Answers variously by Ogopogo, Okinoshima, OhSlowpoke, 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’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 a couple of parts so please bear with us. Let’s hope that WG takes note of the demand for UK lines.
Q1: NOT_SO_NICE_: Please could you ask what the plan is with both the chieftain and the fv215b (heavy)? If a chieftain line is implemented what might it consist of and when could be added to the game?
A: WG has already said that the Chieftain will be added. It’s better to see it head up a whole new line instead of just slapped in to replace an existing vehicle. Better for WG and better for a new line introduction.
Q2: Aditya: So Superconquorer or chieftain or both?
Aditya: Are they a dream or a reality in near future?
A: No version of the Conqueror was or should ever be called or referred to as a ‘superconqueror’ .
Ideally, both should be coming to the game. Please don’t use the ‘superconqueror’ moniker. We don’t need WG inventing another fake name for an in-game vehicle. – Looking at you ‘Matilda Black Prince’- None of us are in the business of inventing names for vehicles. Where we may have a design with no official name a nickname (contemporary) may be suitable and failing that the logical official name could probably be worked out. If that fails then just add an asterisk or the next Mark (Conqueror Mk II* or Mk III) and explain in the wiki that it had no known official name.
This new Conqueror vehicle is a normal Conqueror but with added spaced armor, known as “burster plates” on the hull. These burster plates were actually produced in real life, although not planned to be equipped unless combat was expected.
There is also two possible options, for the turret, one including similar armor plate, covering the existing ‘historical’ Conqueror turret, which was test trialled during weapons firing trials. In addition, there is also a new improved turret.
There is also a possibility for mounting an improved 120mm gun, the L11, information of which has been recently located. This gun should have generally improved performance in every aspect.
Q3: Why does the Cromwell get the 77mm guns? it did NOT have them IRL
A: The Cromwell in game mounts the 75mm HV (Vickers) gun, which fired the projectiles from the American-type 75mm guns, but using a different casing with a more powerful charge.
This gun was intended to be mounted in the Cromwell, and a wooden mockup of the turret and gun mounting was least assembled. They ran into significant problems during development and found they would have had to do some serious work to get it to fit. A choice later to use the 76.2mm ammo from the 17 Pounder (a switch in projectile) eventually led to the “OQF 77mm” which was mounted in the Comet. There are a lot of vehicles that have weapons they were never mounted in real life.
Q4: RAGNAROKBAZIL: Ehat tank is that and look at that small puny tank like the fv304 >> with five crew members yeah sure fv304 can be that small and fit that many crew members >> rita whats the update to the fv304 is the tank getting smaller still? Srriously i want this ansaered by you
A: Hopefully this should answer your question
It is worth mentioning that the increase in the size of the FV304 in patch 9.15 is historically accurate. The current (9.14 and earlier) size is far too small.
Q5: ANTHONY: are there any plans to buff the black prince fire power wise?
BUMBLER: Is there any chance that the Black Prince will get some kind of weapon buff? I’m not saying give it a 20 or 32pdr, but with the 17pdr I would like to point out that it has significantly lower rate of fire than both the Archer (tier 5 TD) and the firefly. It would be nice to see this thing get some kind of aimtime, gun depression, or dispersion buff (yes I know it’s really good already).
WHEELEDTANK: What’s wrong with the 17pdr? It works just fine with the vehicle. The only upgrade would be the 20pdr, which would be both too powerful and not fit in the turret
A: Unfortunately for the Black Prince there wasn’t much in terms of options for the vehicle when it was initially implemented. There was a meteor engined variant planned, which is represented by the top engine in the game, and many such variants of the Meteor engine exist to buff hp/ton. There is no proof that such a vehicle existed in anything other than on paper to begin with so certainly you could make a case to use one of the more advanced Meteor engines (800+ HP versions exist!) to improve power-to-weight.
As with the case of the Black Prince, and several UK Vehicles between T6 and T8 suffer from the same problem with a small calibre, historically quite high-velocity guns being unsuitable due to their low alpha damage. This problem of a bit of a “gun gap” does exist at several tiers in the UK tank line currently, but several guns, both in terms of prototypes and paper designs have been discovered recently and could be implemented possibly into several vehicles if need be. These include modified variants of the 3.7” (94mm) AA gun (not the 32 Pounder) and 4.5” (114mm) AA gun that are suitable for mounting in an array of mid-tier vehicles, and a possible medium velocity 120mm gun that could be suitable in 20 pounder armed vehicles.
One final thing for the Black Prince and not an upgrade in game terms would be the addition of a second turret module. The one fitted on the remaining example at Bovington has a turret originally part of the design on the Centurion development fitted (both projects were closely related) so the in-game turret module name is wrong. It was intended to mount the Centurion turret onto this hull too although it was never done. We don’t know which Mark of Centurion turret this would be but either way, the armour would be worse than it has currently. A new turret would therefore only be a new stock turret and actually make it worse in armour terms in-game although stats such as traverse or depression (-8 on the BP current turret, -10 on the Centurion turret) could be buffed.
Q6: Anon: Are there any known British Scout LTs? I don’t believe any of the current LTs get Scout status.
A: Last I heard publically WG were reviewing light tank match-making and maybe extending light branches to tier 10, the British tree will be fine with this outcome.
Q7: THEGRIPPINCHANNEL: Anything about British Autoloaders?
A: There are numerous autoloader designs covering various the 76mm L5, 20Pdr type B, and 120mm L11.
Q8: CHAD1233: When are we getting the Tetrarch in the British tree? It’s my favourite tank!
A: The A.17 Tetrarch in a regular tree has to be different from the premium version and thankfully will be when we get it. So yes.
Q9: KALLECRASH: How come the British never heard of “sloped armor”?
A: How about looking at the front of just about every tank for a sloping glacis plate? Yes, many have a vertical (or nearly) drivers plate but this simply confirms to how someone appears when seated and it usually thicker to compensate for the lack of angle.
Box shapes are simple to produce, they reduce the amount of time required to design and construct a vehicle and are more space efficient internally. Contrary to popular belief about sloped and angled armor, angles are effective for protection but do not solely replace thickness. The other consideration would be the transportation of a vehicle and the maximum gun. Sloping sides reduce the size of the turret ring a vehicle can have and therefore restrict the gun size. Take two equally sized tanks for length and width, one with sloping armour and one with ‘square’ armour, the angled one will have to have a smaller turret ring and less internal volume for crew, ammunition etc. The squarer one can also mount a wider turret and consequently a wider gun. Sloped armour versus vertical armour is generally not a cut and dry topic.
Q10: RENO STEFAN: I’ve noticed that most British tanks, mostly the one I saw in game, have a tendency to use letter ‘C’ as their first letter in their name. AreIs there any reasons behind that..?
A:
David Fletcher explains this very well in this video. Post Churchill tank it’s as much tradition as anything for C names.
There are plenty of odd exceptions for a variety of reasons not to be confused with the firm of Vickers which preferred ‘V’ names. There’s a short piece on some other ideas for British tank names here http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2015/04/on-british-tank-names.html
Q11: BUMBLER: It’s well known that the Valentine struggles when it is not top tier. The 6pdr and 75mm are formidable guns, but the Valentine has terrible gun depression and gun handling with these weapons. It really needs to have its fantastic gun depression from the 2pdr to be able to take full advantage of its low profile. Did the Valentine historically use the Little John Adapter and is there any chance of WG giving the Valentine the Little John Adapter as on the Matilda?
A: The Littlejohn Adapter was tested and trialled on the Valentine tank (with the 2 Pounder Mk-X). It is certainly a possibility that the gun could be added to the Valentine at wargaming’s wish, although it seems unlikely, given their stance on rebalancing via ‘adding’ new weapons to existing vehicles. There are other options, including a 12 Pounder gun, which was a UK Prototype tank gun of intermediate performance between the 6 pounder and 75mm.
Ed Francis has also recently discovered a number of photos of Valentines, including one mounting an unknown gun that looks like a very long barreled 2 Pounder which we have yet to identify but may also be an interesting option.
Q11: XAVIER: Are there enough vehicles to make a fleshed out light tank line? Are the FV300 series and FV100 series viable options?
A: Yes very much so, from about tier 5 upwards the UK can make (assuming you have no issue with a couple of vehicles which were only designed and not built) probably 2 full (that’s to tier 10) light tank lines with a good smattering of premiums.
Q11: XAVIER: Why do you think the Chieftain has bad armor for WoT but it’s great in other games like War Thunder and Armored Warfare + the fact that it was the best armored tank on the planet when it was introduced?
A: That ‘fact’ isn’t a fact. The front hull is well angled but not as thick as most sources including BAe at times state. The turret front is very thick and very well sloped. The rest of the tank, sides and rear is fairly rubbish in armour thickness terms. As a consequence, Chieftain is likely to be a medium tank when we finally get it.
Q12: ATOMICEMU: I remember seeing claims about the Chieftain turret having to cool for a year after casting. What was the exact technology? Was it just slow cooling to reduce stress in the material, or was it more complicated, like tempering or hardening certain parts during the process?
A: The 12 month cooling period is mentioned by Simon Dunstan in his works on Chieftain and there is indeed a reason to control the cooling of a large casting as it is something highly dull/important to do with the formation of a crystalline structure in the metal.
Paul Hazell ‘Armour Theory and Design’ explains: “….castings are notorious for containing porosity and generally possess low toughness values. Some improvements in casting steels occurred in the 1970’s where it was shown that cooling the metal in such a way that heat was extracted on one surface led to improvements in properties. This process resulted in columns of grains extended from the chill surface completely through the casting thereby giving the casting microstructural ‘texture’. The end result was a casting that had superior ductility and ballistic performance than conventional castings. (Papetti, 1980)” p.179
Whether or not this was done I don’t know, but MoD data relating to Chieftain turret front protection suggests that the casting was still considered “weaker” than homogenous rolled armour. This suggests that although some controlled cooling would obviously have taken place, the ‘12 months of cooling’ could be misleading or possibly inaccurate. In either case, it did not make the steel some uber-Krupp-esque super steel.
Q13: OKINOSHIMAFUSETSUKAN: I’ve heard that WoT’s British gun penetration isn’t an accurate representation of IRL British tank performance? From your research which guns don’t have their real penetration, and what should they be?
A: It is difficult to blame WG for incorrect numbers on UK Tank guns. Most sources you’d find for UK Tank guns aren’t even British, to begin with. Generally speaking, most websites and books have UK guns as a sidenote, and they are generally American sources and are not primary source documents. Most; if not all of the UK guns are undervalued by common sources. Many sources show the @30 degrees values, and treat them or incorrectly state them as @0 degrees. Others, it is not clear where the information was gathered from and information gathered makes it quite apparent that most of them are incorrect.
A quick example of this is the 6 Pounder Mk V (L/50), which in game has 110mm
Penetration with Silver and 180mm with Gold. In real life, there exists a number of 6 Pounder rounds;
AP – 137mm (although unlikely to penetrate more than 114mm due to ‘shatter effect’)
APC – 116mm
APCBC – 125mm
APDS – 180mm
Another example is the 17 Pounder (Mk VII in game), which compares unfavourably with the real life counterparts, it’s silver and gold performing at 171mm and 239mm in game, compared to;
APCBC – 190mm
APDS – 271mm
In WoT, base gun penetration numbers are based on penetration versus “flat” homogeneous plate @ anywhere from 0 to 100m (WG changes these numbers for balance reasons, some guns are based on point blank numbers in real life, while others appear to be based on the @100 meters). The values above are not sourced from an existing book but rather straight from the UK Ordnance Board documentation and original “Critical Velocity Charts” which are primary source documents. All numbers are penetration at point blank, versus a flat plate.
Q14: ARMANDO RODRIGUES: we have heard some people saying we probably only know 30% of anything ever designed in the UK with the rest still buried somewhere in the archives, realistically how much of this is true?
A: It’s not far from the truth. It’s hard to know how much is left unknown but there’s been a huge leap in knowledge in the just the past 2 years for the UK. There’s a very large number of vehicles and projects which have yet to be published that we know of, just as a hint of what else there may be.
Q15: MARK VARRY: Since WG has been on Aussie kick lately thoughts on a AC3 Sentinel with 25lbr and/or a Valentine CS making it in game?
A: It is disappointing that WG chose not to undertake an Australian line branching into the UK line at the Centurion. 2 of the Sentinels have already been used and while it is great to see some Australian armour there were paper designs better suited to premium status than vehicles which were actually produced and could have been introduced as a line in their own right.
Q16: MARK VARRY: Any news on a Vickers Valiant?
Q: XAVIER: Do you know if WG has any plans to add the A38 Valiant as a British Premium heavy as a replacement for the Excelsior? (which I imagine will be removed from the shop b/c pref. mm)
A: Well I hope not. There are better premium-ish vehicles to replace the Excelsior. But that assumes they are going to remove it and not fix the model. The correct armour scheme of the excelsior is an improvement over the current model, which, along with a better engine, muddles the issues. As for the Valiant, there’s more than one design perhaps best suited to being a regular vehicle in due course rather than wasted as a premium.
Q17: FASTESTCLASSIC: Do you think the Chieftain would be plausible as the top tank of another “mini-branch” starting from tier 5-6 , leading up to Chieftain prototypes at tier 8 and 9, and ending at tier 10 with the Mk. 6?
A: That’s a closed question leading to just a yes/no answer but in short’ yes’. The Chieftain is due afaik to head up a new line, Preceding tank/s are very likely to be from the development directly or indirectly
“Are they a dream or a reality in near future?” Could you answer this question???? Want to know when is the Chieftain coming, so I know if I wait or stop playing the game.
Could the mystery long barrelled 2 pounder be the Pipsqueak? Or is the photo too early for that?
Seems highly unlikely, given that the time frame between Valentine and Pipsqueak is so wide.
Offhand, I’d say it might be a little early. However, I’ll see if we can’t find anything more on them.
about those guns projects you guys mention, realisticaly I think we could only expect them to be added to tanks (or variants of existing vehicles) that were being developed at the same time making them contemporary
so exactly wich ones would those be? from later Churchil variants? early Centurions? or only afterwar designs?
There are an extensive number of gun projects for all tiers of british tanks (save perhaps the bottom few).
The first Saladin prototypes were built in 1952, could the Brits have had Valentines hanging around to test on?
Also, which turret is it?
Is it possible that the valentine was used as a testbed for the pipsqueak? As the Saladin first prototype was built in 1952 it seems possible.
Out of interest, was the Valentine with the older or newer turret?
Ok, any idea about when the photo was taken and whether it’s a newer/older Valentine turret used? My thought train was that the military could have had Valentines hanging around before the first Saladin proto in 1952 so used it as a testbed.
Also, would a line of British armoured car scouts be viable for WoT? The line I envisioned is very strong up to tier 5 (Fordson -> Humber -> Daimler -> AEC) but then struggles a bit with the Coventry at tier 6, Saladin at 7 and the Fox at 8.
It could be one of the many 2 pounder projects from Canada during WWII, like the David Gun or something similar
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.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct. It was one of the larger contributing factors which I wanted to address but I misplaced/couldn’t find my exact source material (I was one of the people who answered the questions, but my name was left out). In the absence of that, my answer was a little long winded and rambling. Wanting to keep it short — seeing how such slope/vertical explanations often end up being very long — I omitted it. I’ll try to find the precise information and add it to one of the next few parts if I can find it in time.
And here why I don’t like claiming something without checking it first. Yes, it is part of it, but it is a little more complex. I will expand and correct what I previously said here in the next part
Without going into details the railways gauges in Germany, France and the UK pretty much limited the maximum width of tanks to the same width. In the UK the gauge also affected the maximum height that the vehicle could be. Even on a low riding flatbed. Now, while length could be in THEORY unlimited, the rules of length to width ratio for a tracked vehicle, inorder to properly turn, meant that the length was also pretty much a fixed issue as well.
British railways, in terms of width, were no tighter in design then the german tanks. In therms of height they were marginally worse but not enough to matter. AFAIK from the discussions we had on this issue (gathered data from France, US, UK Germany and Russia) nobody really had it worse then any other nation as although Russia did have an small advantage in gauge width. But when you consider that russian tanks still had to be usable on the European rail system… It is a moot point.
The same applies to the US.
Length is also limited due to rail transport requirements. The longer an item is the narrower it has to be, otherwise it will exceed the loading gauge on the inside (and, depending on the waggon used to carry it, outside) of curves. It IS all a bit more complicated than I made out – the exact profile of the gauge limits is important, not just height and width.
Regardless of WWII limits the gauge difference does make a difference today, this became a factor in some modelling I did at work several years ago.
There are also detail factors that come into play, some routes become usable by some out of gauge loads if you ensure no close to gauge traffic is passed, specific items on the trackside are temporarily removed or speeds are restricted (my journey to work passes through a narrow tunnel with a speed restriction as at higher speeds the trains could hit the sides due to their dynamic motion).
Modern gauge profiles – W6 is what applies on most UK lines, GA is the basic European gauge. In WWII the exact dimensions may have been slightly different. The width of the Gx guages is 10ft 4in / 3.15m at the widest part and W6 9ft / 3.05 at the widest part.
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/assets/loadinggauges.jpg
Thanks for this Rita. Very informative.
Thank you guys for the Q and to the lads for answering. Only thing I here is being a mediator for the community. But thanks. 🙂
Rita the fv304 is small as A van then… just a bit wide.. look at the people sizes lol
I have to go against the claim that the Chieftain is a good vehicle in AW. It is, at best, acceptable and only in some situations.
WG stated before that the Chief is unlikely to be a medium because of the gun caliber.
But then again, there are tanks like the Caernarvon that have comparatively low calibers so…
The chieftain in AW, just like the Merkava IIb is shamelessly overtiered, it should be tier 3 or tier 4 at most
it’s obvious the Chieftain is overtiered, it’s only slightly better protected than other contemporary 1st generation MBTs like M60 and Leopard 1, sure it has more firepower but less mobility
of course in AW it should be a tier 4
And once again they managed not to tell anything about when the FV215b switch will take place, if ever, regardless the direct question. Neither did they tell WHAT it will be replaced by. They babbled a bit about the naming process of made-up vehicles (seriously?) and the improved Conqueror versions (nothing we haven’t heard before), and that’s it. The part “this new Conqueror vehicle…” can be interpreted as declaring that this Super Conqeror/Conqueror Mk II./whatever will be the replacement, but I’ve learned a long time ago not to take seriously anything even a bit dubious they say.
You do realize that none of these people actually work for Wargaming and so wouldn’t actually have that kind of information, right? I would hope you’re intelligent enough to realize that these are British tank experts who happen to have a bit of knowledge and NOT Wargaming employees.
Yes, as said, we aren’t wargaming employees, nor do we have any knowledge of internal wargaming information (such as the FV215 switch). We’re just researchers and have proposals and findings of our own.
“Feel free to put any historical and in-game related questions in the comment section bellow.” Then shouldn’t have put that in-game related part in there, if you can’t answer them…
Plenty of questions relate to in game aspects.
To give such an example.
Is the FV304 the correct size after the change?
“Then shouldn’t have put that in-game related part in there, if you can’t answer them”.
There are plenty more “in-game related” questions that people, who are NOT developers, can’t answer. Like anything related to internal code. Boohoo. Let’s burn them all at stake because they didn’t give us candy. Boohoo.
It’ll be interesting to see where they place the Tetrarch – if they give it the option of using the QF 2-pdr with Littlejohn adapter or 3-inch howitzer, I guess it’ll have to be at least tier 3.
I’d imagine so, with the Harry Hopkins at tier 4 with the same gun selection.
Yes Black Prince could get better engine, cuz there was plans to give it better. But if Nazi Germans had plans to make better engine into Tank and TD they build, WG balance team say this will be imbalanced, and unhistorical and Tiger 2 or JT can dream of 900 HP engine….
But Comrade, IS 3 with vodka engine np, 700 HP made by Serb, np….
Currently the Black Prince has the 600hp Rolls-Royce Meteor as its top engine option, the problem at the moment is that It’s speed capped in the game, it’ll only do a max of about 20kmph even going down hills. Mr A.R Code (Deputy Director of tank production, Automotive division, Ministry of Supply) was in charge of the study and design work for the engine and his estimates were that with the Meteor the tank would go about 22.2 mph, so in game It should actually be able to go about 30-35 km with the Meteor.
*sources – Mr Churchill’s tank (David Fletcher), My own personal research
I dont’ say BP should not get new engine. But same plans was for Tiger 2, in August 1945, they planned to give Tiger 2 900 HP engine, and after Tiger 2, JT was. Too bad for Dev this is unhistorical idea, yet still IS 3 has 700 HP engine, that is pure fake….
Well, LTTB has fake 550HP engine when real requirements only mentioned 300-ish HP. That’s because “historical accuracy” is very important to WG.
Well, if tank is Nazi, or some US, UK. But if WG add engines to Soviet tanks….well best they can made off.
Please keep organizing these Q&A’s, great stuff. I regret not asking about the Harry Hopkins tank or the “legendary” climbing ability of Churchill tanks… or the alarming difference of performance between the Churchill and Churchill VII. Would really love to see the British tech tree be expanded more because there is just so much potential for more vehicles.
We are going to be selecting some questions that are asked in the comments through these three parts. We can’t answer everything, but if a good question is posted, we’d be happy to answer it.
So, ask away.
Q&A: Its 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? Q&A: 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? Q&A: 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? 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!
Were there any plans to upgun A11 tank with anything heavier than .50-cal MG? Maybe 20mm guns or so?
“It is worth mentioning that the increase in the size of the FV304 in patch 9.15 is historically accurate. The current (9.14 and earlier) size is far too small.”
Didnt WG say that they may do exceptions about historical accuracy if it is better for the gameplay ?
Because this arty requires to be within 500m range from its targets (so often 300-400m) and it became as tall as the Maus hull. How are you gonna fit your role of being close to the ennemy and stay hidden because you have no life nor armor, when you get this size ?? At that point give it the choice of a normal long-range gun or lower its tier or do something to compensate for this huge nerf… The tank already got nerfed in mobility, in dpm, now in size, if they think its too good and cant balance it without breaking it they can just replace it…
I guess this means extra work when they get to tier 6 in SB
I keep reading this nonsense. Does nobody know how to play the FV? You park it behind something that breaks line of sight. A house, a rock, you name it. It is not that hard. If you want to rely on camo values, you are playing the wrong kind of vehicle altogether.
Technically speaking it should also have better traverse as well.
With the shell arc of the FV, you park behind cover and shoot over it.
Its arty, you don’t need line of sight.
Correction when theres nothing to park behind nor your camos crap and most tiwr 8-7 have a view range above 455 lets not mention your as big as a house even hiding behind cover wont save your ass i have over 2k battles in my fv304 No it needs the size reduction to fuction in the game.. im quiting wot i promise you i am the moment it hits live im done seeing “”Easy mode for idiots”” Rita im dead serious on this ill be done with wot i havent played it since hearing about the and seeing the size change Oh and e25 is bigger in real life OH OH its a prem WHO CARES it needs the tiny size to fuction if it needs to be in a range of 400-300 range Undo the size change its unfair give it a bigger gun so it can be a better arty -.- now the fv304 is shit.. oh flank falls cant fun away cayse im as big as a fucken house now
Wawawawawawawa @ RAGNAROKBAZIL
You are such a cry baby, just delete your WoT account already. No one will miss you.
PS. Rita is neither the boss of Wargaming nor an employee, she cannot make them do something because RAGNAROKBAby is crying.
PS. 2. The world’s not “fair” and does not revolve around you.
Nice Q&A. Thanks guys. I do wonder, none of you is in a position to know anything about future content releases from WG, right? So how is that you can tell that certain tanks are going to be implemented?
That’s not strictly correct, but we are unable to discuss it further.
Well, one example of how that may not end up being the case: say that some of them are contacted by WG to help gather info for certain vehicles. Either they could be told by WG along with that, or at the very least it gives an idea of what WG is currently interested which suggests what they could be planning. However, if they are sworn to keep any agreements a secret then they may only hint back to us, or if it is only looks like mild interest in designs then they can only provide more reliable speculation.
interesting i was under the impression the the uk tree was really struggling for lt designs so its nice to see theres the potential for 2 lines thats awesome i like lights even though their kinda just more difficult to play mediums they can be so much fun 🙂 would really like to see them come in after the crusader or covenanter and i do like to see designs which never left paper or never got past the prototype stage just because i like to see things which never got to see the light of day in real life. i do hate totally fake things which dont fit the lines in game their in the best example being the t28 prot which is just a dumb tank for that line it doesnt get the strong turret of the t30 it doesnt get the speed of the hellcat or t25/2 yet its still there because screw you… it makes no sense for that thing to be in that line. most other thing which are paper based or they are fabe BUT at least make sense in their lines like the e50m a tank i love and makes perfect sense for the line its in.
the chieftain is such a titanicly over hyped tank even in aw its hull armour other than the upper front plate and beak is total shit think of it like wots m103 theres one area that can bounce stuff everywhere else is trash as far as i remember even the side armour isnt thick enough to sidescrape so we are going to get yet ANOTHER tank thats not worth a fuck unless its hull down do we need any more of those right now? we really dont. look i want to see the chief as much as anyone else would but i can see why wg is being slow about putting it in due to its hyped up status. if its shit people will lose their god dam minds so their going to have to make it the new t110e5 to keep people who want it happy but then everyone else is stuck dealing with another op tank its a lose lose situation. after the global rebalance yeah get it in there asap but before that just wait i trust wg since they changed the direction their taking the game in and got some of the old devs back in to the games development.
I agree with you. If chieftain doesn’t come with stats according to people’s wish, its gonna piss a lot of people. Some players think chieftain as a supertank which wil be good at everything- dpm, armour, mobility.
Compared to a lot of its historical contemporaries: Leopard 1, AMX 30, M60, T-62 etc it IS well armoured. If they add it as a medium, which arguably would make more sense given that the others are mediums, then it will actually be one of the most well armoured mediums in the game.
Also you could argue that the main plus about the Chieftain IRL wasn’t the armour, it was the gun. Largest in NATO for a good length of time, and even firing L15A3 or L15A4 APDS it could punch through the composite hull of a T-64 via sheer kinetic power given the right range (worth noting that the main advantage of composite being the added protection against HEAT which the other NATO MBTs would have).
The T-64 and M60A1 are just as well armored
Good lord finally I am not the only one say these over and over again.
Numbers are saying Chieftain is crap for hull armour even from the front in WoT.
Simply because even 155-58 has 95 HE pen, 85mm UFP it can hull down nowhere without a rock.
Lets not forget 330 HEAT will pen UFP angling at 75 deg.
Thank you for taking time to answer all the questions.
Your welcome.
There are another two parts yet, though. We had all the questions on one sheet at first, and to say it was a little long would be putting it mildly. If you have any questions that you forgot to ask, or we answered something which made you think of another, feel free to ask them here or in another part. We’ll be taking a look through the comments of each part in case of such questions.
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?
Rita, will you man up and finally write a post about how bad AW bundles have gotten? Please? Show us you aren’t in their pocket, show us you really care about the game and aren’t just paid to say good things
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 couple of things; Soviet Penetration standards are different (75% success rate, for example, versus 50% success rate of American and UK Standard) meaning that more shells have to penetrate on average to be considered a critical penetration. Directly comparing soviet to UK (or American) penetration is oftentimes difficult for this reason.
The soviets used different methodology, and I generally only compare similar testing requirements to eachother.
You people are being played just like little kids.So glad Im not playing this crap anymore.
British light tanks could start at tier 2, British tetrarch will be different from the premium one (tetrarch was tested with Little-john adapter and tetrarch CS has got 3″ howitzer, WG could add harry hopkins too.
For tiers 5-10 there are: FV101 Scorpion, FV301, Scorpion 90, Vickers 24 t, FV4401 Prodigal (with 17 pdr autoloader – hard to google it ) and more that I dont know 😀 this is what I choose for my tech tree proposal.
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
Will we get 2nd medium line? Is there enough material to do this?
Will we get 2nd medium line? Is there enough info to do such branch?
What do you think the chances of the post-war Churchill VII AVRE with L9 165mm and Centurion AVRE with the L9 165mm and dozer blade being implemented?
The low velocity HESH spam would be fun at least (Like the 3.7inch howitzer only more boom)
And BTW Rita, WOT don’t use “flat” penetration numbers for all guns in wot. Some used it, but some don’t. Most German guns use number for 30 degree angled homogeneous plate, not 0 degree.
This is one big lie, about penetrations!!!!
IF we look on tier 5 meds, we have Sherman, PZ 4, T34 etc. All tank in there use point blank range, 0 degree plate, penetrations value for guns, all but no German one. PZ 4 use pen for 30 degree angle, and it have much less pen, then other guns.
Example: Sherman 75 mm gun have 128 AP, 177 APCR, where PZ 4 has 110 AP, 158 APCR…
Funny is, that American and British claimed that pen for 75mm L\48 gun, for 0 degree angled plate, on 100 meter was 135 AP, 177 APCR, and for 30 degree they said, 110 AP, 143 APCR….
But Wot don’t use for this gun, penetration numbers from “flat” plate, but from angled one…
Because American standards give inflated values. Converting non-American penetration values to American standard would give higher penetration values to most guns in the game.
One issue re true penetration values is this tends to be restricted information for each country they will not publish real values. It’s like speeds of ships you will never know unless you have the access to the secret info
So Soviet tank should get better, US, UK, but no Nazi Germans…yes we all know why….
Atomicemu
57 mm Zis 4 have overbuffed pen, to 0 degree angled. They use US pen table…cuz balance….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2) – look there, and compere to game one….which one is closer ?
Not really. Most WW2 Era stuff is long past being considered secret. Most stuff, even from the 1960s is easily accessible at a military archive.
@Ares: What.
In the link you posted it clearly says: “These data was obtained by Soviet methods of armour penetration measurement (penetration probability equals 75%). They are not directly comparable with western data of similar type”.
To compare, World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery gives the ZiS-2 134 mm (AP) and 160 mm (APBC).
The fact is, that is the ‘official’ WG statement. They officially use flat (0 degrees) penetration. For balance purposes, it’s said they use anywhere from 0 to 100m to for the actual number to represent point blank, allowing for some play or variation in actual penetration versus in game.
So for this mystery gun on Valentine, do you guys know where it comes from? I know taht Canada had a few improved, longer barreled versions of the 2 pounder, such as the David gun so I wonder if it may be one of those.
[…] British Q&A – Part 1 & British Q&A – Part […]
[…] British Q&A Part 1 […]