Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 12, 2013

Ensign's Q&A Answers #1

By EnsignExpendable

A while ago, I opened the floor for some questions. Here is the first batch. Some of them are edited for grammar. A number of questions were very much outside my specialty, so I could not answer them, sorry.

Q: Were there ever actually any plans to upgun the IS-3 with the 122 mm BL-9, or did WG pull that out of their asses?
A: The BL-9 was meant for the ISU-122BM tank destroyer only. I'm pretty sure that the BL-9 and BL-10 projects were cancelled before the IS-3 was even produced. However, the М-62-Т2 gun was planned to replace the D-25 on all platforms that carried it, including the IS-2 and IS-3.

Q: Is it true that the IS-8 share the same hull as the Object 268? Obviously, in real life, as in-game it's different.
A: They differed a little bit. The T-10 hull is 7250 mm in length. The Object 268 hull was 6950 mm in length. The width of the two hulls is the same.

Q: I know your specialty is Soviet tanks, but could you or Zarax write a special article about the history of the German E-Series tanks?
A: I'm sure Zarax will get there eventually. Meanwhile, there is an article from the Russian WoT website about the E-50, briefly talking about all E-series, available here.

Q: What do you have on the F-39 95 mm tank gun?
A: In 1939-1940, Soviet intelligence brought information of heavier and heavier tanks being developed in the West by Germany, France and Great Britain. There was a program to increase the armament of heavy tanks from 76 mm to 85, 95, and 107 mm guns to deal with these new threats. The start of the war interfered with these developments, especially since German tanks, at the start of the war, did not warrant a gun more powerful than the F-34. 
As for the F-39 specifically, it was developed in 1938, and tested in a T-28 in 1940. The gun had two loading options: one piece (the shell had to be tilted in the T-28 turret) and two-piece. The ballistics of the gun were similar to the F-28 divisional gun. However, the gun proved too powerful for the T-28's turret ring, and heavier tanks could be equipped with superior 107 mm guns, so the project was shelved.

Q: Can you tell me or in a blog how the Russian speaking community is thinking about tier 10 matches and regarding artillery? Are they as unhappy with it like the EU community?
A: Believe it or not, the complaining on every WoT forum, worldwide, is nearly identical, regardless of language. RU cluster players complain about arty, UP German tanks, and matchmaker conspiracies too.

Q: Was there a prototype of T-62A built on the dark side of the moon, with 120-140 mm of armor and with 54-60 km speed ?
A: The T-62A was produced very briefly, and lost out to the T-62 with only a handful of units built. Object 167, the T-62's planned successor, could achieve 60 kph. The T-62D, a 1983 modernization, received additional hull and turret armour, as well as the Drozd active protection system. Further versions received better engines and better armour. However, since even the original T-62 is a bit too much for this game, don't expect any of its successors to show up.

Q: What do you think about the Idea of implementing the Russian BMP-1 into world of tanks. What do you think its stats would be like and how would it match up in game. Would it even be possible to add it into the game and have historical stats?
A: Sadly, the BMP-1's smoothbore gun disqualifies it from WoT. However, as an arms show pamphlet tells me, the BMP-1 can be modernized with the combat module from the BMP-2, bringing with it a 30 mm 2A42 autocannon. The gun penetrates quite poorly compared to a tank gun (51 mm at a 60 degree slope at 500 meters with the most modern ammunition). This, combined with very light armour, and 65 kph maximum speed could make it somewhat viable as a higher tier Pz I Ausf C. I want one already.

Q: As you know they are implementing the Object 907 Tier 10 medium as a gift tank for clan wars or something else probably. But after studying the armor model for it on Gamesmodels3d it does not match this armor layout picture. If you happen to know which one of these is correct that would be great. If that picture is right then the model we are getting in game is woefully under armored.
A: A part of the Object 907 Medium project requirements was the increase of the T-54's armour by 30%. The armour layout in the schematic seems a lot closer to the spirit of the project than the in-game version. Russian Bias fails again.

That's it for this batch! Send in more questions to


  1. "RU cluster players complain about arty, UP German tanks, and matchmaker conspiracies too."

    strange, i read they prefer to complain about "UP" russian tanks.

    Well but if true and russians start to complain about UP ger tanks, its about time to equalize them...!

    There are quite some possibilities to make them interesting for CW without compromising the Balance in Randoms.

    1. Wargaming does not listen to whining in any language. If statistics determine them balanced, then the tanks are balanced. SerB's second slogan is "Whining is only another reason for us to check statistics".

    2. I wonder why SerB hasn't accused RU players of lacking patriotism, saying they shud be proud of their own Soviet tanks and not complain about UP German tanks.

    3. Probably because patriotism is not a cure for stupidity.

  2. Well it's not that hard to realise that it's easier to play let's say KV-1 than Stug or PzIV with 75mm gun or IS to be easier to play than Tiger etc. There's the reason why GER tanks are considered UP bcs they are much harder to play than others specially SSSR tanks..

    1. True, some tanks are more beginner friendly than others. American tanks are also good for newbies, while French tanks are even less advisable than Germans.

      The KV-1's strength is commonly seen in German tanks: its powerful armour. Its slow speed and tendency to catch fire from frontal shots is also shared by German tanks. I would not call it easier to play than, say, a Tiger II, or E-75.

  3. It appears they took the Object 907's armor and unified them in certain spots(such as the upper plate) and averaged them out

    1. I guess its the case of simplicity and somewhat limited amount of armor groups. The same applies to IS-3 turret (no smooth increase from 110mm to 220mm on sides/rear), T110Ex hull "beak". Or any other cast piece with variable thickness

    2. Look at the side armour, in-game model is very weak compared to RL

  4. >>I'm pretty sure that the BL-9 and BL-10 projects were cancelled before the IS-3 was even produced.

    BL-9 testing result:
    and thats why BL-9 project was cancelled.

    but you're wrong, BL-9 was tested on 27 aug. 1945, first IS-3 was produced in may '45.

    1. Ouch...did the gun explosion and set off the ammunition? It ain't exactly easy to blow apart an ISU like that.

    2. That test was testing overloaded ammunition. The project was not cancelled because of that, but because of the long barrel impeding maneuvers, low barrel life, and, most importantly, no need for such a powerful gun in 1945.

  5. Hey guys,

    I wasn't home this week so my blogging time was extremely limited.
    Two quick things:

    1) I'm working on a favour for Staufen so it will take me a few days until next article

    2) E-series was a lot more about component standardization and the new suspension system than the tanks in itself, plus they were not exactly seen kindly by many in the german industry so don't expect anything exotic about it.

    1. I don't know how definite we can get from this article concerning the E-50, unless we want to go into individual parts:

    2. Thanks for the link Kankou and nice article. Since SS is banned i don't visit forums a lot anymore :)
      Do you think with the test-data it would be possible to create a small spreadsheet to compare the in-game characteristics of both tanks easily or has this perhaps even been done before?

  6. I am not entirely convinced that the suggestion that the Object 907 and the two other will be exclusive to a CW elite. It takes a lot of investment for WG to work these tanks up, to debug and get them to work properly and to limit them to just a few players does not make sense. I imagine taking them out in pubs will result in rage killing even by their own team.

    "A: A part of the Object 907 Medium project requirements was the increase of the T-54's armour by 30%. The armour layout in the schematic seems a lot closer to the spirit of the project than the in-game version. Russian Bias fails again."

    Yes the Object 907 project was to increase the effectiveness by the geometry of the armour - making the internal modules more compact and using space within the hull and turret more effectivly. So that the internal volume could be minimized thus enabling the outer angles of hull of the tank to be optimized without adding additional mass to the hull. It is a masterpiece of design with some obvious weaknesses.


  7. Speed values seem to be one of the things WG are capable of modiying (panzer 3, Tiger IS-7 so on and so forth). So I would like it for the T-62A to recieve more speed.

    1. yeah because it isnt one of the best-the best T10 med already and totally needs a buff

      oh wait...

    2. Early Pz-III really went up the speed in WoT, ausf H and later cut it down bu installing limiter.


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