Hello everyone,
it’s not apparently widely known (I actualyl thought it was) but everytime a model gets a HD overhaul (in this first test, the Tiger, the T-54 and the Sherman), the collision model (armor schematic) gets an overhaul as well. The point is to add many more armor zones in order for the armor to be more realistic. Check this out.
This is the old T-54 model (from Tank Inspector)
This is what we have now. 120mm frontal plate, the entire front turret is 200mm thick, the yellow zone above the mantlet is 86mm thick, the roof is 48mm thick, the turret sides are 160mm thick in the front (the red parts next to the frontal plate) and so is the commander’s copula. The sides behind them (the orange part) are 108mm thick.
And now the new one in 0.9.0
For one, the tracks aren’t homogenous anymore, you can aim between the frontal roadwheels. The hull didn’t practically change (still the 120mm there), but the turret did. Now, only that small red part (the vertical small strip) next to the mantlet is 200mm thick. The “belts” are thinner – the lowest red one is 155mm thick, the one above it is 139mm thick, then the two orange ones (107mm and 87mm), the yellow-green belt above the mantlet is only 48mm thick and the roof is 30mm thick. The commander’s copula now is only 130mm thick. Rear and side turret armor has been nerfed as well (87mm and less).
As you can see, effectively, it’s an armor nerf. We’ll see how this will work in the game.
Now the Tiger – this is the old model.
And the new one.
As you can see, the models are practically identical. That’s because not so long ago, Tiger I armor scheme was overhauled in order to be historical. Now, the “blue” part of the mantlet (40mm thick spaced armor, 100mm behind it, eg.140mm) got thicker (the violet parts are 140-150mm thick) and commander’s copula has an extra armor zone (upper part is 50mm thick instead of 80mm).
And the Sherman now. The old model:
Frontal armor is 51mm thick, the MG weakspot and the sides are 38mm thick, 89mm thick violet mantlet and 63mm thick turret, including the commander’s copula, the strip above the mantlet is 25mm thick, the blue part is 45mm thick and both the mantlet and the blue part have turret armor underneath (together, the mantlet part is 89+63mm thick).
And new one:
There are significant changes here, although perhaps they are not visible at first sight. First, the MG weakspot is gone, now, the spot is actually thicker than the rest of the 51mm armor (64mm). The turret is now 64mm thick, but commander’s copula is only 38mm thick (as well as the hull sides). The weakspot strip above the mantlet is now 45mm thick, but the biggest change came to the mantlet. The violet part is 89mm thick, but unlike before, it has no turret armor behind it, so effectively it’s just 89mm and not 152mm like the last time. The blue part is only 45mm thick, but it has turret armor beneath it. Overall, the center of the mantlet is now weaker.
So, they nerfed the strongest point of the sherman (hull down) and buffed the pz4 with better gun depression, ROF and schurzen… No comments
Historical accuracy is all that matters, right ?
“..No comments”
you already made a comment
Sherman was better then PzIV all the time and not to forget: PzIV lost his topspeed.
sherman was better than PzIV in everything except mobility (and now it has less top speed)
Top speed got nerfed to 40km/h, so now it’s like a Centurion without turret armour, view range, or a good gun.
My Sherman dinged literally EVERYTHING no matter what shot it… except KV-1S with 122 HE.
Soooooo yeah. Nerfing that little beast in such a style is not a big deal i think.
Why not use the 105mm Howitzer then? Load HE and derp them to hell.
Methinks you misread his meaning.
verily. who fed this poor chap hot guacamole? he’s having a heat craze
It seems they neglected/deleted the 2″/50.8mm thick rotor shield that is behind that gun shield.
Per Hunnicutt’s book, the total thickness at that point consists of a 3.5″/88.9mm gun shield, and a 2.0″/50.8mm rotor shield.
Yay for T-54 armor nerf. Now they still need to balance the OP gold shells.
Actually they should fix the 120mm hull front instead.
The real T-54A / WZ-120 / Type 59 has 100mm front glacis plate not this 120mm non-sense that WG puts in the game.
There is a single prototype with 120mm front hull armor, but it overloaded the suspension thus is a failure.
Right now the T-54 yolo around the map with 20+hp/ton.
It’s not a nonsense. Early model T-54 had 120mm, that’s the one with the log on its side (we have currently in 8.11)
That prototype with zipping around the battlefield with a 700hp engine is what I call non-sense.
None such engine was fitted to that T-54 prototype.
And running around faster the than the production T-54 while the suspension is overloaded?
I consider that non-sense.
Pretty sure WG has a bit more info than you do kid.
Pretty sure they don’t. Not the first nor last time when their “info” comes out to be a garbage.
Pretty sure they have *much* better access to detailed documentation about the T-54/55 family than anybody here.
Right, because components that historically didn’t make it past experiments (or in some cases drawing boards) are SO uncommon in WoT vehicles. I’m sure you’d prefer the Tortoise to have just its IRL 32-pounder and 600-horsepower engine, too?
Almost all tanks in this game have guns they never used…. so what the hell is you point troll?
When it comes to armour WG say they want to be accurate. So I say its only fair people challenge them on that.
You’re foaming about the *engine*.
What?
Oh right, wasn’t you but some other wanker. Point stands though – why are you babbling some shit about armour when the talk was about components?
You are a one funny child Kellomies.
Better funny than stupid. :D
And I cannot help but notice the conspicious lack of any kind of explanation or even excuse for the attempt to gratuitously and unilaterally change the topic of the discussion.
Can you explain how I changed the topic? you are making no sense, This was about armour values and changes. And it would seem that the T-54 hull still may not be right, currently it seems that the T-54 hull lacks the weaker lower plate.
I only wan’t to see better historical accuracy, and although it has improved with the T-54 in this patch, it is still not right from what I can see. There are a large amount of tier 8 and 9 tanks that will struggle to penetrate the T-54 hull without having to load premium ammo.
While pretty much all other tier 9 mediums have much easier weak spots to exploit. It would be fair for the T-54 to have a 90 mm lower plate as a weak spot, if that is in fact the proper armour thickness. It can keep that damn 120 mm on its glacis, so long as its slower with it when the upgradeable hulls are implemented, Which is a long way away…
I was commenting *specifically and exclusively* on Addy’s whine about the 700-horse V-14 engine, and then you waltz in going on about armour.
Yeah, that’s kind of changing the topic.
You know I’m starting to suspect you don’t really “get” how discussions in this format actually work.
Anyways, the lowerplate is de facto butter when you actually get to draw a bead at it which usually means the “T” being above you and/or cresting a terrain obstacle. Most of the time it’s too small, obstructed and at too steep an angle relative to the gun to bother with in the first place.
Child…
Your ability to formulate incisive, thorough and topical arguments is the envy of the world.
i bet you are sitting in WT E100 right now
Yawn ..every production tier 9 med has buffed modules and the fantasy ones have far lower irl mobility ..) armour is just another module.. Calm your tits
Nice to see they are using less Stalinianium on the T-54 turret, but I would still like to know where there is a T-54 with 120 mm hull armour. Please do let me know….
I am always for historical accuracy, and I am never butthurt over how weak the lower plates are on my British tanks, because I simply would not be happy knowing I was driving around in something that is better than it was in reality. Which is why I don’t really like the top tier British heavy and medium. Too bad the Russians cannot show the same humility, especially when it comes to the all important soft stats.
But hey, how else will they show us just how superior they are?. When you lack reality, invent fantasy.
120mm is historical, the early T-54 variant had it. The same one that is in the game currently in 8.11 (log on the side)
Is the early variant a full production model? or was it one of the very first prototypes, that was then changed before the new turret was added?
Please post the source.
Trials conducted between March and April 1945, resulted in the new tank being commissioned for service with the Red Army as the T-54. The tank had virtually the same hull and drive train as the T-44. Major differences included thicker front armour (120 mm on the upper section and 90 mm on the lower section) and a newly designed driver’s hatch and vision slot. The turret ring increased in diameter to 1800 mm and had thicker armour (180 mm on the front, between 90 mm and 150 mm on the sides and 30 mm on the roof).
You can read all on wikipedia, there’s even a picture of the early one
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tank_T-54_in_Verkhnyaya_Pyshma.jpg
Basically, with the stock turret in-game it’s the first design (not prototype! It was planned for production). The second turret comes from T-54-2, where the hull front was thinner. The in-game tank is a mix of early design and production model, much like many other tanks.
Google it. Not too hard.
I did google it, at the same time I asked for any source of information that you guys had. At least I did not just go to Wikipedia…. Nice, and you tell me its not so hard?? pffff.
I am certain that for such basic knowledge, Wikipedia will suffice :)
It will come with the alternate hulls. This one will be the heavier version, and thus have less agility than it does now.
First model T-54 had 120mm armour. Several thousand were made. Problem was it affecteed speed and maneuverability. Later models had 100mm.
In future patch T-54 will have 2 hulls- one witg more armour and less agility and speed, the other will be thiner but be more agile.
I guess I won’t be happy until the alternate hulls are implemented…. The sooner the better. Though I kind of feel as though with some tanks, the hull should come with upgraded turrets and not suspension. My thinking being that there will be less Frankintanks in game.
Wont make a big difference for good T-54 players.
.___.
You certainly sound pretty butthurt over *something*.
Ooh a troll! can I keep it??
Sure, if you promise to shut up and stop whining like a little bitch.
All I did was ask for in information, maybe not in a way you would like.. but I don’t give a shit.
What we have had in game is a cherry picked bullshit tank up until now.
Best information I could find was this “T-54 Model 1946 – Produced 1946–1948. With streamlined turret and wide gun mantlet, similar to T-44, new V-54 engine, unstabilized D-10T 100 mm main gun, and two SG-43 machine guns in bins on the fenders. Only a small number was built for trials that were a fiasco; as a result, the production of the T-54 series was halted until the implementation of modifications”
Also that the lower plate was 90 mm not 120 mm like the Glacis.
No information on how many were built or what happened to them. Clearly The Russians were not happy with performance. Seems fine in game though, and it has all the best of everything.
You seem to have reading comprehension issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55#T-54
“The serial production version, designated T-54-1, differed from the second T-54 prototype. It had *thicker hull armour* (80 mm on the sides, 30 mm on the roof and 20 mm on the bottom).” Emphasis added; sure doesn’t sound like they were shaving down the glacis plate in the first production run if they were *adding* thickness to secondary belts. (“Citation needed”, granted, but better than the nothing you have to show to the contrary.)
Sorry but what part of what I said did you not understand? From what I found, it said the Glacis was 120 mm on the very first model, and 90 mm on the lower plate…. You do know what a Glacis is right?
And maybe you are referring to the T-54-1 being better armored than the T-44? otherwise your comment does not make sense. I am not disputing that the very first T-54 prototype had 120 mm on the hull now…. but I did point out that it seems as though the LOWER plate was 90 mm thick!
http://webot.org/?r=e&search=T-54
Dose the new HD model still have the same thickness on the LOWER plate as it does no the glacis? OR!! did it historically have 120 mm on both.
Kellomies, sorry to ask, but what age are you? I don’t want to waste my time replying to an adolescent.
Stop switching your argument around, *I* never talked about the lower plate at all. It wasn’t even remotely topical until you suddenly began babbling about it after your main line of argument started falling apart.
And since when has anyone had any problems penning *that* whenever they actually get a shot at it at a non-autobounce angle, anyway? Pretty sure I can do that with the basic AP of my Pershing…
Your reply did not make sense… “You seem to have reading comprehension issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55#T-54
“The serial production version, designated T-54-1, differed from the second T-54 prototype. It had *thicker hull armour* (80 mm on the sides, 30 mm on the roof and 20 mm on the bottom).” Emphasis added; sure doesn’t sound like they were shaving down the glacis plate in the first production run if they were *adding* thickness to secondary belts. (“Citation needed”, granted, but better than the nothing you have to show to the contrary.)”
Has nothing to do with what I wrote… you make no sense Kellomies, I am done with you child.
PS, effective hull armour on the T-54, 240 mm.
209 mm vs standard AP, Pershing top gun has 180 mm pen.
That’s because what you wrote is increasingly detached from the actual topic.
You really need to start keeping track of the discussion yourself, dumbass.
SS, is Panzer 4 H armour, speed and gun depression historical?
Actually, that I have to check. Standby.
I know that the speed of the 4H is actually a little faster than historical, because of all the extra armour the H’s max speed was 38km/h. The extra 2km/h probably is a balance between that and the stock “H” ingame which kind of amounts to an F2/G (with schurzen) which could do 40 I believe.
The engine is unhistorically buffed (300hp historically), historical max speed is 38 km/h (ingame 40), reverse speed was 5 km/h (ingame 18), armor seems completely historical, so is depression
So its a buff.
BTW SS, you sure it had -10 gun dep :D :D . That is great!
Also, is it not using a better engine in game?
Is that 20mm panel (in new patch) really 20mm and not 30?
Well, now the T-54 turret cheeks should be pretty vulnerable to tier X guns, especially TDs/gold. Still ought to be pretty strong when a hill adds vertical angle to it, though.
Ye I wonder what will happen to WZ-120, which has more turret armour than T-54. Anyhow, I played T-54 on test server and it seemed fine, plenty of bounces.
“[...] I wonder what will happen to WZ-120 [...]”
Guess.
Answer: Nothing. Until they have to remake it to more HD. :D
I wonder if they nerf/buff anything at all on Tier 1… because when did WG last time alternate something below Tier 7?
They’ll make some changes to Tier 2 if that’s good enough for you.
Who cares really?
WG “Everything is fine on tier 1″ (except they’re planning to do something to the T18.) :)
T18 is not Tier 1.
sssh, i’ve just rebought my T1 cun for some more stats-padding ;P
The Tortoise and Centurion mk. 7/1 weren`t made to HD in this patch?
Not in this round of the test, they come in later rounds.
Was that change to the Sherman’s turret armor also made to the Easy-Eight?
Looks like they removed the drive wheel weak point on the Tiger (the disc-like shapes attached to the front of the hull block). I hope they do this for as many tanks as reasonable.
Pingback: 9.0 Test – New Armor Models | For The Record