Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 28, 2013

Priory_of_Sion's American Vehicle Q&As

Author: Priory_of_Sion

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
E~= Modification

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. 

"Buff my tank!" - Panther

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 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.


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.


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:


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.

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.


- apparently no special steps will be taken to increase the amount of less popular tanks, such as the Minimaus, Maus, FV4202 etc.
- when rebalancing tanks, the opinion of players is not taken into account
- SerB states that the counter-artillery hack doesn't really work
- ingame VK2801 is not related in any way to Daimler Benz
- Japanese tree: "when it's done it's done"
- the amount of free XP gained each battle automatically will not be increased
- Q: "Have the Spitfires been uncovered in Myanmar?" A: "No. Unfortunately the comrade who pulled us into that enterprise turned out to be no comrade at all."
- regarding the "digital" Chinese camouflage: for now there are no plans to introduce such a camouflage pattern for other nations
- the lowtier tank map limit doesn't apply to tank tiers, but rather battle tiers (SS: eg. M22 Locust can get to Westfield, as demonstrated by the asking Russian player)
- apparently, the Chinese will have a "Type 100" tank destroyer with either a 100mm or 122mm Chinese gun (SS: absolutely no idea what this is about, I have never seen such a tank mentioned anywhere, but SerB was recently on a meeting with players, maybe it's some reference from there, will ask the guy who asked the question in first place)
- it's possible there will be a second British medium branch implemented (what will be its tier 10 is unknown)
- "superpremium" accounts (that would give twice as big bonuses as regular accounts) are not planned, as to the other proposed PA buffs: "no comment for now"
- SerB states that there will be no more "pay to win" in the game, WG is focusing on selling comfortable levelling up, but it's just fine if you play for free
- SerB: "the option to change the account e-mail lowers the account's security level"
- according to SerB, the Indienpanzer frontal upper/lower armor meeting point is not bugged