British Q and A Part 2

69

Answers variously by Ogopogo, Okinoshima, OhSlowpoke, Shapeshifter, Ed.Francis, Listy, and Vollketten

 

Hi guys, thanks for the questions, there is some repetition in the questions and we have either lumped some together as they came in or just referred back to an earlier answer it it’s a repeat. Hopefully we got to almost everyone but if we missed you sorry. The response we got for a Q and A was HUGE, thank you everyone but there is so much we’ll have to break the answers into 2 parts. Take note WG of the size of the demand for UK lines.

Just as an FYI though, none of us are not privy to internal decisions or balancing issues by Wargaming so Cannot answer questions about those.

 

Q: SLAKRRRRRR: How much information has been found on some of the heavy cruiser tank designs, specifically A36, A37, A40, and A44?

A: Yes, enough information has been located for some of these tanks to get them into game but information on them in general is light.

 

Q9: WULF CORBETT: Will the Ram II ever be moved to the British (and Commonwealth) line where it belongs? Possibly as part of the Global Rebalance? It was never a US tank and would never have been used by them.

A:Ultimately it would be an internal decision by wargaming, though a commonwealth line is possible merging into the Centurion for medium tanks. There are some nice Commonwealth tank destroyers and the occasional heavy tank too. Thankfully there are other Ram tanks to the one WG wasted so all of us are hoping to get some Canadian pride properly allocated.

 

Q50: ladydreamsicle:

1.Was the Crusader ever used in USSR service through lend-lease? If so, did they do anything notable to improve its performance?

A:There is historic footage of tanks being shipped to Russia which includes one Crusader tank being loaded onto the train. We checked with Russian sources and couldn’t find any information to suggest that this Crusader was received or sent so the footage may be misattributed or the vehicle off-loaded elsewhere

 

2.Why does the FV304 in-game use an unhistorical 4.5 in howitzer? Weren’t there any better choices?

A:Because WG is welded to the idea of calibre increases, and the British tended to just use the 25Pdr for everything as it did a great job. So because of the desire for increasing Calibre WG had to invent stuff. There was the FV305; a 5.5” gun on the same chassis, however the similarities end there.

 

3.Was the Matilda I (A11) ever planned to be fitted with anything other than a machine gun?

A:  Yes, it came up as part of our research to try and get the A.11 into the game. There’s options to use some decent ammunition for the machine gun and there was also a find in British archives of a suggestion of using the French 25mm gun in it although this idea went nowhere in real life. For WG this would be an ideal solution in our opinion to get the A.11 into the game.

 

4.Why is the Vickers Medium Mk III in the British line a Tier 3? Wasn’t there any better choices for that spot in the tree?

A: None of us were in contact with WG at the time the British tree was first introduced, so it wasn’t really our call to make.

 

5.Are there any more blueprints/schematics/pictures for the FV300 series (FV301, FV303, FV305) and A46 Light Tank Prototype that aren’t already viewable online?

A: Almost certainly. We work hard on a number of archives around the world to try and locate things like these and there’s a lot left to uncover. While details on the FV303 remains somewhat elusive, we have such information on other vehicles you mention.

 

Q37: FASTESTCLASSIC: Oh, another question: Does the A7 Medium Tank still have a chance of making an appearance in the game? I like the idea of a mini-TOG at tier 2 with the 2pdr. Maybe a gift tank, IDK.

A: Absolutely

 

Q38: SGTSCHLAUTTER: Is there any way to implement a british light tank line that goes from tier 6 to tier 8? That is one thing I feel this game is desperately missing

A: Yes. With the developers looking at tier 10 light tanks, it is also worth mentioning that the British could possibly have two full lines. There are actually enough light tanks to branch off from T6 all the way to T10 with tanks to spare for Premiums. Many of them are yet to be shown publicly.

 

Q.39 MICHAEL HUGHES:  

1- Will the Churchill ever get its famous off road ability.

A: Famous or infamous? Issues like torque, and reliability are not modelled in WoT. Mobility is a soft stat bearing often little resemblance to real life. While it would be nice to see a more complete physics system implemented better representative of the tanks themselves, it is both a balance and an internal matter.

 

2-Will we ever get the tetrach in its rightful home, maybe with the little jhon adaptor

A: The Tetrarch is very likely to appear in any future British light line. However, as to whether or not it would have the Littlejohn is largely an internal balance decision. Our research also turned up more information on the Littlejohn and different ammunition which furthers their options.


3-Can you change the name of Stuart I-IV to honey or honey stuart

A: As far as I am aware, ‘Honey’ was an unofficial designation.

 

4-Will we ever get a Stuart V (M3A3) as an elite tank, or a

A: Unknown at this time.

 

5-Stuart kangaroo (You think the MT-25 is balance with +3mm who needs turrets anyway)

A: Listy has often suggested a Stuart MKVI he likes to call a ‘Jalopy’, he has suggested the title several times and gets it banned each time he does. The term Kangaroo makes no real sense as even without a turret it’s not much use as an APC. But basically you are asking why we don’t have an unarmed (.50cal maybe at best) turretless Stuart tank in game? Probably because it would be utterly useless. Listy will still want it though….


6-We will ever see a UK light line

A: Most certainly. Hopefully soon

 

8-Scotland flag please

A– That’s a question for the developers but there’s no reason why not. We have stumbled across more than a few suitable Scottish slogans too.

2enhqds

Q41 DEANO:  from a balance perspective do you think that giving the challenger a 20 pounder gun in game would be such a big deal? i mean if i remember those guns have the same mounting or something like that so why are wargaming so insistent on making people play a bad tier 7 with a terrible gun for the tier. i mean its a 230 damage gun yeah itd have the best pen joined with the at7 at tier 7 just nerf the rof and aim time for it on the challenger make that line not just a free xp magnet.

A: The A.30 Challenger is generally seen by players as mediocre at absolute best, and statistics reflect this. The elite turret is the Avenger and given there are more A.30 turrets these vehicles should never have been merged together. Avenger could have been a tank in its own right.  But anyway it is interesting to note that the 20Pdr type A barrel was actually modelled by WG for the Challenger, but was not implemented on the public test or live server. It wouldn’t be too hard to give it a much needed buff and a decent gun. Hopefully A.30 will be improved at some point

 

Q42: VITAS KAVICKA:

  1. Any pics or stats for Conqueror AT with autoloader?
  2. TOG IV – real project or fake? And when we can see a book about TOGs?
  3. Pasholok mentioned a real world alternative for FV215b, what is it?
  4. More info about A31 project.
  5. Churchill with sloped armor – what it looks like and maybe some modules/stats? 32-pdr maybe?

Answers:

 

  • The design of the vehicle was uncovered by Ed. Francis but it was never built.
  • TOGs are very complicated as a development story. ‘TOG IV’ is a fake name though. A book on TOGs is in the works.
  • Probably referring to an upgraded Conqueror.
  • Enough information on A.31 has been found to bring it to the game but isn’t published at this time.
  • Churchill with sloped armour? How? Where? There was a Churchill with a 5.5 inch gun as a SPG variant discussed, but never implemented.

 

 

Q43: PHONTOMEN: Now that the Sandbox is in full swing, proposing new roles for Tanks. Are there any new British Breakthrough Vehicles candidates being passed around or being considered? Now that we have all these new spaces to fill.

A: It’s too soon to know what changes will result from the sandbox, and none of us are privy to the internal discussion surrounding the sandbox server or the future direction of the game. All that said, however, there are a lot of British vehicles which could be introduced, more than a few of which could be considered breakthrough vehicles such as the Heavy Valiant. .

The frontal armour of the Heavy Valiant ranges from 4.5” (though well sloped) to the more vertical 9.0” sections (with some pike nose shaping for good measure). With a lower front plate of 8.5” and a 10” thick turret front, it is an incredibly, almost insanely well armoured tank considering its size and weight. Side armour clocks in at a respectable 4.5” to 4” with a 1” thick skirt. Side turret armour comes in at 6.0”, though the rear armour isn’t nearly as thick. Now if only the 75mm/95mm/6 PDR HV matched the armour. Thankfully, we have that area covered with various gun projects and much improved ammunition… the idea of the Heavy Valiant version with twin 20mm Oerlikon cannons would provide some amusement too.

 

Q44: ANONYMOUS: What are your opinions on the Crusader tank?

A: Fun in game, decent tank in real life providing speed and firepower in North Africa. Even the Italians liked it enough to try and copy it but they weren’t in North Africa long enough for the development to come to fruition and their project was abandoned.

 

Q47: WHEELEDTANK: Is it possible to see the Scorpion or Scimitar Light tanks, and would they be combined into one vehicle (as the difference is the turret and gun)? If so, what tier could we expect them to be?

A: It is likely that we will see the scorpion and scimitar in game. However, what tier, and whether they’ll be combined is up to WG.

 

Q55: jorg2: Would there be candidates for an (new) light tank line? And would other fv304 like vehicles (high rof, high speed) be possible?

A: As we mentioned earlier, there are candidates enough for two light tank lines, the second of which would split off after tier 6 and both run to tier 10. As for the second part of the question, if you are referring to FV304 artillery, it remains to be seen what will be done with artillery. Some options for a light line would include, random Vickers Mk. like the Mk.IIIB, A.17 (with new turret), A.18, A.25, A46, FV301, Some Vickers light or medium tanks to top out the branch or alternatively something from the AVR development to lead to Scorpion. Plus there are some totally unknown light tanks found in archives etc. which we can get in. The UK along with a couple other countries can reach tier 10 with light tanks.

 

Q56: PAUL T.:

Q: Who were ‘The Desert Rats’? What was their roll in North Africa? What tanks, if any, did they use? Any insights into the tactics of The Desert Rats that could help us in the WoT battlefields?

A: The Desert Rats were made up of the 7th Armoured Division, 4th and 7th Armoured Brigades; the Black Rats, and Green Jerboa’s respectively http://www.desertrats.org.uk/ They were critically important in North Africa fighting the combined Italian and German forces and its not really possible to give a full summary of their actions in a short answer. Follow the links in the website above is probably the best and most honest advice. Tanks used included (in multiple theatres) A.12 Matilda II, Mk.VI Light Tank, A.9 Cruiser, A.10 Cruiser, A.13 Cruiser, Valentine, Crusader, Stuart, Sherman, Grant, Sherman Firefly, Cromwell, Challenger (A.30), Chaffee, Comet. There’s basically nothing of real value from real life desert tactics which translates directly to game apart maybe from the principle of flanking. The Desert Rats were successful though in North Africa for several reasons, not least of which was excellent leadership from General Montgomery.

 

  • Lots of lots of artillery bombardments. The game is just a game.

 

 

Q57: ANONYMOUS: Can we expect to see the Uk Fv4401 Continious (Name possibly spelt wrong) and prehaps the french Lorr CDA As a future tank destroyers.

A: Possibly. With regards to the FV4401, however, Contentious isn’t actually one vehicle, but rather a number of vehicles, test-rigs and designs created in an effort to fulfill a certain design goal. As for the one which sits at Bovington, can’t say as of yet.

 

QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS Q&A COMMENTS

 

Q: BATTLEBUDGIE: A note and sort of question (basically, ‘amiright’?) on British vertical surfaces. I believe that the railways of Britain were an influence. The Loading Guage (clear space around and above the tracks) on UK railways is significantly less than US, Russian and European railways. Since the railways were, up until the end of WWII THE way to move tanks long distances British tanks had to be designed to have tighter maximum dimensions than other nations armoured vehicles. In order to get the same number of people, equipment, ammunition etc. as other nations used for a given role within the tighter maximum dimensions the sides of vehicles had to be more vertical for better volumetric efficiency.

A: maximum height and width is commonly restricted by rail loading gauge yes. If the sides slope in then the maximum width of the turret ring is also reduced so vertical sides make better use of the maximum width of vehicle which is restricted by a rail gauge.

Q: Bumbler: It’s no secret that fans of the British line are salty about the Tetrarch. How does that tank compare/contrast with the Harry Hopkins? What are your thoughts on introducing one or both of them or how could they be implemented?

A: Harry Hopkins is a later vehicle with some improvements over the Tetrarch. The primary differences were slightly thicker armour, it’s slightly larger size, while a number of minor changes were made. In terms of introduction they are both best suited to forming part of a UK light line

 

Q:The Churchill and Churchill VII are very similar with the latter mostly just being an up-armored version of the former. I’ve read in a few places that these tanks were very good at climbing steep slopes. Is there any chance of this ability being implemented in some way that doesn’t conflict with map design such as increased hp/ton or reduced terrain resistance?

A: The real life mobility or climbing ability of many tanks is poorly represented in game currently along with issues like torque, acceleration, and reverse speed.

 

Q: The Churchill VII has much better armor than the tier 5 version despite the same gargantuan weakspots. As top tier it fares quite well (if you know how to play its style) despite its laughable top speed. I can understand the hp/ton being lower due to increased armor and the same engine, but why is the Churchill VII top speed so much slower than the tier 5?

A: Unsure what ‘gargantuan weakspots’ you are referring to. Regarding the speed, ultimately it does come down to weight. Increases in weight don’t only affect hp/t of tanks, but ground pressure, stress on the automotive components to name a few.

 

Q: What are your thoughts on giving this tank some kind of big howitzer? As I understand it, WG doesn’t want to implement the AVRE so why don’t they give this thing some derp… I mean it already has terrible gun depression, large weakspots, is very slow and clumsy…. it would be a great platform for a howitzer and would give people a choice in playstyles from fast firing dpm to big blasty derp gun. Thanks!

A: The AVRE guns are likely too hard to implement in game as they would be a nightmare to balance. No one likes being one shotted. It remains an internal decision either way. The Churchill tanks really were not fast but they have decent armour to make up for it.

 

Q: ADITYA:  Regarding my question about the superconqueror- i had no intention of calling a ‘conqueror with ballistic shield and anti explosive shield’ as superconqueror as I am no fan of fake names myself. Real question is that- will this machine come to world of tanks?

A: Why wouldn’t it? Most of the vehicle is already modelled so just adding some spaced armour across the hull, turret and gun is a fairly simple process and can replace a made up tank. Seems like a logical step.

 

Q: ISH:  CWJIAN90:  I find it very hard to believe that the 6-pounder AP can outperform that of the ZiS-2, considering the ZiS-2 has a significantly higher muzzle velocity and fires a heavier shell.

A: I’m afraid you might have to be a little more specific than that. Which shell fired by the 6-pounder outperforms which shell fired by the ZiS-2? Could you post or pm your data and sources and we’ll have a look.

 

Q: ARMANDO RODRIGUES”: since the Chieftain and the FV215b keep coming up I would like to ask exactly what do you guys think stops WG from adding the early Chieftain prototypes said to have 120mm of armor at the front? With the angles of it’s upper and lower front plates it would definitly be acceptable for tier X, the effective thickness would be really close to the current FV215b but with better angles and a higher chance of bouncing. Just take a look at the chinese 113, the upper plate has 120mm just like the Chieftain prototype and it often becomes a auto-bounce due to a 60º slope. If the armor of the prototype was supposed to be more than adequate for a tier X heavy why not add that? afterall aren’t top tier british tanks supposed to be all about their guns? All of them, be it mediums, heavies or TDs aren’t the best protected in the game but compensate with powerfull and accurate guns capable of damaging enemies at range and by doing that reducing the ability of being damaged back

A: Which early Chieftain had 120mm frontal armour? Certainly the prototype Chieftain glacis was thicker than the production version 95mm to 85mm but I’m not aware of a 120mm version

RG: Thanks to everyone that send Q’s in and for all the lads for answering. There will be at least one more British Q&A coming so please leave your Q’s under this comment section.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!

69 comments on “British Q and A Part 2

  1. Rick says:

    Interviews with a bunch of game names from people who prob dont use those names to play??If they were credible people then I expect real names.Are they so ashamed of the game they represent?Is this what W G is coming too?Is it supposed to hype me up that they have game names???




    0



    0
    • Mizutayio says:

      Lol, nice one, ever heared of anonymity? Not everyone wants his personal information to be freely accessable on the internet. The internet is a shady place and every bit of information can be used against you.

      Besides if you want them to tell everyone their name, why don’t you do it first?




      0



      0
    • wfschepel says:

      They are fairly well known under these handles and have a fairly solid reputation. Otherwise, feel free to check their answers. Archives are not nearly as hard to enter as they used to be. It is just a lot of hard, stuffy and frankly boring work. Incidentally, this probably goes a long way to explain why archives hold so many hidden treasures: most historians get stark raving mad in the dusty environments of archives. Frankly, I would not survive too long in there, either. I need air.




      0



      0
    • Shade01982 says:

      If you don’t know these names, you shouldn’t be the one asking these questions. Also, like Rita says, these guys are NOT representing WG in this…




      0



      0
  2. jenik2398 says:

    Could be 3rd line of TDs being made? I found (not in archives) something like 16 TDs 2 of them being tier X. (It has thing like FV205, FV217, Project Prodigal (or autoloading 120mm 36 shells in magazine 2 man tank) Ram AT (3,7″ gun) Crusader AT, AT 1, AT 13, AT14, AT 6, FV303 Jagdchieftain, Some variant of Birch gun, Canadian Airborne 6 pdr, Bren carrier with smith gun, Light mk V with 2 pdr gun. Comres 75, Matilda with KwK 38, Taurus SPG, Conqueror Gun Platform (4,5″ gun), Wombat Carrier (120mm gun firing HESH and HEAT ammo)

    For more heavies (or 2nd heavy line) A7 medium tank, Independent A1E1, A20 prototype, Tog I, Tog II P1/P2, Tog II R, Churchill AVRE 165 (L9 gun) Valiant, A37 Super Excelsior, FV429, FV4201, Chieftain, Churchill NA75, KV-1 with 6 inch howitzer

    For lights: A16 cruiser, Tetrarch CS (3″ howitzer or 2 pdr gun with Little john), Harry Hopkins, FV301, Scorpion (FV101), Scorpion with 90mm gun, Vickers 24t (and some TV1000 or something like that)
    A10 Early variant (with sloped hull armor) or Vickers light tank No. 2

    For tier IX and X medium after lightsVickers Mk. 1 (Vijayanta) and Vickers MBT
    Other mediums (posibly premiums) AC III, Vauxhall Cromwell, T-34/17 pdr, Centurion AVRE (L9A1 gun)

    I know this was a boring one 😀




    0



    0
    • Crazedtiger says:

      We could add one and a bit more lines if we wanted. There’s a potential glass cannon line as well as the more traditional line. My suggestion would be:

      Tier 2: Vickers 2 Pounder AT
      Tier 3: Mk V 2 pounder
      Tier 4: Airborne 6 pounder
      Tier 5: Sexton AT
      Tier 6: Crusader AT
      Tier 7: Ram AT
      Tier 8: FV303
      Tier 9: Contentious
      Tier 10: Conqueror Gun Platform

      Tier 8: Taurus
      Tier 9: FV205
      Tier 10: FV217




      0



      0
      • jenik2398 says:

        That conqueror Gun Platform has 114mm gun, Contentious has got 120mm gun same as Conqueror or FV215b (tortoise, conway), Sexton AT and Ram AT are (nearly?) same tanks, FV303 has got 20 pdr gun so I will move the line 1 tier down and to the top will go Project Prodigal III (120mm autoloading gun)




        0



        0
  3. Nikodem says:

    Is it possible to add the line of TOGs to the game? I’d love to see the TOG III…




    0



    0
  4. Bricktop says:

    “Conqueror AT with autoloader”
    Instant boner
    Best possible replacement for FV
    Wg please




    0



    0
  5. RagnarokBazil says:

    Rita i have to ask why on the hell is the su5 su26 and the UE57 have tiny puny hulls while large crew members How about you get the fv304 back to being a small ELC AMX as its apparent to all of us its just WG fallowing the hating on the FV304 by others.. i see no crew what so ever they can fit on the su5 su26 and the UE57 and you guys cant see that the fv300 series were all about puny tiny tanks with lots of crew space…




    0



    0
  6. cwjian90 says:

    Re: 6-pounder AP

    In the first Q&A, one of you said that the penetration values of the 6-pounder were undervalued by most sources. The solid-shot AP shell penetration for the Mk. V was given as 137 mm at 100 m (but likely no more than 114 mm due to shattering) at 90 degrees. This seems absurdly high compared to the ZiS-2, which fires a heavier 57 mm BR-271 APHE projectile almost 200 m/s faster, yet in the game is only rated for 112 mm. If we take the ZiS-2’s value to be correct, there is no way the 6-pounder with basic solid shot AP can come even close to that value.




    0



    0
  7. Bill Nye says:

    Could a line of British armoured cars as scouts be added? I’d like to see the AEC and Saladin in game.




    0



    0
  8. Bill Nye says:

    Why can’t I comment




    0



    0
  9. deadarashi says:

    -Is the stats of the AC1 “Sentinel” performing well? Or is lack of gun ha deling and penetration on tier 5 vehicles making it perform worse theb expected?

    If so, will the tank be dropped to tier 3 where the gun would perform more adequatly?

    -Is the Australian AC3 “Thunderbolt” be considered as a possible premium with its 25pdr gun?

    -Could we see the engine of the AC4 swapped with the “Mark 3” engine or is the little/no info in regards to this engine modification?

    -Were the AC tanks ever considered as a off branch for the British line?

    -What are your thoughts on the test turret for the AC4? (Test turrent mounted 2x 25pdr guns to exceed recoil of the planned 17pdr gun)




    0



    0
  10. Someone says:

    Will the Churchill ever get its famous off road ability.

    If that slow as shit Churchill was famous for off road ability, then the german Tigers and Panthers were Rally Championship cars.




    0



    0
  11. SMGJohn says:

    Will we see the T-34 and KV-1 armed with British guns as premium tanks, as FTR talked about a long time ago in his post?
    http://ftr-wot.blogspot.no/2013/04/potential-british-premiums.html




    0



    0
  12. Mark Bevis says:

    I do have a question. The British 3pdr 47mm gun. Have you come across any real-world data on it’s ammo and armour penetration. (Not WoT stats) For the 47mmL40 as mounted in the Independent and Meium II, all I have come across is:
    3pdr APHE, c1926, about 25mm/1000m/90*
    3pdr AP-T, c1937, perhaps 45mm at 100m?

    And were there different 47mm 3pdr guns? Some with short barrels for export, similar to the 37mmL21 SA18 snub-nosed gun?




    0



    0
  13. Marko says:

    All questions are about Brit tanks.You people are retarded




    0



    0
  14. Klimax says:

    Q: Which archives contain information on Little John Adapter? A trip might be to in order. (And it’s not just personal curiosity…)




    0



    0
  15. “Which early Chieftain had 120mm frontal armour? Certainly the prototype Chieftain glacis was thicker than the production version 95mm to 85mm but I’m not aware of a 120mm version”

    I found an article online about it’s origin long ago when the chieftain was first rumored to be added, while it did mention 120mm frontal armor I don’t have access to the documents you guys have and that’s why I wrote “said to have 120mm”
    I don’t know if the facts were correct or the person who wrote it just mixed it’s values (early concept/proposal or original request with more armor, if there was any, or just mistook one section of the tank with another), although I do know the armor values changed during the development process (because it has been stated by several sources) and that’s probably why I believed what that person had written




    0



    0
  16. how many more british tank lines could be theoretically be made without having too many clones or fake tanks? (plz give some names of vehicles).




    0



    0
    • jenik2398 says:

      about 50-60 vehickles (some of them: JENIK2398 SAYS: Could be 3rd line of TDs being made? I found (not in archives) something like 16 TDs 2 of them being tier X. (It has thing like FV205, FV217, Project Prodigal (or autoloading 120mm 36 shells in magazine 2 man tank) Ram AT (3,7″ gun) Crusader AT, AT 1, AT 13, AT14, AT 6, FV303 Jagdchieftain, Some variant of Birch gun, Canadian Airborne 6 pdr, Bren carrier with smith gun, Light mk V with 2 pdr gun. Comres 75, Matilda with KwK 38, Taurus SPG, Conqueror Gun Platform (4,5″ gun), Wombat Carrier (120mm gun firing HESH and HEAT ammo)
      For more heavies (or 2nd heavy line) A7 medium tank, Independent A1E1, A20 prototype, Tog I, Tog II P1/P2, Tog II R, Churchill AVRE 165 (L9 gun) Valiant, A37 Super Excelsior, FV429, FV4201, Chieftain, Churchill NA75, KV-1 with 6 inch howitzer
      For lights: A16 cruiser, Tetrarch CS (3″ howitzer or 2 pdr gun with Little john), Harry Hopkins, FV301, Scorpion (FV101), Scorpion with 90mm gun, Vickers 24t (and some TV1000 or something like that)
      A10 Early variant (with sloped hull armor) or Vickers light tank No. 2
      For tier IX and X medium after lightsVickers Mk. 1 (Vijayanta) and Vickers MBT
      Other mediums (posibly premiums) AC III, Vauxhall Cromwell, T-34/17 pdr, Centurion AVRE (L9A1 gun)
      I know this was a boring one😀 )




      0



      0
    • these guys (the ones doing research and giving As to our Qs) said in part 1, in reply to my question, that it’s possible that so far only 50% of all things designed in the UK are known to the public with at least 50% still hidden in the archives
      the GUYS mentioned 2 light lines, second heavy line and I think a TD line was mentioned in “Part I”, and here in “Part II” they mention a “commonwelth medium line”

      with all those mentioned above by JENIK and all the ones still buried it should be possible to make 2 more lines for each
      2 medium lines (commonwelth and vickers), second heavy line, another TD line, 2 light lines and add to all of that the many vehicles still buried in the archive and there’s no ending to the possibilities




      0



      0
  17. Looking forward to the new Brit light tanks




    0



    0
  18. Muhamad Adhi says:

    Hello, i am reading one of Osprey Book about Centurion tank, and on page 7 to 8 it was mentioned about ‘new cast turret was underway’ by the time Centurion A41 pilot is manufactured.
    Did it refer to more well-known Centurion turret, the one resembling Mk III turret in-game? So is this mean this turret already manufactured on 1945s?

    I also get a question on A45 (FV201) tank, in-game its mentioned its development begin on 1944, but what i want to know is if any concrete blueprints or pilots already available or manufactured before Victory day on Japan?




    0



    0
  19. baileyhun says:

    The ram 2 is not a British tank it is Canadian so why would it be moved to the British tree it is fine where it is since it is a prototype for the sherman which the ram 2 was the m4a5 even though it ain’t an m4 chassis it is shitty lee chassis




    0



    0
  20. Did you know? Canada is in Commonwealth of Nations, just like Australia, India and others. And, as we have Aussie Sentinels in UK already, why couldn’t we have Ram aswell?




    0



    0
  21. So, IF Ram get’s moved to UK, would it be possible to rename the tree to Commonwealth, or something like that? I mean, it would be better than United Kingdom or whatever we got right now in my opinion, plus there would be possibility for tanks we wouldn’t normally have chance to get.




    0



    0
    • While I don’t disagree, with all the possibilities of tanks within the UK itself, if you add all commonwealth countries that tech tree would get ridiculously big, so Id say they should make a separate commonwealth and put all those tanks in there




      0



      0
  22. So, how many tanks do you think are not implemented in the British tech tree in total?




    0



    0
  23. So, how many British tanks are not implemented in the tech tree in total? Could we see a complete version of the British tech tree with ALL the British tanks ever made and designed in WW2 and +/- 10 years?




    0



    0
  24. Slakrrrrrr says:

    There wasn’t ever a prototype of the Chieftain with 120mm of UFP armor, but the early designs of the FV.4201 with the pike-nose hull did.




    0



    0
  25. skaianDestiny says:

    Is the Comet supposed to be slightly bigger than the Cromwell? The in-game models are different even though they should be more or less the same tank.




    0



    0
  26. Small note on Q41, it wouldn’t have the joint highest pen the stur emil still has the reigns of highest pen gun at tier 7 🙂




    0



    0
  27. septfox says:

    “There was the FV305; a 5.5” gun on the same chassis…”

    Yes. All of my yes. We need this instead of the awkward thing with POS gun handling that is the Crusader SP, please.
    Zooming around at 50-60kph with a 140mm derp sounds like fun. Although WG being WG will further nerf its mobility, because fun is not allowed.

    “…the 20Pdr type A barrel was actually modelled by WG for the Challenger, but was not implemented on the public test…”

    Wasn’t it using the 20pdr in supertest, generally regarded as a decent-to-good tank, and WG decided that the line needed a bad apple and removed it for test/public?




    0



    0
    • While the Idea is fun, with the current camo rating/size of the fv304 Id rather keep the crusader SP, cause that SPG has pretty godlike camo rating, added to the good track traverse and pretty okay gun. (Backwards mounting isn’t a problem cause the gun has actual range…)




      0



      0
  28. Q:

    Why is the Conqueror GC his barrel not as big as it need to be? The 183 mm gun mounted on the FV3805 looks bigger then the gun mounted on the GC. And please buff the GC, its aiming time and RNG are terrible in comparison with the other tier X arties.




    0



    0
  29. Maho says:

    Well, seems they didn’t answer my 32pdr question. Damn it.




    0



    0
  30. A few more questions from russian community:
    – what is known about attempts to increase the mobility of Churchills? Maybe some real trials with another drivetrain or more powerful engines. Was it possible to achive 40-50 km/h on this platform?
    – Churchill Gun Carrier – why the casemate was less armored than basic Churchill – 90mm against 100mm?
    – were there more options to increase the firepower of the Churchill GC other then 3″ gun?
    – what was the real purpose of development of the CGC – big heavy vehicle with mediocre armor and firepower?




    0



    0
  31. Enigmaticmuffin says:

    Is it possible for the FV721 Fox or the Scorpion to appear as high tier light tanks?




    0



    0
  32. Enigmaticmuffin says:

    -forgot this off the first one- Is it possible for an AVRE/derpgun mini branch to appear with similar playability to the KV-2?




    0



    0
  33. IndygoEEI says:

    There was an early SPG based on the Mk series of WW1 that featured a 152 mm (I think that’s the caliber) howitzer. Plus there was one other early SPG of the period also. Do you think we’ll see it in game even though WGs current stance on SPGs is no new SPGs for current nations with an SPG tree?

    I also have a question on the Valentines. Why does the USSR Mk2 version have a higher top speed then the UK Mk1? Was there a special transmission or a side effect of the better engine? Will we be able to see a better version of the Valentine implemented into UK Tech Tree that includes 210 HP engine and a 4 person crew?




    0



    0
  34. ccamfield72 says:

    For a long long time the Crusader had an engine which leaked and caused breakdowns, and the Mk I and II were armed with an obsolete cannon which lacked the range to take on Pz IIIs and IVs, and which had no HE shell, meaning it was absolutely terrible at dealing with enemy anti-tank guns. Attempts to *frontally charge* anti-tank guns by British units in North Africa led to a lot of brewed-up Crusaders and dead soldiers.

    By the time the IIIs came out – which were a stopgap measure to get 6-pounders into the field – the Germans were at least starting to field Pz IIIs and IVs with longer-barreled guns.

    If the British Army had had Crusaders in number at the start of WW2 it would have been pretty good. But – I hate to say it – in history, it was never really more than mediocre.




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      One major issue with the Crusader’s engine was that the crews removed the rev limiters to get extra performance out of them – no fault at all with the design or manufacture. A good reason to allow the tank use of the Soviet kit that boost engine power but damaged the engine(I always forget the name of it)!




      0



      0
      • skaianDestiny says:

        Little trivia thing you might not know: The Crusader (specifically either a Mk.I or Mk.II) was actually outfitted with the Meteor engine prototype.

        “After this meeting Robotham and his team began to examine the possibility of fitting a Rolls-Royce engine in a cruiser tank. After testing a variety of Rolls Royce engines they settled on the Merlin Mk III, produced an unsupercharged version of the engine, and installed it in a Crusader tank. This was delivered to Aldershot for trials on 6 April 1941, three months after the A24 had been ordered. The Meteor powered Crusader excelled in its trials, going so fast that the time-keepers failed to time it properly, and on its first run it failed to take a corner and crashed into some trees! It was later estimated that the tank had reached around 50mph.”

        Question for our experts: Would a Meteor-powered Crusader Mk.I/II be a good premium light? It would only have a 2 pounder but perhaps its speed would make up for it. If not, would it be an acceptable buff for the regular Crusader?




        0



        0
  35. […] Source: British Q&A – Part 1 & British Q&A – Part 2 […]




    0



    0
  36. Golgrin says:

    Is there anyway you guys could propose to WG adding a Churchill Mk III variant as a British premium? I love my Soviet Lend-Lease Churchill Mk III, but the Brits need some Churchie premium luv too!

    The variant I’m referring to is the Churchill Mk III* with the Ordnance Quick Firing 75mm Mk V gun.

    Image: http://www.findmodelkit.com/sites/default/files/af35s54_0.jpg

    It seems a great candidate for premium. With the applique armor plates on the hull and turret front/sides, it would be slightly better armored than the grindable Churchie, but the add-on armor would make it slightly less mobile which WG might like for a premium. And with the All Round Vision (ARV) commander’s cupola, it could have better visual range than the tech tree Churchie, which would entice people to buy it.

    Image of the ARV Commander’s Cupola: https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/10288751_401919736616664_6917078855188675711_n.jpg

    For some reason in a lot of photos of British tanks mounting the ARV cupola, it’s got the single periscope facing forwards and the bank of three periscopes facing towards the rear of the turret.

    Would luv to have this variant as a Brit premium. What do you guys think?




    0



    0
    • Mark Bevis says:

      Thought the Churchilll III is already in the UK tech tree, it’s just an upgrade of the Churchill Mk.1

      The Churchill Mk.III with 75mm QF gun and extra armour is not a Mk.III, but a Mk.X, bringing it up to exactly the same stats as a Churchill Mk.VII ie, 75mm QF gun, 152mm/90* frontal armour, 90mm/90* side and rear armour. 20kmh road speed.
      So it’s already in the game.




      0



      0
  37. Golgrin says:

    Ssshhhh… You’re ruining my dream!

    Think of the clunky welded Mk III turret with its vertical sides, just with some applique armor plates on it, especially the add-on armor plates welded to the turret cheeks on the front, and the applique armor plates on the hull sides. Mmmhmm… Looks visually different from the Churchill Mk.VII in game.

    Flat-sided welded turrets don’t perform exactly like cast turrets. So maybe it would have better protection that the Mk.VII cast turret, or maybe it would have worse protection.

    Plus with the ARV commander’s cupola should have improved view range over the Mk.VII ingame, which would make the premium a little different in playstyle.

    I’m trying to get a British heavy premium ingame that isn’t the TOG or Excelsior. I have both, but would really like a Churchill premium too.




    0



    0

Leave a Reply