Storm on measures in 8.9



So, recently the germanophiles those who like to play on German tanks were worried that we didn’t put the real long gun with the 150mm autoloader. Here’s a picture especially for those who suffer with correct size ratio. This is how it would look, if we did put the real life autoloaded 150mm gun (Storm: “this construction”) on E-100 chassis:


And by the way, at this moment, the version with Jagdtiger’s top gun and an autoloader for 6 rounds is being tested.

145 thoughts on “Storm on measures in 8.9

  1. And by the way, at this moment, the version with Jagdtiger’s top gun and an autoloader for 6 rounds is being tested.

    for how much time would that reload.. 2 minutes?

  2. And by the way, at this moment, the version with Jagdtiger’s top gun and an autoloader for 6 rounds is being tested.

    Instant boner!

  3. “The version with Jagdtiger’s top gun and an autoloader for 6 rounds is being tested. ”

    LoL Fuck the 150mm then!

  4. “And by the way, at this moment, the version with Jagdtiger’s top gun and an autoloader for 6 rounds is being tested. ”

    Hmm… I do not personally like the idea of that…
    Because the top gun in Jagdtiger already reloads pretty fast anyway without autoloader…

    • Disagree. 6 500 damage rounds with a between shots time of say, 3 seconds, lets you legimately clip anything in the game in 18 seconds, with average damage for the clip at 3000- about the time it takes you to fire two Jagdtiger shells.

      Oh, and it fires APCR. With .33 accuracy. Bring it ON, OP German autoloader en route!

  5. So then how does it work on the Foch 155 if the autoloader for 150mm gun must be that large? I mean I know technology would be better but it wouldnt have gotten that much better by then. The way this picture shows the Foch 155 should at least be 2 times bigger and have no depression whatsoever

    • the gun you see there is not a tank version of it, its like an anti-tank gun verson of the 150mm autoloader i think

        • I am thinking they are saying outright this is how big the actual German 150mm autoloader project was, which is rather different. And yes, the French “revolver” approach was fundamentally different.

          • The difference is simple: The german 150mm Autoloader was to _REPLACE_ the loaders, load in the shells completely automatically.

            The french Revolver is actually taking anyone BUT the driver as loader, while it is (i think) only a few rounds stacked in a ‘magazine’.

        • I’m pretty sure most of what you’re seeing here is actually the AA-mount elevation mechanism, actually. The ‘loader machinery is the stuff around the gun proper while the magazines are the (relatively small) whitish boxes over the breech end of the gun, at the right of the picture.

    • Autoloader =! revolver
      Basically, French tanks are exactly like revolver pistols. It means the mechanism isn’t huge like what’s on the image above.

      That….. thing……. is a bloody 150mm machine gun!

  6. This looks nicer to me then the thing we get -.- and the 12.8cm gun with such a nice mh… building behind it would surely pack a good punch :D

  7. Keep in mind, with the 12.8, you will need to be exposed a while to kill an enemy, in a large vehicle with no armor whatsoever around the gun.

    • Invest in a full camo perk on every crew member and a camo net, and hang back a distance while letting your team keep them busy, and you stand a reasonable chance of getting off a full clip before you get killed.

  8. fucking fake tank. there would be so nice T10 TDs, but no … pigface want bring waffenträger ….

  9. Storm is just playing retarded. Fucking NKVD lover thats probably facility test version either to be put on E-100 or a train or something.

    Let’s just take the whole fucking rail gun facility installation, because that gun is intended for tanks and ships, but by NKVD lover logic, it would not fit, because the railgun will have to bring the test facility with it inside the tank/battleship.

  10. What the f**king hell? Some people obviously didn’t recognize that “Autoloader” doesn’t mean “You got a Gunner and rest is automatic”, in the case of the WT E-100 it just means “Some shells are loaded and get onto loading ram automatically” (They don’t have to be lifted up manually).
    Ok, sounds complicated, so watch this autoloader arty, WT E-100 is much the same:

  11. Wrong,this is nothing more than a sloppy overlap of the chassi and the gun,the scale of the gun/chassi must be wrong.

  12. The JT’s 128 with 6 rounds and a 45sec reload would work for me. Due to it having horrible armor and suspect to HE dmg with mediocre speed/agility would be a fair trade. But it’s German, so not going to happen lol.

    • Exposed way to long to be able to drop anyone. To work, needs the 15 cm with high pen. Otherwise will be too situational. Great with a platoon/support, but bad in anything else. Would have to always be 400 meters + away.

  13. Redicilous just as all WG “size reasons”.
    Of course its much harder to put the recoil force on a stationary gun into the ground.

    Thats why the constructions needs to be so massive, since the huge moment caused by the recoil force of a horizontal shot would distroy the gun otherwise.

    However, you dont have this problem with a fixed gun. The 12,8-cm-Flak 40, this barrel is half a meter longer than that of the 15 cm gerät 50, was sucessfully mounted into a enlarged VK3001(H) chassis with 35 tons for the whole vehicle, the stationary gun weights more than half of that. You might know this vehicle as sturer emil…

    • …what the fuck are you babbling about? Full-traverse AA pedestal mount versus limited-traverse AFV mounting has no relevance to the considerable bulk of the gun itself, which is the point – why do you THINK the copypasta basically disregards that part of the device?

      • I think what he meant to say is that a vehicle is capable to absorb some of the recoil, perhaps, thanks to its suspension? Physicists would have to explain. Try to hit something loose and something fixed, you will see what will crack sooner. The heck, its the whole point of shock absorbers and recoil springs on a gun (I hope I am using correct English terms, if not, you should still catch my drift). Let it move a little to ease it up. And do not forget to take into account the different angles at which an AA gun and a tank gun is supposed to operate. Also, take into consideration that the mounting of a gun in tank is implemented into turret itself, it is not like if they build a box around a gun and its mount. Also if you take a look at this , you can see the gun and its mechanism is not as big as storm tried to say with his bad joke. It is just that Flak gun has to elevate quite a bit higher that a tank gun. Or, for nice comparison, look how big is 88 on a stationary platform and look how big is Tiger II turret. If they want to keep it compact, it would not be too much bigger from the current E100 turret, just depression and elevation would suffer. They could make it bigger (the turret) to allow it for better angles, but that is just a question of priorities put into design of a tank, what a designer/customer prefers.

        And if we want to go to extremes, remember some of those drum-equipped vehicles we currently have in game which in real life needed the vehicle to stop, elevate gun into ideal position, open up and externally reload whole drum, while in game, after we spent our clip, it automatically starts to reload during fast moving and turning and jumping.

        It is more of “if someone really wants something, he will find a way and if someone really doesn’t, he will find and excuse”.

        • That’s a lot of TL;DR completely beside the point. (Also only the AMX-13 is loaded from the outside; its bigger cousins didn’t even have the roof hatches needed for such an operation.)

          • He is exactly on point. Also I am sick of troglodytes like you incapable of acquiring thoughts longer then two rows.

            • He’s very much NOT on point, as he’s babbling about the composite picture above whose point is specifically to illustrate why WG *didn’t* use that historical design and instead made up a rather compact “AFV-adapted” one for the GW E model.

    • Well the pics in Zamboni’s link above have an operator included for scale. Seems pretty big, yes. Leverage, I’d imagine.

  14. ROFL, what is that crap?
    Germans were testing a 15cm caliber assisted loading system that would have fit on a Panther waffentrager.

  15. Having both guns would be best, at least in clan wars you can put the 15 for city maps and 12.8 for more open maps.

    With at least 2 gun styles to choose from and If this thing is nimble, good camo and other soft stats then I am excited. Armor isn’t that important, look at the batchat.

      • And even with a lot of the armour gone, it is hardly going to be “nimble”.

        Basically, it will have ridiculous firepower, a turret, and possibly good depression, at the cost of pretty much everything else.

  16. both 150mm and 128mm would have around 3.2k damage clips. that means the reload for the clip will be between one and two minutes – probably closer to two

  17. can we only sell stock engine of german tanks, or other modules like gun and tracks too?
    for extra credits with 8.8

  18. Everything BIAS except for the Germans? i mean, look at the size of Fochs,with that 155 autonoob?. How in hell can the germans have that 150mm Star destroyer? Fucking russians..

    • The French autoloaders used a completely different technical solution and more to the point the Foch has a “revolver cylinder” magazine, not a huge-ass box holding God only knows how many shells.

      • just shut up wg asslicker even with 40 shelll autoloader in reality wg only let 4 shell then said us for game sake then nerf all other aspect for historical aspect.

        entire wg aspect fulll russian bias and bullshit. and they never give a shit to germans.

        • You should really see a doctor about that Tourette’s. And if you actually looked at the pics of the WT you’d know it very conspiciously lacks the Gerät’s big dual hoppers, which is perfectly sensible both to save weight and volume and because it’s not supposed to spit barrages at passing bombers from a static position. I’d hazard a guess the apparent magazine on the left side of the gun holds something like 4 shells or thereabouts.

  19. It looks like the auto loader for a coastal battery. Theres a handcranked trajectory adjustment wheel, the autoloader means it wouldnt be able to pitch up but would be quite good at pitching down, i.e. firing down from cliffs onto ships below.

      • Oh yeh yeh really ? Please explain how you elevate that thing to angles higher than 10-15° without hitting the ground or mount ?

        • …are you actually stupid or did you just post without sparing one thought to the context? The photo cut-out is this thing: Obviously, the hilarious and typical AA-mount elevation isn’t going to be relevant for what’s basically a very large self-propelled AT gun, but then again, it’s not like the modeled vehicle has the Gerät’s huge twin ammo boxes either which makes sense since it isn’t supposed to fire burst barrages at bombers from a static position.

  20. Looks like Woras has gone to bed…. Now we can finally discuss this tank. Guess the crew would have to dig out it’s rear out of the soil after a round fired It would be pointing straight upwards. LOL

  21. When I see things like this (E-100 chassis with an autoloader), I do wonder why WG even bothered making a game based on real tanks and nations. Maybe they could have made a better game that is pure fiction, would be a lot easier to balance tanks with no need for historical accuracy, Fictional nations as well, so no one will come along crying for their nations tech tree to be added, even though they only had 3 tanks in total.

    I would buy into game like that, beats entering into a battle with a Centurion and seeing an enemy team with Foch 155′s T110E3′s E4′s E5′s, E-100′s, T57′s, T69′s, Batchats, E-75′s, FV215B 183′s, and Object godknowswhatelse that never saw service.

    Honestly, I really would like a fictional tank game, makes more sense then making a game that’s somehow meant to have some historical accuracy and then adding loads of blueprint or made up tanks.

    And no I am not “whining” like someone accused me of on another post, its just I would much rather a game be either historical or, fictional.

    • I agree. The game is so full of napkin sketch and imaginary tanks already, they might as well just call it an “alternate timeline” game and just fill out any gaps in the trees with whatever looks cool. There’s a lot of “Wierd WWII” ideas to pull from that wouldn’t look any more out of place in game than the drifting ninja autoloaders in it now.

      • Because the BatChat, AMX50 and their ‘Murrican cousins weren’t real prototypes or anything…
        Also unusual and not necessarily practical but entirely feasible applications of period mechanic engineering are by no stretch in the “Weird War” territory; that’d be the kooky electromagnetic weapons, bizarre mysticism, Welteislehre, wheelform AFVs, “flying saucer” experiments and similar far-out strangeness.

      • that is some truth spoken here!

        “alternate timeline”

        this whole game is already in the alternate timeline area….

        do you seriously believe a second the germans would have mass produced that 150 ton tank machines as main tank forces? i seriously doubt it!

        Especially some ridiculous tanks like that autoloaded sort of TD without armor we will get now is just utterly made up and would have never been produced.

        This whole Waffenträger concept just came out of a urgent need of anti tank wepons against the massive soviet throw humans & tanks until nobody stands anymore tactic.
        Those used tank bodies are actually mostly thought to be artillery SPG and got refitted or just fabricated with AT to countermeasure the tanklosses.

        Long story short.. in a evened out war with the german factories intact the Plans 44-46 would have been totally different and i definitely bet on that the E-50 series would have been the Basic Platform-for-everything tank, just as the Panther was and seriously not the E100.

        • Aww… and I bet you thought that was a smart reply, I do actually tend to play the tanks that were really in service, Centurion 7/1, Conqueror, Cromwell, Churchills, IS-3, IS-4 ect.

          I don’t mind too much when Prototype tanksare added, so long as its conceivable they could have worked! But when I see things like the 100 + ton monsters in game, I do laugh a little bit, the Germans had enough problems with the Jagtiger braking its tracks and or the engine giving up.

          “Drive Centurion instead.”

          Dose that mean I have to like fighting these blueprint tanks? no it does not. You see its all well and good drawing up an amazing blueprint tank, with 300 mm armour, tiny weak spots, a massive gun…

          but when it comes to building them, well oh dear, its too heavy, cant cross bridges, gets stuck in soft ground, too slow and bulky. So now we have to lose some weight, say good by to some armour, and is that massive gun really any more effective as an anti tank weapon then our 120 mm guns?

          So you see, the tanks that actually end up in active service with an army, tends not to make you jump for joy with its armour, or the cal of its gun. They have glaring weaknesses, and get complained about on the forums constantly for being “underpowered”, but that’s only because most players are spoiled by the amount of blueprint tanks in this game.

          That’s why I think WG would have done a much better job on a fictional tank game, and I would differently want to play it!

          Funny thing is, the tanks that were well armored for their time, IS-3 and IS-4, were terrible, the Russians didn’t like them and got rid of of the them soon after Stalin was dead.

  22. What a joke ass gun really, wonder if they use those in syria? Or even better, wonder is US and Saudi have sponsored the rebels with such weapons?

  23. Because a anti aircraft gun got the same spacial functional requirements as a gun for a narrower tank turret. *facepalm*

    The entire gun carriage with all parts like the stand, the base, fuse-set apparat, the typical AA-Elevating mechanism, Traversing mechanism (because you got the turret) and you only need a smaller equilibrator and recoil mechanism, because the tank will catch a lot of the recoil up. The upper hydropneumatic recuperator would fall away.

    So, with what would have been left? the barrel, the autoloader+ammo box at the back + smaller equilibrators. A clean gut from the barrel right to the bigger box at the end. Would fit perfect.

    Also this picture is faced. The barrel start at bolt before the ammo box and is(for the Gerät 50) 7753mm (L/52) long, and I highly doubt that (E100 chassis length 10.2 m) the remaining distance (1/2 traction wheel to front end) are the remaining 2447mm.

    The claim of the notorious anti-german resentment has been proven right, …again.

        • What’s stuck on top of the WT E model is very obviously NOT the rather enormous historical Gerät 50-60F AA piece which is featured in the composite picture to illustrate *why*. Instead it carries a rather more compact weapon system the WG modelers presumably pretty much made out of whole cloth for the purpose.

          • It would fit under the circumstances i provided, also if the creator of this picture would have been honest with the size of that illustrated gun.

            That the gun carriage will not be part of it is quite obvious, even for the people who want that gun on the tank. Like the Flak18/36 “had been put” on the Tiger I – of course the gun as the typical barrel with it’s qualities had been put on the tank, not the entire device with AA-Parts around it.

            This is clear for the people who want that gun on the tank, the only one making such nit-picks around it are those who want something different for the chassis. Thats exactly what the most people fear, another crippled instrument of fail, because the mods want it, no further discussion.
            Like that nonsense with the E50 and E50M.

            • I have this sneaking suspicion we’re not talking about the same things here. You *did* read the article a few days back which had screenshots of the WT E to be added, right? Because that’s what *I* am referring to and you would appear to, well, not.

            • Oh, i’m deeply sorry.
              I didn’t read the article before i wrote these texts, but i catched up on it now.
              The screens are looking good and what you wrote there is correct.
              Well, the 15 cm gun would still be nice, especially the outstanding ammo box like at the AMX50B, looking like some sort of a killer insect.

              Again, i’m sorry for causing trouble.

            • On another note that 10.2m lenght you mentioned is *not* the hull lenght; it’s the total lenght gun included. Achtung-Panzer, which was the first source I could find with that much detail, claims 8.7m for the hull itself:
              (Tank Viewer says the baseline E-100 and GW E, which this one seems to be built on, are of the same lenght.)

              By way of comparision the Maus, which is both narrower and half again as massive, is also listed as ~10.2m long in sources that don’t separate total and hull lenghts…

  24. WG should just remove E-50M, JagdPzE-100 and this stuff to limiit this flood of whine. It’s getting ridiculous.

  25. I love how a autoloader made for testing the concept is what WG thought they would directly put on a tank without tryint to make it smaller.

  26. Dudes… all calm down.
    Smoke a chillarette.

    It is German.
    Nothing is going to happen.
    Nothing at all.
    Mark my words: NOTHING.

  27. Pingback: On WT E-100 once again | For The Record