Author: Priory_of_Sion
Earlier I was reading through some Q&As SilentStalker posted and I ran into these.
- Q: “Is the T110E4 armor historical?” A: “Well, give us the data of the REAL E4, we’ll be happy to have a look at it”
- the source for T110E3, E4 and E5 tanks is the Hunnicutt: Firepower book
This is a strange response by SerB. Honestly either he cannot read or someone has tampered his $200+ Firepower book. I’m going to try to set things straight with the T110E4.
Before I jump into Hunnicutt lets see what The_Chieftain had to say about the T110E4′s historical background back when the first screenshots came out (had to go digging in the “Epic Thread” for this one).
The info in Firepower tells this about the T110E4: The T110E4 was Chrysler’s response to the problems in their T110E3 design(power pack issues). The T110E4 was planned with a AOI-1490 located in the rear of the hull along with the transmission. The rear section of the hull was to be covered with infrared shielding. The main weapon of the T110 series (the T123 120 mm gun, prototype to the M58) was to be mounted in a gimbal ring mount(aka what the SU-85 & the T110E3 have).This arrangement gave the T110E4 15 degrees of movement either left or right and -10 to +20 degrees of depression/elevation. The gun mantlet was to weight ~2 tons and would be ~230 mm thick without any curvature being taken into consideration. The rest of the T110E4′s hull was to be protected by 127 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees(254 mm of effective armor). There was to be 4 crew members with the driver and gunner being located uncomfortably in the front of the vehicle wedged against 127 mm of armor. The cupola was to have a .30 caliber MG and was to use an OPTAR rangefinder(using pulsed light instead of a laser which haven’t been discovered yet) .
There is no mention of any 180 degree turret in Hunnicutt’s book. There are even diagrams of the T110E4 that show it is impossible for there to be a turret because of the mantlet, the engine deck, and the lack of anything resembling a turret traverse mechanism.
The last image is the most detailed view of the T110E4 and has no signs of any 180 degree turret.
It is really sad that SerB claims to use Firepower as a source for the T110E4 but it has no information to support the T110E4 in WoT and rather destroys the idea of WG’s T110E4. The turret, the gun, and the armor(the armor values are actually pretty close, but they aren’t exactly the same due to WG’s imagining of the T110 series hull shape and the stupid turret on the E4–I sorta guess SerB’s first post is as bad as I originally thought, oh well) is all pretty messed up on WG’s T110E4. It would be a sign of intelligence to admit the T110E4 is a fake rather than making yourself look like you are illiterate and blind.
Sorry if this was sorta unorganized, I was kinda ranting and going in a hurry.
Source: Firepower
To be honest, SerB’s response did sound more like ‘Hurr, e4 wasn’t ever real so we can do what we want’ rather than ‘Durr, it’s like the one in the thing with letters and pictures’. That’s as close as admitting the t110e4 is made up as you’re going to get from them…
I thought about that around halfway through writing this up, I didn’t really want to start over…
That said you still don’t really know what is going on in his head.
Even if it is a troll response other than stupidity, my write up summarizes the T110E4 rather well IMO.
Why would something that has a traverse able gun mount even have an additional rotating turret, that doesn’t really makes sense. I know the japs did that with some tanks (ChiHa), but with a gun this size ? Na. That E4 clearly is turretless ..
The M60 Patton has a fully rotatable commander’s cupola with a MG
that isn’t the same as being able to traverse a tank gun within a system that can itself traverse
I like the look of the books design better but I do like the extra turret movement in WG’s version.
I would go with the original design for the game. Looks sexier.
It seems the T110E3 should actually be renamed to T110E4, and they should just replace the T110E4 with something more historical.
Or we could go with the more retarded option and remodel the T110E3 to the ACTUAL T110E3 and keep the T110E4 the same, or replace it, I don’t know.
Here’s the pictures of the real T110E4 and T110E3′s.
http://i.imgur.com/Ul7BZ.png
You can see that the T110E3 blueprint looks VERY different from the in-game E3. The E4 from this picture is actually the E3 in-game.
I think you are confusing the T110E1, T110E2, and the Detroit Arsenal T110E3 with the Chrysler T110E3/E4. The only visible difference between the Chrysler T110E3 and the E4 was that the E4 was slightly longer due to the improved powerpack.
Well, err, yeah. But you get what I mean though.
Anyways, what did the T110E3′s blueprint look like?
Like the T110E4 but not as much junk in the trunk.
I don’t have any pics but that is what Hunnicutt seems to suggest.
I believe T58 is a good replacement.
T58 is already in game, or to be precise – T57 had option to mount T58 turret and 155mm gun, these are modeled so you can mess around if you want that much T58.
Yeah…this is why i’m a strong supporter of this here thread gaining popularity on the forums: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/241234-replace-the-t110e4-with-the/
It presents a viable, HISTORICAL alternative to the T110E’Fake’. Ok sure, it had a 6 drum magazine, but for in-game balance purposes that could be cut in half perhaps. There are a lot more details within the opening post of the thread itself, but i think it deserves a good look by anyone interesting in dethroning the T110E4, so show your support :)
Oh hey, thanks.. you saved me the trouble of posting the link :)
I’d *really* like to see that suggestion take flight, or if FTR’s US Armor experts to add some more facts and figures and insight to it in a blog here.
Unfortunately until WG decides that they have any semblance of creativity we won’t see the T58 for balance reasons.
I still love T11 E3, best TD out there along with Foch 55 and Object 263 :D
and 110 E4 ? Ugly thing, I rather not touch that thing :D
I cannot rid myself of the impression that SerB has a tendency of resorting to arrogance when he wants to avoid telling people the truth.
He tries to cover his incompetence with trolling.
as soon you look in history books,you realize that most of tanks in Wot are pure ”magic” from our ”uber smart” devs…..nothing more nothing less….
i start to LOL every time they mention ”historical accuracy”
welcome to World of Faketanks
Where idiots are still paying for this shit.
Gotta say this.
1) Kudos to the author, i’ve been looking for “firepower” all over to get a glimpse at the t110 projects. Really grateful.
2) The way you describe the E4 (without any turret whatsoever and with a 30deg horizontal angle for the gun itself) – seems like WG actually did a better job. As i see it a 130mm frontal glacis would suck on T10 battles, and having no turret would give it exactly no point as a T10 TD, with the E3 being pretty much the same.
SerB, the Propaganda Minister of Wargaming
Anyone for teh T95 on tier 10 then?
Can somebody please post a qustion on the Russian Q&A, wth this post linked/copied in? I’d love to see how/what SerB would troll on it :))
I can already tell you his response “Want realism? Join the army.”
The only flaw in his trolling logic is that it doesn’t matter if I join the army, I still won’t be able to drive around with a T110E4 (without a turret), shooting a Maus. Lol!
E4 is… odd. Hull like E5, but turret… It’s both advantage and disadvantage. I would preffer T58. T57 with 155 mm gun, 3 rounds clip. And some resonable reloading time (instead of armor).