The lies about the Swedish heavies

Author: sp15

The Swedish heavies have just hit the public test server and have generally been well received, however, I thought it would be a good idea to give you the real data about these vehicles. From the way WG´s balance department chose to ignore their historians and historical data I think the Swedish heavies mark a new era of WoT where history is discarded for the sake of convenience for the balance team.

Emil I
The tier 8 Emil as represented in the game is based on the 1951 proposal for a new Swedish 30-tonne tank which had the project name EMIL. Note that nowhere in the original documents is this initial design referred to as Emil 1, instead, it is simply listed as “EMIL”.

The name Emil 1 was later used in 1952 for a completely redesigned version of the tank which was a scaled down version of the Emil 2 that you see in game. It is not fair to either of these vehicles to misrepresent the name like this, but more importantly, it confuses people as to what the tier 8 Emil actually is. You see the 1952 Emil 1 unlike the 1951 proposal had several armor options (none of which are as thick as the one in game btw) and I think WG might have done this deliberately to confuse people into thinking that the tanks armor isn’t really fake.

EMIL 1951 stats



The Emil as represented in the game has roughly 30-40% thicker armor than it had historically. In real life, the Emils armor was designed to have 170-200mm of effective thickness for the front with a maximum thickness of 200mm for the gun mantle and 150mm for the turret front. Compare that to the 280mm mantle and 180mm thick turret front of the ingame Emil, even the hull armor has been increased to 100mm for the upper front which is 30mm thicker than the historical armor.

Armor scheme drawings EMIL 1951

Gun depression

As you can see on the armor scheme drawing the 1951 Emil had 14 degrees of gun depression over the front of the vehicle, the turret was however designed to be able to depress to 15 degrees over the sides. In the game, the Emil initially received the whole 15-degree gun depression but by the time it was added to the public test its gun depression was nerfed to 12 degrees which is worse than the historical value.

Turret drawing


If you have a keen eye you may have noticed that the Emil I on the test server has a 450 hp top engine, you may also have noticed that in the stat sheet provided in the original documents this engine was rated at 550 hp, this is yet another change from the Historical characteristics of the EMIL (the stock engine was also nerfed by 100 hp). Additionally, the top speed has been reduced from the 55 kph top speed in the original documents to 50 kph in game, which was actually buffed from the even lower 45kph top speed that the vehicle had in supertest. Though to be fair the original documents lists a “marching speed” of 50kph.

EMIL top speed

After seeing how this vehicle was implemented I must ask the question as to why it wasn’t balanced with its historical characteristics in mind. It would have been very easy to balance the tier 8 Emil even with its proper stats, tanks like the amx 50 100 has shown that a low-moderately armored heavy tank can work and the 14-15 degrees of gun depression would still allow the turret to be very strong in a hull down position.

Emil II
The Emil II is based of the 1952 Emil II s2b which was a variation of one of three versions of the Emil that existed at this point. This was the most heavily armored version of the Emil II.

Out of all the Swedish heavies, the Emil II is perhaps the most accurate to its real life armor layout, though this isn’t really saying much. The real Emil II s2b was planned to have a hull armor of 95mm for the upper front (with a 145mm lower glacis) with 30mm at the sides and rear, the turret was to be 170mm thick at the front with 60mm at the side and 30mm at the rear. This frontal armor option was the thickest considered for all versions of the Emil in 1952.
The Emil II on the public test server has had its frontal armor increased to 100mm for the upper glacis and 215mm for the turret. The hull side armor was also increased to 60mm. Like the Emil I this is a huge increase over the real values and this is especially strange as when the Emil 2 appeared on the supertest it did have a mostly historical armor scheme.

Emil 2 armor
surprisingly the rest of the stats for this vehicle represents the project its based of fairly well with a correct top speed, engines and gun depression. But this just makes me all the more curious as to why a fake armor scheme was chosen.

Unlike the other Swedish heavies, the Kranvagn was actually completed, at least partially with a hull still remaining in the storage of the Arsenalen museum. This was the ultimate development of the Emil project and was a further development of the Emil III which was a larger and heavier version of the Emil II. Though the vehicle was referred to as Kranvagn to confuse potential spies I think in retrospect that its more commonly used abbreviation KRV would have made for a better name, at least in world of tanks.

Since the hull of the KRV was actually built we have been able to find welding drawings that show the actual armor thickness, at least for parts of the hull. Besides the hull floor (that isn’t really interesting) we can tell that the KRV had 37mm thick side and rear armor.

KRV welding drawing
The KRV was the prototype of the Emil III that appeared in the 1952 documents, from this we know that the KRV hull armor was to be identical to that of the Emil II with the exception of a slight increase to the side and rear hull armor. That is to say, the Kranvagn should have a frontal hull armor of 95mm with a 145mm lower glacis and 37mm sides and rear.
The turret armor was also similar to the Emil II with 170mm at the front but with a side armor up to 80mm thick. Later armor schemes for the turret from 1954, however, reduced the side armor to 70mm.

Kranvagn turret armor (1953)
like the other Swedish heavies the Kranvagn has been unhistorically buffed. Arguably some armor buffs to the turret could be justified since the front was to be cast, but even cast armor do not vary as much as the 55mm that was added to the turret front. The Balance department also increased the side armor to 70mm and the upper front to 110mm from the historical 95mm.


As I have said throughout this article the Swedish heavies could easily have been balanced with their historical values. The tier 9 and 10 would still have had a good front with 260-290mm of effective frontal armor unangled and they would still have been beasts when using hull down positions, but currently the armor on the Emil II and Kranvagn bare so little resemblance to reality that only the rear armor is accurate. The handling of the tier 8 Emil, in general, is also something I find baffling as so many elements were made unhistorical for no apparent reason.

As somebody who has spent hundreds of hours gathering the information to make this line possible in the first place, I find it very frustrating to see my work go to waste when there was no reason the heavies couldn’t have been properly represented. After speaking with Silentstalker and Daigensui who have had lines implemented into the game before I found that this kind of disregard for the real stats did not happen a year or two ago, but is likely due to more recent changes to the balance team. This is why I say that the Swedish heavies mark a new era of WoT, as a new balance team without any regard for history are put in charge of the future of world of tanks for better or worse.


The lies about the Swedish heavies

96 thoughts on “The lies about the Swedish heavies

    1. SerB's Rasp of Nerf says:

      Agreed, and Wargaming has always said that where there is a conflict between historical accuracy and gameplay, gameplay wins every time. Although that doesn’t explain things like the old KV-1Sport, O-I etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. stormcrow99 says:

        O-I isn’t a problem. O-I exp is. Tier 4s can eliminate O-Is if played cleverly, but the tier 3s are simply getting curbstomped left right and center. Even tier 4 and 5 tanks will have trouble against a particularly skilled combatant.

        KV-1S can be forgiven since it was nerfed to hell


    2. Eok says:

      Yes, it does take precedence over historical data. But what is in the test is OP monstrosity from hell, would be good enough with historical values…


    3. I am a tad bit surprised historical info really is a problem as wargaming have quite a few soft stat options to balance their tanks ie gun dispersion, rate of fire, terrain ressistances, camo, and view range. As for armor, don’t know what can be said, would have been easier for wargaming to increase the thickness by throwing external tracks on top rather than increase it out right since external tracks were a trend at the time of the development of these tanks (IS-3 for example). Game balance before historical info because all tanks were not created equal but it does not mean you should ignore your historians.


      1. secretsquirrel says:

        well there was a article from Yuri Pasholok, or whatever his name is, that the guys who worked on the swedish line talked to them once in a year and that all the time they have been in contact with a mod on a forum or someone insignificant like that. So after you see the both sides of the story it looks a bit childish to kick and scream after the milk has been spilled…
        And to the tanks I’m glad that we dont get a “new” french heavy line just with a different paintjob.


      2. They may have been in contact, but since we don’t really know what that contact was about (and also judging by how this was worded), they were clearly not included in the meetings discussing the actual values. I’m not saying it would have solved anything, but at least everyone involved would have been up-to-date on what decision was made and why.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. memes says:

      The T29’s mantlet was designed to be 279mm, but The_Chieftain measured it and it came out to be 203mm.

      Balance>Historical accuracy, although this is WG we’re talking about


    2. If you want thicker armor you could always put external tracks, wheels, or even improvised armor (like on the FireFly) because any tank worth its salt is going to have a fair bit of modifications to follow it. It’s just hard to answer all the what if’s for a fantasy tank. Just need to be very clear to your audience when you’re stretching the rules. That said, test server is still a test server as any optimist who’s ever had their foot in their mouth before will say.


  1. Nya-chan Production says:

    ” In the game, the Emil initially received the whole 15-degree gun depression but by the time it was added to the public test its gun depression was nerfed to 12 degrees which is worse than the historical value.”

    IIRC one of the devs said in some QA they made a model based on historical drawings and it actually had clipping issues. So much for theory and praxis.


    1. BP OMowe says:

      “IRC one of the devs said in some QA they made a model based on historical drawings and it actually had clipping issues. So much for theory and praxis.”

      Well, if one places the turret further back than the original drawings placed it, is there unexpected to have clipping problems?


  2. SpeedyCraft51 says:

    They sais themselbes that they would now completely disregard historical accuracy in order to make the game balanced the way they want.

    While both sweedish toptiers may sound OP in the current meta, they fit perfectly with the idea WG had of each class for the global rebalance (cf Sandbox).
    -TDs are meant to have massive pen and accuracy but no survivability at close range
    -Breakthrough tanks like KRV are meant to have near unpenetrable frontal armor, but side and rear armor so weak even tanks many tiers below can pen them here
    -Gold ammo not too different from normal ammo in terms of pen (Strv : only 40mm more. Type 5 HT : about 30mm more aswell).
    -Role of armor increased so HTs dont get autopenned from the front as soon as people load gold (KRV, Type5 after it gets its shoulder buff will be able to handle things pretty well too…)

    And honestly its better that way.
    WoT is an arcade game. Not an historical one. And trying to have both historical accuracy and arcade fun makes the game a big clusterfuck of tanks that are either too strong, either underpowered or not fun to play. Some tanks need to be overbuffed to be competitive in the game, thus neglecting all historical accuracy, while some others if historical are pretty good but not fun at all (good luck playing the Tiger I with its historical gun at tier 7+).

    If you want historical tanks, send your tree to WT and hope for the best. But I rather see unhistorical tanks in WoT but have a fun game, than seing it become like WT because some people didnt get that it’s an arcade game.

    Once global rebalance is complete it’ll probably all fit together.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “-Breakthrough tanks like KRV are meant to have near unpenetrable frontal armor”
      It wasn’t designed to be a breakthrough tank. Most if not all Swedish tanks were designed with defense in mind, which is why they have good gun depression and, in terms of the TDs, great camo value. If anything it’s a fire support tank just like the T57 and AMX 50B…

      There is no reason why the historical armor had to be buffed by about 32% of historical values. Fair enough if there are no stats provided in any drawing but not in this case where the stats are so clearly defined.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Anshul says:

      Although what you say is correct. It’s WG baby and they can mold it the way they want.

      The original writer though has a right to get angry given it was his time and effort that brought about the new pixel toys you are so fond of.

      As far as War Thunder goes, I find that game a lot more fun to play and a lot less frustrating than WoT. That is me because I like historical accuracy when I play games and I like slow paced but intense games (Be it the Arma Series, Theater of War series, War Thunder or WarGame series from Eugine Systems). I love it when things are made as close to real as they can be.

      The only problem that I had in WT was the client crashes that didn’t happen in WoTs up till last year. Now, client crashes are very common in WoTs too for me so that advantage is lost.

      In terms of graphics, WT has already implemented eveything that WG claimed they were going to do in their famous Jan 2014 video after patch 8.11 and still haven’t been able to do half of it.

      I haven’t spent a dime on WT and still am not being robbed off the game play experience. WG hunts down on the frustration that a player feels on the retardedly long tank grinds and the credit system which automatically forces you to put money to be able to have the full game experience.

      Take a look at this video and see if you agree:

      Down playing a game that you either haven’t tried or haven’t been able to learn to play is…. lets put it politely…. not a smart thing to do.


      1. SpeedyCraft51 says:

        I dont say WT is a bad game. Wether you will prefer WoT or WT depends on what you want : historical accuracy or more arcade gameplay.

        What bothers me is people complaining when they see a tank in wot not being 100 % historical then saying WT sucks and isnt fun. Like wtf do they want then…


    3. Anonymous says:

      SPEEDYCRAFT51…I agree.

      Bene reading since FTR and never comment much, but the article title is a little ridiculous…it is a video game. They never claimed to historically represent the tanks. I’m sure millions of WOT players know what a Tiger P or Sherman actually are now in lieu of the few thousand enthusiastic historians that did 10 years ago. I’ve actually driven by tanks sitting out in the open at parks that I never noticed and actually recognize without reading their plaques. But by all means, let’s fret over the missing 3 degrees of depression!!!

      The idea of most of these tanks “meeting in battle” is completely beyond historical context, so let’s get a grip and enjoy the game.


    4. BP OMowe says:

      “WoT is an arcade game.”
      No, it is not.
      In an arcade game, there is grinding as nothing is stored between games.
      You simply put in a coin and all development takes place within that session. After it is over, all data is erased bar the high-score list.

      WoT might very well be described as an historically inspired action game, but an arcade game it is not.


  3. BOT_AI says:

    TL;DR The more the merrier.

    I admire your work on historical research, I really do. But (look out, my personal opinion >:D) I always thought that WoT is an arcade game. For me the more unconventional and strange vehicles the more fun is the gameplay itself (as long as the tanks SOMEWHAT existed). WoT’s never been a simulator, so if anyone is interested in simulators, I highly recommend War Thunder Ground Forces. It’s beautiful and very engaging. Of course, going down that road we will soon have more premiums than accessible tanks, and I guess no one wants that (including me). All in all, its nice that someone cares about the reality of tanks, but game needs to continue updating some way or another.
    Your Average Tanker.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. _L says:

    True, but sad fact. Most of the population plays this game because of sad world war history and science about tanks. Who cares about some dumb assess which play their league with overpowered tanks.

    You! Yes, you just go there and kick theyr ass. I will be most pleasured, if you take the lead in balancing “department” and make tanks which are correct. I will stand for you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. SpeedyCraft51 says:

      If historians took the lead of the balance department the game would be dead withing the first hour of their new job…

      This is a balance department of an arcade game. Not the historical department of a simulator.
      What was he expecting in the first place ?
      If he wants his tech tree to be fully historical, he sends it to gaijin. And we’ll have a good laugh at how fun they are there.

      This is an arcade game. If everything was historical half the tank we have now would not even exist, and the other half would be boring as hell.

      If you want realism go play WT. WoT is not a simulator.


      1. SerB's Rasp of Nerf says:

        On the subject of WT:GF, remember the chat on the WoT forum when GF was coming out: how it was a “WoT killer” because it was realistic, and it would do to WoT what WT did to WoWP?
        Then people played WT:GF and found that they didn’t especially enjoy being oneshotted by tanks they couldn’t see, which is of course realistic but not entirely entertaining. Tanks were often knocked out with the first penetrating shot (or non-pen in the case of Tiger 131) and the majority of tanks knocked out were killed by things they couldn’t see.
        Accurate? Extremely. Fun? Hell to the no.


  5. Lunatics from Minsk says:

    Concerning reality, what do you think abour ST vz. 39 and its gunner / loader in one person, which could reload and aim both in 2 second? Holy shit he is faster than Albert Wesker. Reality has been raped by WG long time ago. And in my opinion every half-fake branch (Czech, Swedish, Japanese heavies, possibly future Siemkas etc) further adds another shits to the pile.


      1. Lunatics from Minsk says:

        Up to tier IV maybe, if you consider examples like that mentioned as an inaccuracy. But starting from tier V, please do not be fooled by those more or less developed drafts as there is a huge difference between draft and design.


      2. Lunatics from Minsk says:

        I am not surprised that even those four tanks based on real vehicles have been fucked up. Looking to the best known and effective German tanks and tank destroyers, all will be useless without its unrealistic guns. This is the reality made by WG. So who cares about some Swedish stuff that never made it past the draft phase.


  6. wargaming doesnt even care about acurate models of the tanks themselfs whit whould they bother whit acurate specs its not like they dont change stats acording to whinning complaints from players…and they say war thunder isnt acurate, compared whit world of tanks they are more true to the real tanks….let the rants begin…lol


  7. Avv. says:

    With this idiotic balance t32 should have 420mm turret and 250mm on copula. Jag100 with heat+lucky roll can still pen so is completely fine


  8. Anonymous says:

    Hey wasn’t the KRV and maybe Emil II suppose to be armed with a 15cm gun. Not intending that should happen last thing i want is a WT E100 with armor.


    1. SpeedyCraft51 says:

      This. If they nerf the armor for historical reasons then give us the big gun for historical reasons.
      Arcade balance or historical accuracy, you choose. Dont do half of it WG.


  9. Terminus says:

    Actually the most disappointing thing about this whole line for me, was the fact it was another 120mm auto-loader heavy. I was really hoping the KRV would see a 105 MM with the option of swapping to a 150mm derp.

    While I understand the frustrations of the armor thickness (personally I think they could have handled it better). At-least they were buffed, Matter of face… I do recall a time were Wargaming just decided they were “changing” the front profile of the IS-3


  10. Frankly the only thing that really bugs me about all this is that I can’t play War Thunder to see how the tanks would play with realistic stats :/

    Seriously though, I understand why it is troubling to many that WG seems to be drifting from the realm of realism in favor of arbitrary balance where none is really needed. Honestly, people will be complaining either way, so I get WGs decision to appease the majority of the player community rather than the research team. Still, given the amount of work that goes into looking into these vehicles (something I’ve dabbled in and even then found staggeringly complex) I have to say my sympathies definitely lie with the latter community.


  11. SMGJohn says:

    No surprise here, the game has been so freaking boring that its almost impossible to play, even when you get killed its so boring you simply just do not care.

    WarGaming has lost it, at least World of Warships is a heck of a lot fun in comparison and better balanced than WoT ever will be.


    1. Anonymous says:

      Eh… WoWS has its issues with balance. Just have to look at the deck armour being less on the Iowa and Montana as well as their citadel placement.


      1. SMGJohn says:

        Was like that the best you could find? Wow, I could make a list so long it reach Bible size regarding World of Tanks


  12. Hardly surprising sadly, this is the same Wargaming that made the WaffleE100, Fv215b 120 and various others up just because they couldn’t be bothered to research other actual existing alternatives (and the T110E series where they couldn’t even get that right despite plans existing for them all).


  13. fighting_falcon93 says:

    And what would have happend if Kranvagn had 290 mm effective turret armor? As soon as someone saw it they’d press 2-2 and we’d have another useless heavy…


    1. hulldown addicted says:

      unpenetrable turret, 50km/h, 1600clip potential, best depression……………BALANCED.

      While maus and E100 are 100% pennable in the turret everytime they point the gun to the enemy


  14. wolvenworks says:

    preety sure they did it for “balance” (tho i didn’t try out the test). not that it’ll matter anyway since i’m not buying tier 9 and 10, and my tier 8 will still can’t do shit with it up front


  15. BasementTroll says:

    Honestly, at this point in the game, with so many of the tanks having been built only in prototypes, incomplete prototypes, not built at all and only in blueprints, or based entirely on very vague and rough sketches, can we really call the game historical? When entire trees of tanks are literally all from drawings or models, is it really even a remote representation of history?

    Honestly, it’s nice to see them put in effort and try to base the tanks on ideas people actually had but don’t fool yourself, this is a “historical” game in the loosest of definitions, honestly, it has been from the beginning. Let’s face it, the masses couldn’t give a shit about historical accuracy, they want what’s fun to play, if the game was focused on historical accuracy it would have died just months after it started.


  16. Rombat says:

    They are making them good so that people will grind them and throw freexp on them. After that they will nerf them in order to corespond to their history real value.
    It,s an old tactic of wg to nerf after a patch or two a fresh tank.


  17. GU-7 says:

    They can make the values look ‘historical’ but think on how many other tanks in the game that DON’T have their historical values, the Patton, some of the Chinese line, hell in EVERYLINE there is a tank that does NOT have its historical value, and its usually revolving around the armor, or gun characteristics, or both…

    It is mostly to do with Bias, I’m not pointing any fingers as it is quite obvious… But this crap is also the same in WoWS, and most likely in WoWP… Point is, this is a common occurrence, and in a way its ‘good’ but in many ways they take it too many steps too far, and make only one faction of tank, ship, or planes any good, or worth going down that line.

    This is also why nobody liked Serb when he was in the lime light during the early stages as he would demand that certain tanks be nerfed, and still are to this date even though they basically told him to shut up.


  18. Amrael87 says:

    As I usually say in these situations – this is the game where the Tiger I has the King Tiger gun and the Lowe has WORSE than historical stats (armor and engine power), and where German heavies in general were nerfed for the sake of ‘historical accuracy’. I don’t mind if the Emils and Crapwagon are balanced in a way that does not match the historical projects, but at least rebalance the other vehicles as well so whatever one plays does have a chance to be competitive.


  19. Aragamash says:

    Its really such a shame… I remember when Czechoslovakian tanks were put into game after hours of searching work, that a very similar article appeared. I understand that making the game balanced and fair is important for gameplay, for players, for prosterity of the game, however, if such big (and really in some cases unimportant) changes appear, then it really turns people off from searching for new lines such as Italian one for example… Now, if oyu would ask me whether I would make a search for Italian line myself after reading such articles, I would say no, it would be waste, let them make the effort themselves…

    It also makes me to ask, if they buffed the armor by some 30%, why do not they add these 30% extra armor to Maus as well??? They did so with IS-7 already to stop whinning so…???

    Well, I feel with you and thank oyu for the reading…


  20. betterdead thanred says:

    yes the powercreep is real….
    bear in mind i started playing the game in beta, and wanted to play WOT cuz of german tanks (german bias), b4 they were average, never/ or very rare OP, and now powercrept to hell, especially the heavies…
    to a long time player like me (40k battles) changing the whole game/meta is a huge turn off, and will still favor russkie tonks….
    the biggest issue i believe with WOT, is that mediums from tier 9-10 are op (especially ussr) high/sometimes highest dpm/pen.
    If u wanna win in random battles, play mediums, (ussr)
    instead of nerfing/balancing all of the tanks in WOT, just nerf the tier 9-10 meds that perform the best (ussr/czechoslovakian autoL. atm. imo.)
    some historical accuracy is needed for those who are interested in history aswell as WOT.

    EU should buy a WOT license from WG, something like u see in china. and balance WOT without russian bias,.and make british/german tanks viable again.

    when it comes to the kranvagn, for the meta now, it seems even more OP than the ussr…
    changing kranvagn stats, or changing whole WOT in sandbox to make other tanks viable and balanced?….. what is more likely…. WG has said so much b4 and has rarely/never delivered.

    If kranvagn hits live-server as it is now, and my maus doesnt have 400+ armour on front. i quit.

    yours truly

    enraged average german bias dude


  21. kinch07 @EU says:

    Yeah… With all this crying going on I’d like to advise everyone to save some tears for the upcoming nerf of the line after we free xp’d it.


  22. Ares says:

    But when comes to German Tiger 2, he is tier 8, over tiered, has historical armor, cuz reasons, and fight tank that where build to be better then him.

    And T29 is under tiered, cuz that tank should be at least tier 8.

    I see Swedish tank are over buffed in term os armor, and lost some mobility.


  23. ndiver says:

    IMHO, the armor values are one of the point that shouldn’t be modified from historic values.
    There are so many ways to adjust the gameplay of a tank, that at least on this specific point we should keep it as it was. What’s the matter otherwise to play historical tanks if everything including modelisation and armor values is pure fantasy?
    I see this choice of even not keeping the armor values historical, when they are know (which is the case for these heavies) as pure laziness from WG. When there are no information, I can understand that the hole needs to be filled, but not when schematics, blueprints, or prototypes indicate a specific value.

    And consider what make us initially play to WoT? Because it is for many players the possibility to “touch” the tanks, these metal beasts that were produced, conceived or fought in our countries. If we start to have purely fantasy values for values that are known, it’s opening the Pandora box, a door open to all aberrations …


  24. Matthias Olander says:

    Wargaming dropped any attempts at historical accuracy beyond “almost looks like in real life” way WAY back in closed beta. So this is not news. There’s more tanks in this game then i care to remember that does not have historically accurate armor thickness or is just plain wrong somewhere else

    So again, this is not news…


  25. Liam Gavaghan says:

    I understand that historical accuracy is important here; but lets face it, the Swedish heavies would have been basically the same as the AMX-50 Series. We already have a fast, drum loading, light armored heavy in the game. I do believe that historical accuracy is important,but I believe balance and unique vehicles are also important. If we wanted historical accuracy, we would also have to deal with reliability and the fact that most of the vehicles we would be driving would be made of paper. My thought of the day.


    1. BP OMowe says:

      Kranvagn wasn’t lightly armoured, as it was intended to deal with IS-3s head-on, defined in the Swedish documents as 30° left and right.
      The total weight of the tank had to be kept down though, for strategic mobility. Like the Tortoise showed, having a beat of a tank is useless when it can not be transported to the battle field, and the limitations of the rail- and roadnet is the reason all domestic vehicles of Sweden were much lighter in comparison.


      1. Anonymous says:

        BP OMOWE^….and in game it will do just fine against the IS-3 head-on…I wonder what the real life historical outcome was head-on. Did the IS-3 just track it and let a T62 flank it…oh wait that’s how it works in a video game…


  26. Bob Murphey says:

    SP15, WoT is a game. So are WT and AW. They are designed for you to fritter away spare time. If you want realistic accuracy, get yourself a sim such as Steel Beasts.


  27. Tommy_Gun says:

    Well… all new nations in WoT were nerfed (or at least rebalanced) a couple of months after they appeared in game. Chinese, Japanese, Czech, the all were nerfed.
    It is simply difficult for WG to predict every possible scenario and strategy that somebody can use on specific tank.
    So I am pretty that Swedish tanks will be (at lest some of them) heavily nerfed in future. The are just to good (at lest on paper).


    1. Anonymous says:

      ^I agree with Tommy_Gun…easier to encourage people down the line and adjust down a little bit once they have ni-game statistics to validate things. But I guess since every poster here knows that, they will relax and not race down the line to get the new tanks since they know what will happen. And of course, they have 436,342 battles, so they actually know how to play and a new tank line won’t effect their enjoyment like me. They also have a garage of tens of tanks to choose from, so “new tank X hurts my tank Y” will be alllright and they can just enjoy one of their many, many tanks.


    2. BP OMowe says:

      “It is simply difficult for WG to predict every possible scenario and strategy that somebody can use on specific tank.”

      I would go a step further and say WarGaming deliberately makes the additions overpowered in order to make it a must-have for the player-base, cause more spending of gold and thus money.


  28. Anonymous says:

    Considering the latest batch of premium vehicles are better than the normal tanks and they’re buffing the old premiums left and right I do think we’re at a new age in “balance” a premium vehicle should NEVER be better than the normal vehicle yet the ones released lately are just plain better than their normal counterparts.


  29. real_toothdecay says:

    Ok, so you got your tech tree. Crap sakes, be happy about it.
    THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A SIM, so be happy they let your tanks in.
    Deal with it and stop the incessant whining.


  30. 427Arbok says:

    I’m just gonna say that these are honestly more offensive to me than the Japanese heavies. At least those were faithful to what designs and prototypes existed, and at least they weren’t adjusted un-historically in such a way as to make them very arguably broken. If I’m honest, what they should have done with these heavies was to keep with the theme they developed in the line’s mediums: good gun handling, high alpha, good gun depression, poor dpm, mediocre pen, and reasonably good mobility. Workable frontal armor, maybe a slight increase above the historical amounts for the tier VIII if necessary, but not what it has now.

    Also, their reasoning for using unhistorical armor values, if I understand correctly, is that they wanted to make this new line fill a new, unique role. Which makes total sense, especially when you consider that their stats are basically just those of the AMX 50 series tank of their respective tiers with some nerfs across the board in exchange for much better armor and improved gun depression. Seriously, only one of the three tanks has any legitimate offerings over its French counterparts, that being the tier VIII, and even that’s just because they aren’t using the 120mm guns yet. The tier IX and X stat cards look like somebody just copy-pasted the 50 120 and 50 B’s stats in, then dialed the numbers back by a fixed percentage. They both have the same terrain resistance as their French counterparts, similar top speeds on the tier tens, similar traverse speeds on the tier nines, and the guns just make me want to facepalm.

    The Swedish 120mm guns are just French ones with 5mm worse penetration, ever so slightly reduced accuracy, moderately longer reloads for their full magazines, and the same magazine depths. Unique my ass. The tier nine even has the same clip cycle time as the 50 120, while the KRV has the same aim time as the 50 B. Now, normally I wouldn’t be too bothered by similarities like this, but when WG goes out of their way to alter a tank’s physical characteristics to make it more unique, this is just ridiculous.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go console my ST-I. All these new tanks and new armor models with better turrets than hers have gotten her pretty depressed, and she’s feeling pretty useless now that these monstrosities are around.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s