06/06/16 Q&A and Q’s gathering


since the last Q&A I’ve posted things been very dry, this is what is out so far:

  • AC IV Experimental will be for Sale on NA around the middle of next month.
  • Storm says that there are no plans to change the Hydrostat gun.

Yep, that’s it… It’s not like Storm doesn’t want to talk but the Russian side of the community has been spending more time typing unconstructive whining than actual questions, Storm actually asked twice on these last few days for people to be more constructive, without success. So I’m taking matters into my own hands.


Upon request, Yuri Pasholok, Wargaming’s History Consultant agreed to make a Q&A for RSR. I will be gathering questions from this comment section only and please note:

*Historical Related Questions*


Thank you.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
06/06/16 Q&A and Q’s gathering

177 thoughts on “06/06/16 Q&A and Q’s gathering

  1. _Kitsune_ says:

    Oh! what a blessed day for me!
    I have one I’ve been DYING to ask for as long as I’ve played the British tech tree:
    Will we be getting a British light/scout tank tree someday? If yes, roughly when can we expect to get it and what types of tanks might be placed in it?
    Cheers, have a nice day!

    1. Anonymous says:

      The Brits, like the Russians, found scouting light tanks useless, which is why we won’t find any, if all, British scout tanks. We would probably get machines like the Mk VI light tank (the Light VIC), the Tetrach, Harry Hopkins, Stuart V-VI (Lend-Lease M5 Stuart), and the FV301 (SPG variant in game as FV304). As for a Tier 7 and 8 machine, I am not so certain. The closest equivalent I can conceive is the FV101 Scorpion, although it may be disqualified due to the aluminum armor, like the M551 Sheridan.

      But who knows? Bovington might have some documents to BS a British scout line, like what they did with the Soviets.

      On the other hand, I see no reason why they have unjustly excluded the PT-76.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Are there any plans to extend JP LT tree to tier8? ex)Tier5: Chafee, Tier6: NoAutoloderM41, Tier7: 20tSTA(with76mmGun, Plan only), Tier8: 25tLT(Plan only, developed with 75HSP as family, I don’t have any more info:( sry.)

    1. probably the Japanese STB, you can also consider the Obj.-430 or T95 MT
      the T95 would obviously be the most modern/technically advanced with it’s supension and smoothbore gun but that won’t be added to the game, on the other hand the current reward T95 at tier 10 is also very advanced
      just think about how the T95 sort of continued to the MBT-70 program (they are not directly related but the MBT-70 had a smilar suspension making it able to take advantage of the low profile of the design, just like the T95)

  3. Asatte3 says:

    Hello Rita and Yuri!! Are there any plans to extend JP LT tree to tier8? ex)Tier5: Chafee, Tier6: NoAutoloderM41, Tier7: 20tSTA(with76mmGun, Plan only), Tier8: 25tLT(Plan only, developed with 75HSP as family, I don’t have any more info:( )

  4. two simple questions
    1) has it ever happened that WG asked one of the historical consultants to look into a suggestion from a player?
    as in some weird design that has only appeared in their country and was never translated to other languages, something they personaly found in archives or even a full tech tree proposal

    2) any info on how the US tech tree will be “re-built”?
    as in, any new tanks (besides the heavy at tier 8 that was hinted a few weeks ago, here on a Q&A)

  5. 1. What about American hightier TD – the 155mm T7 gun they currently use actually fired HESH and HEAT ammunition in real life while in game they fire AP and APCR. Is it going to be changed some day?

    2. T110E3/4 – they were actually designed with 120mm guns, 155mm was not even planned. Is it possible that the 120mm gun could be added at least as alternative weapon?

    3. Foch TD – which weapons were historically planned for that vehicle apart from regular manually loaded 120mm?
    How real are 120 autoloader, 155mm manually loaded or even 155mm AL?

    4. Why does Grille 15 have such weird arrangement of side screens on the gun mount? How historical is that and what was the historical reason for such arrangement? (rectangular, overlapping, narrow)

    5. Is Batchat ’58 arty going to get its historical weapon – the 155mm howitzer instead of the ominous unnamed GPF-like 155mm cannon?

    6. Will the historically incorrect elite-turret on the BT-2 be replaced with accurate BT-5 turret when tank goes HD? (current one doesn’t really resemble even the rare early Mariupol BT-5 turret)

    1. *reply to 1) probably a balance decision because HEAT had a estimated performance of 353mm at 30º and 203mm at 60º, there’s also the fact that the T7 never fired anything other than HE and artillery AP shells (since they hadn’t developed any AP for a 155mm gun yet and used what they had available, the artillery AP could pen 2m of concrete but had poor AP performance) and the HEAT was developed for the modified T7 used on the T58 HT

    2. 2. T110E3/4 – they were actually designed with 120mm guns, 155mm was not even planned. Is it possible that the 120mm gun could be added at least as alternative weapon?

      Considering the E4 in-game is actually fake. E5 was the only turreted T110 design. Historically the E3 in game is actually the E4 design in real life. Also the hulls are incorrect. So another question would be, will the T110E4 be replaced with a historical tank that fits that particulare HT branch and the T110E3 be renamed historically?

      I say HT branch because T28 Proto is more HT then TD and the T30 is actually a HT and was oroginally a HT.

      1. ARMANDO RODRIGUES I was talking about the second point in regards to the 120mm guns not in regards to the 155mm guns ammo type. Although, looking back now I still went on a bit of a tangent XD

  6. Anonymous says:

    Rita, i dont know if this is ‘historical’ enough but its been eating me up in side for some time as one of the few left Foch155 drivers..

    The french TD line is one of the only non-spg lines without a premium tank to train crews since the removal of the fcmpak40, Will/can it be getting a decent premium TD (such as the Lorr Canon D’ Assult) to train crews on.

    I tried asking this on the customer service and got some BS response about a ‘historical’ team looking for appropriate tanks despite me pointing out suitable tanks.

    Ps: off the top of my head i think thats the ONLY FULL line that lacks a premium if we dont count
    the brit and french LT lines that go all the way to tier 10.

    Cheers rita
    (sea servers menace)

    1. RagnarokBazil says:

      Rita will veiw ranges be different? so scouts can be used in clan wars? example t49 will have ranges of 460 when the batchchat 25t will only have 350 veiw ranges? so lights out spot all the meds?

  7. Anonymous says:

    @Rita: Pls ask them why MT-25 don’t have historical top speed ? It should be 100 km/h instead of 72 km/h ingame.

    1. whitebaron777 says:

      100kph was planned while driving on wheels. Movement with tracks on would be slower, but yeah, I agree, something like 80-85kph with tracks would be a more realistic estimate

    1. skyf24 says:

      IIRC, the 90mm Hellcat was a trial only. I know one was mounted, literally taking one of the M36 turrets and sticking it on, but I believe only one was made. Should be a photo floating around somewhere.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Why did you choose the E-100 turret that we know in-game instead of the Maus turret we see on the models and mockups, along with War Thunder’s E-100?

    1. Wulfe says:

      Because that was the turret actually planned for the E-100 (albeit with dramatically thinner sides, only 80mm IIRC)

  9. Silvio I says:

    Is ti possible to add another partial US arty line from tiers 8-10 made up of the M109 155mm (tier 8), M107 175mm (Tier 9), and M110 203mm (Tier 10).

    Are these vehicles too new? Could “prototype” examples be used instead?

    Because they have smaller caliber guns compared to the current line, could they have higher DPM, or a wider range of support shells?

  10. Silvio I says:

    I believe it was china who somehow acquired at M107/M110 SPG Chassis(I believe it was captured in Vietnam) and trialed a few Chinese guns on it. Could this be added as a premium tier 8 Chinese arty?

    I know it has been photographed and written about before, possibly in Wheels and Tracks.

  11. StumpyDaPaladin says:

    Yuri wants not stupid Historically relevant Questions for a change?

    I have some questions. But first i should establish some basic ideas of what i think is true that i am laboring under. Please correct me if i am wrong. And I can withdraw/change these questions to something actually relevant to the topic.

    Am I correct in believing that
    …The current application of history in this game (as i understand it) is that “Historically Accurate” is used as a starting point for implementing a vehicle avatar into the game that is meant to enhance immersion by looking and moving and sounding like a historic tank?
    …And that the primary downside to this is that Historically these vehicles were designed to be as OP as possible. ( we have a war to win, bitches!) Thus leading to
    … historic accuracy being sacrificed one piece at a time on the Altar of Game Balance/Engine limitations as subtle (or at times not so subtle) changes are made to make this less a simulation of war and more a fun way to blow of steam at the end of a day?

    This leads to decision making like…
    lets not model long ass barrels that would just get broken/stuck the second they get driven into a building/tank/hillside. or you hit a big ass bomb crater. Yes this is why tanks don’t fight in cities/ forests in real life if they can help it (Specific exceptions exist in game. Certain vehicle can mount short barreled guns specifically for infantry support in urban settings. ) but lets face it ramming and face hugging is fun (sometimes)
    lets not bother with gun characteristics that allow for one shot kills at 2-3km, 700m is good enough with current map sizes.
    lets ignore 40-60 -100+ ton tanks getting bogged down to their engine ports in swampy terrain…
    lets ignore crews getting out and taking 20 minutes to fix a broken track. or a final drive sprocket. Or reloading the magazine of an auto loading IS-3A or AMX.
    lets tone down ammo wrecks “Mr T-34 is so polite. Always ‘tipping his hat’ to any 88mm anti tank gun that chooses to speak to it” is not so fun for russian tank drivers.
    Lets down play engine fires in certain M4 “tommy cooker” models that had a deserved reputation to “light up the first time, every time”

    Taken individually, these are valid choices made to make this game easier and more fun.

    Taken all together you get some “thing” that Looks like a historic tank. Sounds like said historic tank. Maybe even moves like said historic tank … but is still in point of fact a pretty player avatar in an arcade style, 15v15 Muti Player Shooter.

    This leads to bitching about
    “this is not the t-55/ m60 i (my daddy ,my grand daddy) drove around back in the day”
    “this may be ‘realistic tanks’ but they are doing some unrealistic things”
    ” I saw a history channel show/read an old memoir/history book/declassified intelligence “best guess” work that said …”

    To them I say Fuck off. This is a game. Games are meant to be fun.

    War is far from fun. War is hell on earth. if you want a war sim go elsewhere. Like a recruiter, maybe?

    All that crap gotten out of the way…

    So concerning the upcoming “Great Re-balance” Will history have a similar role?
    Really important at first only to be discarded whenever it is remotely expedient to do so?


    Should “Historically Accurate Metal Murder Machines designed to be OP as fuck” be
    included in a revamped version of “Historic Battles”? If yes then could they?
    Perhaps with various marks and models and vehicles and ammo types getting unlocked as the player progresses through time?

    Presuming such a historic mode is made. I have heard rumors about using Bots to fix the primary problem with the last implementation (ie a playerbase that didnt want the challenge of playing underpowered tanks) ? Sure In effect its a single player game or presuming platoons/companies single /multiplayer Co-Op but what a great way to implement unbalance-able tanks as Boss fights! )

    Moving away from the specifics of how a Historic Mode may be implemented (all under the presumption it gets implemented at all) but still falling into “whats up with the great Rebalance/WoT v.2.0.0”

    Lets talk gold rounds. Kinda OP right now. but at the same time a necessary evil for certain vehicles. that dont have the mobility to flank…

    Does Yuri think WG should ever implement a feature that limits the amount of “gold rounds” each tank is allowed to carry?
    Would his answer change based on:
    Factoring in Historical distribution of special shells to unit types? (US TD’s in WW2 had first access to APCR/HEAT rounds at the cost of the other mediums and few heavies that got fielded.)
    Or just a straight percentage of total ammo capacity Based on Historical records of various countries ideal logistics tables and Doctrines?
    (this tank Must carry x amount of HE to support Infantry, Followed by x amount of standard AP for the occasional armored vehicle and finally allowed x amount of special munitions for unusual cases)

    With perhaps an equipment choice or consumable slot that allows you to “bribe a supply sergeant/officer” and carry some extra gold rounds?

    As an alternative, what does Yuri think about implementing a decrease in the damage potential of heat comparable to its increase in Penetration? Is such a thing even historically relevant?

    Lets switch perspective from those that spam gold to those that get gold spammed upon them.

    Does Yuri think WG should ever implement Historic alternative hulls to get researched for the same vehicle?
    … like it does already for guns, turrets, tracks, radios. Especially given that the current meta is for deciding what tier a tank is going to go is “match the gun, fill in the rest”

    Especially how at some tiers certain nations have as few as one line and others have as many as 7 or 8 not including premiums of that tier.

    For example:
    the US tier 5 TD “wolverine” actually has on its current model the mounting bolts for a (thin) layer of spaced armor for its hull and turret sides. (much like the “M4 Improved” premium)

    Pz 3’s and Pz4’s Hulls had enough upgrades that they are currently (off the top of my head) 10(?) different vehicles (counting the TD variants) to unlock in the german tree between tier 3 and 5. To say nothing of actual side skirts and screens mounted to defeat heat rounds on some in-game models that are just decorative and not actually modeled in-game.

    I recall reading somewhere that T-34’s and KV’s had certain differences thanks to being made by three(?) different factories that had a difficult time letting each other know what they were doing.
    Would these differences be enough to warrant getting included as hull variants?

    Do enough options exist historically (including experimental paper designs?) that you can allow players to choose between hulls that …
    … grant better over all armor protection at the cost of … say a smaller a smaller HP pool (or vice versa)
    … a layout that is partial to open field angling at the cost of urban side-scraping?(or vice versa)
    … Forward mounted turrets vs center or rear mounts?
    … Perhaps some hull variants would allow for better module performance at the cost of other values.
    Could some Open Top TD’s can get a solid roof over their heads gaining improved crew protection from HE but at a cost to view range?

    I acknowledge such implementations would drastically effect MM.
    Could this be addressed by altering the value MM grants the tank in question to not simply be the tier value of the chassis modded by the type of tank (with the rest of the tank balanced around that core number) but instead take into account the average tier value of its all of its components?
    thus if you ran a stock tank you would see many lower tiers. (but they would be elite) And at the same time if you ran an elite tank you would see many higher tiers to better challenge your skill.

    Speaking of modules and their damage …

    What about Commander Cupolas and MG turrets/ports? On many tanks these tumors are glaring weaknesses that you just cant hide. Would it be better that a hit in a cupola / machine gun turret only damage/destroy an external module or a crew man (and reduce vision/radio accordingly) and limiting all that direct damage to the HP pool? (Similar to how if you shoot a track it usually eats the damage but if you hit the right spot only some of the damage bleeds though to the hull hp pool). I have seen others submit the idea that if that giant “hit me here” sign is going to be there anyway, such a thing should at least gain an improvement to base view/radio range of the vehicle in question.(until it gets damaged/destroyed) Whats Yuri’s thought on this?

    And finally something historically accurate, but perhaps too much of a pain in the ass to implement unless major changes are already in the works.

    What is Yuri’s take on the concept of “ready racks”?
    For them that don t know what that is a ready rack is a smaller portion of the total ammo supply mounted in such away (usually the back/side of a turret/casemate as close to the gun as possible ) that the loader can use to ready the gun faster than getting ammo from say the(much safer) main ammo storage under the crew compartment .
    From a gameplay perspective this would allow the vehicle to sustain its maximum RoF for the first few rounds (depending on the size of the ammo, how much space the gun takes up, Historical layout of ammo crew compartments and turret as few as three and high as 8 or 12 ). But after this initial layout is reached the RoF is reduced. (due to the loader now having to go under the floor for ammo).
    Kinda like an auto loader but you get to sherry pick the ammo you want.

    You can pre set in the garage how many of each ammo type you want in your ready rack.
    You can have the loader (as default) load from main stowage. With the press of a “ready ammo” hot key s/he switches to the ready rack. Press the key again and your back to main stowage.
    Once the rack is empty the loader automatically switches back to main stowage to load the gun at a reduced RoF. The rack will stay empty (safer that way) until the reload hot key is pressed again at which time the loader will start filling it with shell if the gun is loaded at the reduced RoF back up to its maximum potential (and preset ammo selection)

    An Empty Ready Rack is just as likely to blow up as an empty ammo stowage. Zero.

    All at a cost. Getting hit in the rack (ammo or ready) sucks. and can be a oneshot kill Using this option to improve DPM will also improve your chance to get wrekt.

    OK that’s a lot of questions. Hopefully a few a worth discussion. And make Yuri think.

    1. StumpyDaPaladin says:

      Ok one more:

      In current map design: no matter how bad the terrain; any tank can go just about any where any other tank can go. Some just get there slower due to HP/ton and terrain resistance modifiers.

      What if the historic weight distribution of vehicle suspensions combined with the overall weight of the vehicle was made a factor in whether or not a vehicle gets stuck and sinks up to its engine deck in not just a river, but also the boggy middle of Swamp and other less obvious terrain traps (the valley of death in lakeville) as well?

      This could create places that lighter vehicles (that have a hard enough time being useful in the current meta) can go with impunity. While more massive vehicles would be given a “get out in 10 seconds or be stuck” meter (like being under too much water)

  12. Silvio I says:

    Will a Prototype M60A2 (m60a1e1) be added? I say Prototype so it doesn’t have techy stuff that would prevent it from coming into the game.

    Figure a sluggish medium tank with some characteristics of the M48 Patton, with a T49 gun, as a tier 8 premium. Sort of like a tier 8 KV2 😛

      1. Silvio I says:

        Notice how I said same gun as the T49. Just HE/HEAT. I also said prototype so it would lack techy computers and missiles.

  13. Silvio I says:

    I do not know a lot about this but I believe there was suppose to be a Centurion with a howitzer for a gun (MK4?) that never went into production because the HE performance of the 20 pounder on the Mk3 was so good, the MK4 was cancelled? There a chance this could be added as a premium?

  14. Silvio I says:

    The hellcat needs a rebalance. The way it is now, it represents a 1/1 prototype. Hell, the Type 64 is more like the real hellcat.

    Can WG have 2 US Tier 6 TDs. A 90mm and a 76mm.

    The 76mm TD (Hellcat), would be very fast, very maneuverable, fast turret traverse, and good camo to make up for the weak pen of the 76mm compared to the 90mm. This would allow it to sneak up and shoot HTs in the ass.

    The 90mm TD (Jackson) would play more like a more conventional unarmored TD. Basically keep it as is.

    Currently the Jackson does not get a lot of love because everyone loves the speed of the hellkitty more.

  15. Arais_Demlant says:

    Here’s a historical question, since this is the category given to us. Historically speaking, for the Chieftain Mk. 6, if it were to be introduced as a second branch to the UK tree, what type of tree might be possible? I know of some light tanks for the UK that could be possible to add in, as well as some mediums such as the Vickers MBT. Is it possible to introduce a new branch from Tier 1 to Tier 10?

  16. Silvio I says:

    Considering how many variants/nations that have used the M3 (not so much)/M4, it is nowhere near its full potential.

    Here is what we currently have for M3 Varients

    M3 Lee
    M7 Priest
    Ram II (Should be in the British tech tree)

    M3 Grant
    Sexton MK1

    Here is what we currently have for M4 Variants

    M4 “Improved” (improved my ass)
    M4A3E8 Fury (FAKE!!!!!!)
    M4A3E2 Jumbo
    M10 Wolverine
    M36 Jackson

    M4A1 French

    Sherman III
    Sexton II

    Here is what WG can add without creating any new nations, all are premiums:

    M36B1 (ier 6 US TD. Take a M4A3 hull and slap a Jackson turret and gun on and whoa, you have a very good TD to train your US TD crews on.

    M4A3 with Pershing Turret (Tier 7?. I say tier 7 because it is likely to be very sluggish with all that weight on top. To keep it from being too OP, give it the same gun as the T20 if you must. A good medium to train crews on as the Ram wasn’t that great.)

    Yarmaba (Australian SPG based on the M3 Lee. Same gun as the Sexton. Make a good t3/t4 British Arty to go with the Sentinel and to fill the space of the Sexton I.)

    Russian Prototypes of the Sherman (They have to have done SOMETHING with it, 85mm gun, Russian 76mm gun, etc. Probably based on a M4A2. Tier 5/6 tank depending on gun. You did put 2 British tanks in the Soviet Tech tree.)

    Russian Prototypes of the Lee. (See above, probably a tier 4 vehicle.)

    Japanese Sherman (Why not? Probably a Easy Eight provided after the war)

    Cobra King (Good premium tank to sell around Christmas time with the Battle of the Bulge anniversary. Probably a partly upgraded Jumbo, similar to Fury being a partly upgraded E8. Definitely include the chalk writing on the side. Downside would be the 75mm gun but give the crew BIA or some other perk for buying the vehicle.)

    A French Sherman. (A tier 5 Sherman. Sell around the Anniversary of France being liberated. Messages on the side would be even cooler, I believe there are photos of that. Part of the Free French forces.)

    Captured German Sherman? (They probably did their own mods as well, that would be very interesting. There is a German T-34-88 in game afterall. Maybe German HV 75mm or 76mm gun?)

    1. So you basically agitate for more Sherman clones? In particular exact clones of ingame vehicles. Great deal surely.

      And actually that absolutely NOT the field of work of Pasholok. He doesn’t design tech trees, he consults for historical correctness of particular vehicles. And while your proposed vehicles might be historically correct – why would we need a horde of clones? A T5 Sherman with no-pen 75mm? Or an exact Sexton clone under another designation? Sexton was removed for a reason – they don’t want premium arty.
      MOAR Shermans for other nations! Every nation should have one! Yeah, why not and just because only Sherman was captured! Let’s not make other captured tanks, only Sherman!

      What we need are unique vehicles that play differently from those already in game. The game IS already full of (in many cases) unnecessary clones. The only vehicles I see a perspective for are M36B1 and Sherman with Pershing turret.

      1. zombietropa says:

        I think that the Soviets did try to mount the 85 in a M4A2, don’t quote me on that tho.

      2. Silvio I says:

        Listen, I am not saying “just” captured Shermans, it is just what I know about. The T-34 MT can have a lot of different versions too, probably more than the Sherman in fact. Theoretically, a partial German line could be made up of just captured tanks from the Allied Nations. All modified with German guns.

        Lets run down the line of clones in the game, premium and non premium. Cromwell B, Rudy, IS2 Berlin, Type T-34. I said the Free French Sherman so French players would buy it in particular. Cobra King would appeal to American players just as Rudy did to Polish and Russian players.

        Yes now that I think about it the clone vehicles would not be Yuri’s expertise.

        But there are 3 LL British tanks in the Soviet tree, why can’t there be 2 American tanks?

        I said the Yarmaba since WG now has 2 Australian Cruiser tanks. Why not have an arty to go with it. It would be for the novelty like the sentinal itself, nerf it if you have too. Add it after the rebalance.

        Also, lets face it. WG is all about money. They will never add max gold ammo amounts because they are losing money. The Sherman weather you like it or not was used by many nations and those many nations have lots of players who would probably buy the tank.

    2. don’t know about the russians/soviets but I think the Yugoslavia did “play around” with a Sherman giving it a soviet 122mm gun
      other options would be the single Sherman prototype with torsion bar suspension (I think a M4A4 hull but I’m not sure), the same old Sherman we love but with better mobility, and maybe one or two different AT/AA designs with automatic 37mm or 40mm guns

      there’s also more M3 Lee variants that could be added from cast hull to welded hull wich were all mass-produced and served in the war

  17. The_Right_Arm says:

    I actually have a few to ask.

    1) I remember a while back seeing a T79 tank destroyer concept with a 155 mm gun, looked like an American waffle based on a T23 chassis. Would it be possible to make a tech tree for it breaking off at the Hellcat? Ex: M56 scorpion t7, unsure of t8, T95E13 at t9 with the long 152, and T79E1 at t10.
    2) What would you say would be the best candidates for a second US med line? (assuming it either continues on from the jumbo or has its own 6, either or)
    3) Is there a candidate for a tier 5 Soviet lt to make a pure light tank branch? Not saying there’s anything wrong with the T-34 but I never did come to grips with medium tank gameplay and I just love lights anyway.
    And finally…
    4) How long is the Sentinel’s machine gun penis?

  18. Silvio I says:

    Halftrack of Armored Car?

    I don’t know about the British or French vehicles, but I know the US produced a lot of halftrack and few armored car variants in addition to lots of prototypes. Is it possible to add them as Premiums? Here are some examples.

    T19 105mm Arty (Tier 3/4 Arty?)

    M3 GMC 75mm TD (Tier 3/4 TD?)

    T48 GMC/ SU57 57mm TD (Tier 3 Soviet TD? They were the primary user.)

    M8 Armored Car (Same Gun as the Stuart, Tier 3/4 LT?

    I think I am done now…

  19. Greetings!
    I’m eager to hear Yuris opinion about the in game discrepancy between the turrets of britisch centurions and their FV201 (A45). Looking from the front, the A45 got roughly 45° armour sideways behind the gunshield, tier 8 and 9 centurions got that odd flat part which is a nasty weakspot.
    Which one is right? Is it intentional or do we have a case of lack in detail here concerning the older models?
    Because of that “detail”, and providing certain circumstance, the A45 can be quite as strong if not stronger as its tier 8 and 9 medium counterparts! (For a moment I thought we’d see a similar turret on the cent I when it’d went HD)

  20. Ivan Dimitrov says:

    [Question] Why is WG still talking about “historical accuracy”? There has been so many fake tanks, changed stats due to balancing, etc. I am totally OK with “unhistorical” tanks and I even think they should do more of them. My point is – stop being hypocritical! You are not fooling anybody by now.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Will the marder series be expanded in the futur?
    Panzerjäger 38(t) 7,62 cm PaK36(r) (my favourite)
    Panzerjäger 38(t) 7,5 cm PaK40/3 Ausf M
    Marder I (Sd.Kfz.135) Built on Hotchkiss H 39’s chassis

  22. Hellfish says:

    Which nations could extend their light tank lines to tier 10? Are tier 9 and 10 light tanks conceivable?

    Is there any real tank that could replace the fake T110E4 we currently have in the game?

    What do you think about adding the T95 designs as regular American high tier mediums? Which variants could make it into the game?

    Are there any major (as in more than one obscure drawing) heavy tank designs out there waiting to be implemented?

    Do you research any wheeled vehicles for implementation? Which nations offer suitable candidates, particularly for the higher tiers?

    How long could a real tank crew keep up the nominal rate of fire before they would need to slow down dud to loader’s exhaustion and depleting the ready rack?

    Why do many earlier tanks use a sprocket in the front? What made tank designers go to rear sprockets for later designs, and what are the advantages and disadvantages for each variant?

    Gun depression is a major factor in World of Tanks. How significant are elevation angles in real life, and why do we see such big differences between Sowjet and western designs in particular?

    Many earlier tanks feature a large number of machine guns, often in various ball mounts. Later design tuned down the number to usually one co-axial and one pintle mounted machine gun. What are the factors that lead to this development?

  23. Cr says:

    After the SU-76i fail, I heard they was plans for a balanced replacement.
    Did it got cancelled for good? If not, what sound the best option?

    Do you know if WG has plans regarding more low/mid-Tier TDs? (except germans + 2 russians and a french removed from sales, there aren’t a lot of them available.)
    What are the best possible tanks according to you?

  24. Bonesaw1o1 says:

    the AC 1 Sentinel is modelled in game very well (one of the most accurate tanks in game in my opinion) with some minor exceptions, however the AC 4 experimental is largely incorrect in its depiction in game (namely the turret and suspension, see links below). In comparison how well researched were these tanks before they were implemented into the game?


    1. There’s also noticeable differences in the hull. Namely the engine deck and the upper hull front (rather then being steped, its a single steep angle), as well as the turret seeming to be placed slightly further back

      Just my observations from the first and third images

      1. Bonesaw1o1 says:

        to explain the differences in the provided pictures.
        The top images are the AC 1 E1 (the first prototype of the tank) refitted with the mock up AC IV turret and 17 pounder gun (date is roughly nov-dec 1942, first trial shoots of the 17 pounder was 11 nov 1942 at fort Gellibrand Victoria, but I know the did some other tests as well). It has the higher engine deck of the AC 1 (intended to allow the fitting of a radial engine) no vision block for the machinegunner (a trait unique to E1), the early type fold down hatch on the front plate (on E1 & E2 but replaced with top hatches on the production model) and the trailing idlers on the bogies (only present on the early production bogies used on E1, E2 and at least for some time on E3/8001). the track gaurds and stowage boxes have also been removed. the mocked up turret is also allegedly on the original 54 inch turret ring of the E1 but some sources claim it was enlarged for the new turret.

        The third image is the DAFVP’s official ‘artist’s impression’ of the AC IV circa late 1942-early 43. it features the AC 3 hull (which the AC 4 was intended to share but was not used for the prototype) which has a lower engine deck as the AC 3 and 4 were intended to fit the Perrier cadillac engine after about mid 1942 (although by early 43 the army wanted the same engine as the Sherman, specifically the Ford GAA) and a sloped glacis plate with a new driver’s hatch and no MG (this was replaced by ammunition stowage) and a slightly redesigned axle housing to match the frontal glacis. the AC 4 was also planned wider around the mid section (the hull curves out slightly) as the turret ring was to be enlarged to 74 inches (some sources say 72) from the AC 1’s 54 inches and the AC 3’s 63 inches (planned but never implemented, the only existing AC 3 has a 54 inch turret ring and all surviving AC 3 turrets cast before cancellation are 54 inch)

        The important part is the turret, both the prototype turret and the turret in the drawing feature a longer rear bustle that notably slopes at the rear, unlike the AC 3 turret which while larger than the AC 1 has a noticeably vertical rear bustle (see images). From how the tank appears in game it looks like it has been based off of the ‘replica’ AC 4 prototype held in the Armour and Artillery Museum in Cairns. This tank, while a nice effort, is incorrect as it has an AC 3 turret fitted with a 17 pounder mated to an AC 1 hull (with production type suspension) with the MG hole plugged, aside from that the tank is as far as I know empty and not an accurate representation of either the prototype AC 4 or the intended AC 4 (something warthunder tried to do and got wrong as well). The minor parts like the bogies ect are excusable, what confuses me is that there are a reasonable number of reference images available for the AC 4 turret, so why model it wrong in game?



  25. What is the reasoning behind not including tanks with rifled barrels that would fit into the timescale covered by the game?

    Is Yuri(WG) happy using paper tanks to fill in gaps in tech trees rather than leave gaps or use clones?

    1. Which “tanks with rifled barrels that would fit into the timescale covered by the game” were not included?
      Maybe you meed smoothbore?

      If yes then the reason for it is the crazy increase in APCR penetration for smoothbore guns. It would be like 400+mm.

      1. zombietropa says:

        Smoothbore guns belong to gen 3 tanks, and would make the armour of all top tier tanks useless.

        As a rule, Gen 3 tanks are a no no for implementing into WoT, as they is no way to balance them with the majority of the Gen 2 tanks in game. Gen 3 tanks are those tanks with composite armour and smoothbore guns, the first one being the T-64.

  26. Is it possible to convert some Tank destroyers into a hybrid SPG/TD class?

    How I imagined it:
    The game would still count them as ‘TDs’, but when equipped with a specific gun players would be able to use both sniper and arty mode in-game. When switched from TD to arty mode, the gun would suffer a stat nerf, since these guns might be too accurate compared to the current SPG guns.
    I admit, this would affect the soviets mostly – or only.
    Some lower caliber HE shells might not have even a minimal shell arc, so this should be fixed by lowering their velocity, or giving them a new arty ammunition.

    A few examples:
    SU-76M – Zis-3 76mm gun,
    SU-85B was never mass produced. It has the ZIS-3, perhaps the 85mm guns or one of them would have it.
    SU-85 – the 122mm gun of course
    SU-100 – ?
    ML-20 Guns for the SU/ISU-152/obj704 vehicles.
    Obj 268 – I’m not sure if this was also to be similar to the previous vehicles about the artillery role. The British TD line is the perfect good example, where the top tier vehicle has nothing to do with the previous ones. To avoid this, if there’s a vehicle that would fit to be in tier 10 and this multi task role, then it should be in the game, coming from the 704 along with the 268.

    1. How is this a historical question??? It’s a game-design question, man!
      It is 1. not the field of work of Pasholok and 2. it actually was already in the game during alpha/beta testing and was decided against due to complexity.

      1. 1, Well, since these vehicles did fulfill that role I believed to be historical enough, but if I truly misunderstood then pardon. 2, Even as a beta tester I was unaware of this trying to be implemented. Maybe I started too late.

  27. I add some more questions:
    1. After removing the most infamous fake-vehicle from the game, how much effort is being put into removing other outright fakes and replacing them with real vehicles?
    Such as T25 AT and T25/2, T28 TD (fake in its current form), T110E3, GW Tiger P, Conqueror GC?
    (GW E-100 and FV215b are obviously in progress)

    2. Would you be so kind to reveal some proof for SU-122A and Object 430 II existence?

    1. You missed the T28 Proto and you’re incorrect in saying T110E3. Sure it was never to have a 155mm but the E3 was a reall design in the 120mm T110 heavy tank project, it’s just that the E3 in game is actually the E4 design. The E4 in-game is fake, the E5 was the only turreted T110 design

    2. Slakrrrrrr says:

      There is a document discussing mounting a 122mm howitzer on the SU-76. It should still be archived somewhere in the tanksarchives blog.

      Regarding the 430 II, I personally haven’t ever seen an actual blueprint for it, but if it was fake there is an early Object 430 design from 1953 that could replace it, or some other rear turret ed medium.

  28. Adam says:

    I have a simple question,what is going to happen with Object 268,getting buffed,replaced or just staying bad as it is (worse than Obj. 704)?

  29. OK, so questions for Yuri:
    1. Do you know anything about romanian armored vehicles? What romanian vehicles you think could be added to the game?
    2. Do you think that the TR-580 could be added to the game as a reward high tier tank? What about TR-85-800 (NOT TR-85M1; That one is way too advanced)?
    3. Is it possible to create a full italian tech tree? Full as in, LTs up to tier 8, MTs, HTs, TDs, SPGs up to tier 10? Will that include vehicles that are already present in other tech trees?
    4. Are there any other countries that could provide high tier (8, 9, 10) vehicles, except the ones already in the game?

  30. Any plans to make the leopard 1 better? The leopard was the renowned speed machine-laser beam of the 1960’s, however in this gun its gun is among the worst of all tier 10 meds due to horrific soft stats for no reason, and the mobility is comparable to most of its competitors. Like Circon and Foch argued, the Leo needs good gun handling and crazy horsepower to tonne to be competitive.

    As a company you claim to prioritise game balance first, then historical accuracy after that (which is great) but the leopard having terrible gun handling is both historically inaccurate and bad for game balance, and having similar mobility to most other tanks of its tier and class despite sacrificing all its armour unlike the others (Cent X, 140, T-62, etc.) is shit for game balance, so breaking historical accuracy a bit here would be very good for making the leopard competitive.

  31. Andrew says:

    I have some questions! I would like to know what other mediums are there left in the Soviet tech tree. Storm once said that there could be a 3rd medium line if there is demand for it.

    I would like to know if the SU-152 Taran could work in WoT.

    And, lastly, I would like to know if there could be a separate Swiss tech tree. I mean, would their tanks fit the game?

      1. Loch7009 says:

        No, the SWEDISH is coming at the end of the year, there has been no confirmation about the Swiss

  32. When we will the Tetrarch be added to the British tree? It’s been neglected long enough and the Soviet premium doesn’t count because the Tetrarch can be upgraded with the littlejohn adaptor, similar to the one used on the tier IV Matilda.

  33. On the topic of historical tanks. Why did you bring in the Japanese heavies, most of them were paper tanks that never existed and never had a chance to exist. What was the reasoning behind it?

  34. 1) would it be possible to add some T6 premium arty? I know WG will never ever add T8 premium arty, but are there some good candidates for T6 premium arties, if only one nation then preferably USA? 2) I just want to ask him, from historical point of view, is it even possible to hit enemy light armored tank ( some LTs or “light” TDs like RHM or Grille 15) with BIG gun (e g BL10) and do 0 dmg??? What does he think about it, cos i think its total WGs Bullshit and should be removed from the game…

  35. with all the work that Wargaming has put into finding out about these tanks, ships and air craft is there ever going to be a way for us the player to see the research and dig into it are self’s. or even a place that list reliable and trusted sources?

    will there ever be a effort to unit markings and tank numbering in the game?

    looking back at World war one to the current time and even forward in time what do you personally think the lasting impact of World of tanks and wargaming on history?

  36. JagdPope II says:

    Will the japanese tank desteoyers Ho-Ri, Ho-Ri II and others japanese tds be added to the jp tech tree or if there is not enough vehicles to fill whole line, will we see them as premiums?

  37. Landser says:

    When will the VK45.03 and AC4 come to EU server? Why were they not released along with the other servers? (I hope they don’t say “Soon”)

  38. SirNopp says:

    What about the FV215b replacement? Will the Super Conqueror take its place? Or will a early Chieftain prototype or god forbid the Chieftain itself take its place?

  39. Harverato says:

    Okay, questions for Mr. Pasholok!

    – I’ve been a british tank fan for a long long time, so I have to ask… Will we see something ingame from the FV300 series other than the FV304? Specifically, FV301 as part of a light tank branch and FV303 and 305 as premiums (I’d love to have the 303 as a regular tank, but I doubt that will be the case)

    – Speaking of the British Light tank branch, is there any progress about it? I can see FV301 as tier VI or VII and FV101 Scorpion as the tier VIII, but there’s a gap to fill in there.

    – Since we’ll more than likely get the S-Tank as part of the Swedish tank tree, I take it that they’ll implement something to mimic the hydraulic suspension system. After that, is there any chance to see the FV 4401 Contentious ingame, whether it’s armed with the 20pdr or the L7?

    – Finally, and unrelated to all the previous questions… Do youhave any news about the Japanese and Chinese TD lines? Daigensui did a good amount of research about the Japanese ones, but I was hoping we could get some fresh news from you about these two subjects.

  40. RMJ says:

    Hello Yuri, I have two questions:
    1. Have you some information about Object 920? I can not find information about it..
    2. Have you access to technical drawings Object 430 v2?

Leave a Reply