Straight Outta Supertest - What I forgot...

In the last batch with the description, I forgot a few tanks. Let's have a look at them...

T6

Performance requirements for a new vehicle, intended to replace the M3 tank, were formulated in August 1940. However, development was started only in February 1941. The T6 used a number of mechanical components of the M3. A wooden prototype was built in June 1941. On September 2nd, 1941, trials were started. Eventually, the vehicle entered service under the designation the M4.

T88

A 105-mm self-propelled gun on the basis of the M18. The order for the development of this vehicle was placed on August 31st, 1944. The Buick Motor Car Division manufactured a prototype at the beginning of 1945. However, development was discontinued when the war ended.

T95E2



Development of this vehicle started in 1943, with 25 vehicles planned for production within a year. Two prototypes passed trials, but never saw action.

(SS: not sure what this is, some sort of T95 GMC evolution?)

Straight Outta Supertest - Tank descriptions

Hello everyone, this is a list of leaked official tank descriptions (you know, those short stories on top of the characteristics windows of each tank) from supertest I recieved this time from a source close to official translators, who decided to share upcoming vehicles. Some are known, some - less so. It is unclear as to whether (if at all) these vehicles will appear. The pictures were added by me.

PS: sorry for the weird formatting, blogspot makes a mess of it, no idea why.

France

ACL 135

The first prototype was manufactured in 1931 by the ACL company on the basis of the Char D1. Two prototypes were produced. Work on the vehicle was discontinued due to a faulty suspension and other unreliable parts.

AMC 35 

This model represented France's last cavalry support tank. Development started in 1936, with 50 vehicles manufactured by Renault between 1938 and 1939.

AMR P103 

This light tank prototype was developed by Citroën. In April 1935 the vehicle underwent trials and was deemed adequate. However, the AMR 35 tank project was preferred.

AMX 13 FL-11

A modification of the AMX 13 with the Panhard EBR turret. The vehicle did not have an automatic loading mechanism. The vehicle was intended to fight in Indo-China. Five vehicles were built in 1954.


AMX 65t 

A modification of the AMX 50 with a welded forward body and a standard turret. Existed only in blueprints.

AMX M4 1948

Developed in 1945 by the AMX company, this tank was heavily influenced by the German Panther and Tiger II designs. An order was placed for two prototypes, which were given the designation M4. Initially classified as a medium tank, the vehicle was later reclassified as heavy.

Char 50t B

Development of this heavy tank started at the end of 1945. By the beginning of 1950, several prototypes had been developed, including the model with an oscillating turret and a 100 mm gun.

FCM-2C 

Development was started by the FCM company in 1916. Ten vehicles were manufactured by 1919. Several variants of the FCM2C were produced by 1940.


FCM F1

In 1936 the French government requested design entries for a new heavy breakthrough tank, which would replace the Char 2C. Five companies proposed designs, the FCM company among them. A wooden prototype was constructed by 1940; it was destroyed in 1941.






Lorraine G1L

Developed by the Lorraine company. Existed only in blueprints.

Lorraine 37 L AC

The Lorraine 37L was mass-produced from 1937 through 1940, with a total of approximately 480 vehicles manufactured. They were used as the basis for a number of experimental SPGs that never saw mass production.

Panzerjager 35R

The company Alkett converted 174 captured R35 tanks into tank destroyers, designated 35R and equipped with the 4.7 cm PaK 36(t).

Renault G1R 

The design was presented by the Renault company in 1937. The hull prototype was manufactured and the blueprint was developed, but the work was discontinued due to the outbreak of World War II.

Somua S35 

Developed in 1934 by the Somua company. At the start of World War II, it was considered one of the French Army's most modern and formidable tanks. After the Fall of France, the vehicle was used by the Wehrmacht. During the production period between 1938 and 1940, a total of 427 vehicles were manufactured.

Char 2C Bis

In 1926 the FCM2C Champagne tank was upgraded with a 155 mm howitzer and was designated as the FCM 2C Bis. However, the previous configuration was restored the same year.

Great Britain

SS: the British vehicles lack descriptions, they only have names

A7
M2A4
StuartVI
Sherm.III
Firefly


Sexton

Modification of the Grizzly tank, mounting the British 25-pounder field howitzer. Mass production was launched at the Montreal Locomotive Works in Canada, with 2,150 vehicles manufactured from 1943 through 1945.

Sentinel I
RAM
AC IV
Matilda I

Germany

Brummbar

Developed by the Alkett company in cooperation with the Krupp company. The first prototype was produced in February 1943. The vehicle was mass-produced from April 1943 through March 1945, with a total of 298 vehicles manufactured. Eight more vehicles were converted from the PzKpfw IV. First saw combat in the Battle of Kursk. The vehicle was used on all fronts until the end of military operations in Europe.

E-10 

A proposed light tank destroyer weighing about 12 tons. Its most innovative feature was to be the ability to adjust the ground clearance, changing the vehicle's height from 1760 to 1400 mm. The vehice would be powered by either the Maybach HL 100 or the Argus engine. Development was discontinued in favor of the Hetzer.


E-25

The development of the E-25 was a part of the "E" program supervised by the Waffenprüfamt 6. The E-25 was developed by the Argus company (Karlsruhe, Germany) under the supervision of Dr. Herman Klaue. Existed only in blueprints.

Marder III

Tank destroyer on the basis of the PzKpfw 38 (t). The PaK 40 or the PaK 36(r) gun was installed in an open cockpit. Entered service at the end of 1942. The vehicle was mass-produced until the middle of 1944 and was in service until the end of the war.

Nashorn 

Known as Hornisse before 1944, the vehicle used the same chassis as a heavy self-propelled gun Hummel. First saw combat in the summer of 1943 on the Eastern front. A total of 494 vehicles were manufactured.

Sturmtiger 

Developed on the basis of the PzKpfw VI Tiger. The first prototype was manufactured in the fall of 1943; it was demonstrated to Nazi leaders on October 20th. The prototype passed trials and participated in the crushing of the Warsaw Uprising. A total of 18 vehicles, not including the prototype, were produced.


Sturer Emil

Experimental tank destroyer on the basis of the prototype of the VK 3001(H) heavy tank. Two vehicles manufactured in 1942 fought on the Eastern Front.

United States

M3A3 

 
The M3A3 was a further development of the M3 light tank, featuring a redesigned hull of welded construction. Development was started in April 1942. The changes added two tons to the vehicle weight but made the fighting compartment more spacious, improving crew performance. The M3A3 was mass-produced from January through September 1943, with a total of 3,427 tanks manufactured. Of these, 2,045 were exported to Great Britain, where they were designated the Stuart V.

M4(90)V

At the end of World War II, consideration was given to a redesigned and upgraded M4 Sherman. A larger and stronger turret ring would have allowed mounting of the M26 turret and a 90-mm gun. However, the M26 was chosen for mass production.

M4 Improved

A variant of the M4 medium tank with angled hull and turret. It was developed by the Detroit Arsenal in August 1942. The changes were intended to improve the tank's protection without increasing weight or degrading other technical characteristics. Existed only in blueprints.

T1 M1921 

 Development of the M1921 tank began in 1919. By February 1922, the Packard Motor Company manufactured a prototype. The tank featured a number of innovations, including a commander's cupola and peculiar tracks with wooden inserts. The vehicle was never mass-produced, but further experimental vehicles, the T1 and T1E1, were developed on its basis.

T23E3 

Development was started in April 1943. A prototype was produced in August 1944. Unlike its predecessor, the T23 tank, the T23E3 featured torsion-bar suspension. The vehicle never entered mass production nor saw service.

T24 

 Experimental self-propelled gun on the M3 chassis. The Baldwin Locomotive Works Company started the development of the T24 in the fall of 1941. By November, the prototype was completed. The vehicle passed trials, but never saw mass production.

Soviet Union


T-34M

 Developed in 1941 at Plant No. 183 under the designation A-43. A new vehicle was intended to replace the T-34 tank. The vehicle was to be equipped with torsion-bar suspension, diesel engine B-5, a new transmission and a reinforced to 60 mm front armor.

A-44 

 
The project was begun in April 1941. Development was led by I. S. Behr, lead engineer of Plant No. 183. Three different versions of the vehicle were proposed, varying in armor, armament, combat load, and speed. The estimated production date for the prototype was early 1942. However, when the German invasion forced the evacuation of the facility, development was discontinued.

IT-45 

 
A light tank destroyer on the basis of the T-60 and the T-70. The initial plans were drafted in the summer of 1942. In 1943, development was halted due to emerging difficulties in engine production and the realization that the main gun would be inadequate against increasingly heavy opponents.

Object 416 

The Object 416 was a medium tank developed by the Construction Bureau of Plant No. 75 starting in 1949. An early prototype was completed by March 1950. Due to problems with the turret, the prototype was not operational until the end of April 1952. By the summer of 1953, the prototype was tested and upgraded. The vehicle passed trials, but never entered mass production.





SU-76BM 

Development of the vehicle was started in July 1943. The prototype was constructed in October 1943. The vehicle never entered mass production.

SU-76I 

Developed on the basis of captured German StuG III and PzKpfw III vehicles in 1943. The modifications were made at Factory No. 37 in Sverdlovsk, with a total of 200 vehicles manufactured.

T-35 

Developed in 1931–1932 under the supervision of N. V. Barykov. The vehicle was mass-produced from 1932 through 1939 at the Kharkov Locomotive Factory. It was the only mass-produced five-turret tank. In the middle of the 1930s, attempts were made to upgrade the vehicle. Most of these vehicles were lost during the first days of the war. The T-35 tanks were last used at the Battle of Moscow. A total of 2 prototypes and 61 mass-produced tanks were manufactured.

Fishy practices during Wargaming supertest

SS: Here's an e-mail I recieved from a concerned supertester - I am publishing it with his consent. I will leave it as it is (only removed some parts according to which the supertester could be identified). I will leave it up to you, dear readers, to decide whether it's true or not. Generally, after consulting the e-mail with my other supertest source - it checks out, even though I cannot guarantee it's totally accurate (especially the gold-illegal-in-EU part).

Heya SilentStalker,

I have a nice juicy story for you. Straight outta supertest.

A lot of the supertesters kicked today, are not kicked for inactivity. They are kicked because WG did not like their face, or their hair, or their voice, or their name or something else. Why? Because even very active supertesters were kicked. I, for example. I had *redacted*. Which was quite a lot compared to other EU testers, some of them didn't show up _at_ _all_. They were not kicked.

Fishey eh? Well, it gets worse. We have been told by supertest coordinators that EU testers could not be kicked, the mail about that, was only intended for the Russian players. It was not for us, because we just entered the supertest.

Can it get fishier? Of course, this is WG after all. The mail about the kick was only send in Russian, there was no translation. We were not warned about inactivity, the kick was suddenly there. And, Wargaming gotta wargame, we were kicked by a dude (Marokko) WHO WAS ON HOLIDAY.

Is it possible to get even fishier? Of course! The decision is final. The EU supertest coordinator tried to re-roll the EU kicks, but was not able to and was informed: "The decision is final".

We should have reached the limit of fishy-ness by now. But no! It is forbidden, by the law of the European Union, to pay people for their work by means of virtual gold/stuff. How do I know this? Because WARGAMING TOLD ME SO. They plan to pay the EU players the same way as the Russian players. If they do so, they are in violation of the EU law.

I think we have reached the limit by now.

Regards,
An ex-supertester

PS: Oh, I forgot. I can get fishier. Among the people kicked. There were all of the Dutch supertesters. Yeah, every single Dutch tester was kicked. Even the active testers.

Part 2 

SS: this is a part of the second e-mail I recieved from the same source. As always, I redacted the incriminating parts.

When I was banned from the forums, I still had access to the Jabber supertest channel and had a chance to speak one of the *redacted*. (*redacted*, who is pretty awesome by the way)
As far as I could tell, he/she was very surprised and after he/she got a little more details about what happened, got furious. He/she even went as far as contacting Marokko, who is currently on holiday in Russia. Sadly, he/she got 'Njet' as an answer.

Marokko wouldn't even react to the kicked supertesters, even though he was online on Skype.

I did a bit of checking and noticed quite a few of the kicked testers were from the Netherlands and Germany. So far 3 from the Netherlands, and 3-4 from Germany. And a few players I haven't been able to locate yet.
Some told me it might have to do with the law about payments in virtual stuff, since the Netherlands and Germany are very strict with that, so it might have been an easy way to get rid of us. But then again, England has the same kind of laws, but those supertesters were not kicked.

And a little something about Russians vs Europeans:
The EU and Russians both have their own Jabber chat channel, and both have access to a channel where free tests are announced. To participate in a test, you have to be in Teamspeak and of course in WoT.
As soon as a test is announced in Jabber, Teamspeak or ingame, you are supposed to hop in the TS channel for that test. The Free Test Creator will then pick the players on a first come, first serve basis. Teams are balanced according to the performance rating of the players.

But here is the trick. Some Russian Free test creators tried to get rid of EU testers by saying: "You are not in the correct Jabber channel, please leave". And got Russians in their place. Voila, Russian supremacy ftw!
As soon as WG found out, they told all of the supertesters that being in Jabber was not mandatory. They also stated that if they heard of these things ever again, they would not even warn the Free test creators. As in, they will be kicked immediately.

And another small story:
Once upon a time there was a Russian Free test creator who apparently did not like EU players. I was in one of his tests once, and he told translators to tell me to use HE shells. He told them over and over and over again. A few day later, I heard someone complaining about him. The tester said that said Russian started to shout (in Russian!) at him and another EU tester, and would not stop. The EU testers told the Eu coordinators and they said they would take care of it. A few days later, mister Sanchobox had 'voluntary' left the supertest. The EU testers lived happily ever after, until some got kicked.


SS: Well, there is definitely something weird going on with the supertest, but then again... we didn't really expect something else, did we?

8.3.2013

- Panzer IV Schmal can meet tier 8 vehicles in battle
- AMX-50B buff is not planned for now
- Waffenträgers confirmed for this year
- Q: "Does Wargaming plant to also buy Sun Soft, Microsoft, Valve and others?" A: "The little ones are not interesting for us"
- it's possible that when the MT-25 replaces the T-50-2, owners will get a new crewmember
- arty shells exploding in mid air (as seen here) is just a graphical glitch, the explosion animation is triggered early - in reality the shell travels correctly and does damage as it should, just the explosion graphics are wrong, it will be fixed in next patch
- it's too early to tell the definitive characteristicks of the Aufklärungspanzer Panther, the vehicle is still tested
- the improvements Wargaming makes on Big World will not be passed (sold) to other companies using this engine

No more supertest leaks... for now

It is with regret that I must inform you my good readers, that sadly, my supertester source got himself kicked out of the supertest for inactivity (along with like 80 other people). Therefore... there will be no supertest updates from now on. For now at least. 
And as for you, dear supertesters who read this - if you feel like sharing any interesting info, feel free to write me at fortherecordwot@gmail.com - after all, as you can see, I protect my sources... :)

On Matilda Black Prince

Pondering a modelling problem within World of Tanks and getting a change made
By a community member US forum (SS: yes, I know his identity, but he wished to write this as "anon")

There are a variety of threads and continual moans and groans directed at the World of Tanks developers and one can be sympathetic to all of the stupid ‘We want the Ratte’ or ‘Let me have an M1Abrams’ type of requests they get.

Occasionally however there are those threads (more of a quest really) where a player actually tries to be respectful, polite and use good research to have some genuine changes made for the betterment of the game and to please those tank enthusiasts for whom historical accuracy (particularly when it comes to the ‘look’ of a tank is so important) Noteable within these threads is the one started by Vollketten on the NA server regarding the Matilda Black Prince.(MBP)

Voll. started the thread here at http://forum.worldof...ack-prince/#top back in November 2012 and there have also been various questions raised on the EU and RU servers about this vehicle as well.

Voll. sums it up as follows:
“1st) The side armour is wrong. Plain wrong. It should be 75mm. The Russian Matilda enjoys 75mm of side armour. The MBP in game has only 55mm of side armour.
2nd) The Turret Armour is wrong. Cromwell Turret armour turret front: 76mm side: 63.7mm rear:56.7mm
Game Armour for turret front: 76mm side: 54mm (9.7mm less) rear: 51mm (5.7mm less)
3rd) Gun elevation/depression is wrong. Cromwell turret has -13°/+20°, MBP has only -9°/+12°.
4th) Physical model is wrong. The real tank clearly has an extended armoured collar around the hull top as part of the adjestments to take the bigger turret. In the game the armour is just not there leading to abnormally high number of turret jam shots. See pics to illustrate this:
5th) Size, the MBP is just, well, too big. Even though it is on the same hull (albeit with less armour) than the Russian Premium Matilda it is significantly bigger:
6th) Weight; it's too heavy: Despite the MBP carrying LESS ARMOUR (in game) than the Cromwell turret which it has, it actually weighs more!”

Pretty succinct summarizing of the problems with the game model compared to the real vehicle. Now it should be remembered that there is only a single image of this vehicle ever existing and here it is: (complete with armoured collar which is missing in the game)

In real life tank:



In game tank:



How the collar looks in real life:

and in detail:


The size issue:


When the 8.2 patch came out it was announced that “Changed the armor values more in line with historical real-world values for T34-85, IS, Matilda (British) tanks.”

Now if this was true then the problems with the armouring would be corrected in 8.2 and our story would end there.
The one thing that the real life Matilda was famous for was having very thick armour, when the Matilda came out and first saw action she was virtually immune to all but the biggest German guns like the 88’s. Indeed the Lend Lease Matilda available as a premium Russian tank has the correct armour values but the British Matilda has different hull armour values and is bigger even though it is the SAME tank. The SAME hull is on the MBP (albeit with a collar added) and has even worse armour and weighs MORE.

The suggested changes to the armour and model of the MBP in game were as follows:
• Increase the speed slightly. (There is a report of a twin diesel unit designed in the US for use in the Matilda which had the MBP entered production could well have been fitted and would have given it a power to weigh ratio similar to that of a Panther!) Also the MBP used a newer Wilson transmission intended to improve maneuverability and speed which should be taken into account.
• Increase the side armour to what it really was. (see here for a diagram of the correct armour layout for the Matilda hull)
• Add an armoured collar to the hull of the MBP as it had one in real life. (Indeed it appears that the 60 or so vehicles sent to Australia were all fitted with this collar even though they had the standard Matilda turret) This removes the shot-trap problem.
• And finally; make all of the hulls for the vehicles the same size, to have the same vehicle in game in three incarnation in different sizes is frankly silly. (are all of the Stuarts or T-34’s the same size?)

The inconsistencies with the turret are pretty stark as well. It is fitted with the turret of the A24/A27 which is also fitted to the Cromwell but weighs 4 tonnes more! To fit this turret on a Matilda hull with a turret ring diameter of 54.3 inches they had to create an adapter ring to fit the Centaur turret which had a turret ring 57.2 inches in diameter. This meant that the turret sat up a little higher and obviously the designers designed and fitted a collar to protect this gap. All of the Matilda hulls were made at the Vulcan foundry and are the same size in real life with a variation of up to 5% in hull plate thickness. (The front hull was cast in one piece which meant it was always thicker than the 78mm designed and had to be manually ground thinner meaning it was always 78mm up to nearly 82mm thick)

The armour layout:


(From David Fletchers 'Matilda Infantry Tank' book)

If the ONLY proof this tank existed is the single photo then why is the model of it SO wrong?

Now there were some changes made; WoT fixed the side armour (partially) by corrected a fault with the spaced armour. (It was modelled as not being spaced originally) but left the values the same.
If all this talk seems confusing lets compare the three versions of the Matilda available in game: (taken from Vollketten’s thread)

"Comparison of all three versions.(colour coded for ease)
Matilda UK Medium Tank Tier IV
Matilda Lend Lease USSR Medium Tank Tier V
Matilda Black Prince UK Medium Tank Tier V

Hit Points: 370 HP with upgraded turret
Hit Points: 610HP
Hit Points: 610HP
Result: British Matilda has nearly half the hit points of its premium counterparts.

Weight Limit: 26.97/29 t with all upgraded modules
Weight Limit: 27.4/31 t
Weight Limit: 30/32 t
Result: MBP actually has highest load capacity, British Matilda has the worst.

Engine Power: 190 hp with upgraded engine
Engine Power: 274 hp standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted by 15.5% to 316.47 hp (This is a consumable NOT available to the British)
Engine Power: 190 hp
Result: Russian Matilda has significantly higher engine power. 190hp for the standard Matilda means it has the same horsepower as the heavier MBP making the MBP even more worthless. With the extra bonus from consumables not available to either British version the Russian Matilda is like a hotrod for the faster acceleration.

Speed Limit: 24 km/h
Speed Limit: 25 km/h
Speed Limit: 22 km/h
Result: Russian Matilda has the highest speed. MBP is slower than the already slow Matilda and don't forget the Russian version also gets to use the speed governor removal device and the lend lease oil to further improve performance. Neither of which is available to either British versions.

Traverse: 36 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Traverse: 35 deg/s
Result: Regular Matilda has a very small advantage of 1 degree/s.

Power/Wt Ratio: 7.044 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: 10 hp/t standard but with removed speed governor and LL Oil this is boosted
by 15.5% to 316.47 hp giving 11.55 hp/t
Power/Wt Ratio: It is 6.324 hp/t
Result: The MBP is dreadful. Russian Matilda is like a thoroughbred racehorse in comparison to either of the British version with nearly twice the hp/ton. (BUT if WoT introduced the possible twin diesel engine it could be as high as 15.5 hp/ton)

Armament
Damage: 41-69 HP
Damage: 82.5-137.5 HP
Damage: 56.3-93.8 HP
Result: Russian vehicle does the most damage doing nearly double the MBP on average per shot. British standard Matilda is laughable by comparison. The MBP looks even worse only giving a slight advantage over the standard Matilda for all that extra weight and size.

Penetration: 91-151mm
Penetration: 65-108 mm
Penetration: 83-138 mm
Result: The Russian version actually has the lowest penetration but does much more damage than either of the others. MBP is even worse than the standard Matilda when fully upgraded.

Rate of Fire: 28.57r/m no change for upgrading
Rate of Fire: 16.15r/m
Rate of Fire: 26.09r/m
Result: Standard Matilda fires fastest but has the worst best pen and but low damage. MBP has better ROF than Russian Matilda.

Accuracy: 0.36m no change for upgrading
Accuracy: 0.41m
Accuracy: 0.41m
Result: British standard Matilda has the most accurate gun. Both MBP and Russian vehicle are both the same.

Aim time: 1.9s
Aim time: 1.71s
Aim time: 2.3s
Result: MBP has worst aim time, MBP is the worst but upgrading the standard Matilda actually makes the aim time worse by 0.2 seconds, meaning that the Russian Matilda has the best aim time.

Turret Traverse: 34 deg/s no change for upgrading
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Turret Traverse: 34deg/s
Result: No difference.

Elevation Arc: -10°/+20° no change for upgrading
Elevation Arc: -14°/+25°
Elevation Arc: -9°/+12°
Result: Incredible gun depression and elevation allow Russian Matilda to make best use of terrain. MBP has worst gun depression and elevation despite using basically the same gun and turret as the Cromwell which has -13°/+20° for depression/elevation.

Ammo Capacity: 92 rounds no change for upgrading
Ammo Capacity: 60 rounds
Ammo Capacity: 55 rounds
Result: Lowest ammo capacity is MBP despite using basically the same gun and turret of the Cromwell which could carry 75 rounds of 6 pdr ammunition.

Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Chance of Fire: 15 %
Result: No difference, all use diesel engines.

View Range: 340m with upgraded turret
View Range: 350m
View Range: 350m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can see further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded turret gets a whopping extra 10m view range. *sarcasm

Signal Range: 450m
Signal Range: 570m
Signal Range: 570m
Result: MBP and Russian Matilda can signal much further than standard British Matilda. Upgraded the standard Matilda still has a view range far behind the others.."

So something would change right?

No.

From this blog date: 28-11-2012
"- premium tanks are buffed/nerfed rarely, devs are afraid to touch them (because of whine)"
OP:(Apart from the Type-59 which gets a nice little buff)

So it is worth having a look at making a case to WoT to change it (more sales means more money afterall)
Stats are valid in December 2012.

MBP (Matilda Black Prince), LLM (Lend Lease Matilda): (No stats available for the Matilda Mk2)
"Data for this statistics is based on 930,865 battle results with 27,925,950 tanks participated. Effects of Premium Accounts have been removed."

Average Efficiency..........MBP 1,200.1............LLM 1.359.8.............Difference: LLM is more efficient by 0.159.7
Average Experience........MBP 428.7..............LLM 490.9.................Difference: LLM earns more by 62.2 per battle
Average Survived...........MBP 37.8%..............LLM 36.4%................Difference: MBP survives 1.4% more battles
Average Battle Time.......MBP 4.7 min.............LLM 4.7 min..............Difference: None
Won/Lost ratio................MBP 54.6%.............. LLM 54.6%...............Difference: None
Accuracy.........................MBP 65.0%..............LLM 67.4%................Difference: LLM is 2.4% more accurate
(and yet according to figures they should have the same accuracy. Practice versus theory.)

Damage ratio..................MBP 111.3%............LLM 101.0%..............Difference: MBP does 10.3% more as a ratio of damage
Average Damage dealt...MBP 497.9...............LLM 461.7.................Difference: MBP does 36.2 hp more damage
Average Damage received MBP 453.4...........LLM 460.3..................Difference: MBP has less damage received by 6.9hp
(Basically the difference is negligible)

Average Damage per Kill...MBP 452.4............LLM 411.5..................Difference:MBP does 40.9 more hp of damage to get a kill
(So the MBP has to work 'harder' to get a kill than the LL Matilda ?)

Average Damage assisted.MBP 103.4............LLM 137.1..................Difference: LLM does 33.7 hp more
Average Kills per Battle....MBP 0.7..................LLM 0.6......................Difference: MBP does 0.1 more kills per battle
(Basically the difference is negligible)

Average Mileage..............MBP 824.5m............LLM 962.0m..............Difference: LLM goes 137.5 m further
(Not a surprise considering how much faster it is)

Average Spotted Tanks....MBP 0.7.................LLM 1.0......................Difference: LLM spots 0.3 tanks more
Average Net Income.........MBP 8,905.1cr........LLM 10,107.9cr.........Difference: LLM earns 1202.8cr more
Average Gross Income.....MBP 12,466.7cr.......LLM 14,337.1cr........Difference: LLM earns 1870.4cr more
(Self-evident the LL Matilda is a far better earner than the MBP)"

So in conclusion we can see that overall the MBP is a worse earner in terms of credits and XP than the Russian LL Matilda.

It’s not to say that there weren’t changes made though; in 8.2 we saw:
• A reduced engine cost of the Leyland E164 engine to 310 XP (makes no difference to the tanks problems though)
• Increased the cost of the researching the Churchill to 11,500 XP meaning the Matilda takes even longer to grind.
• Added the option of a Mk.10T High Explosive shell for the Matilda which makes no difference to the tanks problems either.
• Fixed the armouring of the Matilda’s sides (slow down don’t think is the end of the story) Only the LL Matilda benefits from the armour becoming spaced because the other two (British) version remain in game with lower than real life armour values. So when WoT says they fixed  the situation they used the other meaning of ‘fixed’ it appears.

It had to be transparent that there a dual standard at play when the Russian version benefits more and was better to start with than the British version but Voll. persists.

The next event was the Reddit with the Devs where this issue was actually brought directly to their attention and this was the conversation:
Q: “Are you considering fixing the Matilda BP? Such a horrible tank, especially for one thats costs gold.”
A: “We’ll take a look at it. Nothing is changing in 8.2, but we’ll see. We certainly don’t want premiums to be terrible tanks, but they also shouldn’t be something played becasue they’re superior to the standard options at that tier”

But WoT own figures prove that the MBP is so bad that noone really wants it. Of all of the premium tanks in game at the time is was the worst seller with only 10,167 sold.
In terms of profitability (one of the main reasons to buy a premium in the first place)
(Figures from December 2012)

• Matilda Tier 4 Medium 6,148.89 cr
• Matilda IV Tier 5 Medium 9,754.76 cr
• Matilda Black Prince Tier 5 Medium  8,627.34 cr

What that means is that the MBP was the WORST performing Tier 5 premium tank. So bad in fact that there are 3 premium tier 3 and 4 vehicles which outperform it! (i.e FCM36 and Pz B2 for example)

Another thread on the NA server summed up the general feeling very nicely:
"In 8.2 Wargaming boosted the side armour of the Matilda from 50mm to 70mm
BUT THEY DIDN'T INCREASE THE ARMOUR OF THE MATILDA BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!! THE TIER 5 MATILDA NOW HAS WORSE ARMOUR THAT THE TIER 4 MATILDA!!!!!!! IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

And yet again from this blog:

16.12.2012 - tanks will get additional armor screens (spaced armor - optional equipment) according to the fact whether they had them historically or not.
That means that the devs agree that the MBP should have the correct side armour and yet still no.

17-1-2013 "- tank popularity is only one of the secondary parameters, when considering how well it is balanced"
Perhaps this was the answer, they don’t care if it is popular or not.

2-2-2013 “apparently, the devs consider the in game Matilda Black Prince historical (SS: it's not clear what the question meant as the original question was already deleted, presumably it concerned some armor sleeve around the turret, several Russian players mentioned that before)”

Incredible isn’t it? The devs consider it is correct. So after 4 months of bringing this to the attention of various people in WoT it still is not an issue on which they say ‘it is being looked at’.

So recently we have 27-2-13 (patch notes for 8.4)

"Fixed minor bugs with the damage model of the following tanks: AT-15А, Matilda Black Prince, Matilda (USSR), Grille, AMX 13-75, AMX 13-90, AMX 12t, Churchill I, VK 4205B, M12, M41, Object 212, Caernarvon, M46 Patton, Maus, Е-100."

So after all of this they are amending the damage model of the MBP but not the undamaged model. This is not a help playing the tank as it has to be dead to be correct?

Essentially after all of this work and effort the main issues remain unresolved, namely:
1. Incorrect side hull armour. There was never a Matilda II ever produced with only 55mm of side armour. The sides at the thinnest area were 40mm lower hull sides with an additional 25mm of side skirt armour (70mm upper side hull). WG admitted that the original release 55mm side armour was a  bug.
2. The lack of armour collar protecting the turret.
3. Incorrect turret side and rear armour. The A24 Cavalier turret always had an additional 12.7mm I.T.110 Carbon manganese steel backing plate. The current armour values takes the I.T. 110 backing plate factored in the front of the turret but not at the side and rear. The backing plate's absence can be seen in the turret's statistics, the Cromwell (which shared the Cavalier's turret) having 76/63.7/56.7 mm while the Matilda Black Prince only has 76/51/44 mm.
So now we have reached an impassse...or have we?

from the Reddit with SerB 3rd March 2013:

"Q: Is there any plans to fix the size of the model of the Matilda Black Prince? Currently it is considerably larger than every other Matilda in the game, and the turret weight is another issue, why is it so much heavier than the turret on the Cromwell? It is currently 3 tons heavier, is it not supposed to be the same turret
A: I can't track everything. If the people responsible for that find an inconsistency, they will correct it."

So is anything going to change???

What this thread shows is that sometimes there is an educated and genuine attempt to improve a vehicle both to make it historically accurate but also more enjoyable to play both of which are to benefit the company and their profits (more sales means more money. So this thread will stay open as it appears Voll. is stubborn on the issue and until the issues are resolved we wish him the best of luck.

What this means for anyone seeking to have changes made is don’t give up, but don’t expect anything to happen easily or quickly if at all.

Just to add possible insult to injury there is a rumour of this modelling chnage to the Russian Matilda in the 8.4 release:


Yes that's right, an armour buff for the LL Matilda.

Editor's note - 8.4 addition:

I recieved a following message from the author of this article today:

I thought I ought to let you know that 8.4 has actually impleneted the collar for the MBP. I only know because I took mine out last night and saw that it had the collar in place. So changes can be made. I wish WoT had actually announced the change but I'm still happy. All that remains to be changed is the armour values.

Aufklärungspanzer Panther will be in 8.5

Source: http://world-of-tanks.livejournal.com/4756777.html

Storm confirmed that while the RU251 will not be in 8.5 (see picture), the recon Panther will appear. What kind of weird tactic is that, releasing branches in halves? Either way, Storm confirmed that the AP will follow after the VK2801 and also confirmed it has a konish gun (something we knew in advance ;) ).