By EnsignExpendable
Based on some documents Yuri Pasholok came across, he designed these two tanks that could very well one day become British premiums.
As some of you may know, a T-34 and a KV-1 were tested in the US to find out what American and Soviet tank builders could learn from each other. Fewer people know that the same thing happened in Britain. While the Americans only liked some features of Soviet tanks, the British liked all of them. A lot. Aside from some minor complaints, they were ready to produce T-34s and KVs locally, with British guns. Let's take a look at what these tanks can do in World of Tanks.
The T-34 goes first. The British were planning to produce it with a 17-pounder gun. The gun in game weighs 826 kg. The S-54 on the T-34 weighs a whopping 1390 kg, so it should have no problems with overloading the tank or reducing its maneuverability.
The undeniable top gun on the T-34 is the ZiS-4, with 112 penetration and 85 damage. The 17-pounder has 171 penetration, 150 damage. This gun is comparable to the T-34-85's D5T-85BM, with more penetration and less damage. Obviously, the 17-pounder won't be a tier 5 gun, but a tier 6 premium T-34 Firefly is feasible, especially with preferential matchmaking to compensate for that reduced turret armour. Drop the ROF to 9-10, and it would be set.
The KV-1 is a little harder. Its gun isn't in the game, so that allows me to be a little creative. The rate of fire obviously won't be fantastic. The KV-2, with an M-10 howitzer (that has a rate of fire of 3-4 outside of a tank) has an in-game ROF of 2.5 RPM. The 6-inch howitzer the British proposed to put in the KV-1 has a ROF of 2 RPM. Inside a turret, and a small KV-1 turret at that, the RPM is going to drop like a rock. Even with its original 2 RPM, the tank isn't going to be very good.
However, there is a saving grace. The British put a very big emphasis on indirect fire, so their hypothetical KV would have the sights for it. The British KV could be an artillery piece like the leFH18B1. A somewhat armoured hull with a 2 RPM 152 mm howitzer in a fully rotating turret would be an interesting tier 5 artillery. Or maybe 6, since British SPGs are coming after the artillery trees are normalized.
Nitpick: you got the damage and pen of the 17-pounder mixed up, they're the other way around. :|
ReplyDeleteWhoops! Fixed.
DeleteLove that arty KV. would be cool to see a tank with both standard and arty capabilities. Would pay for this premium.
ReplyDeleteGreat thinking. I really like the idea of turning the KV-1 into a SPG. this would make it a very unique and interesting tanks. Hope the devs will consider your ideas someday.. ;)
ReplyDeleteusualy the kv2 with 152mm is a arty with sniper mode...
DeleteYou know, I wouldn't mind seeing either of these as British premiums! I'd totally buy that T-34-17pdr.
ReplyDeleteSame
Delete-ccruler
I just finished reading David Fletcher's "Sherman Firefly" yesterday. According to the book, British engineers made some important modifications on the 17-pounder in order to mount it on Sherman turret. Those efforts were results of size of Sherman's turret, it was not big enough to contain the gun and original recoil system altogether.
ReplyDeleteI really doubt if there was enough volume for a T-34 turret to fit the 17-pounder and its recoil system.
Anyway, thanks a lot for the info. And one more question here- in your opinion, will A30 Challenger be a suitable tier 7 premium (with some MM protection, like the Panther/M10) ?
http://img13.imageshost.ru/img/2013/03/29/image_5155aa538f4de.jpg
DeleteRecall that the T-34 also had an 85 mm gun tested in the Model 1942 turret. It's bigger on the inside :)
The Soviets fitted the 85 mm gun into the T-34-76 turret. The 17 pounder is around the same size of the 85 mm.The T-34-76 turret should hold it just fine.
DeleteThe turret was big enough for the Sherman for the 17 pounder. They just needed a new recoil system. How do you think the Israelis fitted a big French 105 mm into the M4A1 turret with minimal modification?
On the A30, be prepared for a turreted TD line.
That T-34 was the TARDIS in disguise!
DeleteI was under the impression the 85mm in T-34/76 turret experiment *didn't* exactly work out, specifically because of volume issues...?
DeleteAlso guessing the turret ring might of have been a mite problematic.
The decision to make a larger turret was based on the need to relieve the commander of his additional role as the gunner, not based on the gun. The T-43 got a large turret before it was upgunned to 85 mm.
Delete...waitwhat, so we'd be talking about the old two-man turret with the rather large 17-pounder breechblock shoved in and the TC doubling as loader? Plus weren't the 17pdr shells kinda... long for such limited elbow room?
Delete...that doesn't sound like a recipe for very effective operation overall. -.-;
the image isn't loading
ReplyDeleteBeen thinking about the Vickers MBT as a possible high tier premium, but would it be overpowered for a premium... even without an engine?
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, wouldn't the KV-1E make a sweet Soviet premium? It's a bit like a Soviet Super Persing.
That one would be tricky. Logic would say "tier 5 stuff" (weapon-wise), but for a premium tank, it would be quite well armored.
DeleteProblem is that KV-1E had only 76mm L-11 or 76mm F-32 guns (both are in game and very unimpressive), which were worse then already shitty for tier 5 76mm F-34.
DeleteAs for armor it was:
Hull - 75+25mm on front an partially on sides
Turret - 75+25mm with air-gap on side and partially on front turret.
Not much better armor then Excelsior, so could actually work on tier 5, with big problem being horrible gun.
KV-220 is pretty much the same as KV-1E. Maybe the 220 has somewhat more armour but it is much heavier and larger.
DeleteSame gun.
So what's the point? There are tons of Soviet prem tanks listed in the so called full tree.
A tier V arty with the KV-2's armoring and protection? Screw that, I'm going TD mode with it and laugh at other people's attempts to damage me >:)
ReplyDeleteKV-1, not KV-2. Seems like it even has the turret with 110mm armour all around.
DeleteEven so. That would make the vehicle ridiculously difficult to destroy by T4-T5 scouts.
DeleteWow, I would get that.
ReplyDeleteMy Cromwell crew would love to drive the T-34-17 in their spare time.
ReplyDeleteit's still T 34 76 ( since the 17pdr is a 76,2mm gun )
DeleteT-34-76 was western designation anyway, Soviets just used T-34 for all 76mm armed models.
DeleteNot only the 76 mm models. The T-34-57 is called "T-34 tank destroyer" in documents. Also, the T-34-85 is sometimes called T-34 early on. Some veterans make no distinction between the two.
Deletecan you provide any further info? this is the first i hear of the soviets disclosing such stuff during ww2 with the allies.
ReplyDeleteWhat specifically? The British production or foreign tests of Soviet tanks in general?
Deleteforeign tests, i didnt knew the soviets let allies test there equipement, i asume soviets tested allies equipement as well? (apart from what was suplied by lend lease obviously)
DeleteYes, extensively. I will get to their reviews eventually on my blog.
DeleteI would buy a 17 pounder equipped T-34 at any time, why didn't they give this instead of silly Excelsior with its shitty QF-75mm?
ReplyDeletei'm waitig for the captured german t-34, kv-1/2, sowjet pz4, Panther... would not buy british copy'n'pasta - therefore we got the chinese copied tanks
ReplyDeleteWG already said a while back they won't add anymore captured or lend lease premium tanks.
DeleteStill no Firefly, but wouldn't mind this T-34 as it is a medium tank and has the 17 pdr anyway. Can't see it added anytime soon though, maybe not even this year.
ReplyDeleteLooks pretty much like 1 April's fool.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the source by Pasholok? not just another repost website.
http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/178031.html
DeleteThe cannon on the KV-1... Look like the 4.5inch.
ReplyDeleteSame used on the FV304 on WoT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.5-inch_howitzer