- the Chinese Type 100 tank destroyer is nothing else but a Soviet SU-100, license-manufactured (or perhaps only imported to) in China
- some time ago, the game mechanics allowed the engine to burn after any hit (regardless how small), it was changed (a threshold for needed damage per hit was added) because lowtier vehicles burned too much after being hit by rapidfire autocannons
- the Maus speed was set "according to the data coming from its developers"
Storm confirmed this is completely correct - a player called Crueldwarf explains how the mantlet works:
This post was related to the tier 8 medium tank mantlets (specifically Indienpanzer mantlet thickness whine). Basically, all tanks have "empty space" (a zone with very thin armor) behind their mantlet, as demonstrated by the picture above. The difference is, Pershing has much thicker mantlet than other tier 8 meds and T-44 has only a small "empty" space behind the mantlet.
Basically, Pershing second turret has a 203mm thick mantlet in the center and 57mm thick on the rims, but the rims overlap with the turret armor that is 101mm thick, making the armor there 158mm thick in effect. The thickest parts (where the mantlet center overlaps with the turret armor - very thin), the armor is 304mm thick.
The T-44 (both turrets) has only a 120mm thick mantlet, but the "hole" behind it is relatively small. Only the center of the mantlet is completely penetrable. The rims that overlap with the turret armor make the armor effectively 240mm thick - and that is difficult to break.
The Indienpanzer has a 130mm thick mantlet (in the center), but the hole behind it is very large. Additionally, the mantlet rims are only 100mm (inner rim) and 55mm (outer rim, as shown on the picture) thick. The huge "hole" is the price to pay for very good elevation and depression. In effect, only a very small part of the mantlet is cca 170mm thick, the rest (notably the center) is 120-130mm thick. Generally, the mantlet of the Indienpanzer is very thin for its size.
Thanks to *anonymous guy* for showing me that livejournal.ru post - you guys should really sign so I know who to thank occasionally :)
So, I think we do know another part of what will come in 0.8.6: equipment rebalance. See further.
- so, the Russian (yet another) World of Tanks ripoff is getting sued by Wargaming for plagiarism (SS: TBH, quite rightfully so)
- the devs did think about limiting the maximum amount of gold ammo carried by a tank, but decided not to do it in the end
- T32 and M46 are considered balanced
- when setting the landscape on minimum settings, you might get glitches, such as shells flying into the ground because on higher setting, there is some terrain mold or something, which is invisible in lowest settings. The reason for it was that the developers discovered that on some very weak computers, players modified the ingame settings manually in game files to reach the same thing: a significant FPS increase. That's why it was implemented officially, despite the fact it can cause terrain bugs. Storm states that if this setting is too buggy for you (despite the fact Wargming fixed the worst bugs), move the landscape graphics setting up one point.
- an engine can catch fire on any damage (above some - small - threshold, f.x. lowtier machineguns and autocannons), it doesn't have to be yellow to catch fire And now Storm's answers from the livejournal post:
- detailed armor scheme for each tank will eventually be implemented into the hangar
- breakable objects that cause vehicles to slow down a lot (fences, walls) will be fixed
- railways will be "sunk" into the ground so they don't limit tank movement in any way
- the base structure (SS: that crap in the middle of each base that blocks shells) won't be removed
- the mechanism for (AP/APCR) shells to actually punch thru soft cover (fences, etc.) instead of being eaten by it will be implemented in 0.8.6, but the covers itself will be fixed in separate patches (SS: eg. the mechanism will be only programmed, but not activated)
- spall liner will be re-made in 0.8.6 (it will be different for various tanks, it will absorb from 15 to 30 percent HE/ramming damage)
- there will be "other options" for those who fear arty (artyphobes)
By EnsignExpendable
Continuing my Q&A feature, here is the #3 batch of questions!
Q: Can you list all the proposed KV-4 blueprints, their implementations in-game, their actual speed, and armour schematics? What tiers can they be implemented in?
A: I don't have all of them, but I do have some. Data on the designs is a little sparse. For some, not even their creator is known. There are twenty of these things, so I'll cover the interesting ones.
Fedorenko's design. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the dome turret. Speed: 21.6-38 kph
In game, Fedorenko's design would be roughly the same, except with a bigger weak spot where the 45 mm turret is. It is hard to talk about viability of the design in-game, as armour layouts are unknown.
Kruchenyh's design. 107.7 tons, 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm in the smaller turret. Speed: 35 kph. Front armour: 180 mm.
This tank has a bit more data on it. Also similar to the current KV-4, with a bit less gun depression due to the center turret. The armour and weight are about the same as the current in-game KV-4. The speed is a little higher.
Buganov's design. 107 mm gun, 45 mm gun in the smaller turret. Speed: 36 kph.
This KV-4 is a little faster and shorter than the one in game. The designer apparently hated gun depression with a passion, as none is found here.
Shashmurin's design. 107 mm gun in the hull, 76 mm gun in the turret. Speed: 35 kph.
Shashmurin's design takes an M3 Lee-like approach: big gun in the hull, small gun in the turret. This thing had little advantages over any of the other designs.
Tarapatin's project. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the upper turret. Speed: 35 kph.
This is another TD-like project. The armour is reduced to 125 mm. Maybe this can be a tier 7, if it doesn't get the huge gun.
Mihailov's project. 107 mm gun in the turret, 45 mm gun in the hull. Speed: 50 kph.
Mihailov's project combines speed with firepower. The useless 45 mm gun is removed, along with its weak spot. The tank itself is lighter than the one in the game, at 86.5 tons. This isn't even the fastest project, Sychev's KV-4 would go 55 kph (sadly, no blueprint is provided).
As you can see, all KV-4s are roughly the same. Some of the weaker armoured ones might do well at tier 7, but there is not very much spread.
Q: Is the current 107 mm top gun on the KV-4 close to reality?
A: Let's take a look at Soviet 107 mm guns. The top gun is the "107 mm high power gun". It gets a pretty impressive 188 mm of penetration at 1000 meters, against armour sloped at 30 degrees. Since WoT measures penetration against flat armour at 100 meters, I'm going to have to do some approximations.
The ZiS-6 gun in game gets 167 mm of penetration. The ZiS-6 in that document gets 115 mm of penetration. Assuming the ratios hold, the longer gun in WoT should have about 273 mm of penetration. The in-game gun only has 227 mm of penetration. Russian Bias, why have you abandoned me!?
Q: Are there Russian tanks similar to the Sturmtiger? I have read about the RBT-5 and a KV variant with Katyusha rockets.
A: There were self propelled T-34 mortar projects, both less than and greater than the Sturmtiger caliber. There was also a 400 mm mortar project for the T-34 and KV-1S, but they didn't have the armoured casemate of the Sturmtiger. A project existed to mount the BM-13 rockets on a KV-1, but it never went anywhere.
As for the RBT-5, it was an interesting tank indeed. While keeping its 45 mm gun, it was equipped with two 250 kg "tank torpedoes", capable of the same destructive power as 305 mm guns, capable of taking out enemy heavy tanks and concrete bunkers. The rockets were aimed with the standard gun sight. The 45 mm gun was used to acquire the range, and then the rockets would be fired after converting it using a table. The range of these rockets was up to 1500 meters. However, the rockets were vulnerable to bullets, shells, and shrapnel, so the project was axed.
Another rocket BT project was developed, a BT-5 with 132 mm rockets. Rather than being produced for some combat purpose, it was produced to determine the effect of rocket exhaust on the tank and its crew. Turns out that it was harmless, but was unacceptable in terms of fire safety. The project was discontinued, but the data gathered was used in the Katyusha program.
As for direct equivalents of the Sturmtiger, I don't know of any. The largest caliber the Soviets put in a tank expected to participate in close combat was 203 mm.
Q: I heard about the successor of the T-39, the T-42, and I was wondering if there is any info about it.
A: The T-42 was not a successor, but a predecessor to the T-39 (the T indexes are not sequential). The story of the T-42 begins in 1930, when the USSR invited foreign specialists to consult with on tank building. One of these specialists was German engineer Eduard Grote. The, as SerB puts it, "gloomy Teutonic genius" seems to be set on ridiculously heavy tanks, as Grote proposed a 1000 ton tank in 1931 with either three or six turrets, two 304 mm guns, four 152 mm and 76 mm guns, and two 45 mm guns, with a crew of 40 people. This proposal was denied. Grote proposed a slightly more reasonable tank, only 75 tons. There were only three guns, two 45 mm, and one 76 or 100 mm. The tank crew was 10 people. Based on this project, he also designed a heavier tank, the T-42. The tank's mass was 100 tons, armour up to 70 mm. The main gun, 107 mm in caliber, would be placed in a center turret, that could rotate 270 degrees. A 76 mm gun was placed in the front turret, which could rotate 202 degrees. A 45 mm gun was placed in the rear turret, which could rotate 278 degrees. The tank was planned to be accelerated to 30 kph with a 2000 hp engine. It could also cross up to 2 m deep rivers with a watertight hull and turrets.
As of fall of 1931, it was decided that Grote's services are no longer required.
That's it for now! Keep sending those questions in to tankarchives@gmail.com, or post them in the comments.
First, a quote from The_Chieftain on 8.6 (27th April, 12:05):
Well, I've seen the 8.6 notes, and they are far more significant than I
had been led to believe. Arty is, as the devs on the Russian forum
reported, getting a major re-work, some things I think are good, some
not so good. We'll see how it pans out. Arty isn't the only thing
getting significantly changed either. The 'nuclear' comment is somewhat
justified.
Now I am curious :) Truth to be told, I expect some change of gold-ammo-for-creds type: useful for some but controversial for others. Sexton I and Excelsior are also scheduled to appear.
- 0.8.6 confirmed to come out in June 2013 (on RU server anyway)
- there is no difference between early (pre-war), wartime and post-war armor quality in game
- there will be some upcoming changes in mods (SS: related to the new artillery hack mod), "follow the news" (SS: one proposed solution was a "mod certification", without which the mod won't be accepted)
- the fact that when your game client crashes and your tank gets destroyed by leaving the battle even if the victory is certain (for example, last enemy tank just died) resulting in a loss/draw is fine according to devs
- US "Hunter" tank destroyer won't be implemented
- SerB regarding the players actually being able to make money while using exclusively tier 5 gold derp shells: "Good players have the right not to lose credits while shooting gold shells. And the bad players must either train harder or not use gold shells at all."
- if you dismissed some crews until now, you won't get them back even if the option to buy back the dismissed crews is introduced, because data about them are not being stored
- Q: "We want better quality models" A: "Want realism? Join the army."
- the next global update (SS: as big as for example the patch that introduced physics) will be 0.9.0
- no plans to introduce 100 percent crew training for credits
- if you experience lag when switching from arcade to sniper mode and vice versa, apparently your computer is at fault, there is no such bug in WoT
- it's possible that there will be some special company-level archivements ("awards") implemented in time
- devs do track the amount of various tanks sitting in player garages
- tier 10 Chinese vehicles are doing fine statistically
- Historical battles will come eventually. Hardcore mode: "Want hardcore? Join the army."
- maps bigger than 1x1 introduction is limited by the existence low-end player computers
- German M10 Panther will recieve the US Star as its emblem instead of the cross, it's planned
Well here I go attempting to answer the questions I think I can answer. Questions like will X be introduced and when are unknown to me.
Q:Why did America pursue autoloading designs and why weren't the accepted?
The advantages of autoloaders included a smaller crew, a smaller vehicle, and a very good burst of fire could be attained was the major reasons behind the pursuit of autoloaders. A combination of slow development, teething issues, and faster development and production of conventional designs spelled the doom of early American autoloaders.
The US never gave up on the autoloader though and now you can see it in use with the M1128 MGS.
Q:Was the M4 with the M26 Turret tested, if so how did it perform? It seems like that vehicle wasn't tested. It was more of a test of wether an 90 mm Sherman was possible(it was). However M26 itself would be ready by the same time if production of the M4 90 mm was pursued, so it was abandoned . Q:What gun is mounted on this modified T34? The_Chieftain said this when he stumped us NA Forum goers. "To put you guys out of your misery, it was a T34 with the T123E3 (T57 tank cannon) on a rigid mount " Q: Is another US Heavy Line possible? It is entirely possible. The US had designs such as the K Proposal, the TS-6, and the T96. However it would be a stretch and isn't likely to happen(at least not within the foreseeable future) in WoT IMO. Q: Why did American tanks have unusually heavy turret armor compared to other nations? The US adopted the practice of hull down fighting early on. The heavy turret armor combined with good gun depression means that American Vehicles can hull down over hills exposing only their heavy turret armor. Q:Why did the M60 have thin hull armor compared to its Soviet counterparts? It really didn't. The first M60 was only slightly less protected than the T54(The M48 was more protected than the first M60s as well) while later versions such as the M60A1 were on par with their Soviet counterparts. Q:What could be some US Premium TDs? Well any of the vehicles I proposed in my 3rd TD Line thread are all possible candidates except for the higher tiered ones. The M56 Scorpion is likely and the T88 is already planned. The T88 however might become an artillery piece for all I know. Q: Are there any plain silly US tank proposals? The US had a bunch a stranger projects including nuclear powered tanks(TV-8 and R-32), twin gunned tanks(the SARAH), the half AFV/half helicopter FALCON, the ASTRON Project, and the Yoh tanks are all some weird designs. I am planning on an article for these guys so no pics for now. Q: Was the early Cold War 90 mm gun effective versus T-54/55s? Also how was the penetration of the "long" 90 mm guns? The HEAT rounds were more than capable of defeating the frontal armor, you still need to fire a good shot. Otherwise it would be best to use flanking maneuvers to fire into the weaker side armor. The T-54 armor was extremely tough and it wasn't until the late 1950s that US tanks could defeat T-54 with relative ease without HEAT with the 105 mm M68. The Penetration figures for the 90 mm guns is very close to historical already in game. I would also like to point out that in 1949 a British Liaison questioned the use of the 90 mm gun in the M46 Patton, he pointed out the 20 pounder was a more effective weapon. However 'Murica went along with the 90 mm. Q: What was the actual T110E3 suppose to be like? The T110E3 would be fairly mobile for a ~50 ton vehicle and could easily reach 30 km/h+ speeds. It would have thick armor but not the 300+ we have in game. The mantlet however is extremely thick(229 mm) and heavy(2 tons). The gun was to be the T123(aka M58) 120 mm. Q: Any info on the T42 Medium? The T42 was born out of the T37 Light Tank. It retained the overall dimensions of the T37 but had thicker armor and a 90 mm gun. The hull and the gun are the same as the T69 without the autoloader. The turret design is the same as the top turret on the M46. Q: How was the armor of the T95 Medium? The T95's frontal hull ranged from 76 to 127 mm on the LFP at a slope of 45 degrees and 95 mm on the upper plate at a slope of 65 degrees. The side armor is pretty weak. The strongest point of the side hull armor is 102 mm at a zero slope, most parts of the side armor are much weaker being 37-51 mm thick at a zero degree slope. The armor is rolled and cast homogeneous steel, silica fused armor was planned but the T95 was cancelled before that could be done. The turret armor of the T95 is extremely good. The mantlet is upwards towards 381 mm thick and the frontal turret is 178 mm thick at a 60 degree slope. Q: What is likely to happen to the T23? If the T23 is not included in a second US Medium line it is safe to say it will NOT be a tier 8 or tier 7 premium. The historical T23 would have a 560 hp engine and the 76 mm gun, that would be way too underpowered for a tier 7. If the T23 becomes a premium it would likely be a tier 6. Don't worry though, the US has enough medium designs to use as a tier 7/8 premium medium. Q:What ever happened to the T110 series? A full wooden mock-up was produced but by that time the M103 was being put into service and the US shifted from the heavy T110 series in search for lighter weight heavy gun tanks(such as the T96, T77, and the XM60). Q: What does all the Ms, Ts, Es, and As stand for? I don't exactly remember the exact meaning but here is what they approximately mean. M~= Production Model T~=Test E~= Modification A~=Version Q: What guns could be on the M41 Walker Bulldog in WoT? My speculation is that the stock gun is the T94 from the upgraded M24. The historical M32 gun is a must and has the same ballistics as the T71's top gun and is likely to be the middle gun. The M41 90 mm from the M48 Patton is also likely to be the top gun. Q: Is the upgraded M46 the M47? If not what could become of the M47? A common misconception is that the M47 is represented by the upgraded M46. This isn't exactly the case. You see the upgraded M46 is the M46E1 which is an M46 hull mated with the T42 turret. The T42 turret went under slight modifications before it was the same as the M47 turret. The M47 also has a unique hull which is slightly more effective than the M46 hull. IMO the M47 could be a tier 8 premium or possible a tier 9 regular tank in an alternate medium line. The M47 might still be redundant. Q: Were there any plans to improve the T28/T95's mobility? Short Answer: No. Q: Why is the 105 mm on the M103? The T5E1 isn't on the M103 for historical purposes. It is there for grinding. Q: Were there any US Superheavy tanks beside the T28/T95? The US actually proposed a ~150 ton vehicle in 1945 sparked by the Maus, E-100, and to some extent the IS-3. It was a radical design using a semitrailer like hull layout. The planned armament was to be the 155 mm T7(with a minimum requirement of a 105 mm gun). The armor was to be as much as possible.
Q: Any info on the T77? The T77 was an actual project using the M48's hull. It used a lightweight version of the turret used on the T57 and the same 120 mm gun. It used a rigid gun mount and fired an 8 round drum. 10 extra rounds were held in the turret and the hull. The project started in 1953 and ended in 1957 due to slow development and the changing requirements of the US Military. Two T77 turrets were produced but were scrapped.
Q: How many rounds could the 90 mm Hellcat hold? Not exactly sure, however it is doubtful that it could hold much than 30 rounds.
The "Buff my tank!" articles are meant as an historical way to look at
some tanks considered underpowered in game and ways to improve their
combat abilities discussed by the original german engineers.
Beware that while being sometimes ironic in tone, the article treats
about both costs and benefits of every choice and it most likely will
never be listened by WG as suggestion.
Today we will take a look at another popular german tank, the Panther.
A classic sniping medium, the Panther has often been object of complaints for being poor at closer ranges and having low agility.
Historically, the Panther was a proto-MBT, basically halfway between medium and heavy tanks.
Agile enough for fast tactical relocation, reasonably armored and with good firepower for its introduction, its main enemy was often the unpolished status of many components, rushed to the battlefield without being properly tested and resulting in many tanks being lost before contact with the enemy.
Of course that did not stop german engineers to keep improving on it and even bringing some wildly experimental technology on it, including but not limited to IR sights for night fighting.
Using Spielberger's "Panther & its variants" and "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945", we will explore some solutions adopted or planned in order to push the Panther forwards to its very design limits.
Protection:
On June 4th 1942, Hitler expressed doubts about the 80mm inclined armor and requested that all vertical front surfaces should be at least 100mm thick.
In February 1943 it was also proposed to increase the front glacis plate to 100mm thickness, which would have added approximately half ton of weight.
This would basically give the tank near Panther II protection levels and definitely make the tank unbalanced as tier VII medium as it would be better armored and more mobile than the Tiger.
Mobility:
The HL 230 engine was originally planned to be made from light weight alloys (alluminium?), so some engine weight could be shaved off in theory.
An hydro-dynamic transmission like that of the E-Series was also planned, increasing tank agility on soft terrain.
In December 1943 Daimler-Benz planned to use a MB-507 engine with 850HP on the Panther chassis.
In January 1945 the 850 HP Maybach HL 234 was planned to be mounted.
Those modifications would basically be the ones implemented in game for the Panther II, yet something even crazier was considered:
From 14 Semptember 1944 until February 1945 experimental development went into trying to fit a gas turbine the Panther's engine compartment.
The turbine development went into different stages from GT 101 to GT 103 and while successful into mounting the engine, fuel consumption was about twice as the original engine, leading to putting fuel tanks in most free space in the tank.
This engine would provide an amazing 1150 HP but as it was bigger than the standard engines and took a lot more fuel storage, it would be balanced by an high fire risk, likely at least 50%.
This would make the tank even more of a glass cannon, meaning that exposing anything else other than the turret would mean a huge fire risk.
IMHO this last solution should have gone into the recon Panther in order to compensate for the hopelessy huge size as anyway light tanks have to rely on not being hit.
As a bonus, it would have its own unique engine sound:
Firepower:
The planned 75mm L/100 is already in WOT, however it's not the only gun improvement planned for the Panther.
In November 1944 the 88mm L/71 was planned to be installed in a Panther schmaulturm, although this was already in game when Panther was one tier higher.
Given that the long 88 was being redesigned for the task to improve shell handling, it would translate into a pretty low DPM in game.
A semi-automatic loader was also proposed and the prototype manufactured, which would have allowed a ROF of 40 RPM as long as the loader could keep the pace.
Now, this could be implemented as a new gun and balance as a 4 round drum loader or with some worsened soft stat, depending on developer mood.
In June 23 1944 a 15cm STUH 43 was proposed to be mounted in a standard Panther turret:
This would make the Panther an excellent troll tank although with likely huge reload times.
I'd personally see the SturmPanther as a TD, where it could be otherwise balanced.
Conclusion:
IMHO the tank is balanced for its specialist role of sniper medium.
A slightly different gun choice could help the tank in the brawling role, however most upgrades would basically cross the tier balance, meaning it would have to give up somewhere else.
