for HESH is to build a proper HESH mechanic into the game, although that would probably make the 183 OP.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What about the Vickers MBT as a replacement tier 10 medium tank? It follows the design evolution of the Centurion more logically, and would be faster.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chieftain definately deserves to be in-game. Looks even more awesome than Leopard (dat turret!!), probably great mobility T110E5 like or better. The gun we already know it rocks on FV215B. It also has nice armor with godly slopes. Overal Chieftain would be a great tank.

    Im actually thinking of selling my FV215B because it's not worth it at all over any other T10 heavy. Great article!

    ReplyDelete
  12. As someone who owns both the 215B and FV4202 I agree with most of this article.

    The FV4202 doesn't need a higher penetration HESH round though, it needs a HESH mechanic. HESH doesn't penetrate so at the moment its just a strange HEAT round. Strange in that 1) it doesn't actually every penentrate anyway and 2) Its only marginally better than the HEAT round fired by Tier V's.

    The 215B is just a joke. Its made up and its bugged to hell. You can penetrate the sides at pretty much any angle, the turret hit boxes appear to be broken as the angle is certainly not working correctly and it burns. I had a clan mate shoot mine in a test server at various angles in his m103 with the 2nd gun. He could penetrate things he shouldn't able to penetrate at angles even the top gun on that tank should have issues with.

    The best thing they can do is replace it ASAP with the Chieftain. With the M60 being added, the Leo coming soon, the T62A and nearly all the higher Tier Chinese tanks being from the 60's, the Chieftain is a perfect choice.

    I don't know why WG doesn't add it, maybe its just a hard one to balance. Either way that 215B has to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 215B was filling intresting niche (really nice dmp without drumloader with good accuracy and 50Blike armor) before WG decide to nerf it to poor copy of T110 (marginally better dpm but still no armor against goldrounds unlike T110 witch can sometimes bounce those)

      Delete
    2. "The FV4202 doesn't need a higher penetration HESH round though, it needs a HESH mechanic. HESH doesn't penetrate so at the moment its just a strange HEAT round. Strange in that 1) it doesn't actually every penentrate anyway and 2) Its only marginally better than the HEAT round fired by Tier V's."

      You really dont understand how HESH works in game. It works not like HEAT but actually as a regular HE with more penetration. It does penetrate, and it is useful only then when it penetrates. Difference from HEAT is that it has higher damage if it penetrates and that it auto explodes on spaced armor, tracks, gun mask, gun itself and does splash damage in that case. So all in all you have to aim at weakspots a lot and hope you penetrate.

      Delete
  13. Nice post.
    I tried the FV4202 on the test server and I think it was a great tank. It's not easy to use it's HESH round but if you know the armor layout's of the other tanks it's useful. It's definitely not a good tank for starters. And maybe it's not good for CW's but in random battles where you can encounter T8-9 tank too it's much better. And random battles are more important for wargaming than CW's.
    About the FV215b 120:
    Dont expect it to be a T10 td. it's pen would be way too low. A td's job is to easily kill a T10 heavy or med but this vehicle is not capable of doing that. And most importantly we have a much better T10 turreted td candidate: FV4005
    And also it's a complete fake tank, so if wargaming find a tank to replace it they won't keep this tank.

    Zee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fv4005 will be top arty according to Serb. Yep, it sucks.

      Delete
    2. T think he meant the stage 1 version which has no turret and limited gun traverse. That one could be an arty while the stage 2 could be the T10 td following the FV4004.

      Zee

      Delete
    3. I think*
      Zee

      Delete
    4. http://ftr-wot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/1822013.html
      "- the FV4005 Stage 2 183mm introduction confirmed by SerB in British arty branch (SS: god knows why, the 183mm was not a howitzer)"

      Delete
    5. Looks like he was talking about the stage 2, but I still think it will be a td and the other one will be the arty.

      Zee

      Delete
  14. One thing they should do with the FV4202 in my opinion is improve the turret armour. The Centurions, and perhaps Comet too, work very well as hull down tanks. While the FV4202 turret may seem good, it's just not as good as the Centurions' and Comet's are in their own respective tiers. Thus improving the turret armour would give it a more defined role, that of a hull down tank.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey OhSlowpoke, are there any other good books on the Vickers MBT tank other than AFV Weapons Profile 45, Vickers MBT by Ogorkiewicz, I've been trying to find anything else about it's development but to no avail

    Okinoshima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think "The Vickers Tanks" by Foss & McKenzie has some additional details on the development of the Vickers MBTs, though the book is a bit of a pain in the ass to find. That is about the only additional source I know of.

      Delete
    2. I think we'd have to contact BAE to get some more interesting information, really!

      Delete
  16. It seems to me WG have a huge problem when it comes to the British tree as a whole rather then just a few tanks, WG have gave the impression that they don't want to do them but have to because of people asking for them and because of this have just thrown together a tree that comes accross as if little thought has gone into it.

    Add this to comments from Serb which are complete nonsense for example him saying "there are 2 distinct types of british tank", when that is not true in the slightest.

    In the early stages of British tank design this may of been correct however later designs did not follow this and here lies the problem, because of WG narrow mindedness they see the MBT tanks as weak snper tanks when they were so much more. But because of the design of the tech trees WG has implemented MBT's are going to always be screwed over as they will be marked as "medium" tanks and will suffer from armour/damage nerfs even before being made.

    MBT's are a hybrid of medium/heavy tanks and this should be reflected maybe by joining the heavy and med branches at such tanks and with stats that reflect this fact.
    I doubt this would happen since WG has already took the route it has trying to define tanks in a roll of which they are not, making up tanks and using paper tanks of which they have no idea of how they would of actually performed.



    ReplyDelete
  17. Buff Brits 24/7 lel.

    That aside, I wasn't sure what your conclusion was. The FV4202 to become heavy? Chieftain for medium? You kind of left those paragraphs hanging (I think I know what you actually meant, but it shouldn't be my job to guess =P). Told you you should have let me proof read huehue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go back to your tea, Khorney.

      Delete
  18. I'd sell my soul for the FV215b with the tortoise gun stats as a tX TD (preferably with an optional 155mm as well) - top tier TDs need some variety in their guns, at the moment they're all alpha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Obviously with buffed pen, since 269 is insufficient when compared to the other tX tds).

      Delete
  19. What's your source for the L1 being mounted on chieftain prototypes? I ask because Rob Griffin makes no mention of it at all.

    Also, your numbers for effective armour thickness are wrong - in game normalisation subtracts 5 degrees from armour angle, meaning the 85mm thick top plate only provides 217mm protection, with 307mm from the 120mm plate - 217mm on the strongest part is sorely lacking for a tier 10 heavy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob Griffin doesn't go into detail on any of the early designs, other than abstract mentions of goals and how those lead to the parts used in production. Slowpoke states the gun armed on the early Chieftain as the L1 due to a complete lack of information on what that specific early design's specifications were. That picture itself is only briefly shown in AFV Profile #18 with no supporting information other than the fact that it is an older model proposal for the FV 4201. Now following that, it is reasonable to assume that:

      a.) The design followed the decision by the Tripartite (US/UK/Canada) that all future tanks would need to carry a gun capable of defeating 120mm of 60° armor at ranges of 1.8km. From that, FVRDE and ARDE had decided that the ideal caliber for the Chieftain's gun would be 120mm rather than 105mm.

      b.) Norman notes that the early Chieftain takes some design cues in the turret from the FV 214. With the 120mm requirement and the early nature of the design, it isn't unreasonable to assume that the 120mm L1 was used in the design, much like the 120mm M58 (T123) was trialled in some variants of the T95 and in the T96.

      c.) With all of this in mind, if it is the L1, than the bore evacuator certainly seems to be a right fit. The design of the L1's bore evacuator is unlike that of the M58 and the L7.

      And yeah, I told him that he should use the armor calculation for AP normalization, but I guess he didn't listen to me. Though he did raise the point that the slope of the glacis is very, very close to auto-bounce, more so than the 113's.

      Delete
    2. Because you don't put normalization into account when you do line-of-sight armor calculation. Not all shells in wot have the same normalization (some have none).

      Delete
    3. Which specific image do you think has the L1A1? Because the bore evacuator in the lineup on the prototype chieftain doesn't match that of the conqueror next to it, and it's obviously a very early one as it still appears to have the low suspension. The idea of the L1A1 as a stand in doesn't seem right to me either, because according to the AFV profile book the earliest the first gun prototypes could have been delivered was in the same year (1961) that firing tests started with the L11 in a turret. It's true an automotive prototype was delivered in 1959, but it had a windsor turret which would obviously lack any gun.

      Normalisation is more useful than the plain LoS values IMO as every single T10 gun could penetrate the 85mm glacis when you take it into account, whereas 275mm would provide decent protection. It's true HEAT doesn't normalise, but all AP and APCR does - and that's what the chieftain will be hit by most of the time

      Delete
  20. "But, what would replace it in the current “heavy” slot? I've got a proposal, but not nearly enough detail."

    Care to expand, because if its the FV-100, I have a lot of bad news for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my way of seeing things is this.....

      is a tank a medium? if yes then it goes in medium line.

      is a tank a heavy? if yes then goes into heavy line.

      MBT's have a seperate line, at the moment most mbt's start around the T8 stage Centurion etc... these tanks could be adjusted stat wise and xp wise with a line that joins up between heavy and mediums, xp wise it would cost more to level and possibly buy as you gain benefits from both lines, armour generally better then meds with also a better gun in most cases. ( as it stands MBT's are fairly underpowered from what they should be).

      As timelines progress the lesss likely it is you will find designated heavy/medium tanks as more nations start to adapt the MBT. scout tanks wouldn't really change as there are always light tanks of various types.

      so each nation would have T1-T10 med, T5-T10 heavy, T8-T10 MBT

      With a bit of work MBT's would have a place of their own within the game. AS it stands now MBT's will either be a med or a heavy depending what mood WG is in at that time.

      Delete
    2. You're WAY too hung up on what are no more than doctrinal designations, all the more so as historically those could get rather muddled (*cough*Pershing*cough*). Anyway I find WG's treatment of the early MBT-type tanks (as they'd be called now - contemporaries AFAIK more often than not didn't) as basically high-performance Mediums to be logical enough since that's what they in practice *were* doubly so as in many cases the heavy-tank class still lingered on alongside.

      Delete
    3. "Care to expand, because if its the FV-100, I have a lot of bad news for you."

      What do you know about the FV 101 and FV 102? Last I heard was that Wargaming was having trouble finding them.

      Delete
    4. I asked chieftain about them during the livestream. He said they were practically canned before any work could be done on them.

      Delete
    5. Care to say which heavy tanks lingered along side?
      especially when come to the British.
      Bare in mind the Centurion mk1-mk13 were all MBT's Caernarvon and FV series were MBT's the only 'Heavy tank' that was really around was the Conqueror. so to say in many case is extermely misleading in this case.

      Delete
    6. FV-100 Vs FV-101. The 101 and friends are the CVR(T) Scorpion and family.
      The FV-100 is a different animal.

      As to the history of the FV-100, its actually already in game.

      The FV-100 requirement was drawn up along side the Fv-201 medium tank. This was when the MOD was looking at the future of the British tank arm.

      Theta on the EU forums found a mention of the FV-100 in a book, and tipped me off to it. After contacting the author, and following the thread I had the info I needed.

      Essentially the FV100 was the requirement for the Conqueror. Have a look at the description of the two and tell me what you think. All size measurements are in comparison to the Centurion.

      FV-100:
      Date: 1947, 70-100 tons, 800BHP engine, L1 120mm gun. Extended Centurion running gear 4x Bogies each side with smaller wheels, carrying the extended hull.

      Conqueror:
      Date: 1949, 65 Tons. 810BHP Engine, L1 120mm gun, 4x Bogies each side with smaller wheels carrying the extended hull.

      All the MOD civil servants got wrong was the weight, as they'd allowed some wiggle room for the projected technology.

      I did post all this up on this thread:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/81183-pull-up-a-chair-updated-5412/#top

      In addition The_Challenger found some financials relating to the tank.

      Delete
    7. @Anon:
      The 'Muricans tinkered with a fair few projects before settling on the M103 (plus they were rather late in formally ditching the old light-medium-heavy concept anyway).
      The Brits had the Caernarharghwarghon (no idea by what token you consider proto-Conqueror hull plus Centurion turret as a placeholder an MBT rather than a heavy...) and the Conqueror.
      The Soviets had the IS series (plus I think their early de facto MBTs were still formally classified as mediums, similarly to the US) and the Chinese tinkered with any number of spin-offs.

      That covers, oh, four out of the six countries we currently have in the game - I didn't count the French in since they'd abandoned the heavy-tank concept for good by the time they started working with the Germans on what later became the Leo 1 and AMX-30.

      Delete
  21. For what it is worth, there is little reason for the FV4202 to have such a low speed. When the South Africans were experimenting with the development of the Olifant, one of the early things they did was placed a 810 HP engine along with a new transmission, and called the modified tank the Skokiaan. This tank could reportedly reach 50km/h. This was with no changes to the suspension. The engine mounted was a Meteor/Merrit-Brown combination. It was a fuel injected petrol engine which produced 810 hp. For a tank that weighs around 52t to be able to go fifty with an 810hp engine, I have trouble seeing the FV4202, weighing only 40t, topping out at 40.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA131652

    From page 12:

    "Yet its design was also preceded by the
    construction of a test bed vehicle, called FV 4202, which put to test some
    of the novel features subsequently incorporated in the Chieftain (such as
    the supine driving position and internal gun mantlet) (8)."

    So did the FV4202 have an internal gun mantlet?

    8. Norman, M., "Chieftain and Leopard Main Battle Tanks", in "Modern
    Battle Tanks", ed. D. Crow, Profile Publications, Windsor, 1978.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Text is plain wrong, Chieftain* did not have gun mantle at all.

    *Neither does Merkava 1.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chieftain would be easily balanced by the fact that the lower plate at a 50 degree angle would only have an effective thickness of 118mm, so if we consider that the angle on the actual tank is less than that, virtually anything could penetrate that lower plate.

    ReplyDelete
  25. English mediums in particular are generally underwhelming. Seems like they were rushed out and have some issues/bugs with hitboxes etc. The medium line sucks, especially the T10. Plain and simple. I'd agree it needs some looking into, especially regarding it's premium ammo, but also it's speed should be upped.
    In the heavy line I have only reached the conquerer, which I actually quite like, but the heavies also seem to be suffering with weird armor issues and oversensitivity to ammorack/fires,

    ReplyDelete

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