Mar 8, 2013
8.3.2013
- Panzer IV Schmal can meet tier 8 vehicles in battle
- AMX-50B buff is not planned for now
- Waffenträgers confirmed for this year
- Q: "Does Wargaming plant to also buy Sun Soft, Microsoft, Valve and others?" A: "The little ones are not interesting for us"
- it's possible that when the MT-25 replaces the T-50-2, owners will get a new crewmember
- arty shells exploding in mid air (as seen here) is just a graphical glitch, the explosion animation is triggered early - in reality the shell travels correctly and does damage as it should, just the explosion graphics are wrong, it will be fixed in next patch
- it's too early to tell the definitive characteristicks of the Aufklärungspanzer Panther, the vehicle is still tested
- the improvements Wargaming makes on Big World will not be passed (sold) to other companies using this engine
No more supertest leaks... for now
It is with regret that I must inform you my good readers, that sadly, my supertester source got himself kicked out of the supertest for inactivity (along with like 80 other people). Therefore... there will be no supertest updates from now on. For now at least.
And as for you, dear supertesters who read this - if you feel like sharing any interesting info, feel free to write me at fortherecordwot@gmail.com - after all, as you can see, I protect my sources... :)
And as for you, dear supertesters who read this - if you feel like sharing any interesting info, feel free to write me at fortherecordwot@gmail.com - after all, as you can see, I protect my sources... :)
On Matilda Black Prince
Pondering a modelling problem within World of Tanks and getting a change made
By a community member US forum (SS: yes, I know his identity, but he wished to write this as "anon")
There are a variety of threads and continual moans and groans directed at the World of Tanks developers and one can be sympathetic to all of the stupid ‘We want the Ratte’ or ‘Let me have an M1Abrams’ type of requests they get.
Occasionally however there are those threads (more of a quest really) where a player actually tries to be respectful, polite and use good research to have some genuine changes made for the betterment of the game and to please those tank enthusiasts for whom historical accuracy (particularly when it comes to the ‘look’ of a tank is so important) Noteable within these threads is the one started by Vollketten on the NA server regarding the Matilda Black Prince.(MBP)
Voll. started the thread here at http://forum.worldof...ack-prince/#top back in November 2012 and there have also been various questions raised on the EU and RU servers about this vehicle as well.
Voll. sums it up as follows:
“1st) The side armour is wrong. Plain wrong. It should be 75mm. The Russian Matilda enjoys 75mm of side armour. The MBP in game has only 55mm of side armour.
2nd) The Turret Armour is wrong. Cromwell Turret armour turret front: 76mm side: 63.7mm rear:56.7mm
Game Armour for turret front: 76mm side: 54mm (9.7mm less) rear: 51mm (5.7mm less)
3rd) Gun elevation/depression is wrong. Cromwell turret has -13°/+20°, MBP has only -9°/+12°.
4th) Physical model is wrong. The real tank clearly has an extended armoured collar around the hull top as part of the adjestments to take the bigger turret. In the game the armour is just not there leading to abnormally high number of turret jam shots. See pics to illustrate this:
5th) Size, the MBP is just, well, too big. Even though it is on the same hull (albeit with less armour) than the Russian Premium Matilda it is significantly bigger:
6th) Weight; it's too heavy: Despite the MBP carrying LESS ARMOUR (in game) than the Cromwell turret which it has, it actually weighs more!”
Pretty succinct summarizing of the problems with the game model compared to the real vehicle. Now it should be remembered that there is only a single image of this vehicle ever existing and here it is: (complete with armoured collar which is missing in the game)
In real life tank:
In game tank:
How the collar looks in real life:
and in detail:
The size issue:
When the 8.2 patch came out it was announced that “Changed the armor values more in line with historical real-world values for T34-85, IS, Matilda (British) tanks.”
Now if this was true then the problems with the armouring would be corrected in 8.2 and our story would end there.
The one thing that the real life Matilda was famous for was having very thick armour, when the Matilda came out and first saw action she was virtually immune to all but the biggest German guns like the 88’s. Indeed the Lend Lease Matilda available as a premium Russian tank has the correct armour values but the British Matilda has different hull armour values and is bigger even though it is the SAME tank. The SAME hull is on the MBP (albeit with a collar added) and has even worse armour and weighs MORE.
The suggested changes to the armour and model of the MBP in game were as follows:
• Increase the speed slightly. (There is a report of a twin diesel unit designed in the US for use in the Matilda which had the MBP entered production could well have been fitted and would have given it a power to weigh ratio similar to that of a Panther!) Also the MBP used a newer Wilson transmission intended to improve maneuverability and speed which should be taken into account.
• Increase the side armour to what it really was. (see here for a diagram of the correct armour layout for the Matilda hull)
• Add an armoured collar to the hull of the MBP as it had one in real life. (Indeed it appears that the 60 or so vehicles sent to Australia were all fitted with this collar even though they had the standard Matilda turret) This removes the shot-trap problem.
• And finally; make all of the hulls for the vehicles the same size, to have the same vehicle in game in three incarnation in different sizes is frankly silly. (are all of the Stuarts or T-34’s the same size?)
The inconsistencies with the turret are pretty stark as well. It is fitted with the turret of the A24/A27 which is also fitted to the Cromwell but weighs 4 tonnes more! To fit this turret on a Matilda hull with a turret ring diameter of 54.3 inches they had to create an adapter ring to fit the Centaur turret which had a turret ring 57.2 inches in diameter. This meant that the turret sat up a little higher and obviously the designers designed and fitted a collar to protect this gap. All of the Matilda hulls were made at the Vulcan foundry and are the same size in real life with a variation of up to 5% in hull plate thickness. (The front hull was cast in one piece which meant it was always thicker than the 78mm designed and had to be manually ground thinner meaning it was always 78mm up to nearly 82mm thick)
The armour layout:
(From David Fletchers 'Matilda Infantry Tank' book)
If all this talk seems confusing lets compare the three versions of the Matilda available in game: (taken from Vollketten’s thread)
"Comparison of all three versions.(colour coded for ease)
Matilda UK Medium Tank Tier IV
Matilda Lend Lease USSR Medium Tank Tier V
Matilda Black Prince UK Medium Tank Tier V
Hit Points: 370 HP with upgraded turret
Hit Points: 610HP
Hit Points: 610HP
Result: British Matilda has nearly half the hit points of its premium counterparts.
Weight Limit: 26.97/29 t with all upgraded modules
Weight Limit: 27.4/31 t
Weight Limit: 30/32 t
Result: MBP actually has highest load capacity, British Matilda has the worst.
Engine Power: 190 hp with upgraded engine
Engine Power: 274 hp standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted by 15.5% to 316.47 hp (This is a consumable NOT available to the British)
Engine Power: 190 hp
Result: Russian Matilda has significantly higher engine power. 190hp for the standard Matilda means it has the same horsepower as the heavier MBP making the MBP even more worthless. With the extra bonus from consumables not available to either British version the Russian Matilda is like a hotrod for the faster acceleration.
Speed Limit: 24 km/h
Speed Limit: 25 km/h
Speed Limit: 22 km/h
Result: Russian Matilda has the highest speed. MBP is slower than the already slow Matilda and don't forget the Russian version also gets to use the speed governor removal device and the lend lease oil to further improve performance. Neither of which is available to either British versions.
Traverse: 36 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Result: Regular Matilda has a very small advantage of 1 degree/s.
Power/Wt Ratio: 7.044 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: 10 hp/t standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted
by 15.5% to 316.47 hp giving 11.55 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: It is 6.324 hp/t
Result: The MBP is dreadful. Russian Matilda is like a thoroughbred racehorse in comparison to either of the British version with nearly twice the hp/ton. (BUT if WoT introduced the possible twin diesel engine it could be as high as 15.5 hp/ton)
Armament
Damage: 41-69 HP
Damage: 82.5-137.5 HP
Damage: 56.3-93.8 HP
Result: Russian vehicle does the most damage doing nearly double the MBP on average per shot. British standard Matilda is laughable by comparison. The MBP looks even worse only giving a slight advantage over the standard Matilda for all that extra weight and size.
Penetration: 91-151mm
Penetration: 65-108 mm
Penetration: 83-138 mm
Result: The Russian version actually has the lowest penetration but does much more damage than either of the others. MBP is even worse than the standard Matilda when fully upgraded.
Rate of Fire: 28.57r/m no change for upgrading
Rate of Fire: 16.15r/m
Rate of Fire: 26.09r/m
Result: Standard Matilda fires fastest but has the worst best pen and but low damage. MBP has better ROF than Russian Matilda.
Accuracy: 0.36m no change for upgrading
Accuracy: 0.41m
Accuracy: 0.41m
Result: British standard Matilda has the most accurate gun. Both MBP and Russian vehicle are both the same.
Aim time: 1.9s
Aim time: 1.71s
Aim time: 2.3s
Result: MBP has worst aim time, MBP is the worst but upgrading the standard Matilda actually makes the aim time worse by 0.2 seconds, meaning that the Russian Matilda has the best aim time.
Turret Traverse: 34 deg/s no change for upgrading
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Result: No difference.
Elevation Arc: -10°/+20° no change for upgrading
Elevation Arc: -14°/+25°
Elevation Arc: -9°/+12°
Result: Incredible gun depression and elevation allow Russian Matilda to make best use of terrain. MBP has worst gun depression and elevation despite using basically the same gun and turret as the Cromwell which has -13°/+20° for depression/elevation.
Ammo Capacity: 92 rounds no change for upgrading
Ammo Capacity: 60 rounds
Ammo Capacity: 55 rounds
Result: Lowest ammo capacity is MBP despite using basically the same gun and turret of the Cromwell which could carry 75 rounds of 6 pdr ammunition.
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Result: No difference, all use diesel engines.
View Range: 340m with upgraded turret
View Range: 350m
View Range: 350m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can see further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded turret gets a whopping extra 10m view range. *sarcasm
Signal Range: 450m
Signal Range: 570m
Signal Range: 570m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can signal much further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded the standard Matilda still has a view range far behind the others.."
From this blog date: 28-11-2012
"- premium tanks are buffed/nerfed rarely, devs are afraid to touch them (because of whine)"
OP:(Apart from the Type-59 which gets a nice little buff)
So it is worth having a look at making a case to WoT to change it (more sales means more money afterall)
Stats are valid in December 2012.
MBP (Matilda Black Prince), LLM (Lend Lease Matilda): (No stats available for the Matilda Mk2)
"Data for this statistics is based on 930,865 battle results with 27,925,950 tanks participated. Effects of Premium Accounts have been removed."
Average Efficiency..........MBP 1,200.1............LLM 1.359.8.............Difference: LLM is more efficient by 0.159.7
Average Experience........MBP 428.7..............LLM 490.9.................Difference: LLM earns more by 62.2 per battle
Average Survived...........MBP 37.8%..............LLM 36.4%................Difference: MBP survives 1.4% more battles
Average Battle Time.......MBP 4.7 min.............LLM 4.7 min..............Difference: None
Won/Lost ratio................MBP 54.6%.............. LLM 54.6%...............Difference: None
Accuracy.........................MBP 65.0%..............LLM 67.4%................Difference: LLM is 2.4% more accurate
(and yet according to figures they should have the same accuracy. Practice versus theory.)
Damage ratio..................MBP 111.3%............LLM 101.0%..............Difference: MBP does 10.3% more as a ratio of damage
Average Damage dealt...MBP 497.9...............LLM 461.7.................Difference: MBP does 36.2 hp more damage
Average Damage received MBP 453.4...........LLM 460.3..................Difference: MBP has less damage received by 6.9hp
(Basically the difference is negligible)
Average Damage per Kill...MBP 452.4............LLM 411.5..................Difference:MBP does 40.9 more hp of damage to get a kill
(So the MBP has to work 'harder' to get a kill than the LL Matilda ?)
Average Damage assisted.MBP 103.4............LLM 137.1..................Difference: LLM does 33.7 hp more
Average Kills per Battle....MBP 0.7..................LLM 0.6......................Difference: MBP does 0.1 more kills per battle
(Basically the difference is negligible)
Average Mileage..............MBP 824.5m............LLM 962.0m..............Difference: LLM goes 137.5 m further
(Not a surprise considering how much faster it is)
Average Spotted Tanks....MBP 0.7.................LLM 1.0......................Difference: LLM spots 0.3 tanks more
Average Net Income.........MBP 8,905.1cr........LLM 10,107.9cr.........Difference: LLM earns 1202.8cr more
Average Gross Income.....MBP 12,466.7cr.......LLM 14,337.1cr........Difference: LLM earns 1870.4cr more
(Self-evident the LL Matilda is a far better earner than the MBP)"
So in conclusion we can see that overall the MBP is a worse earner in terms of credits and XP than the Russian LL Matilda.
It’s not to say that there weren’t changes made though; in 8.2 we saw:
• A reduced engine cost of the Leyland E164 engine to 310 XP (makes no difference to the tanks problems though)
• Increased the cost of the researching the Churchill to 11,500 XP meaning the Matilda takes even longer to grind.
• Added the option of a Mk.10T High Explosive shell for the Matilda which makes no difference to the tanks problems either.
• Fixed the armouring of the Matilda’s sides (slow down don’t think is the end of the story) Only the LL Matilda benefits from the armour becoming spaced because the other two (British) version remain in game with lower than real life armour values. So when WoT says they fixed the situation they used the other meaning of ‘fixed’ it appears.
It had to be transparent that there a dual standard at play when the Russian version benefits more and was better to start with than the British version but Voll. persists.
The next event was the Reddit with the Devs where this issue was actually brought directly to their attention and this was the conversation:
Q: “Are you considering fixing the Matilda BP? Such a horrible tank, especially for one thats costs gold.”
A: “We’ll take a look at it. Nothing is changing in 8.2, but we’ll see. We certainly don’t want premiums to be terrible tanks, but they also shouldn’t be something played becasue they’re superior to the standard options at that tier”
But WoT own figures prove that the MBP is so bad that noone really wants it. Of all of the premium tanks in game at the time is was the worst seller with only 10,167 sold.
In terms of profitability (one of the main reasons to buy a premium in the first place)
(Figures from December 2012)
Another thread on the NA server summed up the general feeling very nicely:
"In 8.2 Wargaming boosted the side armour of the Matilda from 50mm to 70mm
BUT THEY DIDN'T INCREASE THE ARMOUR OF THE MATILDA BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!! THE TIER 5 MATILDA NOW HAS WORSE ARMOUR THAT THE TIER 4 MATILDA!!!!!!! IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
And yet again from this blog:
16.12.2012 - tanks will get additional armor screens (spaced armor - optional equipment) according to the fact whether they had them historically or not.
That means that the devs agree that the MBP should have the correct side armour and yet still no.
17-1-2013 "- tank popularity is only one of the secondary parameters, when considering how well it is balanced"
Perhaps this was the answer, they don’t care if it is popular or not.
2-2-2013 “apparently, the devs consider the in game Matilda Black Prince historical (SS: it's not clear what the question meant as the original question was already deleted, presumably it concerned some armor sleeve around the turret, several Russian players mentioned that before)”
Incredible isn’t it? The devs consider it is correct. So after 4 months of bringing this to the attention of various people in WoT it still is not an issue on which they say ‘it is being looked at’.
So recently we have 27-2-13 (patch notes for 8.4)
"Fixed minor bugs with the damage model of the following tanks: AT-15А, Matilda Black Prince, Matilda (USSR), Grille, AMX 13-75, AMX 13-90, AMX 12t, Churchill I, VK 4205B, M12, M41, Object 212, Caernarvon, M46 Patton, Maus, Е-100."
So after all of this they are amending the damage model of the MBP but not the undamaged model. This is not a help playing the tank as it has to be dead to be correct?
Essentially after all of this work and effort the main issues remain unresolved, namely:
1. Incorrect side hull armour. There was never a Matilda II ever produced with only 55mm of side armour. The sides at the thinnest area were 40mm lower hull sides with an additional 25mm of side skirt armour (70mm upper side hull). WG admitted that the original release 55mm side armour was a bug.
2. The lack of armour collar protecting the turret.
3. Incorrect turret side and rear armour. The A24 Cavalier turret always had an additional 12.7mm I.T.110 Carbon manganese steel backing plate. The current armour values takes the I.T. 110 backing plate factored in the front of the turret but not at the side and rear. The backing plate's absence can be seen in the turret's statistics, the Cromwell (which shared the Cavalier's turret) having 76/63.7/56.7 mm while the Matilda Black Prince only has 76/51/44 mm.
So now we have reached an impassse...or have we?
from the Reddit with SerB 3rd March 2013:
"Q: Is there any plans to fix the size of the model of the Matilda Black Prince? Currently it is considerably larger than every other Matilda in the game, and the turret weight is another issue, why is it so much heavier than the turret on the Cromwell? It is currently 3 tons heavier, is it not supposed to be the same turret
A: I can't track everything. If the people responsible for that find an inconsistency, they will correct it."
What this thread shows is that sometimes there is an educated and genuine attempt to improve a vehicle both to make it historically accurate but also more enjoyable to play both of which are to benefit the company and their profits (more sales means more money. So this thread will stay open as it appears Voll. is stubborn on the issue and until the issues are resolved we wish him the best of luck.
What this means for anyone seeking to have changes made is don’t give up, but don’t expect anything to happen easily or quickly if at all.
Just to add possible insult to injury there is a rumour of this modelling chnage to the Russian Matilda in the 8.4 release:
Yes that's right, an armour buff for the LL Matilda.
Editor's note - 8.4 addition:
I recieved a following message from the author of this article today:
I thought I ought to let you know that 8.4 has actually impleneted the collar for the MBP. I only know because I took mine out last night and saw that it had the collar in place. So changes can be made. I wish WoT had actually announced the change but I'm still happy. All that remains to be changed is the armour values.
By a community member US forum (SS: yes, I know his identity, but he wished to write this as "anon")
There are a variety of threads and continual moans and groans directed at the World of Tanks developers and one can be sympathetic to all of the stupid ‘We want the Ratte’ or ‘Let me have an M1Abrams’ type of requests they get.
Occasionally however there are those threads (more of a quest really) where a player actually tries to be respectful, polite and use good research to have some genuine changes made for the betterment of the game and to please those tank enthusiasts for whom historical accuracy (particularly when it comes to the ‘look’ of a tank is so important) Noteable within these threads is the one started by Vollketten on the NA server regarding the Matilda Black Prince.(MBP)
Voll. started the thread here at http://forum.worldof...ack-prince/#top back in November 2012 and there have also been various questions raised on the EU and RU servers about this vehicle as well.
Voll. sums it up as follows:
“1st) The side armour is wrong. Plain wrong. It should be 75mm. The Russian Matilda enjoys 75mm of side armour. The MBP in game has only 55mm of side armour.
2nd) The Turret Armour is wrong. Cromwell Turret armour turret front: 76mm side: 63.7mm rear:56.7mm
Game Armour for turret front: 76mm side: 54mm (9.7mm less) rear: 51mm (5.7mm less)
3rd) Gun elevation/depression is wrong. Cromwell turret has -13°/+20°, MBP has only -9°/+12°.
4th) Physical model is wrong. The real tank clearly has an extended armoured collar around the hull top as part of the adjestments to take the bigger turret. In the game the armour is just not there leading to abnormally high number of turret jam shots. See pics to illustrate this:
5th) Size, the MBP is just, well, too big. Even though it is on the same hull (albeit with less armour) than the Russian Premium Matilda it is significantly bigger:
6th) Weight; it's too heavy: Despite the MBP carrying LESS ARMOUR (in game) than the Cromwell turret which it has, it actually weighs more!”
Pretty succinct summarizing of the problems with the game model compared to the real vehicle. Now it should be remembered that there is only a single image of this vehicle ever existing and here it is: (complete with armoured collar which is missing in the game)
In real life tank:
In game tank:
How the collar looks in real life:
and in detail:
The size issue:
When the 8.2 patch came out it was announced that “Changed the armor values more in line with historical real-world values for T34-85, IS, Matilda (British) tanks.”
Now if this was true then the problems with the armouring would be corrected in 8.2 and our story would end there.
The one thing that the real life Matilda was famous for was having very thick armour, when the Matilda came out and first saw action she was virtually immune to all but the biggest German guns like the 88’s. Indeed the Lend Lease Matilda available as a premium Russian tank has the correct armour values but the British Matilda has different hull armour values and is bigger even though it is the SAME tank. The SAME hull is on the MBP (albeit with a collar added) and has even worse armour and weighs MORE.
The suggested changes to the armour and model of the MBP in game were as follows:
• Increase the speed slightly. (There is a report of a twin diesel unit designed in the US for use in the Matilda which had the MBP entered production could well have been fitted and would have given it a power to weigh ratio similar to that of a Panther!) Also the MBP used a newer Wilson transmission intended to improve maneuverability and speed which should be taken into account.
• Increase the side armour to what it really was. (see here for a diagram of the correct armour layout for the Matilda hull)
• Add an armoured collar to the hull of the MBP as it had one in real life. (Indeed it appears that the 60 or so vehicles sent to Australia were all fitted with this collar even though they had the standard Matilda turret) This removes the shot-trap problem.
• And finally; make all of the hulls for the vehicles the same size, to have the same vehicle in game in three incarnation in different sizes is frankly silly. (are all of the Stuarts or T-34’s the same size?)
The inconsistencies with the turret are pretty stark as well. It is fitted with the turret of the A24/A27 which is also fitted to the Cromwell but weighs 4 tonnes more! To fit this turret on a Matilda hull with a turret ring diameter of 54.3 inches they had to create an adapter ring to fit the Centaur turret which had a turret ring 57.2 inches in diameter. This meant that the turret sat up a little higher and obviously the designers designed and fitted a collar to protect this gap. All of the Matilda hulls were made at the Vulcan foundry and are the same size in real life with a variation of up to 5% in hull plate thickness. (The front hull was cast in one piece which meant it was always thicker than the 78mm designed and had to be manually ground thinner meaning it was always 78mm up to nearly 82mm thick)
The armour layout:
(From David Fletchers 'Matilda Infantry Tank' book)
If the ONLY proof this tank existed is the single photo then why is the model of it SO wrong?
Now there were some changes made; WoT fixed the side armour (partially)
by corrected a fault with the spaced armour. (It was modelled as not
being spaced originally) but left the values the same.If all this talk seems confusing lets compare the three versions of the Matilda available in game: (taken from Vollketten’s thread)
"Comparison of all three versions.(colour coded for ease)
Matilda UK Medium Tank Tier IV
Matilda Lend Lease USSR Medium Tank Tier V
Matilda Black Prince UK Medium Tank Tier V
Hit Points: 370 HP with upgraded turret
Hit Points: 610HP
Hit Points: 610HP
Result: British Matilda has nearly half the hit points of its premium counterparts.
Weight Limit: 26.97/29 t with all upgraded modules
Weight Limit: 27.4/31 t
Weight Limit: 30/32 t
Result: MBP actually has highest load capacity, British Matilda has the worst.
Engine Power: 190 hp with upgraded engine
Engine Power: 274 hp standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted by 15.5% to 316.47 hp (This is a consumable NOT available to the British)
Engine Power: 190 hp
Result: Russian Matilda has significantly higher engine power. 190hp for the standard Matilda means it has the same horsepower as the heavier MBP making the MBP even more worthless. With the extra bonus from consumables not available to either British version the Russian Matilda is like a hotrod for the faster acceleration.
Speed Limit: 24 km/h
Speed Limit: 25 km/h
Speed Limit: 22 km/h
Result: Russian Matilda has the highest speed. MBP is slower than the already slow Matilda and don't forget the Russian version also gets to use the speed governor removal device and the lend lease oil to further improve performance. Neither of which is available to either British versions.
Traverse: 36 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Result: Regular Matilda has a very small advantage of 1 degree/s.
Power/Wt Ratio: 7.044 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: 10 hp/t standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted
by 15.5% to 316.47 hp giving 11.55 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: It is 6.324 hp/t
Result: The MBP is dreadful. Russian Matilda is like a thoroughbred racehorse in comparison to either of the British version with nearly twice the hp/ton. (BUT if WoT introduced the possible twin diesel engine it could be as high as 15.5 hp/ton)
Armament
Damage: 41-69 HP
Damage: 82.5-137.5 HP
Damage: 56.3-93.8 HP
Result: Russian vehicle does the most damage doing nearly double the MBP on average per shot. British standard Matilda is laughable by comparison. The MBP looks even worse only giving a slight advantage over the standard Matilda for all that extra weight and size.
Penetration: 91-151mm
Penetration: 65-108 mm
Penetration: 83-138 mm
Result: The Russian version actually has the lowest penetration but does much more damage than either of the others. MBP is even worse than the standard Matilda when fully upgraded.
Rate of Fire: 28.57r/m no change for upgrading
Rate of Fire: 16.15r/m
Rate of Fire: 26.09r/m
Result: Standard Matilda fires fastest but has the worst best pen and but low damage. MBP has better ROF than Russian Matilda.
Accuracy: 0.36m no change for upgrading
Accuracy: 0.41m
Accuracy: 0.41m
Result: British standard Matilda has the most accurate gun. Both MBP and Russian vehicle are both the same.
Aim time: 1.9s
Aim time: 1.71s
Aim time: 2.3s
Result: MBP has worst aim time, MBP is the worst but upgrading the standard Matilda actually makes the aim time worse by 0.2 seconds, meaning that the Russian Matilda has the best aim time.
Turret Traverse: 34 deg/s no change for upgrading
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Result: No difference.
Elevation Arc: -10°/+20° no change for upgrading
Elevation Arc: -14°/+25°
Elevation Arc: -9°/+12°
Result: Incredible gun depression and elevation allow Russian Matilda to make best use of terrain. MBP has worst gun depression and elevation despite using basically the same gun and turret as the Cromwell which has -13°/+20° for depression/elevation.
Ammo Capacity: 92 rounds no change for upgrading
Ammo Capacity: 60 rounds
Ammo Capacity: 55 rounds
Result: Lowest ammo capacity is MBP despite using basically the same gun and turret of the Cromwell which could carry 75 rounds of 6 pdr ammunition.
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Result: No difference, all use diesel engines.
View Range: 340m with upgraded turret
View Range: 350m
View Range: 350m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can see further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded turret gets a whopping extra 10m view range. *sarcasm
Signal Range: 450m
Signal Range: 570m
Signal Range: 570m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can signal much further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded the standard Matilda still has a view range far behind the others.."
So something would change right?
No.
"- premium tanks are buffed/nerfed rarely, devs are afraid to touch them (because of whine)"
OP:(Apart from the Type-59 which gets a nice little buff)
So it is worth having a look at making a case to WoT to change it (more sales means more money afterall)
Stats are valid in December 2012.
MBP (Matilda Black Prince), LLM (Lend Lease Matilda): (No stats available for the Matilda Mk2)
"Data for this statistics is based on 930,865 battle results with 27,925,950 tanks participated. Effects of Premium Accounts have been removed."
Average Efficiency..........MBP 1,200.1............LLM 1.359.8.............Difference: LLM is more efficient by 0.159.7
Average Experience........MBP 428.7..............LLM 490.9.................Difference: LLM earns more by 62.2 per battle
Average Survived...........MBP 37.8%..............LLM 36.4%................Difference: MBP survives 1.4% more battles
Average Battle Time.......MBP 4.7 min.............LLM 4.7 min..............Difference: None
Won/Lost ratio................MBP 54.6%.............. LLM 54.6%...............Difference: None
Accuracy.........................MBP 65.0%..............LLM 67.4%................Difference: LLM is 2.4% more accurate
(and yet according to figures they should have the same accuracy. Practice versus theory.)
Damage ratio..................MBP 111.3%............LLM 101.0%..............Difference: MBP does 10.3% more as a ratio of damage
Average Damage dealt...MBP 497.9...............LLM 461.7.................Difference: MBP does 36.2 hp more damage
Average Damage received MBP 453.4...........LLM 460.3..................Difference: MBP has less damage received by 6.9hp
(Basically the difference is negligible)
Average Damage per Kill...MBP 452.4............LLM 411.5..................Difference:MBP does 40.9 more hp of damage to get a kill
(So the MBP has to work 'harder' to get a kill than the LL Matilda ?)
Average Damage assisted.MBP 103.4............LLM 137.1..................Difference: LLM does 33.7 hp more
Average Kills per Battle....MBP 0.7..................LLM 0.6......................Difference: MBP does 0.1 more kills per battle
(Basically the difference is negligible)
Average Mileage..............MBP 824.5m............LLM 962.0m..............Difference: LLM goes 137.5 m further
(Not a surprise considering how much faster it is)
Average Spotted Tanks....MBP 0.7.................LLM 1.0......................Difference: LLM spots 0.3 tanks more
Average Net Income.........MBP 8,905.1cr........LLM 10,107.9cr.........Difference: LLM earns 1202.8cr more
Average Gross Income.....MBP 12,466.7cr.......LLM 14,337.1cr........Difference: LLM earns 1870.4cr more
(Self-evident the LL Matilda is a far better earner than the MBP)"
So in conclusion we can see that overall the MBP is a worse earner in terms of credits and XP than the Russian LL Matilda.
It’s not to say that there weren’t changes made though; in 8.2 we saw:
• A reduced engine cost of the Leyland E164 engine to 310 XP (makes no difference to the tanks problems though)
• Increased the cost of the researching the Churchill to 11,500 XP meaning the Matilda takes even longer to grind.
• Added the option of a Mk.10T High Explosive shell for the Matilda which makes no difference to the tanks problems either.
• Fixed the armouring of the Matilda’s sides (slow down don’t think is the end of the story) Only the LL Matilda benefits from the armour becoming spaced because the other two (British) version remain in game with lower than real life armour values. So when WoT says they fixed the situation they used the other meaning of ‘fixed’ it appears.
It had to be transparent that there a dual standard at play when the Russian version benefits more and was better to start with than the British version but Voll. persists.
The next event was the Reddit with the Devs where this issue was actually brought directly to their attention and this was the conversation:
Q: “Are you considering fixing the Matilda BP? Such a horrible tank, especially for one thats costs gold.”
A: “We’ll take a look at it. Nothing is changing in 8.2, but we’ll see. We certainly don’t want premiums to be terrible tanks, but they also shouldn’t be something played becasue they’re superior to the standard options at that tier”
But WoT own figures prove that the MBP is so bad that noone really wants it. Of all of the premium tanks in game at the time is was the worst seller with only 10,167 sold.
In terms of profitability (one of the main reasons to buy a premium in the first place)
(Figures from December 2012)
- Matilda Tier 4 Medium 6,148.89 cr
- Matilda IV Tier 5 Medium 9,754.76 cr
- Matilda Black Prince Tier 5 Medium 8,627.34 cr
Another thread on the NA server summed up the general feeling very nicely:
"In 8.2 Wargaming boosted the side armour of the Matilda from 50mm to 70mm
BUT THEY DIDN'T INCREASE THE ARMOUR OF THE MATILDA BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!! THE TIER 5 MATILDA NOW HAS WORSE ARMOUR THAT THE TIER 4 MATILDA!!!!!!! IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
And yet again from this blog:
16.12.2012 - tanks will get additional armor screens (spaced armor - optional equipment) according to the fact whether they had them historically or not.
That means that the devs agree that the MBP should have the correct side armour and yet still no.
17-1-2013 "- tank popularity is only one of the secondary parameters, when considering how well it is balanced"
Perhaps this was the answer, they don’t care if it is popular or not.
2-2-2013 “apparently, the devs consider the in game Matilda Black Prince historical (SS: it's not clear what the question meant as the original question was already deleted, presumably it concerned some armor sleeve around the turret, several Russian players mentioned that before)”
Incredible isn’t it? The devs consider it is correct. So after 4 months of bringing this to the attention of various people in WoT it still is not an issue on which they say ‘it is being looked at’.
So recently we have 27-2-13 (patch notes for 8.4)
"Fixed minor bugs with the damage model of the following tanks: AT-15А, Matilda Black Prince, Matilda (USSR), Grille, AMX 13-75, AMX 13-90, AMX 12t, Churchill I, VK 4205B, M12, M41, Object 212, Caernarvon, M46 Patton, Maus, Е-100."
So after all of this they are amending the damage model of the MBP but not the undamaged model. This is not a help playing the tank as it has to be dead to be correct?
Essentially after all of this work and effort the main issues remain unresolved, namely:
1. Incorrect side hull armour. There was never a Matilda II ever produced with only 55mm of side armour. The sides at the thinnest area were 40mm lower hull sides with an additional 25mm of side skirt armour (70mm upper side hull). WG admitted that the original release 55mm side armour was a bug.
2. The lack of armour collar protecting the turret.
3. Incorrect turret side and rear armour. The A24 Cavalier turret always had an additional 12.7mm I.T.110 Carbon manganese steel backing plate. The current armour values takes the I.T. 110 backing plate factored in the front of the turret but not at the side and rear. The backing plate's absence can be seen in the turret's statistics, the Cromwell (which shared the Cavalier's turret) having 76/63.7/56.7 mm while the Matilda Black Prince only has 76/51/44 mm.
So now we have reached an impassse...or have we?
from the Reddit with SerB 3rd March 2013:
"Q: Is there any plans to fix the size of the model of the Matilda Black Prince? Currently it is considerably larger than every other Matilda in the game, and the turret weight is another issue, why is it so much heavier than the turret on the Cromwell? It is currently 3 tons heavier, is it not supposed to be the same turret
A: I can't track everything. If the people responsible for that find an inconsistency, they will correct it."
So is anything going to change???
What this thread shows is that sometimes there is an educated and genuine attempt to improve a vehicle both to make it historically accurate but also more enjoyable to play both of which are to benefit the company and their profits (more sales means more money. So this thread will stay open as it appears Voll. is stubborn on the issue and until the issues are resolved we wish him the best of luck.
What this means for anyone seeking to have changes made is don’t give up, but don’t expect anything to happen easily or quickly if at all.
Just to add possible insult to injury there is a rumour of this modelling chnage to the Russian Matilda in the 8.4 release:
Yes that's right, an armour buff for the LL Matilda.
Editor's note - 8.4 addition:
I recieved a following message from the author of this article today:
I thought I ought to let you know that 8.4 has actually impleneted the collar for the MBP. I only know because I took mine out last night and saw that it had the collar in place. So changes can be made. I wish WoT had actually announced the change but I'm still happy. All that remains to be changed is the armour values.
Aufklärungspanzer Panther will be in 8.5
Source: http://world-of-tanks.livejournal.com/4756777.html
Storm confirmed that while the RU251 will not be in 8.5 (see picture), the recon Panther will appear. What kind of weird tactic is that, releasing branches in halves? Either way, Storm confirmed that the AP will follow after the VK2801 and also confirmed it has a konish gun (something we knew in advance ;) ).
Storm confirmed that while the RU251 will not be in 8.5 (see picture), the recon Panther will appear. What kind of weird tactic is that, releasing branches in halves? Either way, Storm confirmed that the AP will follow after the VK2801 and also confirmed it has a konish gun (something we knew in advance ;) ).
Mar 7, 2013
SOS - how does the Aufkl.Panther perform?
Straight Outta Supertest - how does the Aufklärungspanzer Panther perform? This time no pictures, sorry - but I got my hands on the official Russian supertester evaluation of this tank. Basically, the supertesters are asked "how comfortable is it to play with this vehicle?" and "would you work to unlock this tank on public server?" Please note that during supertest, vehicles are tested not using general random matchmaking, but against other vehicles of the same tier and class (in this case, the AMX-13/75, T71 and the WZ-131)
Supertesters basically evaluate this tank positively. For its weight, it is rather nimble and it doesn't feel underpowered. It is considered well armored and exceptionally good in ramming, but the choice of guns is average (the Konisch gun has sufficient penetration and rate of fire, but low alpha), the gun platform is also stable (accurate). It is estimated it will be a great light tank killer. The ramming however is essential - if you miss the first ram attack, you will find yourself in a difficult position. Its size is repeatedly noted to be its biggest disadvantage, as is its lackluster set of guns.
Supertesters note it's roughly on par with the AMX-13/75, but the outcome of the battle depends mostly on player skill and is heavily influenced by the fact, whether the Panther manages to actually ram the AMX-13 (seems like the ramming will be the tactic of choice for this vehicle). If the AMX-13 gets rammed by it, its chances are practically zero. If the Panther player doesn't however use ramming and relies only on firepower, it's fully possible for the AMX to reload the autoloader, in which case the Panther will probably lose. Against the T71, the situation is similiar, just that the T71 is more nimble. Compared to WZ-131, the situation repeats itself, supertesters note that if a successful ramming attack is performed, the WZ-131 loses 200+ hp. If the WZ-131 however avoids the ramming attack, it has a good chance of winning, because its gun DPS is higher.
Summary: heavy, but competitive vehicle, that has to close in for the kill and deals heavy damage by ramming. On medium to long distances, other light tanks have the advantage.
As for the second question: roughly 2/3 of supertesters would unlock it on live server. It definitely is considered competitive - that probably means it will go live, for good or ill.
Supertesters basically evaluate this tank positively. For its weight, it is rather nimble and it doesn't feel underpowered. It is considered well armored and exceptionally good in ramming, but the choice of guns is average (the Konisch gun has sufficient penetration and rate of fire, but low alpha), the gun platform is also stable (accurate). It is estimated it will be a great light tank killer. The ramming however is essential - if you miss the first ram attack, you will find yourself in a difficult position. Its size is repeatedly noted to be its biggest disadvantage, as is its lackluster set of guns.
Supertesters note it's roughly on par with the AMX-13/75, but the outcome of the battle depends mostly on player skill and is heavily influenced by the fact, whether the Panther manages to actually ram the AMX-13 (seems like the ramming will be the tactic of choice for this vehicle). If the AMX-13 gets rammed by it, its chances are practically zero. If the Panther player doesn't however use ramming and relies only on firepower, it's fully possible for the AMX to reload the autoloader, in which case the Panther will probably lose. Against the T71, the situation is similiar, just that the T71 is more nimble. Compared to WZ-131, the situation repeats itself, supertesters note that if a successful ramming attack is performed, the WZ-131 loses 200+ hp. If the WZ-131 however avoids the ramming attack, it has a good chance of winning, because its gun DPS is higher.
Summary: heavy, but competitive vehicle, that has to close in for the kill and deals heavy damage by ramming. On medium to long distances, other light tanks have the advantage.
As for the second question: roughly 2/3 of supertesters would unlock it on live server. It definitely is considered competitive - that probably means it will go live, for good or ill.
7.3.2013
- new candidates for tier 10 tanks? "Will tell when the time is right"
- it's not sure, whether the M60 will appear at all or not
- Object 907 and US M60 and T95 as tier 10 medium tanks? "14 days RO ban for misinformation"
- tanks have individual credit-making coefficients
- Panzer IV/V is historical according to Wargaming's sources
- KV-1S won't lose its 122mm gun
- T54 won't have its frontal armor nerfed
- Leopard 1 will use subcaliber rounds as gold ammo
- 8.5 will not contain RU251, it will arrive within the frame of a few patches (SS: apparently, the German scout branch won't arrive either, maybe only the Leopard)
- Q: "What was the logic behind the AT-15 armor?" A: "Looking at the AT-15 armor makes me wanna shrug and ask silently 'what were the British engineers smoking?'"
German T7 light tank alternatives
I think that a lot of people (if not most) will agree that the choice of the Aufklärungspanzer Panther for the tier 7 light tank in its supertest incarnation was not a good one. Let's quickly sum up the (potential) bad sides:
- the Panther hull is too big
- the vehicle is bulky, hard to hide (eg. no passive scouting)
- the vehicle is potentially undergunned (50mm L/60 as stock, tier 5 105mm howitzer and the gold-requiring konisch gun)
- the vehicle is potentially underpowered (850hp will most likely not cut it, the 1150hp turbine would perhaps help)
- considering its speed and its size, its armor is probably insufficient
- potantially bad depression (long hull, low turret)
- completely unhistorical with the VK2801 turret
Of course this design has one big advantage for Wargaming: pretty much no new modelling work is needed, as the hull and turret models are already there (Panther hull, Leopard and VK2801 turret). The costs of creating such a vehicle are kept to a minimum. By the way, a friend told me that he believes at this moment Wargaming is in the cost-cutting phase, eg. making new patches (including vehicles) as cheaply as possible. Let's recap 8.4 then - 2x Panzer I, Panzer II (remodelled existing Panzer II), Valentine AT (Valentine hull already existed), Churchill GC (well, Churchill hull model was also already there), the whole AT series with vehicles looking similiar - less modelling work, then there's the AT-15 model used for AT-15A and (modified) for Tortoise. Oh yes, and the second FV215b with a remodelled turret. Looks like Wargaming has gone eco friendly and is into recycling right now :) When you look at the 8.5 patch - what will we get: a recycled Panther, RU251 (new, granted), 2 Leopards, 1 recycled VK3002DB(v1) and the (new, granted) Indienpanzer.
But this is not what this article is about. It is about the possible alternatives to the T7 Aufklärungspanzer Panther. There are several in fact. We are looking at 1944+ vehicles to keep at least some historical continuity (T6 VK2801 is a late 1943 project while T7 scout Panther was concieved in early 1942). We have basically three options (with a few more bit obscure ones).
Panzer 38(t) mit Panzer IV-Turm
This is a concept project by Krupp. In November 1944, Krupp sent a batch of projects to the Inspector-general of the tank force (Panzertruppen), proposing to re-arm existing tank designs. The basic idea was to use the best weapon available with the least amount of armor, so weight is saved and the vehicle is maneuverable. Krupp believed that the vehicle should have enough armor to actually protect itself from its own weapon. In January 1945, the Inspector-general passed the proposals to the Waffenprüfamt 6, who in turn threw most of them out, because so many new designs were unrealistic to produce. For Germany it was too late anyway, but some of these proposals were technically very interesting.
One of the proposals was to put a Panzer IV turret on the redesigned Panzer 38t hull and re-arm it with the L/48 75mm KwK 40 cannon (lower picture). It was deemed technically possible to mount the turret at the cost of reduction of the hull angle and armor, but the weight would stress the roadwheels immensely. The vehicle (projected to weight 16 tons) would thus have little mobility advantage, compared to the Hetzer hull. The armor would be roughly comparable to the Hetzer (60mm front, cca 20mm sides).
Now, three things could make it viable for scouting:
a) more powerful engine (originally, Tatra T103 was intended, but 220hp doesn't really cut it for 16 tons)
b) the Panzer IV turret can hold a 105mm howitzer (eg. firepower comparable to the Aufklärungspanzer Panther)
c) the PAW 600.
PAW600 (as shown on the upper picture) was historically considered (as it was very light), but for World of Tanks it has one main disadvantage: it's a smoothbore weapon. Wargaming would probably deny it on that basis only. There are other options however (the same that could apply for the Aufklärungspanzer Panther) - 50mm autocannons for example.
Aufklärungspanzer 38d
The history of this project is quite interesting. The first "incarnation" of the Aufklärungspanzer 38 was built on the 38t chassis and armed with a 20mm Flak 38 gun at BMM in Prague in early 1944. This is how it looked:
50 were made. They served from 1944 till the end of the war But the 20mm firepower was not enough. It was decided to arm the 38t chassis with a 75mm L/24 gun. Two projects were made in Prague. In September 1944 - one was concieved under under the designation of Gerät 564. It was basically a Bergepanzer 38t hull with the short 75 mounted on the top of it. On 29.9.1944, it was tested in Kummersdorf. Some sources state the prototype was tested also in early 1945 in Denmark. The second project was done by BMM - it was notably higher:
Both projects had different powerplants, giving them around 150hp. But this was only the beginning. The 38t chassis had one major issue (in Germans' eyes at least). Due to different techniques used in Czechoslovakia, it was very hard, expensive and impractical to manufacture the hull in Germany. And so it was that in September 1944, the OKH announced they want a new 38t - based tank destroyer and a scouting vehicle (the TD would be produced by Alkett in 1000 pieces per month, the scout vehicle would be produced by Miag in 300 pieces per month). In fact, the 38t chassis was so successful that in October 1944, the Panzerkomission declared that the only vehicles to be produced from now on would be based on Tiger, Panther and 38t chassis.
For the aforementioned reasons (and because by the end of the war, Škoda fell behind with 38t chassis production - partly due to war damage, partly due to sabotage, partly simply because it lacked materials), it was decided to rework the 38t chassis into what would become the 38d. The new re-worked chassis was 60mm wider, it had stronger springs and sturdier construction. The main reason for it was of course the Jagdpanzer 38d, but the scouting development was not neglected. The Aufklärungspanzer variant of 38d chassis was projected to be fitted with a (Czech) 220hp Tatra T103 engine, giving it the speed of 52 km/h. In January 1945, on the meeting of the Panzer development commission it was decided that the Aufklärungspanzer 38d would be produced in 2 variants: with a turretted 20mm (using the Hängelafette mount) and the non-turretted 75mm AKF L/48. Both versions were to be produced simultaneously using 1:1 ratio. The vehicle was projected to weight 14 tons, with the frontal armor being cca 30mm thick (sloped at 50 degrees), the sides were cca 20mm thick. The 75mm gun was a re-worked PaK 40 with different mount and construction - it was lighter, allowing for better handling and aiming and it could be traversed 20 degrees to each side. The official designation of the AKF was "AK 7 B84" - its development was finished in April 1945 and only 4 were made.
Originally, this vehicle was scheduled for production from January 1945, but bureaucratic delays killed it. By March 1945 the production order was still not given and by then, it was all over. In late March 1945, an order was given to redirect all the 250 scheduled 38d chassis for emeregency Jagdpanzer 38d production. In two months, the war was over.
In World of Tanks, this vehicle could server as a sort of slower T7 AMX ELC. It's rather low silhouette could provide excellent camo bonus to compensate for its relatively lower speed and thin armor. The weaponry choice is potentially also very wide: there's the 20mm (obviously for stock version), then there's the 38t's 75mm L/24, the main option would be the 75mm AKF, and... to save the best for last: one Bergepanzer 38t (a lot similiar to the Aufklärungspanzer 38t chassis) was converted in December 1944 by BMM Prague to carry a 150mm s.I.G.33/2 howitzer. That could be give it a great derp option. Here's how it looked:
I think such a gun could be mounted on the 38d chassis too.
Spähpanzer SP I.C.
(thanks for bringing this design up, Okinoshima)
This is obviously a post-war prototype design, based on the Schützenpanzer Kurz (Hotchkiss), which was built from 1959 to 1967 by Magirus-Deutz in Mainz. It was concieved in 1956 during the slow building of the new German army - the Bundeswehr. The intent was to follow the footsteps of the popular and successful wartime Puma armored car - a very lightly armored vehicle with a massive weapon for its size. The project was being worked on from 1956 to 1962 (the prototype was built in 1961) - after that it was cancelled, because the vehicle was deemed too light for modern battlefield needs.
The added weight of the gun and turret required some changes to the hull, engine and drivetrain. The rifled 90mm Mercar gun had only a short recoil, allowing it to be mounted in such a small turret. The vehicle weighted 6,5 tons, the armor was 8-15mm thick and it was powered by a 200hp Hotchkiss-Brandt engine (giving it a whopping 30hp/t), the maximum speed was projected at 58 km/h. The gun was the mentioned 90mm Mercar, firing impressive HEAT rounds. It was projected for the crew of 3.
Historically, it would be a good predecessor to the RU251, most likely very nimble and light, with a killer gun.
There are exotic options. The Porsche Typ 245-010, or for example the Aufklärunspanzer Porsche Typ 245-011.
Honestly, I doubt Wargaming will remove the Aufklärungspanzer Panther at this point - the 0.8.5 is too close (relatively). But perhaps this example shows that recycling old models is not exactly the best solution.
- the Panther hull is too big
- the vehicle is bulky, hard to hide (eg. no passive scouting)
- the vehicle is potentially undergunned (50mm L/60 as stock, tier 5 105mm howitzer and the gold-requiring konisch gun)
- the vehicle is potentially underpowered (850hp will most likely not cut it, the 1150hp turbine would perhaps help)
- considering its speed and its size, its armor is probably insufficient
- potantially bad depression (long hull, low turret)
- completely unhistorical with the VK2801 turret
Of course this design has one big advantage for Wargaming: pretty much no new modelling work is needed, as the hull and turret models are already there (Panther hull, Leopard and VK2801 turret). The costs of creating such a vehicle are kept to a minimum. By the way, a friend told me that he believes at this moment Wargaming is in the cost-cutting phase, eg. making new patches (including vehicles) as cheaply as possible. Let's recap 8.4 then - 2x Panzer I, Panzer II (remodelled existing Panzer II), Valentine AT (Valentine hull already existed), Churchill GC (well, Churchill hull model was also already there), the whole AT series with vehicles looking similiar - less modelling work, then there's the AT-15 model used for AT-15A and (modified) for Tortoise. Oh yes, and the second FV215b with a remodelled turret. Looks like Wargaming has gone eco friendly and is into recycling right now :) When you look at the 8.5 patch - what will we get: a recycled Panther, RU251 (new, granted), 2 Leopards, 1 recycled VK3002DB(v1) and the (new, granted) Indienpanzer.
But this is not what this article is about. It is about the possible alternatives to the T7 Aufklärungspanzer Panther. There are several in fact. We are looking at 1944+ vehicles to keep at least some historical continuity (T6 VK2801 is a late 1943 project while T7 scout Panther was concieved in early 1942). We have basically three options (with a few more bit obscure ones).
Panzer 38(t) mit Panzer IV-Turm
This is a concept project by Krupp. In November 1944, Krupp sent a batch of projects to the Inspector-general of the tank force (Panzertruppen), proposing to re-arm existing tank designs. The basic idea was to use the best weapon available with the least amount of armor, so weight is saved and the vehicle is maneuverable. Krupp believed that the vehicle should have enough armor to actually protect itself from its own weapon. In January 1945, the Inspector-general passed the proposals to the Waffenprüfamt 6, who in turn threw most of them out, because so many new designs were unrealistic to produce. For Germany it was too late anyway, but some of these proposals were technically very interesting.
One of the proposals was to put a Panzer IV turret on the redesigned Panzer 38t hull and re-arm it with the L/48 75mm KwK 40 cannon (lower picture). It was deemed technically possible to mount the turret at the cost of reduction of the hull angle and armor, but the weight would stress the roadwheels immensely. The vehicle (projected to weight 16 tons) would thus have little mobility advantage, compared to the Hetzer hull. The armor would be roughly comparable to the Hetzer (60mm front, cca 20mm sides).
Now, three things could make it viable for scouting:
a) more powerful engine (originally, Tatra T103 was intended, but 220hp doesn't really cut it for 16 tons)
b) the Panzer IV turret can hold a 105mm howitzer (eg. firepower comparable to the Aufklärungspanzer Panther)
c) the PAW 600.
PAW600 (as shown on the upper picture) was historically considered (as it was very light), but for World of Tanks it has one main disadvantage: it's a smoothbore weapon. Wargaming would probably deny it on that basis only. There are other options however (the same that could apply for the Aufklärungspanzer Panther) - 50mm autocannons for example.
Aufklärungspanzer 38d
The history of this project is quite interesting. The first "incarnation" of the Aufklärungspanzer 38 was built on the 38t chassis and armed with a 20mm Flak 38 gun at BMM in Prague in early 1944. This is how it looked:
50 were made. They served from 1944 till the end of the war But the 20mm firepower was not enough. It was decided to arm the 38t chassis with a 75mm L/24 gun. Two projects were made in Prague. In September 1944 - one was concieved under under the designation of Gerät 564. It was basically a Bergepanzer 38t hull with the short 75 mounted on the top of it. On 29.9.1944, it was tested in Kummersdorf. Some sources state the prototype was tested also in early 1945 in Denmark. The second project was done by BMM - it was notably higher:
For the aforementioned reasons (and because by the end of the war, Škoda fell behind with 38t chassis production - partly due to war damage, partly due to sabotage, partly simply because it lacked materials), it was decided to rework the 38t chassis into what would become the 38d. The new re-worked chassis was 60mm wider, it had stronger springs and sturdier construction. The main reason for it was of course the Jagdpanzer 38d, but the scouting development was not neglected. The Aufklärungspanzer variant of 38d chassis was projected to be fitted with a (Czech) 220hp Tatra T103 engine, giving it the speed of 52 km/h. In January 1945, on the meeting of the Panzer development commission it was decided that the Aufklärungspanzer 38d would be produced in 2 variants: with a turretted 20mm (using the Hängelafette mount) and the non-turretted 75mm AKF L/48. Both versions were to be produced simultaneously using 1:1 ratio. The vehicle was projected to weight 14 tons, with the frontal armor being cca 30mm thick (sloped at 50 degrees), the sides were cca 20mm thick. The 75mm gun was a re-worked PaK 40 with different mount and construction - it was lighter, allowing for better handling and aiming and it could be traversed 20 degrees to each side. The official designation of the AKF was "AK 7 B84" - its development was finished in April 1945 and only 4 were made.
Originally, this vehicle was scheduled for production from January 1945, but bureaucratic delays killed it. By March 1945 the production order was still not given and by then, it was all over. In late March 1945, an order was given to redirect all the 250 scheduled 38d chassis for emeregency Jagdpanzer 38d production. In two months, the war was over.
In World of Tanks, this vehicle could server as a sort of slower T7 AMX ELC. It's rather low silhouette could provide excellent camo bonus to compensate for its relatively lower speed and thin armor. The weaponry choice is potentially also very wide: there's the 20mm (obviously for stock version), then there's the 38t's 75mm L/24, the main option would be the 75mm AKF, and... to save the best for last: one Bergepanzer 38t (a lot similiar to the Aufklärungspanzer 38t chassis) was converted in December 1944 by BMM Prague to carry a 150mm s.I.G.33/2 howitzer. That could be give it a great derp option. Here's how it looked:
I think such a gun could be mounted on the 38d chassis too.
Spähpanzer SP I.C.
(thanks for bringing this design up, Okinoshima)
This is obviously a post-war prototype design, based on the Schützenpanzer Kurz (Hotchkiss), which was built from 1959 to 1967 by Magirus-Deutz in Mainz. It was concieved in 1956 during the slow building of the new German army - the Bundeswehr. The intent was to follow the footsteps of the popular and successful wartime Puma armored car - a very lightly armored vehicle with a massive weapon for its size. The project was being worked on from 1956 to 1962 (the prototype was built in 1961) - after that it was cancelled, because the vehicle was deemed too light for modern battlefield needs.
The added weight of the gun and turret required some changes to the hull, engine and drivetrain. The rifled 90mm Mercar gun had only a short recoil, allowing it to be mounted in such a small turret. The vehicle weighted 6,5 tons, the armor was 8-15mm thick and it was powered by a 200hp Hotchkiss-Brandt engine (giving it a whopping 30hp/t), the maximum speed was projected at 58 km/h. The gun was the mentioned 90mm Mercar, firing impressive HEAT rounds. It was projected for the crew of 3.
Historically, it would be a good predecessor to the RU251, most likely very nimble and light, with a killer gun.
There are exotic options. The Porsche Typ 245-010, or for example the Aufklärunspanzer Porsche Typ 245-011.
Honestly, I doubt Wargaming will remove the Aufklärungspanzer Panther at this point - the 0.8.5 is too close (relatively). But perhaps this example shows that recycling old models is not exactly the best solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)