looks like most people are looking forward to the Japanese tanks :) Me too. We should have a new article on them by Soukoudragon lined up soon – and this time it’s going to be very interesting :)
New poll though!
Short background: As you probably know from the translations, Wargaming is looking for tier 10 tank candidates for random rewards (top players in randoms recieving rewards just like the top clanwars clans now) – but the problem is, it has to be a tank not fitting into/planned for regular branches.
Well, we have one: the Weserhütte Tiger, also known as E-75 Ausf.W. It looks cool, it’s balanced, it doesn’t fit into regular branches and – what’s really important – it’s actually (well, partially) historical.
The real question is: do YOU, readers, like it? Would you want such a vehicle in game? Please, answer in the poll :)
today, we are going to have a look at the upcoming Soviet (possibly) T8 medium, designated Object 416.
Some time ago, official descriptions of upcoming vehicles were leaked from the supertest. Object 416 was amongst them, here’s how it is described by Wargaming:
The Object 416 was a medium tank developed by the Construction Bureau of Plant No. 75 starting in 1949. An early prototype was completed by March 1950. Due to problems with the turret, the prototype was not operational until the end of April 1952. By the summer of 1953, the prototype was tested and upgraded. The vehicle passed trials, but never entered mass production.
History
Initially, the vehicle was concieved at Kharkov Plant no.75 (which is logical, the new medium branch can be called a “Kharkov”) branch. The goal of the project was to create an entirely new tank, that would be as much protected as possible while weighting as little as possible. The technical project for it was finished in 1950.
In 1951, a prototype was built. Preliminary tests revealed a number of defects, most of which had to do with drivetrain and suspension reliability. The extremely low height of the vehicle (implemented so that the frontal silhouette is as small as possible) had also severe impact on crew operation – the tank was simply too small to do anything in! Since it proved practically impossible to drive the vehicle and fire the gun simultaneously, the work on the prototype was stopped and “Object 416″ was redesignated into a self-propelled gun, recieving an official designation of SU-100M.
In 1952, SU-100M passed the tests, but it was never adopted in service. The reason for that was that in most parameters, SU-100M was basically equal to SU-100P (and in some parameters it was even worse), which was serially produced since 1952 – and therefore there was no need to implement it.
Characteristics
The vehicle is really tiny (length: 7940mm, width 3240mm, height only 1823mm – that’s 2cm higher than the AMX ELC), but light (24 tons) and somewhat decently armored (60mm front, 45mm sides). It’s propelled by a 400hp engine and armed with a 100mm gun.
Crew: 4 (consider how small the tank is)
Weight: 24 tons
Engine: 400hp V12 diesel
Power to weight ratio: 16,7 hp/t
Maximum speed: 45 km/h
Hull armor: 60mm/45mm/45mm
Turret armor: front 110mm (+110mm mantlet)
Gun: 100mm L/58 M-63 (it was developed from the D-10T, it has a wedge breech, in order to stabilize it for the smaller vehicle, it recieved a muzzle brake and the ROF was lowered, generally I think its performance will resemble the D-10T, as both guns fire the same ammunition)
Gun depression/elevation: -5/+30
In the game
Basically, what we have here will be possibly the Soviet AMX ELC with fully traverseable turret, but without the deadly gun. It will most likely have awesome camo rating, but without a buffed engine, its mobility will be good to mediocre – and the gun won’t help, unless (again) it gets another gun option, or a buff. Personally, I think Wargaming will try to make it into a maneuvering brawler, that could – with its low height – be seriously annoying to fight on close ranges. We’ll just have to see.
First, some answers from Storm from the discussion under the Odessa errata.
- the T-44-122 (the picture was leaked earlier today) will not be the Soviet premium tank
- A branch with Sturmtiger and Brummbär? “No comment”
- graphics are optimized in every patch
- the sounds are fine, other sound effects have been delayed, but they will come
- the separation of random and company player statistics is planned
- dynamic tank stats in hangar won’t come in 2013
- IS-3 model in game is very similiar to the real one, model problems will be corrected en masse during the model re-work
- chat windows in hangar that don’t close bug will be fixed
- anti-aliasing is being worked on
- the reason for the new T10 tanks was to stir up the clanwars situation, they weren’t expensive to make
- client physics will most likely not come in 2013, because all the models need to be reworked for it. It’s a lot of work. The technology itself however is fully functional.
- Waffentrager E-100 will not be slow, it will have less armor than the classic E-100 chassis.
- T-50-2/MT-25 switch will come soon
- Superpershing did not historically have a 704hp engine and his ROF won’t apparently be buffed
Back to regular Q&A:
- Q: “What kind of arty does the King of Jordan, who plays WoT, have?” A:”This one.”
- SerB on anime: “Watched Miyazaki (SS: whatever that is), I liked it. Watched Rocket Girls. Watched Girls und Panzer, didn’t like other animes very much.”
- removing equipment and buying tank slots for credits won’t be implemented
Bonus:
Russians making fun of EU players being “butthurt” that they don’t get their miniquests and that they do. Hmmm… earlier there was a set of two pictures of one player, who basically gained 17 million credits over weekend in the event…
Bonus 2, from supertest (source is the same as the pics): If I understand it correctly, there will be a lot of new “hit” variants, the tank hit system is being reworked and there will apparently be more hit decals. There will also be additional info on shots available.
Czech PC gaming portal “Bonusweb” made an interview with the chief of international Wargaming PR section, Artur Protopopov during his stay at the E3 fair in Los Angeles. Here’s a translation from Czech, what it is about
Q: You don’t seem to cover the fact that you are surprised by the World of Tanks success. What do you think is the reason for it?
A: I think it’s a combination of several factors. First, it’s the free to play business model, which breaks down the barrier between the gamers and us. You don’t have to for example pay 40 dollars to access the game. The game environment is also important. Try asking a 5-year old boy, what’s more interesting: a Ferrari, or a tank? He’ll definitely pick the tank. And so the nice environment, the business model and detailed, but easy to grasp game principles all play a role.
Q: Competition between free to play games is fierce. Have you put a lot of effort in advertising the game, or did the people find you themselves and passed the info between each other afterwards?
A: You can’t simply make an online game and ignore the marketing. Yes, we work hard on both positioning and advertising campaigns. The goal is to ensure that waves of new players continuously join the game. We are also doing a lot to draw the players that already left the game back to it. We visit game fairs and try to increase our gamer base all the time. However, in some countries the referencing gains are so strong that we actually have to stop advertising campaigns from time to time, for example in Russia.
Q: Some of the aforementioned things are relatively expensive. I therefore assume that those things came with success. How was it in the beginning?
A: Five years ago, we didn’t have money to visit fairs such as the E3. Back then, me and several other people were travelling around Europe. We visited various journalists, to whom we presented our game and explained, how it could become successful. Some were very hard to convince. And I am not speaking about Russian press. Everybody said “Guys, you’ll be broke in a couple of months. This won’t work.”. So yes, we started small and now we are getting bigger.
Q: It’s obvious from the official company statements that your management practices are modern. What’s your vision for next five or ten years?
A: That’s a good, but also complicated question. From our newest announcement you can guess that we will expand to other platforms. We do understand the fact that only PC game development is not enough. That’s why we work currently on World of Tanks for Xbox 360 and on World of Tanks Blitz for mobile platforms.
As for our plans for next 5 years – that’s hard to say. Currently, we are focusing on the three big games from the wargame series and we have acquired another game studio, the Gas Powered Games, led by Chris Taylor. They are working on a yet unnanounced game, that will however be big and detailed.
You must also understand that when it comes to online games, you can’t just dish out a title and forget about it. World of Tanks came out 3 years ago in Russia, but around 800 people are still working on it. In next three to five years, we will still develop World of Tanks, Warplanes and Warships. We will also work on one or two big games we haven’t announced yet.
Q: Will you unify the three games into one world?
A: That’s a good question. Every journalist asks that one. Basically, we now have three separate titles, that we will connect on community level. Players will be able to share experience, credits etc. We will introduce the unified premium account. So, if you pay 10 dollars in World of Tanks, you’ll be able to use that in two other games. The games will also be connected thru Clan Wars. But at this moment, we are not considering unifying them thru a single battlefield.
Q: I have read that the combat principles in World of Warships are also relatively different
A: Exactly, the map size is different too. Maps for the planes are this big (*makes a big gesture*) and for tanks they are this big (*makes a smaller gesture*). Balancing them will be a big challenge. Who knows, how things will go in the future, but for now, they remain three separate projects, connected thru clan wars and community.
Q: When planning a new game, are you trying to follow the spirit of World of Tanks, or are you more innovative, risking possible negative impact on the company?
A: Connecting those three games in one world means that they must fit together economically, balance-wise and gameplay-wise. With these three games, we therefore are using the same principles. But when developing World of Tanks Blitz we can experiment more. It’s a different platform with different rules and content.
Q: Aren’t you afraid that your player base will start overlapping between the titles?
A: We aren’t afraid of that, we don’t prevent that. The premium account is connected between the games, so if you pay once and play all 3 games, we are happy. We are not greedy, we don’t want the players to pay thrice for accessing the same world. We appreciate the following recommendation between friends more. It’s more important for us to develop the community rather than make the players pay as much as possible.
Q: How would you define your company philosophy? What’s your company’s goal?
A: We have very standardized and formalized goal (SS: literally “a mission”). We offer epic on-line games with love. That’s how we define our strategic vision. But we also do understand that creating epic games takes hard work. We are already breaking records, for example with World of Tanks being in the Guiness book.
Q: You most likely won’t tell me anything, but I’ll try nevertheless. Will you tell me something about the Gas Powered Games game project?
A: Yea sure, it will come out next week! *laughs* You have to understand that they joined us not so long ago and they are still working on game prototypes. They have several possibilities and ideas, but it’s too early to tell.
Q: So that’s the unannounced console project, or…
A: Yea, that’s WOT for Xbox, that’s what we have been teasing you with.
Q: Would you like to add something before we finish?
A: Just a short message to the Czech community. You can look forward to more and more cool stuff. We are preparing a surprise to make specifically Czech players happy (SS: as if the Czech community deserves anything for their forum whining….)
Source: Kankou, Zarax and me (list of sources below)
In recent Q&A, Storm stated that while they are looking for some tier 10 vehicles to serve as reward tanks to be obtainable thru random battles, but haven’t found any. Well, here’s one they could use. Presenting: the Weserhütte Tiger!
What is it? Well, basically, to quote Kankou: Basically, a rear transmission E-75 with originally projected speed (40 km/h) and armed with an upgraded 10,5 cm KwK 46 L/68 (preferably without the muzzle brake).
History
Yes, it is (somewhat) historical – by somewhat however I mean more than GW E-100, or GW Tiger P, which are for example completely made up. This is its main advantage. Both Kankou and Zarax have been writing on the topic of Weserhütte Tiger for some time, for example here and here. Zarax tends to focus more on the truly historical side, while Kankou made a post specifically with the intent of having this vehicle introduced into the game. I will therefore quote her on this:
For those following Silentstalker or Zarax might have seen the following picture:
Long story short, Eisenwerk (steel mill) Weserhütte of Bad Oeyenhausen was a participant in the E-Series Project, and apparently was tinkering with a design for what we call the E-75. Those with sharp eyes will notice the 153.5 mm difference between the distance of the leading and end wheel for the Adler and Weserhütte design, and also a 25 mm difference between the distance of the first and last roadwheel (never mind the E-50 style suspension of Weserhütte, which is very interesting, to say the least). Zarax had written a bit on this topic (linked above), and I have studied the issue, focusing on measurements on various tanks. In this rescript, we shall be looking into conflicts between requirements, concepts, blueprints, and reality, as the purpose of the mysterious Tiger (Weserhütte) is pondered upon. The result is interesting, to say the least.
Shall we begin, Kameraden?
Dream: E-Reihe
The E-series designs were to be simpler, cheaper to produce, and more efficient than their predecessor tanks, yet their design involved only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace. In addition, they were to utilize common interchangeable parts, thereby reducing the load that came from the extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability. The five requirements given by Wa Prüf 6 were the following:
1) To achieve a very strong frontal plate, move all possible weight to the rear
2) Unify the drive train unit to simplify maintenance and service
3) Standardize all panzers into four weight classes
4) Attach all suspensions from the outside and no fighting space encumbered by through torsion bars
5) In case the front idler or any road wheels were destroyed by mines, the vehicle must be capable of proceeding by adjusting the track around the remaining wheels.
Ultimately, the E-series would represent the final standardization of German armored vehicle design.
The program used the design offices of engineering companies which had no previous experience of tanks, under the belief that this will help bring about the most original approach to the problems at hand. These companies included Klockner-Humbolt- Deutz of Ulm, makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt, and Weserhuette of Bad Oeyenhausen, all mainly component manufacturers, making things like engines, gearboxes and brakes for the larger concerns such as MAN and Daimler-Benz. It is worth knowing that not only could the ideas that formed from this project be considered the peak of German technological thought, but also that many of the components and ideas from E-50 were inherited by French tanks and also incorporated into the Indien-Panzer, eventually leading to what we know as the Leopard 1.
Of particular interest concerns the placement of the transmission. At least at the “experimental” level designers were considering rear mounted final drives as part of power pack concept to simplify maintenance. This is based on the preferably having the gearbox and final drive at the rear of the hull (as mentioned in the second requirements given by Wa Prüf 6). The technical superiority of forward drive was recognized (tests by the Germans had shown that tractive effort was far greater with front drive), but the military advantage of having the drive at the rear where it was not endangered by anti-tank fire, and the greater internal space in the fighting compartment which would result from the placement, influenced the choice of rear drive.
However, these first thoughts and proposals on future panzer requirements were never given any priority and as the war situation deteriorated. The “real“ engine/transmission package designers from Maybach never actively got involved and the armor designers certainly had not considered how a rear drive might be mounted. Wartime reality dictated that the front drive was seen as being a good enough of a solution. This would indicate that if the E-50 or E-75 had been produced, it would have had a front drive until conditions allowed the redesigning to a rear drive. Still, this does not mean that a rear transmission itself was completely ignored. E-50 and E-75 were to mount a transmission which would eventually be developed as the ZF M-4 transmission for the AMX 50. Essentially, at least conceptually it was entirely possible for a rear transmission to have been developed.
Keeping this in mind, allow us to explore the royal tank that was the basis of E-50 and E-75: Tiger II.
Royalty: Königstiger
One of the most iconic heavy tanks of World War II, Tiger II is majestic in its appearance.However, there are quite a few differences in the measurements of the hull. Some sources say 7.38 meters, another mentions 7.1 meters, and a blueprint of the Krupp plan to install the 10.5 cm gun indicates 6.8 meters. In order to analyze this, the following drawing by Mr. Doyle should serve a purpose:
According to this, the length of Tiger II from the nose to the rear armor is 6.8 meters. Once measurements include the exhausts or the front fenders do the number extend 7 meters. It seems that ultimately all the different measurements are based on where the hull is measured from, with the most related measurement concerning internal space to be 6.8 meters. In addition, the distance between the leading and end wheel is approximately 5.5 meters.
Internally, we see that quite a bit of space has been taken up by the engine room and the transmission. The engine room is approximately 1.4 meters lone when considering the floor, and the transmission is 1.1 meters long. With the positions of the engine and the transmission, we can see why the turret was placed in the middle of the hull, aside from balancing issues.
Successor: AMX 50
Unfortunately, the design of Tiger II did not survive into future, contrary to what quite a few people seem to think. Only the French, utilizing the Panthers and hiring German engineers, continued on the heavy tank technological advances of the Third Reich, and even this was only for a short while. The ultimate result (and dead end) was AMX 50.
Of particular note for this tank is that the engine and transmission were both essentially the continuation of the E-series. The engine was the Maybach HL 295 (a redesigned German gas engine in 1945 captured at Friedrichshafen by Engineer-General Joseph Molinié), which would have been used for both E-50 and E-75. Furthermore, the transmission was developed from the same designs which was to be used for E-50 and E-75. Basically, we can see what the rear transmission E-50/E-75 would have needed for it to be able to contain such an arrangement. Using the length of the hull (7.24 meters) and of the engine room floor (2.2 meters), we can attempt to see what changes are required
Application: Rear Transmission E-Series
For all purposes, both E-50 and E-75 had the same hull dimensions as Tiger II, with only the angles of the frontal armor being different (and the obvious armor thickness changes). Once you attempt to put the rear transmission into Tiger II, this happens:
The additional 0.8 meter of spaced required means that the turret itself would have to be moved forward, which in itself would collide with the forward hatch and ventilator cover, causing quite a few problems for the crew. In order for a rear transmission to have been possible, the hull itself would have to be lengthened by a minimum of 15 cm, and the turret itself moved from the formerly central position to just ahead of the engine room, which would be around 0.5 meters forward from the original location. As it happens, such a vehicle exists in WoT: E-50 Ausf. M.
From left to right, top to bottom:
“Technically, you can lower it a little. No torsion bars, no driveshaft, you can lower the engine and cut off some hull.”
“Motor group from the AMX 45″
“This wheel is no longer the drive wheel, remove clutches.”
“Move the fan grilles to cover the engine, the transmission service hatch is behind them.”
“This wheel is the leading wheel, add clutches”
“Turret moved as far up as possible so you can still open the hatches.”
The above are the notes that WG had made when developing E-50 Ausf. M, and we can see the requirements necessary for a rear transmission
E-50 Ausf. M happens to be approximately 15 cm longer than both E-50 and E-75, with the distance of the leading and end wheel being 5.6 meters and the distance of the first and last roadwheel 4.1 meters. These numbers are that used for Tiger (Weserhütte). Basically, by coincidence or design, the rear transmission E-50 Ausf. M lays out what Tiger (Weserhütte) would have been potential of if the German designers had managed to move on to a concrete rear transmission design. And as it turns out, SerB had confirmed E-50 Ausf. M is basically a redesigned Tiger (Weserhütte). Silentstalker: By the way, ever wondered, why E50 Ausf.M is called “Ausf.M”? Check the picture author’s last name.
Conclusion
For some reason, Weserhütte had made a concept design for E-75 which was different from the Adler design, in being both longer and with having a different running gear layout of six roadwheels. This design had the potential of being the basis of a rear transmission E-75, given the specific redesigning necessities being fulfulled as seen in the example of E-50 Ausf. M. Basically, we can argue that there was a historical basis for the rear transmission E-75, something which has a firmer foundation than the requirement-reliant E-50 Ausf. M. Of course, there would be the problem of redesigning the turret and such, but the conditions do exist for a tier 10 potential juggernaut which could replace the VK 72.01 (K) and with a greater historical basis.
It is certainly interesting how even in the chaos of the final months of war, the Germans were working on different ideas which could be used. Perhaps we might see something interesting in the future, or perhaps not. Nevertheless, what is certain that ultimately almost everything we see in World of Tanks has some foundations in history, and we should use this as a basis to further our own knowledge.
In World of Tanks
Well, that’s for the history lesson. And how would it look in World of Tanks?
Welcome to another edition of my Q&A! The previous one can be found here.
Q: Could you present a case for adding the Object 279 as a tier 10 heavy tank?
A: Well, the ridiculous armour angle would rival American heavy tanks for hull-down headaches. UFP and up, it’s a possible addition to the game. The only problems come when looking downward. The quadruple tracks would be a problem. On the T95, they are treated as only two tracks, but on this tank, they are much more further apart. Even if the developers do the same thing as the T95, there is still the issue of the fuel tanks in the middle of them. All of that UFP and front turret armour won’t do much when your tank burns from every shot to the relatively unprotected gas tanks. Even if you figure out how the 279 fits within game mechanics, the only way we’d ever see one at tier 10, is if we get a severely gimped version, like with the IS-7. Since SerB admitted the IS-7 to be his biggest mistake, I doubt we will see the Object 279.
Q: Could you write more about the T-32? I remember reading that some of them fought in the late stages of the Spanish Civil War, and that the design was unsuccessful because it was still a convertible tank.
A: The T-32 (or A-32, as it is more often called) was a further evolution of Koshkin’s ATG resistant tank projects. The government order was for a tank that is protected from guns with its speed, which built on the BT-7M. The result of that was the A-20. On his own initiative, Koshkin developed another tank, without a convertible drive, but with a more powerful gun, and more armour. His second prototype was weighed down to 24 tons (original mass was 19 tons) to test the reliability of its components. The tests were successful, and the development of a tank with a high velocity 76.2 mm gun and 45 mm of highly sloped front armour began. The result of that was the A-34, the precursor to the legendary T-34.
As for the A-32 seeing combat in the Spanish Civil War, that is very unlikely. Only two were built, in the spring and summer of 1939. By the spring of 1939, the situation of the Republicans was so grave, that it is highly unlikely that the Soviets would send them an untested prototype of a brand new tank.
Q: What was the BT-IS? Did the IS stand for Iosif Stalin?
A: Yes, the IS stood for Iosif Stalin, but the BT-IS tanks predate the heavy tank with a similar name by nearly a decade. The first BT-IS was the BT-2-IS, a 1934 project to improve the very flawed BT-2 tank. The prototype made all 6 wheels propel the tank in wheeled mode, instead of just two, and had a slightly redesigned hull with additional gas tanks. The tank was more agile and more survivable under fire than the BT-2, but the lack of synchronization between the road wheels and lower reliability led the project to be abandoned.
A similar project was undertaken with the BT-5-IS, in 1936. The tank also had higher off-road performance than the BT-5, and additional gas tanks. A brand new feature was the ability to convert the tank from track mode to wheeled mode without leaving the tank, in just 15 minutes. Unlike the singular BT-2-IS, 10 were built.
The BT-5-IS model 1938 project improved the BT-5-IS further. The armour was thickened and sloped at the expense of some gas tanks. No BT-IS was mass produced, but improvements from the projects were used in the BT-7 and BT-7M projects.
Q: Is it true that the V-2 engine was designed as an aircraft engine? Can you write on its history? Does it have disadvantages?
A: The engine was built as a multi-purpose diesel engine by the Kharkov Locomotive Factory (originally intended for heavy bombers, but insufficiently powerful for them). Five modifications existed by the start of the war: V-2 (BT-7M), V-2-34 (T-34), V-2K (KV-1 and KV-2), V-2V (Voroshilovets tractor), and an experimental “half” (V-4) modification for the T-50 tank. In later years, the engine was forced to higher horsepowers, such as the V-2SF and V-2SN using a centrifugal supercharger (borrowed from an aircraft engine). V-2 type engines continued to be developed for Soviet heavy tanks throughout the war. Descendants of the V-2 engine are still produced today (with not that many changes), for tractors, boats, trams, hovercrafts, locomotives, heavy trucks, and a large number of other vehicles.
Disadvantages of the engine design compared to modern alternatives include a high use of oil, loud noise, and complicated components that could be designed better today, with the use of superior manufacturing technologies. The aircraft roots of the engine also used aluminium, which was in short supply during the war, and sometimes replaced with other alloys.
Q: During the siege of Leningrad, the Kirov and Bolshevik plants produced tanks despite a lack of resources. Can you write something about these improvised constructions?
A: I have read of T-34s and KV-1s built with gasoline engines from older model tanks that were still in storage, when shipments of V-2 engines were interrupted. There were also plans to make T-34s with 45 mm guns, in the event of a shortage of 76 mm guns, but none were produced. Experimental tanks, such as the T-50 and KV-220, also took part in the siege.
Well, Storm just issued errata on Evilly’s answers. Looks like Evilly screwed up again. *sigh* Here’s the corrected info from yesterday’s “Odessa” answers:
- regarding the Superpershing: Superpershing gun was only discussed, no changes are planned, only maneuverability and terrain passability will be buffed (Storm states in comments that there is simply no reason for that and that they don’t want actually buff the tank)
- IS-7 armor IS in fact historical at this moment
- tanks don’t roll over on their back not only because it’s unplayable, but also because the game is not prepared, for example the bottoms don’t have textures and there are no normal models of track and suspension destruction
- Waffentrager E-100 will get a 128mm and a 150mm gun, with 3-6 round autoloaders (this hasn’t been decided and balanced yet) on E-100 chassis
- there is in fact no guarantee that the economic model won’t be revisited before Fall 2013, there might be some changes, depends on statistics
- regarding the “reward” T10 tanks for random battles, WG has in fact not yet found suitable candidates for this role, all the suitable tier 10 tanks belong to regular branches. WG is searching, but no promises.
- French premium medium tank will in fact NOT come in 2013, it was a mistake
- Chinese TD branch will definitely come in 2014
- regarding the ingame clanwars: in fact, there will be some new clanwars functions, that will be accessible from within the game, but the old clanwars will remain as web-based interface
- roaming New Year release is in fact not confirmed, it’s a complicated feature and tests might take long
- garage battles will definitely not come in 2013, but the developers decided to actually try to implement them in random battles, as they found interesting variants (no details)
- historical battles issues do not concern only balancing, but also implementation – the interface
- 30vs30 battles will not be delayed, they just require a huge number of technical issues and solutions, that are being implemented gradually.
Well, that’s it. Some comments:
- 7/42 will come this year (but patch number is not yet known)
- T-44 premium Soviet tank won’t come before Fall
- Sturmtiger will come in 2014
- Waffenträger Panther mockup picture:
- M60 (907 and VK7201) will NOT be obtainable thru random battles
- the 128mm is NOT the L/75 and the 150mm is NOT the L/68. In other words: expect autoloaded Jagdtiger (in worse case Maus, as there was a project to equip the Maus with autoloader) and E-100 guns. This is why we can’t have nice things…
