What are you doing?





Humor aside, this is the Falcon(the flying one) and the Aerie which are among the strangest vehicles proposed by the US right next to the DAPRA “humvee-copter” in my opinion. Back in 1955 the Ordnance Tank Automotive Command(OTAC) designed a new medium tank, a light airborne tank, and an aerial recon vehicle/carrier of said aerial vehicle.

The 1.5 ton Falcon was powered by a radial engine and was to have the flight characteristics of a helicopter(VTOL). It could hover or could fly at speeds near 161 km/h. The Falcon was armed with a .30 caliber MG and ten 4.5 inch rockets(basic rockets in use at the time). 25.6 mm of titanium armor was to protect the Falcon’s pilot.  A parachute feature was also developed.

The Aerie tracked vehicle was based on the Rex tank(the medium tank of the OTAC which  later helped in the T95′s development–a subject for another day) and weighed ~20 tons. The Aerie and the Falcon did not progress very far in development and there is a near certainty these won’t be in WoT ever, would be a good laugh though.

Source: Hunnicutt’s Abrams


The Maus had these armor values:

Maus Armor according to Panzer Tracts 6-3 (Jentz/Doyle)

I ran across a few threads recently that stated the Maus in WoT has had its armor nerfed from real life. In actuality it is the other way around.

53 thoughts on “America….

  1. Ah, this would have been the period when urban planners quite seriously envisaged multiple helo fields around the city for public transportation and whatnot. (My mother used to work as a civil servant in such an organ and is duly well versed in Idiotic Plans Over The Decades.)

    What IS it with newfangled technologies that makes people think those will go well with *anything* while leaving reality checks at the door…?

  2. You what else is funny? The IS-7 had it’s armor buffed from real life standards.

    • IS-7 armor is correct. Players measured Kubinka IS-7 (model 1948) using Ultrasonic thickness gauge, and devs changed in-game IS-7 armor according to this data.

        • Oh, because I only read the prime few sentences that actually pop out to me, this is totally true/sarcasm, and the IS-7′s armor is 35mm thicker than historically accurate.

          I am still waiting for the S-35 Med’s armor to be buffed to 47mm, but again, it probably won’t happen even though it would be a historical buff.

  3. I am not a defensor of WG, but in this case i dont see the nerf. Frontal is the same, except for the 100 MM extra of spaced armor. Side armor in wot is 185, back armor in wot is 165. Frontal turret is 240 now in wot. So i see the same armor

      • turret is not that important, before the surge of 300 mm pen guns Maus turret was awesome with it’s 220 mm armor, but the important thing is: How thick is lfp in game? It doesn’t feel like 200mm.

        • Maus LFP is correct(WotGuru). It is just that 200 mm sloped back at 35 degrees only gives ~245 mm of protection even without normalization.

      • “The buffed maus? OMG fucking russian bias!!!!!!!!” … oh wait …

  4. >In actuality it is the other way around.
    It’s almost always the other way around, but you know, whiners gonna whine.

  5. Well, at least we didn’t try to put a TOG into production… Or a Char 2B (and company/series)

    Also the Russians liked the Flying Tank idea as did the Germans and Brits. The Germans put the tanks inside gliders and the British proposed strapping them to the underside of bombers and iirc we tried to proposes something similar with the Locust….

    • Yeah, you were going to attack them with STEAM TANKS…
      …instead. (Also wtf is “Char 2B” supposed to be? I know of a 2C…)

      Aside from a bursting boiler promptly charbroiling the whole crew as soon as it gets hit, *what* could go wrong? (Trying to give paratroopers *some* manner of organic armour support is BTW a perfectly sound idea, as the buggers were and remain painfully lightly armed compared to normal line formations.)

      • British K class submarine. Just as bad as a Steam tank.

        Must have been asleep on the whole Char thing. =)

        Besides ,who does not line steam tanks =)

        • IDK, the stokers and everyone who has to be in the thing when the boiler’s been warmed up (particularly once combat damage starts causing steam leaks…)? :/

          From what I can see the K-class can at least excuse itself by the steam turbines being the only available powerplant able to deliver the kind of performance its envisaged mission envelope required – that the *latter* was flawed is another issue entirely. Not seeing what excuses the designers of the steam tanks for not going with internal combustion engines from the beginning.

          • The engines were not very reliable in the power size/HP range requested at the time. iirc. There were several other reasons for using steam but it has been a long time since I read up on them.

          • Everyone else seemed to manage. And steam engines have their own issues, one of the more obvious here the inclusing considerable amounts of heat and very hot pressurised steam worrisomely close to the crew.

  6. Yes seems like a slight buff, but who says, that they didn’t measure the real Maus in Kubinka?

    Maybe the wot stats are real? Just sayin…

  7. About the Maus
    the tolerances for plate thickness -0 / +5 % !!!!
    Only place that has been “BUFFED” is front turret if you could call it a buff .
    Just my 2 cents

      • And again, who says, that wargaming did not meassure the MAUS like the IS7?

        Who says that this is the only(!) chart/blueprint existing with armor thickness?
        And if these are the only pubicly known charts, why does SS imply wargaming, that they have unhistorical buffed the maus?

        And even if so, this time i have to agree with wargaming(i rarely do), they could do everything 100% historical. But who would play the game? If it’s such a small variance i am fine with it. It’s not like that maus is the best tier X, is it?

        And again maybe there were measurements at kubinka and maybe they had other sources.

        And if this is realy a problem for you, than nerf it historical, put it into tier 9 with less Hitpoints and enginepower.
        MAUS II should be then new tier X

        Just my 2cents

        • As long as german tank is buffed everything is fine…
          German crykids and their double standards…

          • Don’t you think you stigmatize players of the german line a little bit too much?
            Seems like you didn’t read exactly what i’ve wrote.

            I don’t even own the maus and won’t own it in the future.
            From that point of view, wg you are free to nerf it.

            But for my taste too many people believe things as soon as a paper is existing.
            This is the only one known so far. Yes Panzertracts is a very good source, i know.

            But this is the one and only blueprint with numbers so far and as a eduacated human you have to be a little bit critical about such new infos.
            For me, i will wait what others/wargaming has to say about it.
            Especially if they have measurred the real Maus.

          • “Crykids” isn’t a real word, silly. Using it makes you sound like a mentally deficient mongoloid (which you probably are).

  8. I think devs should give ”historical” armor stats and less hp nerf to Maus and move it to IX tier, and put something like made up “Maus III” (made up like that USA X TDs). What do you think about this idea?

    • WG won’t implement something completely fictional like that.

      The T110 TD’s, T28 prototype, etc etc etc are at least vaguely based on someething real, or “interpreted” from something real.

      A “Maus III” would be fictional from the ground up. There just wouldn’t be a point.

    • It’s more obvious from these drawins, but… isn’t the pilot’s visibility actually kind of *really bad* what with the rotor cowl in the way and all? The fundamental crackpottery of the whole concept aside, that’s just plain lousy design all the more so for a supposed recon machine.

      • On the bright side, if they did launch one or two they would be good for their “what the FUCK is that in the air?” stun effect for…the first thirty seconds or so before the enemy opened fire.

        Maybe they could have functioned like light tanks do in WoT, zipping over and behind enemy tanks and letting the rest of the allied force stomp the front lines while the enemy struggles to get their guns around and blow the scout out of the air :v
        In all seriousness though, something that small, going 160kph-ish, would be pretty hard to shoot at I’d imagine. It wouldn’t necessarily be a death sentence for the pilot to send them in so they could cause havok behind enemy lines.

        • Close-bracket AA was designed to engage fair bit faster targets you know, and though no aviation engineer I have major doubts as to the actual performance that design would be capable of. Or the amount of havoc a lone .30-caliber MG haphazardly operated by a singularly overworked pilot in a freaking metallic flying Easter egg with very poor visibility could wreak – the rockets ought to be good for fireworks at least, though.

          Anyways, good luck actually landing it back on the carrier without major operational losses from all manners of amusing errors and misjudgements…

  9. Maus is clear example of russian bias! ..oh wait…

    Fanboy tardheads…

    • you mean like, forever repeating mantra of every noob that secretly faps to german tanks so when he cant be like wittman he blasts away with acusations of bias? bitch please… i’m mocking every person who used german bias like an argument, EVER, and they deserve all the *point and laugh mockingly* they can get…

  10. There has to be something the Germans developed that is WW2 or post WW2 that would be an adequate substitute for the Maus.

    • *Post* WW2? LOLNO, the place wasn’t run by a raving lunatic of a despot anymore which sort of tends to put a damper on batshit crazy and blatantly useless ideas getting a budget.