Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 16, 2013

Sorting out the 210mm Ferdinand

 By Zarax



The introduction of "GW-Ferdinand" by Wargaming left me scratching my head.
The first reaction was "yet another fantasy tank!", but I had an hitching feeling about reading a "21cm auf Elefant" somewhere.

The first hint came from the forums, where "Panzer Leader" by Guderian was mentioned as a source.
It is there indeed mentioned as a proposal (among other things, like additional front plating for Tiger, Panther and Panzer IV)  but I still was not sure as he seemed to be mixing out stuff. The fact that the 210mm mortar itself was nicknamed "Elefant" due to its weight didn't help of course as it could have allowed further confusion.

"Gunpower 22", by Tadeusz Melleman briefly mentions that heavy self propelled guns on Tiger P chassis were proposed for 150 and 170mm heavy howitzers on page 7, however no source is given, leaving me skeptical about it, although it mentions the same reason for dismissal as Guderian's, economic cost. 

This led me to dig deeper into the main authors. A deeper check into "Special Panzer Variants" by Spielberger revealed a "Elefant 21cm on Hummel chassis" proposed on March 1945 but it turned out to be talking about the mortar itself rather than the tank.

"Panzer Tracts 08" gave a precious start, saying in thr Sturmpanzer IV chapter that succesfull production of the model would stop the need for a 21cm Tiger (P) based Stug. This, and the fact that Sturmtiger itself was initially considered to use a similar howitzer, made me consider the possibility of a "Sturmtiger (P)", although still not direct enough to be certain.

"Tiger und seine abarten" by Spielberger finally hit the nail. On pages 104 and 105 (translation courtesy of Silentstalker) it says Hitler wanted the conversion of Porsche Tigers into Sturmgeschütz vehicles with 200mm frontal armor and a 88mm L/71 gun. He also ordered the research of the possibility of installing a 210mm French captured mortars into them. For that, the hull and the superstructure was to be strenghtened. 

The order to rebuild one (Porsche vehicle) into a Sturmgeschütz was given by the army high command to Porsche on 26.9.1942.  On 14.10.1942 Hitler said that if Panzer IV could have the SIG gun installed, the need for the 88 or 210mm Porsche Tiger Stug has no longer priority and only constructive suggestions should be given from now on. 

What does this mean?

Basically, a 210mm assault mortar used as howitzer on a Ferdinand. Same armor, likely slightly different superstructure but definitely a front line tank, not an artillery unit. So, after VK 7201, Wargaming did it again and utterly misread a german design.

Will they ever learn?

Bonus detail: On 5.1.1943 Hitler requested the trials of a 88 L/100 on Tiger P chassis.

Addendum for those that argue about its use in WOT

My articles are purely on an historical perspective although usually based on WOT tanks or events.
My aim is to rectify historical accuracy mistakes, not to create WOT tank designs.

Someone pointed that the armor on a "mortar carrier" would be useless thus it's not logical.

This tank was not meant for facing other tanks tanks but rather bunker defences (which included anti-tank guns) in an urban settings, while the tank role was simply to bring the biggest gun close enough to do the job.

I'll try to explain the role in simple words:

1) Pick a big city (historically, Stalingrad).
2) Infantry discovers a fortified building that indirect fire artillery cannot reach
3) Tank caliber guns fails to breach the reinforced walls
 

At this point a solution is needed:

Hitler proposed a ramming Tiger vehicle that would act like a motorized battering ram.
Someone a bit less insane proposed a vehicle armored enough to withstand anything thrown at it by bunker defences and with a large enough gun to crack it.

Implementation phase 1: a SIG heavy howitzer is mounted on a Panzer III chassis with 80mm front

Implementation phase 1.5: Hitler wants something bigger and orders the heaviest gun on his favourite engineer's (Porsche) platform

Implementation phase 2: someone saner persuades Hitler that a panzer IV with a 15cm STUH 43 short howitzer and 100mm frontal armor is enough

Implementation phase 2.5: Hitler gets angry and states that nothing less than a Tiger will scare away enemy soldiers from position

Implementation phase 3: Sturmpanzer Bar and Sturmtiger competes for the heavy sturmpanzer role, with Sturmtiger winning the competition.


How would it work in battle in its concept?

The tank would simply approach the enemy strongpoints relying on strong frontal armor to resist anti-tank guns, grenades and anything a fortified position cold fire at it.
Once within range (from a few hundred meters to 1-2 kilometers) the tank would fire with a heavy howitzer and demolish the enemy bunkers either with HE or with a large HEAT demolition shell.

Tanks were not their primary targets and they were not meant to be used as tank destroyers primarily, although that role was occasionally envisioned.





Would they wreck any tank if they fired on it? Yes if close enough to score a direct hit with their low velocity guns.
Would they be optimal for the task? No, as everything in the tank is optimized for short range use against static targets. Perhaps they would be devastating in an ambush, but with the naturally slow rate of fire it would be a waste of heavy shells.


Someone likened heavy sturmpanzers to  the soviet SU-ISU 152. It is an analogy with limited purpose, as the german tanks were much more specialized in their role than the soviet design and would be out-ranged by them.




 

16.4.2013

- the situation with the alleged premium account buff got complicated, Storm debunked SerB's information that thee will be PA buffs. Confusing.
- all the armor calculations are done server-side
- there is a chance the Leopard 1 will be made lower (historically, according to Storm, it should be 2400mm tall, at this moment in game it's 2480mm tall)




- as previously reported by FTR, 8.5 has been confirmed for Thursday on RU server, which means EU/US will follow possibly next week Tuesday/Wednesday.

On the topic of 8.6 arties, I tried to get into the bottom of them, whether they are historical and if yes, what can we expect. The Soviet one is historical, it's one of the SU-14 prototypes (SU-14-1). According to some hints I have read on RU forum, it might be implemented below the SU-14 itself and have worse weaponry. It was stated it won't be faster or more maneuverable.

The German one is still as far as I can tell a fake. There IS a source, Guderian himself mentions an "Elefant" with a 210mm mortar, but no other reputable sources (Doyle, Spielberger) mention any project like that I think. What I think happened is - as it did many times in history - someone confused two Elefants. You see, the name "Elefant" was used (officially) for the improved Ferdinand tank destroyers... but also (unofficially) for a Czechoslovak 220/210mm mortar project GrW 69 "Elefant", which had nothing to do with the Porsche Elefant chassis, it was just a name (credits go to Zarax for making me aware of this). The Elefant mortar was bored 210mm, Wargaming's GW Elefant is equipped with a 210mm mortar... see where I am going?


Someone somewhere (maybe even Guderian himself) possibly confused the Elefant mortar and Elefant tank destroyer and gained impression there was supposed to be a mortar mounted ON the Elefant chassis. Such confusion is not uncommon after all, we have many cases where someone made something up or got confused and it stuck and it is even commonly used now, despite being unhistorical (examples: Jagdpanzer 38t called "Hetzer", M36 called Jackson and so on).

The French one - nothing is known. I asked several people, known to know stuff about French vehicles (notably Souroy via Okinoshima), noone has heard of a Batchat artillery based on M47 Patton chassis.

The fate of German tanks...

We asked SerB what is the fate of German tanks going to be for you :)

"Well...."


"We're gonna start nerfing them...."



"....and then we'll nerf them to the ground!"


Pics posted on US forums by LostMahPants, sorry, couldn't resist :)

Buff my Tank: M8A1

Author: Priory_of_Sion

The M8A1 is a fine tier 4 TD, one of the best vehicles of its tier. However its depression numbers are half of what it was IRL according to The_Chieftain.

"Apparently WoT has been underestimating the amount of comfort that the "M8A1" is capable of. The real one was -20/+40." -The_Chieftain 

This applies to all guns on the M8A1 not just the small 75 mm howitzer. 

This could be a wicked little buff to an already good vehicle.


Bring on the Comfort

Edit: It also seems the T40 has less depression and elevation than it did in real life. A downside to the T40 is that the devs did gave it more gun traverse than it is suppose to have.

Apr 15, 2013

8.5 release + other small stuff

Hello everyone,

not sure how reliable this is but I recieved a piece of information that 8.5 will be released in Russia on 18th April (on Thursday), while the EU/NA might get it the following Tuesday/Wednesday.

Edit: confirmed (unless wg-news.ru took the info from here, which would be awkward)




On a personal note:

- yes, I do have a Youtube channel, but I don't use it and it's not like I ever will, don't bother following it guys
- also, you don't have to bother with adding me on Google+, I don't use that at all, nor do I see the stuff some of you share with me. If you feel like using a social network, this blog has a Facebook page.

Thank you.

Buff My Tank: TOG II*

SS: Today, we have a special guest article by Vollketten (US forums) about the possible TOG II* upgrades. Vollketten is a respected member of the US community, writing occasionaly on various topics, including Italian and British tanks. Enjoy.

Author: Vollketten, US forums

Buff My Tank - TOG II*


For anyone who still doesn’t know T.O.G stands for The Old Gang a group of WW1 tank designers who ran a design scheme parrallel to the main design channels in Britain in WW2 based in no small part on the rather abrasive personality of Sir Albert Stern. You can find more on the development and history of the TOG project at my TOG Files thread here.
 
Okay so by now everyone has realised that the TOG II* in game is a slow mammoth of a tank easily picked off by an opposing team as it wallows around trying to get into position. Personally I tend to find most of my team are dead before I even get to the battle.
I accept that on those rare occasions I get to use it properly and someone (a medium) provides some support and cover the TOG is a beast to reckon with-sadly this is very infrequent in pub. games so here I propose a buff.

 TOG I, late 1941:



Speed: The Old Gang being wed to a rather older idea of what WW2 would bring designed a deliberately long and slow tank being able to provide significant firepower (TOG looked more like a French B1 with a howitzer mounted in the front hull and both were originally intended to have sponson mounted machine guns akin to a WW1 tank) and being able to cross trenches (hence the long tail). So don’t expect a fast TOG anytime soon but that said there is a call to improve the speed and maneuverability.

Mass: So ignoring if one can for a moment that the exact weight of the TOGII* is not actually known (it is so heavy it had to be weighed in two halves and the summed so it weighs about 71,125 kg (71.125 tonnes) and that in the game they give it as 81.3 tonnes which is far too heavy. Thus in game it has a power to weight ratio of 7.38 hp/tonne from the 600hp engine.
Given its correct weight (assuming 600hp is correct) it would have a power to weight ratio of 600/71.125 which would give 8.44 hp/tonne. What this would do is improve the top speed from the woeful 14kph up towards the 20 kph mark. Also there should be commensurate increase in acceleration and a lower resistance across rough ground.

Armour: From this very blog, regarding a declassified Soviet document from 1943 gives stats of an unknown British tank in development which is nothing like anything else ever made and so MAY relate to the TOG programme (there are some other similarities).

That vehicle had an estimated armor thickness on the sides of 65 and 75mm, and frontal armor of 110mm which is certainly very close to the real TOG we know. Secondly there is another reason to buff the armour from an eye-witness to its development "she had been designed at a time when fighting was expected to take place around the Maginot line, her characteristics were slow speed, with a range of 50 miles for operating with infantry, great length to cross wide trenches and armour which would withstand a direct hit from a 105mm gun at 100 yards."

Now in game she has frontal armour of 76mm and obviously they have the real TOG II at Bovington to get measurements from. What they omit though is that the armour is not homogeneous armour plate but rather made from a base layer of mild steel and then clad with high hardness steel armour plate. Does this not mean it has weaker armour? I hear you say. Well no.

In the 1920’s and 30’s Vickers developed a face hardened armour plate (about 20mm thick) of a face hardness of 600 BHN and rear hardness of 400 BHN (German homogeneous armour plate was about 400 BHN) but the Vickers plate is so hard it could not be cut or welded and had to be bolted on. By the 1970’s Hadfield ‘Duplex’ armour was being used (which had been developed prior to WW2). This had an effective armour strength being increased due to the softer rear layer absorbing the energy of the impacting shell with a much lower tendency to spall that the very high hardness armour. In absorbing this energy it reduces the propensity of armour fracture due to impact which improves the armour of the outer layer. In other words a hard outer layer backed with a softer layer is actually both stronger and lighter (by up to 38 per cent over Rolled Homogeneous Armour) that RHA.

Or applied to the TOG, even if the 76mm thick armour remains it should have the strength of a greater thickness. Rather than remodel the game mechanics (I know there is a secret armour factor at play as well) it would be simpler to improve the frontal armour to 110mm instead.

Finally on armour as the entrance hatches on the left and right of the hull were there originally because of the sponsons planned it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they would have been better shaped, smaller and better armoured on any production TOG. I suggest small, circular hatches like on the later Churchills and the A33 Excelsior.

TOG II with 77mm


Armament: In all honestly the armament of the TOG is already sufficient. In fact it’s the best feature of the tank and I wouldn’t propose any changes to improve the performance at all. In real life the TOG II was also fitted at some point (prior to being fitted with the 17-pdr currently modeled) with a 77mm gun which may have been the OQF 77mm Mk.II as used already in the game of the Tier 6 British Heavy Churchill Mk.VII. This would be a reducing in performance from 150 damage and 171 penetration (with the current 17pdr) down to 140 damage and 148 penetration albeit with a slight increase in rate of fire.
The best way to buff the TOG II’s armament would be to increase the rate of fire as it has two loaders and more internal space than the Churchill.VII so it could have a rate of fire of 13 rpm which would be a small but nice improvement.

Size: Finally and more importantly at the end of the whole TOG project there were two other versions mentioned. That of the TOG III (no details) but also of a TOG-R (R for Reduced) basically a shorter TOG. By the end of the beginning (to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill) it was obvious that there would be no return to a WW1 trench war so a shorter TOG was envisaged as there was no trench system to have to cross. How short would be speculative but it could look like this:


Sources:
The Great Tank Scandal - David Fletcher
Paxmans Tanks
The Landships of Lincoln - Richard Pullen
Walter Wilson; Portrait of an Inventor - A.Gordon Wilson
Technology of Tanks – Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

15.4.2013

- incoming arty nerf in connection with tier 10 arty? "no comment"
- there will be no further (stricter) arty hardcap per battle
- various historical battles might have various XP/credit rewards
- there is further material available on more British heavies and mediums (to be implemented)
- in connection with tier 10 arty introduction, the company vehicle tier limits for various vehicles will be re-worked, but the sum of points for each company time most likely won't
- the overall amount of arties per team in high tier battles should decrease with 0.8.6
- the new Chinese premium heavy (tier 8) will be called "112" (SS: it's the one from the screenies - basically a - probably armor-nerfed 113 hull and a 111 turret), there is also a Chinese (T8?) medium tank being prepared, but no info on that for now (this is how it looks:)



- dynamic objects (apart from fallen trees) have no influence on visibility, eg. if a small tank hides behind a big one, it can be spotted as if the big one was not there
- there are no plans to modify the MM, so one side doesn't have more premium vehicles than the other
- the reason there won't be any free arty given in 0.8.6 is that the devs don't want to increase the amount of arty even further
- 100 percent crew training for credits won't be implemented, as it has no influence on battle outcome
- popularity of a tank by itself is no reason for that tank to be buffed (eg. extremely unpopular tanks won't get buffed just because players don't like them)
- turret being ripped off by explosions effect will come soon apparently
- more XP (but not credits) is awarded for doing damage to enemy tanks of tier higher than you

Random news: Overlord admitted it would have been better to do the 2nd anniversary hangars differently (not as shared for USA and EU server) - maybe next time, guys.