It’s a Fake – Part 3: Not really a fake…

Hello everyone,

when talking about fake tanks in WoT, there is one more category that has to be remembered: vehicles, that were not fakes and existed (at least in blueprints), but everyone thinks for some reason that they did actually not exist. There is an entire number of this vehicles and today, we are going to focus on them.

One of the most notorious cases of “no way that existed” is the KV-122. Specifically, the KV-1S with an enlarged turret (KV-85) and the 122mm D-25 gun. I mean – it’s way too overpowered, it has to be a fake! Sorry, that one actually really existed:


The D-2-5 gun in the game is – as far as I remember – a somewhat re-worked version of the D-25T with the same ballistic properties, only made to fit the IS (KV-85) turret by having a different breech I think. But yes, it existed. Want to hear something even more ridiculous? Some Soviet reports mention an attempt to put the BL-9 on KV chassis. That would be just amazing.

Another “usual fake suspect” is the Jagdpanzer E-100. Yes, such a project really existed. It was a very late project to use the E-100 chassis as a Sturmgeschütz with a massive gun. It’s not specifically mention that this vehicle would actually be a jagdpanzer (tank destroyer), its profile fits the one of an assault gun instead, so it would probably be more reasonable to call it Sturmgeschütz E-100. It was concieved in May 1944, along with the Sturmgeschütz Maus (often referred to – incorrectly – as Jagdmaus, yup, that was real too) with either a 15cm or 17cm gun, they messed around with it and cancelled it around July. Unfortunately, no drawings of mockup photographs survived, so the way it looks in the game is a Wargaming reconstruction, albeit probably the most historical one (weight distribution-wise, rear casemate makes most sense), it was consulted with Mr.Doyle also. What however is NOT historical is the “Krokodil” – that’s some modeller invention. There are a LOT of myths running around about Maus and E-100, if you are interested, check my older article about those too.

MT-25 light tank was actually also real, so was the project to mount the BL-9 gun into IS-3 (I’ve been actually looking into finding some documents on the web about that one, but couldn’t find anything proper – I am pretty sure it was in one of Ensign Expendable’s Soviet QA or on his blog – still, the project gets mentioned by Yuri Pasholok.

What was semi-real was the IS-4 tank with the 122mm M62 gun (or any tank with that gun really). You see, there was no such project “per se”, but the M62 gun was designed to actually replace ALL the D-25 guns, so yes, it is historical. What is even funnier is that they apparently tested the same gun in the IS-2, which would be a pretty hilarious tank in the game. In short: wherever the D-25 fits, the M62 fits too.

As for the rest, what else…

The T110 series existed (although the TD part is messed up in the game) and yes, the Aufklärungspanzer Panther existed too as a proposal (with that tiny stock turret). Both the Waffenträger Rheinmetall-Borsig and the Waffenträger auf Panzer IV are historical projects (both are mentioned by Hilary Doyle, including drawings), GW Panther and GW Tiger also existed, although they weren’t historically named as such (GW Tiger was referred to as Grille 17 or Grille 21).

Well, that’s probably all I can remember at this point.

118 thoughts on “It’s a Fake – Part 3: Not really a fake…

  1. Oh wow, IS-2 with M62, that’d be hilarious. Make it a Tier 8 premium tank and sell it, I’d get one without a second thought :)

    Nice article series SS, shows that the Soviets were much more interested in developing advanced heavy tanks than the Americans, they apparently just focused on their medium designs.

    • First I was like: “That’s way too much pen!”
      But then I as like: “T34 has 249mm pen, the M62 has 258mm pen, when it ahs bad armor and if it would have bad soft stats on the gun it would maybe be balanced.”

      • To bad its pen in RL was way way under from what the US`s 120mm was.

        Actually TBH there are tanks that would be real if they had OP guns….

        T95`s 105mm defeated 150mm of armor at 60degrees@2k meters I mean shit thats 300mm right off not even including the 2k meter issue. most likely would be 8% more following similiar trends.

        Thats 320ish MM`s from a MEDIUM tank that wouldnt be OP because of game rules [Like KV1s having masive agility] but simply because you had a advanced firecontrol, the most advanced armor to date and the most powerful [Penning] gun in the game.

        Also the 90mm SB was similar in Pen. As an example the 120mm the E5 has was 122mm@60 at 2k meters. While this is less it is still massively OP compared to M62 as far as KE rounds.

        122mmx2 is 245 but since this round was super heavy it was seen as dropping 20%. So even adding 10% is huge. Not to mention by the time 120m M58 was being refined the US squeezed every drop of Pen out of HEAT for 90mm and so the 120mm HEAT was massive as well. In RL a round that big hitting that hard was game over every time.Very similiar to the 152mm which had Meh pen but ridiculous DMG, Ensign showed some ripping turrets off.

        So while the M62 could be on the IS2 technically I doubt by that time it was even as good as the Med tank guns.

        Anyways the guns the US deserve to have that are on the same level as the “Limited Run” USSR are broken from the get go and they were from early 1950`s.

    • Ok…so maybe not a KV-1S but hey…how bout a KV-4 with the M62 gun?

      And if you really wanna make somebody butthurt: SU-100 with the M62 gun…

      • KV-4 was also unhistorically armored buff due to Russian players complaining it was “under-performing” Its basically a multple KV-4 variants combined the best parts into one, typical but i find it funny.

        • KV-4 had originally 100mm sides and over 50km/h max speed when it first appeared on test server. The rebalanced it in next iterations before it went to live server.

            • Really now? A competent player who knows about armor angling can be a real pain in the ass driving a KV-4. What’s it like? Basically a KV-5, without the frontal “R2-D2″ MG turret weakspot, and a better gun available than the 107 mm ZiS-6 – add in armor angling, and you have one tough nut to crack; there’s a reason people call it the “KV-4tress”

      • As long as they nerf the M62 to real life Pen Im game. Fact is it wasnt that great compared to other good guns. But with 122mm HEAT is always a big penner.

        I think as a whole WG did bad with the !22. They used it way to often to the point where its not special, but at the time IS2 with D25 was amazing. But with 122mm on T44 and Su122 etc they aren’t great.

        I wish only very few could mount 122 effectively. 85mm should be way more special. 85mm is bound by the 85mm=x dmg 105=y etc where as they need to have there own specific dmg.

        Now because they flooded us with 122`s the T44 which can mount it is “meh” and really im bored with them, seems 122`s are on every rus tank.

        I want Su100-44 to be a badass etc. In rl a 122 was so heavy it would have slowed tanks down to much. Theres no way the Su122-44 was as fast as it is in game.

        Anyways make the 122 special and stop mounting them on everything.

      • I’m pretty sure he’s already suggested it back when the devs actually seemed to take the idea of nerfing the KV-1S seriously, knowing how much of a troll he can be.

  2. i remember reading somewhere the kv122 only was able to shoot HE rounds because the recoil of the ap rounds was too strong.

    if it was true that could change the tank from op to underpowered.

    • Well it wouldn’t be underpowered, that 122 HE can still hurt people, maybe I should try it out…

    • Well…since IRL the 122mm D25(A-19 as it was called back then) was an artillery cannon, it was kinda supposed to fire HE shells. However…here’s the kicker: if you were on the receiving end of that thing, as opposed to the game version, you’d be well and properly fucked from the shockwave, overpressure and excessive spalling, not to mention the irreparable damage done to the vehicle – which is not modeled(thank god) in the game.

    • Bull, HE had same approximately same weight as AP and was fired at about same velocity. Why bother with long 122mm if it could only shot HE, when there was short 122mm U-11 already capable of it.?
      Also KV chassis was not much smaller then IS and used same turret ring diameter in KV-85/122 version also, so there is not a single
      Next time please turn on brain and do some research, before typing BS.

      SS, D-2-5 was early designation assigned to weapons with screw breach block, while D-25 is usually used for weapons with sliding breachblock. KV-122 actually had D-25 (only bery early IS-2 had D-2-5), but it got D-2-5 in game for a sake of balance (lower RoF).

      • Sorry, answer got cut in posting…
        “Also KV chassis was not much smaller then IS and used same turret ring diameter in KV-85/122 version also, so there is not a single” reason for 122mm D-25 gun to have problems on KV chassis.

        • Since it was used used(initially) as field artillery, I’d think the recoil may have been quite a bit bigger than the standard U11 shell(given the increased propellant charge) but, as you said, since the turret ring width is the same, more than likely the underlying structure would be able to handle the recoil.

          Also…a gun really doesn’t give a crap what type of ammo you fire out of it, recoil wise as long as the propellant amount does not exceed it’s limits(yeah, the rifling may get fuxed if you use excessive amounts of solid shot but…otherwise..).

          • Drakko, you don’t have a clue wtf you are talking about, do you?

            1st, only thing that D-25 had in common with A-19 field gun was ammo and ballistics.
            It had new barrel and recoil system from experimental D-2 ATG and was mounted into same cradle as 85mm D-5 tank gun. Hence D-2-5 designation.
            Second, both HE and AP were fired at about same velocity and weighted about same, so if one could be fired, then other could as well.
            Third, why bother with long gun that could only fire HE when there was a HE only gun available, U-11 that was not liked fue the lack of AP ammo?
            So, idea that 122mm D-25 on KV-122 would be only HE capable is so utterly laughable, that it only speaks of total lack of knowledge of original poster.

            • AP capable i do belive without the slightest hint of a doubt.
              But didn’t the IS(same guns right?) fire over 90% He rounds?
              mfg eX

              • About 75%, which is true for practically any allied tank gun as allies had enough tanks to dedicate to infantry support.
                Even Germans fired about 60/40% HE/AP.

                • Because in reality Tanks were supporting infantry and storming fortifications rather than hunting tanks.

                  Wait if D25 had same Ammo as Arty, how ould the ballistics change much aside from trapping more energy? It still isnt a AP style tank killer round was it?

                  I mean like D25 is more like152mm than say the 17 pounder or 76mm right?

                • No, 122mm was perfectly AT capable gun.
                  122mm D-25 fired AP at 800m/s which is comparable to most dedicated tank/AT guns.
                  152mm ML-20 fired AP at 600m/s
                  17pdr fired AP @ 880m/s
                  US 90mm M3 fired AP @ 823m/s
                  German 88/56 fired AP @ 820m/s

                  So most dedicated AT guns fired at comparable velocity.

            • You really didn’t read through what I said, did you?

              Lemme rewrite: as the D25 was developed on the basis of the A19 field gun and used(as you’ve stated) the same ammunition, I was arguing that it had, from the getgo, a higher recoil(due to the bigger propellant charge) – that is, not taking into account recoil dampening mechanisms, than the standard issue U-11.

              As to why would you use U11 instead of the D25? Dunno, different ammo type and size? Keep in mind the size(and weight) of the ammo used was the biggest factor in determining the early IS/2′s low rof.
              Also, IIRC, the IS/2 also quite often fired exclusively HE as it was more destructive to a wider range of targets than the standard issue garden variety AP shell.

      • Ok, I’ve been a long time reader here , but I decided to register only to reply to this because the smell of bullshit is too strong :
        What Joyuesp was saying or was trying to say before being jumped on by bojan , Is not totally false, but needs to be clarified
        I quote ” …..i remember reading somewhere the kv122 only was able to shoot HE rounds because the recoil of the ap rounds was too strong.”
        Yes of course a short (or long gun) can fire any round with any load at the same pressure/speed …. in this case we are talking about a short U-11 122 mm gun firing an HE round …. sure it can fire an AP round at the same speed, it can even fire a rock or a chicken at the same speed , but because of the barrel length the AP round will be too slow to deal any damage. ( the chicken will be too slow as well)

        The HE round on the contrary , will do the same damage no matter what muzzle velocity it has.

        AP rounds need speed to perform , HE rounds do not … short guns like the U11 are made for HE because its length can not speed up an AP round enough. With the same amount of propellant charge , the longer the barrel , the higher the velocity. Short guns are not capable of high velocity, therefore are unable to use AP efficiently

        Add to that that short guns are not as precise as long guns …. but that’s another story.

        • Here’s a bit of info courtesy of wiki:

          “The gun fired separate loading, cased charge ammunition, with one of four possible propellant charges – the full, no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3 (the smallest). In addition to 122 mm gun shells, the A-19 could fire 122 mm howitzer shells; however because of lesser durability of those shells they could not be used with full charge.”

          It somewhat supports the OP’s point but from a different view point…i.e. the shells were too brittle to handle a full charge that would have been put behind an AP shell.
          Also…it doesn’t say what type the 122mm gun shells were, be them AP or bigger and tougher HE.

          • The conclusion is always the same , you want to use AP you have to fire a fast round

            You increase the shell speed by using a heavier powder load , or by using a longer gun.

            Since the gun was already short, they need to use a heavier powder load, which that gun could not handle.

            PS: Howitzer shells are HE, it is pointless to fire HE at high speed, and yes most probably the shell will disintegrate in the gun if you try to do so.

            And why on earth would you want to fire a HE round at the speed of an AP ?

            • To reach the target faster, I’d say, before it has the chance to move away.

              Keep in mind tho that most likely a HE shell will be lighter than an AP round(doh, it’s full of something else except the metal chosen to make that AP round – as solid AP(non subcaliber) rounds rely on their mass as well as speed to project energy into the target) so you could conceivably use a lighter propellant load in order to make a HE fly just as fast as an AP.

              Then again, what they actually did during wartime and the limited resources they had back then…I won’t venture a guess.

          • Ballistic tables ? wow what is that ? really something like that exist ?

            you must really have a very high , though unjustified, opinion of yourself

            • BR-471 AP – 25kg @ 800m/s
              OF-471 HE – 25kg @ 800m/s
              Anthing that could shot that HE could shot AP period.

              • Howitzer HE was fired @ 570m/s BTW. Howitzers had no AP, but had HEAT, fired @ 335m/s (515m/s for post-war ammo).

              • You are either stupid or pretending to be

                Im quoting you : ” …Why bother with long 122mm if it could only shot HE, when there was short 122mm U-11 already capable of it.?”

                then you post ballasting data of the BR471 AP and the OF 471 HE and these shells are for the D25S ….

                The guy was asking why does the U11 122mm cannot use AP , are you drunk or something ? why don’t you post something from even a longer gun and say its the U11 …. I don’t know , try the 8,8 cm KwK 46 L/100 while you’re at il ….

                Put that in your skull, U11 is a short gun , low velocity, if it shoots AP it won’t do damage with it …. stop wasting time and spreading bullshit

  3. I fail to see how the Krokodil is more fake. Since the JPE-100 and it are both based on an idea that doesn’t have surviving drawings they’re just as authentic.

    • It’s more fake, because of the weight distribution – the vehicle with so heavy gun in the front wouldn’t stay on tracks, it would fall on its front

      • even the Hetzer with is tiny Pak 39 L/48 gun has problem with weight distribution

      • Assuming the suspension didn’t catastrophically fail and cause the roadwheels to break off of their axles, leaving the front of the tank on the ground with broken suspension.

    • Krokodil would also have been unpractical, as the gun would go way further than in game version. Making a tank 13m long is just stupid if you can make it 10m just by shuffling configuration. Imagine if we had solid gun barrels in game…

  4. So soviets could fit a high velocity 122mm gun (even the BL-9) in that turret but germans failed to fit 128L55 on Tiger II’s much bigger turret. How it is possible? 122mm it is not so far from 128mm, so big was the 128mm’s breech? Even 88L71 was a nightmare to mount on Panther (if it was even possible at all).

      • Any clue what was the main difference between soviet and german solutions on that field? It seems soviets has so much better pieces than germans

    • Though I’m sure there’s more to it, I do know that the Soviet’s consigned ergonomics to the gulags for the tanks of that era.

      • Bull.
        German reocil mechanisams used on tank guns were so archaic it is not even funny. 88/71 took more space then modern 120mm gun as on Leo 2/Abrams.
        Soviets (and British also, US later in war), developed compact recoil mechanisms and ditched complicated mechanisms with separate recoil buffers and recupators.
        Look at tank version of 17pdr and 75/70, you will see that 75/70 is heavier, with longer barrel for same performances.
        Then you have nice concentric recoil mechanism guns such as 45mm on T-70 light tank that took about same place as German 20mm, US 75mm M6 on Chaffee that took about same space as German 50/60.
        Also 128mm was VERY poorly designed to fit any kind of tank mounting, while Soviet 122mm were made as compact as possible with specificc purposes of fitting into tank turrets.
        OFC, there were drawbacks – in case of combined buffer/recupator repairs were more expensive then when those components were separate, then guns lasted smaller amount of shots (but that was hardly relevant as very rarely guns lasted longer then tanks) etc.

        Also on ergonomics, British had very bad opinion on KT ergonomics when they tested one.
        Both T-34/85 and Sherman had about same space available for crew, which is actually comparable in dimensions allocated for each crewmember to Panther – and don’t forget that both used ammo that was dimensionally smaller then one used by 75/70.
        Speaking of ergonomic atrocities, all Pz-IV with 75/43 and 75/48 were such, it is incredibly cramped inside, I am not sure how 5-men crew could fit, let alone operate in that one. Compared to it Sherman and T-34-85 were a luxury houses, yet none speaks about shit ergonomics in that one…
        Soviet light tanks T-70/T-80 were very spacious inside for crew, while IS were cramped for driver and pretty OK for rest of crew (except IS-3 which is own level of hell). KV-1/1s was reverse, very spacious for driver while turret crew was quite cramped, due smaller turret ring.
        Also british tanks were for good part of war horrible ergonomically, Matilda was such horror of turret that Soviets often operated with two men in turret instead of 3 as they could not fit and operate in winter clothes with any kind of efficiency.

        So you get idea? You can not generalize about ergonomics w/o knowing facts, and you obviously don’t know shit about it.

        • Very interesting, thanks. I remember reading somewhere that there was a project to copy hellcat’s or some USAn tank’s concentric recoil mechanism on german tanks, so it seems they were behind all other nations on those mechanisms

        • Before running your mouth in the future you might want to read what I said properly, and not reply with an argument that 1) largely irrelevant to the topic on hand and 2) doesn’t quote facts which support what I stated.

          • Oh, hurt?
            You made stupid blanket statement, I gave you facts and you complain…

            • Not hurt, baffled by your response. What did you think I was getting at by my statement, because most of what you posted was nothing to do with the point I was making.

              • Actually it does: it explains why the Germans had a harder time putting bigger guns on their tanks: inefficient recoil mechanisms, which meant that the amount of room required for the gun’s breach both to not only fit in the turret to begin with but for it to recoil when fired without punching a hole in the back of the turret was greater than the designs used on Allied tanks.

    • A reason might be the fact russians didn’t gave any fuck about the comfort the crew had inside the tank in time germans did…donno’

        • No kidding. Trust me, I’ve been in a Hetzer, and it’s NOT comfortable at all, and don’t get me STARTED on how difficult it is getting on top of the thing to climb into the tank via the commander’s cupola (which is how they usually got in and out of the vehicle irl).

    • Their plan to get around mounting the 88 L71 in the schmalturm was to move the breech slightly forward into the conical mantlet and a reworked breech that accepted fatter but smaller shells IIRC

      Sort of how the US tried to answer the problems of the 90mm T15 with the 90mm T54

      • You’ll find that a lot, especially with their navy. The Germans made pretty reasonable submarines but most of their big surface ships were pretty badly designed.

  5. How about the rate of fire of KV-1S? Can it really fire close to 4 rounds per minute? Thought early IS tanks have trouble with RoF… surely it would be as difficult to have ~4 rpm on an earlier tank model such as the KV-1S.

    • 2-3 rpm in combat situations. Gun has need to be taken in neutral elevation and it used separated ammunition

      • It used separate ammo but could be loaded at any -2/+12 elevation, so not a problem at normal combat occasions.

        • it was even mentioned by german tankers, that after every shot IS-2 tanks lovered their guns to neutral

          • While personal accounts are great to read, you must remember that often in those people talk about things they do not really understand and that they saw for being one thing while in fact they had nothing to do with it. A lot of myths also filtered in, especially considering that most interview’s were made after 30/40/50/60 years.
            Eg, most Soviet veterans say that Germans went to battle with buttoned up tanks, while Germans claim it is not true. Reverse is also true, Germans claim that Soviets tanks went buttoned up, while Soviets claim it was most often not true.
            So, who you believe?

      • ” SerB states that there was a prototype tank, based on IS-7 with a 152mm gun (based on BL-10) in the turret. ”

        :( They nerfed RoF of S-70 compared to real life, they do not want to give us tier X prototype with BL-10 in turret…

        Anti-russian bias;)

        • Maybe your right but it sounds wrong to me. S70 was naval gun and it must have used tons of time loading the pieces.

          Anyone have doc`s as to its ROF.

          I hear peeps talk about its agility and speed and TBH that sounds like BS to me also when I see the size of it….Simply put tanks that heavy sink in the ground. Hell lots of weight is hard on everything, Engine, Tranny Suspension. Its hard to believe it was so agile being so massive.

          • Lots of artillery pieces(guns) have their RoF nerffed for balance reasons. Even the .50 cals to 2cm auto-cannon have their RoF nerffed.

            Overall it is not a big deal except in a few cases from time to time.

            • S-70 was NOT a naval gun, it’s barrel was taken from naval gun but ballistics were unique (for a time, later they were shared with 130mm M-46 field gun). It also had mechanical 6-rounds loader and two human loaders keeping mechanical loader filled.

              You don’t believe something about tank? Sorry, I would take a word of people who tested it over your.

  6. Not fake, but still a prototype which never saw service. Yet it’s the most popular tank in WoT.

  7. Is there a solid distinction between a sturmgeschutz and a sturmpanzer? Or are they the same thing?

    • Correct me if i’m wrong but the sturmpanzer disignation is used for tanks like arty that we have in game and geschutz is used for more of a direct firing role

    • As far as I know the Sturmpanzer term was hardly ever really used…
      But in theory Sturmpanzer would be a heavily armored infantry direct support vehicle (firing HE) [That would only really be the StuG III A, 'Brummbär' (Sd.Kfz. 166) or 'Sturmtiger' (Sturmpanzer VI) in real life]

      Sturmgeschütz would more or less be every tracked (armored) vehicle featuring a gun. More or less as a way to be able to quickly move artillery around the battlefield…

      • The only “StuG” that I ever head about before was the StuG III, so I thought it was a bit odd to see that designation come up again for the proposals when I read about them here. I thought the term “StuG” was superseded by “sturmpanzer” or something.

        • Well, it’s difficult :P From what I see in the few “Spielbergers” I have he, correctly as far as I can see, uses Sturmgeschütz for armored vehicles and Waffenträger for unarmored/lighty armored vehicles. For in the introduction to “Sturmgeschütz and its variants” he explains that the terms are highly ‘volatile’ based on which Service used the same vehicle. Apparently the Panzertruppe preferred calling all variants a “Sturmgeschütz” (Assault Gun) while the Artillery Corps preferred the term “Sturmhaubitze” (Assault Howitzer) even for the ‘long gunned’ 7.5/L48 variants… Apparently even the Command Staffs didn’t know or cared about differences.

          Technically the vehicles would be “Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz 7,5cm”, meaning (more or less) ‘Armored self propelled gun carriage for assault gun 7,5cm’; so only the guns themselves would “offcially’ be the “Sturmgeschütz”.

          My wife’s Grandfather had the “honour” to serve on the Eastern Front from June 1941 until being wounded at the Siege of Leningrad in December 1943. He and his mates virtually called all SPGs a ‘Sturmgeschütz’, no matter if it was one of the StuG 3 variants, or an open topped SPG like the ‘Marder’…

  8. As “made up” as the Krokodil is – you can’t deny the fact that the design appears feasible since it’s fairly obvious the model-maker thought “Let’s take a JagdPanther, and enlarge everything by 30-40%”

    Maybe suspension tech wasn’t exotic enough to handle the weight, but if you took a Jagdpanther, and literally made everything 40% larger and thicker, it’d stand to reason the gun would be as well… Sure, upping an 88mm 40% would give you 123mm for a main gun, but I think WG could have just went with a 128 with pen/alpha figures similar to what you see with the waffle.

    (Notice I didn’t go with upping the 105mm, since this was *never* put in a real Jagdpanther)

    • Jagdoanther was a junk due the overloaded frontal part of suspension and final drives that lasted even less then on Panther. Now enlarge it 30-40% and it will have even more of those problems.

      • Indeed. As “cool” as the Jagdpanther was the overloaded front of the tank wore down the transmission severely even over short distances.

        It did not help that the transmission used straight cut gear teeth and that the WHOLE Panther program was all about building the most tanks possible, in the shortest amount of time, with the fewest number of parts, for the lowest possible cost (money and labor(hours)) that in turn still met the minimum requirements for durability and longevity(Engine hours and for the transmission/tracks/suspension, distance).

    • While perhaps possible it wouldn’t be practical by any stretch of the imagination due to uneven weight distribution and the length of the vehicle causing excessive wear and tear on the suspension and decreasing mobility, something that in 1945 the Germans couldn’t possibly even consider given that spare parts for their existing vehicles were scarce as it was, so how bad do you think it would be if they tried to make parts for a NEW vehicle with the same problems as the old ones, only 30-40% worse?

  9. Putting words out of context, KV-122 IS NOT KV1S, THEREFORE HAVING A 122MM ON A KV1S DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

    Having an m48 chassis with an M60 Turret/ Cannon is no longer an M48 variant isn’t it.

    That is why the KV1S variant is removed, it never had a 122mm to begin with, only the KV122 <== im putting it out there just for redundancy.

    • Game would be better with less 122`s. They ruined how great these guns were..Best guns at end of WW2 for what they did [I still think 90mm M3 was best all round]

      Take out 50 models with 122`s and build them with cool 85+100`s.

      • I can agree with that. The KV-1S’ combination of mobility, protection (while maybe not as well-armored on the hull as a KV-1, it has better sloping and it’s still not exactly thin either, not to mention the turret being better-armored), and the raw alpha damage of the 122 mm gun make it simply too good at tier 6. With the 100 mm gun as its top gun it could be considered comparable to the M6 in terms of effectiveness, plus it would retain a niche role amongst the three Soviet tier 6 heavies as a faster “supersized medium” tank, in comparsion to the KV-2′s “direct-fire arty” and the T-150′s “true heavy” tank.


        I could see the KV-122 as a tier 7 premium, but that presents a problem:

        The reason WG won’t do that is to avoid repeating the shitstorm that occurred when they removed the Schmallturm and L/70 from the Panzer IV and released the Panzer IV S. as a premium a tier up. Granted, they did the same thing even earlier than that with an even BIGGER shitstorm, when they nerfed the T34, moved it down a tier, made it a premium, gave it to the guys who unlocked it as a tier 9 HT free in addition to a free M103 (and if they had the T30, they now had the T30 as a tier 9 TD and the T110E5 free as well in its place).

      • I know but isnt it funny the T54 and the KV1s are both ultra broken and both are hybrids and retain all good and no bad qualities?

        After they intro`d the M48 they nerfed it into nothing also the E4 but for some reason the t54 has been the best Med since Closed beta and KV1s is best Med+Heavy in T6.

        2014 is to late IMO. I mean I will like it but they needed to be accurate long ago.

        If the M48 was to good to nerf esp since the T62 and it were a toss up, then these definitely need it.

    • KV-122 is a KV-85 with a 122mm gun. KV-85 is a KV-1S with the IS-1 turret. As far as WoT is concerned as a game that allows turrets and weapons to be swapped freely, the three tanks can be seen in the scope of the first designed tank. Even more so than other tanks because the hull barely changed in the armour.

      But balance calls for the split anyway.

      • It would be like the E5 having the speed of a medium and retain its armor while having the alpha of a E100. KV1s is just so broken in a game where speed is king over armor and where Alpha beats DPM.

        My point is the T95 is a tank that could be like the T-54 where it has multiple versions of almost all variants but it will never get best of all worlds. Instead we have the T54e1+E5+T95e6+Whatever T95 come out.

        KV1S simply makes all heavies in game useless at T6 as it has all things. And it robs content and makes others redundant

  10. The biggest “fakes/problem” to me isnt the made up tanks, because as a whole WG engineers say if it was possible and IMO given WW2 another 3 years and all those combo`s would have been tried.

    The biggest fakes come from things way overloaded and yet still retain agility. Look at picture of ISU with BL 152mm and tell me it is even a little fast like in game….Sorry but that gun is almost snapping off its so heavy.

    How about T54`s way OP engine to keep its power up with 120mm armor. In Rl it was a slug and never went oer 580hp. In fact im unaware of it ever testing [serious testing] a more powerful engine. So T54 should be much much slower.

    How about KV1s? No way it had 122mm and armor and was as fast as it is ingame, or as agile similar to a medium.
    How about Maus not sinking and doing 10 kmh in soft ground. I read EE talkin about KT`s sinking let alone Maus`s.

    So IMO the made up tanks are more realistic as they were never proven wrong where as most huge gun/armor/engine combos never were even close

    So make more fakes, hell look at them. JPZE100 not OP, E100/E75/E50 never created and very balanced, how about T110e5 or E4/E3 all drawings all balanced.

    Then m48 UP for sure along with M60. T54 with everything and not 1 bad thing, it does it all well and best in class easily, hell the 907 is a T10 coming and is very similiar.

    So I say keep going as long as its balanced, these tanks with huge lifespans like T54 are the most dangerous because its a 1948 tank with 1960`s engines and tech, T54 really is T55. Another is things like ISU152 which would never be fast or hide easily due to big dick hanging out.

    • E100 hull was built during the war and was, iirc, about 2 weeks from final assembly. The British finished the assembly and tested the hull after the war. (There are photos and, somewhere, film of this.) Also there were a further 2-3 E100 hulls, iirc, at least under construction.

      There were also more Maus hulls under-construction (at least 3 iirc on the only “production” line that was building them.) in addition to the 2 that were finished. Also the Maus had super wide tracks to spread its weight around and overall did, from my photo collection, rather well on all sorts of terrain with the exception of the “mud pit” that reached up to the top of the hull/button of the turret. But then 99% of tanks driven into “mud pit’s” up to the tops of their hulls DO get stuck. The germans actually did this on purpose and it took something like 3 days to shovel and clear all off the mud away to get the Maus out. (Mud creates friction/suction on the hull) The only problem that would have impeded the Maus was its size, speed, fuel consumption and the fact that most bridges in Europe could not even handle it. It however could be maneuvered rather well if the photos attest to anything.

      E50 did at the least make the planning/paper stage.

      As for the “T54`s way OP” the engine was likely an future upgrade for the specific chassis. The UK valentines do this a lot since they have access to future uprated engines in a specific tank that never got those engines.

  11. There are a couple of photos of the “GW Tiger” floating around the net, taken at Kummersdorf when it was captured. Beside it is the prototype Tiger II (now at Bovington).