SS: this was submitted by Vilgundr (NA), it's a rather interesting insight. Of course, this info is a bit older (few days back at least), but still, interesting.
Just figured you may find this useful as theres been many comments about which server makes Wargaming the most money etc.
I found Wargamings annual Financial Statements for 2012 which are listed on the Cryprus stock exchange here: http://oam.cse.com.cy/Announcement/announcementvariation/4692
Now not sure how the other servers are or how much they know about this but in the financial statements it shows a breakdown of revenue by region. I'll include my posts on the NA forum which got moved to offtopic which breaks it down a little.
The 2012 reported revenue for Wargaming was broken down in the following way in their Annual
Report. (Was in Euros, changed it to U.S funds and made it simple to read)
Overall Revenue 281 million, Broken down into..
168.9 million - Russian Server
70.0 million - European server
39.7 million - U.S Server
2.4 million - Sea Server
Now compare that to active players closer to the time of the report (Pulled Dec 01, 2012)
3,034,756 - Russian Server
845,528 - European server
195,340 - U.S Server
62,225 - Sea Server
That means that that for the average active player they made roughly the following per month..
$4.64 - Russian Server
$6.90 - European server
$16.94 - U.S Server
$3.21 - Sea Server
So it supports them saying American's spend more, which it clearly shows per active user, just the American server has 1/15th of the active users they have on the Russian server. The bulk of the revenue is still the Russian servers due to the extremely high active user count.
Note:
As for the numbers the revenue numbers are directly from the report itself.
For the active users I just pulled the active users for the week of Dec 1, 2012. WoT-News gives that info by week and I picked a week near the end of the period just to see. So they are not exact by any means, so instead of $16 for the American server it could be $15 or whatever, the percent difference between the 3 areas should be pretty much the same however.
May 28, 2013
28.5.2013
A lots to translate today, but first, thanks to Cubayashi for gold donation :) Much appreciated.
The official 0.8.6 public test will start this Thursday (May 30th)
From player Taifuuni, a demonstration of how the new dispersion in 0.8.6 will look like:
Edit: to prevent confusion, disregard the "scales", they don't represent the circle size, but sigma deviation. Unless you really want to bother with statistics, consider them two same circles.
0.8.5
0.8.6
- SerB has roughly 50 vehicles in his garage and it takes him 5 seconds to sort thru it
- 5.1 sound is not yet implemented into the new sound engine, but it is planned, along with the 7.1 sound
- echoes from distant explosion/cannon fire (for example in valleys) will be implemented eventually
- better sorting of the archievements will be implemented eventually, but it has very low priority
- some vehicles have AAMG and some don't (resp. Type 58 doesn't have it), because "machinegun model consists of too many model details (SS: SerB said specifically "triangles", I am pretty sure there is an English term for what he meant: is it "vectors"?)
- the E-100 turret was moved in 0.8.6 30cm forwards, because it's historical
- German E-10 ingame will be implemented as a TD, not LT
- SerB doesn't consider the "In development" section necessery
- arty won't recieve bigger firing angle than 45 degrees (SS: a player was asking, whether it is possible to implement the arty to be able to hit a certain target using two different trajectories - one for below 45 degrees and one for above 45 degrees elevation)
- according to SerB, the best account protection is using your brain, for example not using "password1234" as your password
- fog of war was considered for random battles, but it won't be implemented for now, same goes for companies
- Q: "SerB, how is it possible you have so many battles played, yet your effectivity sucks?" A: "That's because I prefer to improve in real world and to only have fun and relax in the virtual one. Which is something I recommend to you too."
- according to SerB, there are no server-side cheats (SS: for example someone advertised a cheat for instant aiming)
- SerB was banned only once in WoT, it was a trolling from someone
- it's possible that the T69 gold ammo (300 pen) penetration will be nerfed (despite the fact SerB claims that the 300 pen is historical)
- the crew national voices might still appear
- the E-100 turret move forward does not mean improved depression or elevation
- SerB is playing the VK4502 Ausf.B (30k XP left to Maus) and is happy with its gameplay
- historically, ST-I shouldn't even have the M62-T2 gun, eg. it's pointless to compare its ROF to IS-8 (SerB is joking about replacing the gun with the historical D-30)
- it's generally possible the ST-II (ST-I with twin-linked D-30) will be introduced, because the twin-linked gun mechanism is easier to introduce than for example multiturret mechanism. However don't think it will simply have double ROF, that would be way too OP. Another historical option would apparently be two D-10T guns.
- SerB is thinking (SS: but only thinking, no panic!) about removing the top IS-4 gun (because it's unhistorical) and buffing the shells of the other one.
-
The official 0.8.6 public test will start this Thursday (May 30th)
From player Taifuuni, a demonstration of how the new dispersion in 0.8.6 will look like:
Edit: to prevent confusion, disregard the "scales", they don't represent the circle size, but sigma deviation. Unless you really want to bother with statistics, consider them two same circles.
0.8.5
- SerB has roughly 50 vehicles in his garage and it takes him 5 seconds to sort thru it
- 5.1 sound is not yet implemented into the new sound engine, but it is planned, along with the 7.1 sound
- echoes from distant explosion/cannon fire (for example in valleys) will be implemented eventually
- better sorting of the archievements will be implemented eventually, but it has very low priority
- some vehicles have AAMG and some don't (resp. Type 58 doesn't have it), because "machinegun model consists of too many model details (SS: SerB said specifically "triangles", I am pretty sure there is an English term for what he meant: is it "vectors"?)
- the E-100 turret was moved in 0.8.6 30cm forwards, because it's historical
- German E-10 ingame will be implemented as a TD, not LT
- SerB doesn't consider the "In development" section necessery
- arty won't recieve bigger firing angle than 45 degrees (SS: a player was asking, whether it is possible to implement the arty to be able to hit a certain target using two different trajectories - one for below 45 degrees and one for above 45 degrees elevation)
- according to SerB, the best account protection is using your brain, for example not using "password1234" as your password
- fog of war was considered for random battles, but it won't be implemented for now, same goes for companies
- Q: "SerB, how is it possible you have so many battles played, yet your effectivity sucks?" A: "That's because I prefer to improve in real world and to only have fun and relax in the virtual one. Which is something I recommend to you too."
- according to SerB, there are no server-side cheats (SS: for example someone advertised a cheat for instant aiming)
- SerB was banned only once in WoT, it was a trolling from someone
- it's possible that the T69 gold ammo (300 pen) penetration will be nerfed (despite the fact SerB claims that the 300 pen is historical)
- the crew national voices might still appear
- the E-100 turret move forward does not mean improved depression or elevation
- SerB is playing the VK4502 Ausf.B (30k XP left to Maus) and is happy with its gameplay
- historically, ST-I shouldn't even have the M62-T2 gun, eg. it's pointless to compare its ROF to IS-8 (SerB is joking about replacing the gun with the historical D-30)
- it's generally possible the ST-II (ST-I with twin-linked D-30) will be introduced, because the twin-linked gun mechanism is easier to introduce than for example multiturret mechanism. However don't think it will simply have double ROF, that would be way too OP. Another historical option would apparently be two D-10T guns.
- SerB is thinking (SS: but only thinking, no panic!) about removing the top IS-4 gun (because it's unhistorical) and buffing the shells of the other one.
-
May 27, 2013
Chrysler's Heavy Tank "K".
Author: Priory_of_Sion
In May of 1946, Chrysler presented a heavy tank to the War Department Equipment Board. Chrysler's vehicle arose from postwar requirements for American heavies that were spawned by the fear of the IS-3. The Chrysler vehicle was called the Chrysler K Tank(no relation to the K Cars). Oddly, The K Tank featured some unorthodox design features. Most notably is the rear turret design. Other oddities about the K Tank is the 4 .30 caliber MG pods(fired remotely like the guns on the B29 bomber), the unique suspension, the 1200 hp engine, and the location of the crew all being within the turret much like the MBT 70.
With an estimated weight of 60 tons the K Tank was a relatively large and well protected vehicle. The frontal hull armor of the K Tank is approximately 205 mm(178 mm at 30 deg) thick without normalization. The side armor being near 76 mm thick, with proper angling the K Tank could be an effective side scraping vehicle. The turret armor is very thick in the front like most American vehicles even without the mantlet. The rear area of the turret is where ~100 rounds of the main gun ammo would be stored. By the way, the main gun is the 105 mm T5E1(which is going to be a subject sooner or later itself), however the rear turret arrangement really hampers the depression values(-5 degrees would be lucky to get out of it).
The 1200 hp engine would give this behemoth ~20 hp/t which is more/less the same as the E-50. However the 60 ton weight mark is most likely an underestimate. The final drive is located in the front which could pose some fire issues.
It is noteworthy to mention that Chrysler reused the K Tank name in the late 60s when they were asked to create the next generation of M60s. The K Tank used technology from the MBT 70, but the 2nd K Tank was also never adopted and faded into oblivion.
In WoT the K Tank would find itself a good spot as a tier 8 premium in my opinion. The possibility of an alternate US Heavy line also opens the opportunity to have the K Tank become a researchable tier 8 or even a tier 9 armed with a more powerful 120 mm gun. I haven't seen WG ever talk about this design though so we might never see this vehicle in WoT.
Sources:
Hunnicutt's Firepower and Patton
In May of 1946, Chrysler presented a heavy tank to the War Department Equipment Board. Chrysler's vehicle arose from postwar requirements for American heavies that were spawned by the fear of the IS-3. The Chrysler vehicle was called the Chrysler K Tank(no relation to the K Cars). Oddly, The K Tank featured some unorthodox design features. Most notably is the rear turret design. Other oddities about the K Tank is the 4 .30 caliber MG pods(fired remotely like the guns on the B29 bomber), the unique suspension, the 1200 hp engine, and the location of the crew all being within the turret much like the MBT 70.
With an estimated weight of 60 tons the K Tank was a relatively large and well protected vehicle. The frontal hull armor of the K Tank is approximately 205 mm(178 mm at 30 deg) thick without normalization. The side armor being near 76 mm thick, with proper angling the K Tank could be an effective side scraping vehicle. The turret armor is very thick in the front like most American vehicles even without the mantlet. The rear area of the turret is where ~100 rounds of the main gun ammo would be stored. By the way, the main gun is the 105 mm T5E1(which is going to be a subject sooner or later itself), however the rear turret arrangement really hampers the depression values(-5 degrees would be lucky to get out of it).
The 1200 hp engine would give this behemoth ~20 hp/t which is more/less the same as the E-50. However the 60 ton weight mark is most likely an underestimate. The final drive is located in the front which could pose some fire issues.
It is noteworthy to mention that Chrysler reused the K Tank name in the late 60s when they were asked to create the next generation of M60s. The K Tank used technology from the MBT 70, but the 2nd K Tank was also never adopted and faded into oblivion.
In WoT the K Tank would find itself a good spot as a tier 8 premium in my opinion. The possibility of an alternate US Heavy line also opens the opportunity to have the K Tank become a researchable tier 8 or even a tier 9 armed with a more powerful 120 mm gun. I haven't seen WG ever talk about this design though so we might never see this vehicle in WoT.
Sources:
Hunnicutt's Firepower and Patton
"Buff my tank!" - VK 30.01 (P)
By Zarax
Hello and welcome to "Buff my tank!"
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 tackle on a somewhat unpopular tank, the VK 30.01 (P).
Historically, the VK 30.01(P) was the test bed for many of the innovations that went into many of Dr. Porsche's designs , sharing both their strengths and weaknesses.
Although it never left the prototype stage, it's direct evolution was the Tiger (P) which saw limited production and battle in one example, with most being reconverted in the Ferdinand/Elefant.
In WOT it's seen as a middle ground tank between the VK 36.01 (H) and the other, more agile lines.
In terms of game-play it's indeed pretty average and there have been many buff requests in the past, however let's look at what german engineers imagined for this tank, using "Panzerkampfwagen VI P (Sd.Kfz.181) The history of the Porsche Typ 100 and 101 also known as the Leopard and Tiger" as historical source:
Protection:
As only one prototype was ever built and its development was superseded by Tiger (P) no plans were ever made to up-armor the VK 30.01 (P).
However, given that its successor was not a radically different tank and itself was up-armored with bolt-on plates, it wouldn't be impossible to imagine the same treatment, possibly with an easy to produce 30 or 50mm add-on plate.
Mobility:
The prototype twin 210 HP engines were sufficient to obtain a top speed of 60 kilometers per hour on optimal terrain, although with very high fuel consumption.
Again, as Tiger (P) mounted basically an uprated version of the 30.01 engines, upgrading to twin 310 HP for a very respectable power to weight ratio of 17/18 HP/ton.
Firepower:
First of all, WOT stock 75mm L/48 cannon is an historical mistake and introduce purely to prolong the grind on the tank and "encourage" the player to use gold for free XP:
Krupp showed some extremely interesting proposals for the VK 30.01 (P).
The standard issue cannon was supposed to be the 8.8cm K.W.K. L/56 just like Henschel's Tiger, but more options were discussed:
A proposal for a 10.5 cm K.W.K. L/47 was competed on April 10, which would likely have been a redesigned 105mm L/52 for tank use with slightly lower penetration, but the most interesting one was the proposal for an higher velocity version of the 8.8cm K.W.K. L/56 on April 18 using fatter shells.
Both options would have given more than outstanding firepower, especially considering how deadly the FLAK 36 already proved to be on the battlefield but unfortunately both were discarded as one used a non-standard army caliber (not that this stopped Krupp from trying it again later on) and the other would likely have depended on the use of always scarce Tungsten due to the shell shatter effect at such high velocities.
It is also likely that both options would have meant reduced ammo capacity and in case for the 105mm also lower rate of fire, especially if the two piece ammunition was retained.
Mobility would also be adversely affected by an heavier gun, something that made the normally adventurous Dr. Porsche refuse the idea of an 88mm L/71 on Tiger (P) later on.
Conclusion:
In WOT terms the tank is fairly balanced, although personally I wouldn't mind a little more agility.
Historically the tank design was rejected because it was too complex to maintain for the battlefield conditions, used precious copper and was seen as generally unreliable, with the electric motors often developing a tendency to overheat, although the VK 30.01 (P) prototype served as an excellent test bed for such an advanced drive train for its time.
Its direct evolution, the VK 45.01 (P) was also marred by the same faults and rejected because of them and thus lost to the more standard Henschel counterpart.
Still, as many other Porsche designs it sprung many innovations and although most of them never reached production stage it is still a monument to tank engineering ingenuity.
All in all, I'd say Balanced for WOT, most upgrades are already in place and the ones missing would be more fitting for one tier higher or a tank destroyer.
Thank you for reading and see you in the next article!
Hello and welcome to "Buff my tank!"
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 tackle on a somewhat unpopular tank, the VK 30.01 (P).
Historically, the VK 30.01(P) was the test bed for many of the innovations that went into many of Dr. Porsche's designs , sharing both their strengths and weaknesses.
Although it never left the prototype stage, it's direct evolution was the Tiger (P) which saw limited production and battle in one example, with most being reconverted in the Ferdinand/Elefant.
In WOT it's seen as a middle ground tank between the VK 36.01 (H) and the other, more agile lines.
In terms of game-play it's indeed pretty average and there have been many buff requests in the past, however let's look at what german engineers imagined for this tank, using "Panzerkampfwagen VI P (Sd.Kfz.181) The history of the Porsche Typ 100 and 101 also known as the Leopard and Tiger" as historical source:
Protection:
As only one prototype was ever built and its development was superseded by Tiger (P) no plans were ever made to up-armor the VK 30.01 (P).
However, given that its successor was not a radically different tank and itself was up-armored with bolt-on plates, it wouldn't be impossible to imagine the same treatment, possibly with an easy to produce 30 or 50mm add-on plate.
Mobility:
The prototype twin 210 HP engines were sufficient to obtain a top speed of 60 kilometers per hour on optimal terrain, although with very high fuel consumption.
Again, as Tiger (P) mounted basically an uprated version of the 30.01 engines, upgrading to twin 310 HP for a very respectable power to weight ratio of 17/18 HP/ton.
Firepower:
First of all, WOT stock 75mm L/48 cannon is an historical mistake and introduce purely to prolong the grind on the tank and "encourage" the player to use gold for free XP:
The standard issue cannon was supposed to be the 8.8cm K.W.K. L/56 just like Henschel's Tiger, but more options were discussed:
Both options would have given more than outstanding firepower, especially considering how deadly the FLAK 36 already proved to be on the battlefield but unfortunately both were discarded as one used a non-standard army caliber (not that this stopped Krupp from trying it again later on) and the other would likely have depended on the use of always scarce Tungsten due to the shell shatter effect at such high velocities.
It is also likely that both options would have meant reduced ammo capacity and in case for the 105mm also lower rate of fire, especially if the two piece ammunition was retained.
Mobility would also be adversely affected by an heavier gun, something that made the normally adventurous Dr. Porsche refuse the idea of an 88mm L/71 on Tiger (P) later on.
Conclusion:
In WOT terms the tank is fairly balanced, although personally I wouldn't mind a little more agility.
Historically the tank design was rejected because it was too complex to maintain for the battlefield conditions, used precious copper and was seen as generally unreliable, with the electric motors often developing a tendency to overheat, although the VK 30.01 (P) prototype served as an excellent test bed for such an advanced drive train for its time.
Its direct evolution, the VK 45.01 (P) was also marred by the same faults and rejected because of them and thus lost to the more standard Henschel counterpart.
Still, as many other Porsche designs it sprung many innovations and although most of them never reached production stage it is still a monument to tank engineering ingenuity.
All in all, I'd say Balanced for WOT, most upgrades are already in place and the ones missing would be more fitting for one tier higher or a tank destroyer.
Thank you for reading and see you in the next article!
May 26, 2013
Ensign's Q&A Answers #5
By EnsignExpendable
Long time readers should know how this works, but for those just joining us, send me questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them! Previous edition is found here.
Q: I saw this thing in Nasledniki Tritsat'chetverki (Descendants of the T-34). What is it?
After evacuation, factory #183 was ordered to produce a T-34 with multiple guns, like the KV-7. Morozov, seeing multiple gunned platforms as a complete failure, designed a project so awful, it was bound to fail. Theoretically, three people were supposed to fit into that turret, as well as 14 76 mm shells and 44 45 mm shells (90 76 mm and 204 45mm shells in total). Due to this crampedness, the turret could not rotate more than 25 degrees to the right, or it would cut the loader in half. Senior military representative at factory #183 Kozyrev writes on December 21st, 1941: "The construction bureau finished work given by People's Commissar Malyshev: powerful flamethrower tank with a 900 liter tank and a 45 mm gun...and mount with an F-34 with two 45 mm guns. The goal of the first development is clear. The goal of the second (T-34-3) is not."
Just as the multi-gun platform rivaled the KV-7 in Chelyabinsk, the flamethrower T-34 rivaled the KV-8. All the resources were dedicated to the flamethrower tanks, and the multi-gun nonsense went away. However, one good thing came from it. The weird asymmetric turret eventually became the roomier model 1942 turret.
Q: Would the ZiS-S-53 fit into the T-43's first turret? I recall that one of the reasons the cupola was moved from the center to the side was because the 85 mm gun's recoil mechanism did not allow the commander to sit there.
A: The T-34 "second variant" with the commander's cupola to the side was developed with a 76 mm gun, so the 85 mm gun's recoil length could not be the reason. But, let's see if it would fit. The recoil length of the ZiS-S-53 was 330 mm. The recoil length of the F-34 was actually larger: 390 mm. My books don't give the exact length, but by measuring the diagrams, the breech to recoil mechanism length of the ZiS-S-53 is 84% of the same length for the F-34. So the gun could have fit without castrating the commander with every shot.
One other thing is the turret ring size. The turret ring on the second variant was enlarged from 1420 mm to 1600 mm. The 1420 mm turret ring was tested with an 85 mm gun on it, but I don't know what the results of those tests were.
Q: Were there any tank destroyers on the KV chassis?
A: Sure, loads. The KV-7, U-18, U-19, ZIK-20, SU-203, to start. Yuri Pasholok is writing a whole book on them. If you expand "KV chassis" to encompass the KV-1S, then you also get the SU-152.
Q: SerB said he wanted to implement the Object 167M hull with the 122mm D-83 for T-62A,do you have any data on the hull or the gun?A: SerB said he's preventing himself from implementing the Object 167 with the D-83 :) But sure, let's take a look at the data.
The Object 167 project was an attempt to make the T-62 more mobile, by means of a new suspension and better engine. The new 700 hp V-26 would allow it to reach 60 kph. The hull armour was no different, 100 mm at 60 degrees. The D-83 was a 122 mm rifled gun, developed in parallel with the 125 mm D-81 smoothbore. I don't have any more data on the D-83, sadly.
Q: Soviet MBT are well known for having auto loaders, but how early on did Soviet tank designers start to look at tank auto loaders? Any WWII era tanks?A: The T-64 was the first Soviet mass produced tank with a true autoloader mechanism, one that replaced the loader's position entirely. However, the Soviet tendency to want tanks to be as universal as possible led to large calibers being used. Past 85 mm, a manual loading process wouldn't have yielded a very high rate of fire, and the IS-2 was notable for its 1-1.5 RPM on release. The mind behind the KV and IS series, Joseph Kotin, writes: "I had a habit of following tanks to the front lines. I don't ride them into battle, but I examine the aftermath. ... I remember we tested an IS. The shell was heavy, the loaders complained that loading takes too long. I climbed into a tank, tried to lift a shell, and confirmed that it was very heavy. I needed to do something. The [Kirov] factory quickly developed a special mechanism for loading shells into the breech." Kotin's device seems to have been effective. In a letter to the Commissar of Armament Ustinov, concerning re-armament of the IS tank with a 100 mm gun, the engineers wrote "We consider it imperative that the D-25T remain in the IS-2. Latest trials at the ANIOP resulted in a rate of fire of 4-6 rounds per minute".
A mechanical rammer was used in the IS-5 (IS-100), but it caused a problem: a relatively large shell, combined with a high rate of fire, led to lots of gases collecting inside the fighting compartment. A bore evacuator could have been used, but the entire program was deemed unnecessary due to the more than adequate performance of the IS-2 against armour.
Q: What kinds of improvised defensive measures did soviet (and maybe other nationality's) tankers use in battle to defend their tanks ?And what was the expected and actual results of their experiments in the field ?
Long time readers should know how this works, but for those just joining us, send me questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them! Previous edition is found here.
Q: I saw this thing in Nasledniki Tritsat'chetverki (Descendants of the T-34). What is it?
 |
| Caption: T-34 tank project, with three guns in the turret (one 76 mm and two 45 mm). December 1941. CAMD. |
Just as the multi-gun platform rivaled the KV-7 in Chelyabinsk, the flamethrower T-34 rivaled the KV-8. All the resources were dedicated to the flamethrower tanks, and the multi-gun nonsense went away. However, one good thing came from it. The weird asymmetric turret eventually became the roomier model 1942 turret.
Q: Would the ZiS-S-53 fit into the T-43's first turret? I recall that one of the reasons the cupola was moved from the center to the side was because the 85 mm gun's recoil mechanism did not allow the commander to sit there.
A: The T-34 "second variant" with the commander's cupola to the side was developed with a 76 mm gun, so the 85 mm gun's recoil length could not be the reason. But, let's see if it would fit. The recoil length of the ZiS-S-53 was 330 mm. The recoil length of the F-34 was actually larger: 390 mm. My books don't give the exact length, but by measuring the diagrams, the breech to recoil mechanism length of the ZiS-S-53 is 84% of the same length for the F-34. So the gun could have fit without castrating the commander with every shot.
One other thing is the turret ring size. The turret ring on the second variant was enlarged from 1420 mm to 1600 mm. The 1420 mm turret ring was tested with an 85 mm gun on it, but I don't know what the results of those tests were.
Q: Were there any tank destroyers on the KV chassis?
A: Sure, loads. The KV-7, U-18, U-19, ZIK-20, SU-203, to start. Yuri Pasholok is writing a whole book on them. If you expand "KV chassis" to encompass the KV-1S, then you also get the SU-152.
Q: SerB said he wanted to implement the Object 167M hull with the 122mm D-83 for T-62A,do you have any data on the hull or the gun?A: SerB said he's preventing himself from implementing the Object 167 with the D-83 :) But sure, let's take a look at the data.
The Object 167 project was an attempt to make the T-62 more mobile, by means of a new suspension and better engine. The new 700 hp V-26 would allow it to reach 60 kph. The hull armour was no different, 100 mm at 60 degrees. The D-83 was a 122 mm rifled gun, developed in parallel with the 125 mm D-81 smoothbore. I don't have any more data on the D-83, sadly.
Q: Soviet MBT are well known for having auto loaders, but how early on did Soviet tank designers start to look at tank auto loaders? Any WWII era tanks?A: The T-64 was the first Soviet mass produced tank with a true autoloader mechanism, one that replaced the loader's position entirely. However, the Soviet tendency to want tanks to be as universal as possible led to large calibers being used. Past 85 mm, a manual loading process wouldn't have yielded a very high rate of fire, and the IS-2 was notable for its 1-1.5 RPM on release. The mind behind the KV and IS series, Joseph Kotin, writes: "I had a habit of following tanks to the front lines. I don't ride them into battle, but I examine the aftermath. ... I remember we tested an IS. The shell was heavy, the loaders complained that loading takes too long. I climbed into a tank, tried to lift a shell, and confirmed that it was very heavy. I needed to do something. The [Kirov] factory quickly developed a special mechanism for loading shells into the breech." Kotin's device seems to have been effective. In a letter to the Commissar of Armament Ustinov, concerning re-armament of the IS tank with a 100 mm gun, the engineers wrote "We consider it imperative that the D-25T remain in the IS-2. Latest trials at the ANIOP resulted in a rate of fire of 4-6 rounds per minute".
A mechanical rammer was used in the IS-5 (IS-100), but it caused a problem: a relatively large shell, combined with a high rate of fire, led to lots of gases collecting inside the fighting compartment. A bore evacuator could have been used, but the entire program was deemed unnecessary due to the more than adequate performance of the IS-2 against armour.
Q: What kinds of improvised defensive measures did soviet (and maybe other nationality's) tankers use in battle to defend their tanks ?And what was the expected and actual results of their experiments in the field ?
A: Everyone has heard of the Soviet "mattress armour". It wasn't particularly effective against Panzerfausts. In Soviet tests, even German skirt armour was ineffective against a Panzerfaust at 12 meters, let along mesh armour. Track links were welded on to tanks by all nationalities (there are many photos of German tanks with T-34 track links on them, since they were larger). However, that was not the best idea, since the way of making armour of multiple hardnesses work properly is hard armour, then soft armour, not the other way around.
The Americans also used wooden planks to protect their Shermans against magnetic mines, IIRC.
That's it for this week! There are some very long questions that came in that I will need to do some research to answer, and those will be posted next week. Keep sending those questions in to tankarchives@gmail.com!
26.5.2013
Developers haven't answered anything today, I'll just add a few answers I forgot from the last of the Storm's blog posts:
- tracers weren't removed because the players were complaining about the "Star Wars blaster effects", this has nothing to do with the real reason (SS: which was the fact they got hacked)
- the new sound system (crew comments) will come in two versions: long and short one. Long one means that the commander will talk to you in whole sentences ("The engine caught fire because it was hit") - this is mostly for the newbies, so they know what's happening and why. Short one will only say everything in one or two words ("Fire"). The players will be able to enable the shortened system in game settings.
- linear XP requirement for more perks was scrapped, because it's bad for average players, XP requirements for skills/perks won't be reduced
- gear changes sound will be implemented
Oh and one more thing: tomorrow there will be no updates from me, because I am going to be very busy. See you on Tuesday!
- tracers weren't removed because the players were complaining about the "Star Wars blaster effects", this has nothing to do with the real reason (SS: which was the fact they got hacked)
- the new sound system (crew comments) will come in two versions: long and short one. Long one means that the commander will talk to you in whole sentences ("The engine caught fire because it was hit") - this is mostly for the newbies, so they know what's happening and why. Short one will only say everything in one or two words ("Fire"). The players will be able to enable the shortened system in game settings.
- linear XP requirement for more perks was scrapped, because it's bad for average players, XP requirements for skills/perks won't be reduced
- gear changes sound will be implemented
Oh and one more thing: tomorrow there will be no updates from me, because I am going to be very busy. See you on Tuesday!
May 25, 2013
25.5.2013
- according to Storm, test server shouldn't be as overloaded as it was in 0.8.5
- 10 percent T10 profitability increase was SerB's idea
- Chinese WZ-111 premium heavy won't be introduced to EU server, because such a tank is already in the regular heavy branch
- if you have Object 212 unlocked from S-51, it doesn't mean you will have the SU-14 unlocked too in 0.8.6
- 0.8.6 camo net won't be tied to various vehicle types
- tracers are removed for re-work
- 0.8.6 won't bring other new vehicles, apart from the arties and the premium Excelsior
- the 10 percent T10 profitability buff is tied partially to the pen reduction
- Credit arty costs in 0.8.6 will be roughly equal to TD costs:
900k - T6
1400k - T7
2500k - T8
3500k - T9
6100k - T10
- in 0.8.6 it is possible for tier 10 arty to end up as team's top vehicle
- according the SerB, the short guns from the thirties were short because the engineers didn't know yet how to deal with recoil, and because HE performance was more important anyway
- there will be no interplayer auction in the game
- in 0.8.6, Wargaming (!) fixed the Nvidia interface crash, after its release even those who experience crashes can use latest Nvidia drivers
- it's not known whether post-battle statistics in replays and ingame reload timer will come in 2013
- it's possible a function will be implemented into the game to shoot as soon as the gun is reloaded (there is a mod allowing that currently)
- new French tanks won't come by the time the French celebrate the Bastille day (SS: July 14th)
- 10 percent T10 profitability increase was SerB's idea
- Chinese WZ-111 premium heavy won't be introduced to EU server, because such a tank is already in the regular heavy branch
- if you have Object 212 unlocked from S-51, it doesn't mean you will have the SU-14 unlocked too in 0.8.6
- 0.8.6 camo net won't be tied to various vehicle types
- tracers are removed for re-work
- 0.8.6 won't bring other new vehicles, apart from the arties and the premium Excelsior
- the 10 percent T10 profitability buff is tied partially to the pen reduction
- Credit arty costs in 0.8.6 will be roughly equal to TD costs:
900k - T6
1400k - T7
2500k - T8
3500k - T9
6100k - T10
- in 0.8.6 it is possible for tier 10 arty to end up as team's top vehicle
- according the SerB, the short guns from the thirties were short because the engineers didn't know yet how to deal with recoil, and because HE performance was more important anyway
- there will be no interplayer auction in the game
- in 0.8.6, Wargaming (!) fixed the Nvidia interface crash, after its release even those who experience crashes can use latest Nvidia drivers
- it's not known whether post-battle statistics in replays and ingame reload timer will come in 2013
- it's possible a function will be implemented into the game to shoot as soon as the gun is reloaded (there is a mod allowing that currently)
- new French tanks won't come by the time the French celebrate the Bastille day (SS: July 14th)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)