About the Firefly Line

Hello everyone,

today, we are going to take a look at how the Firefly line could look. After all, both Storm and EU representatives confirmed that this line will come this year.

But before we start: Please keep in mind that no composition has been officially confirmed and no ETA is currently known, other than it will not be in 9.1 or 9.2 (as far as I know, even developers aren’t sure when exactly will it come). Thus, it’s completely pointless to ask “when will it come” in comments.

Got it? Okay, let’s have a look at it. Now, normally, the composithe only thing that we actually do know about this line is that it will have Firefly in it and it will end with a tier 10. Other than that, nothing. Earlier, it was referred to (probably incorrectly) as a “Lend-Lease” line, but despite the claims of the “LL models being ready for quite some time already”, I find that not very likely that it will in fact really be a line, defined by the “lend-lease” vehicles (or “Commonwealth” ones, like the Sentinel).

First, any models, that have been “done for quite some time” are most likely done in the original resolution/polygon count, which means they are basically worthless and the entire model has to be remade from scratch for the HD quality (we do know the Firefly line will be HD, as the last new tanks, made in the “original” quality were the split StuG and Panzer IV’s from 9.0).

Second reason is that the amount of LL/Commonwealth vehicles, suitable for such a branch, is very limited. There is the Firefly and there are the Sentinel tanks, everything else is either a copy, a renamed identical vehicle or very lowtier, none of which is very useful when creating a branch.

Consider this:

Out of several branches possible, including as attractive stuff as for example more French tanks, Wargaming picked the Firefly line. That means the line itself has to be fairly original, vehicles in it not being simply copies. There has to be more, otherwise something else would have been picked.

Here, we run into a problem. Original Lend-Lease and Commonwealth vehicles effectively end with tier 6. The Sentinel had an advanced version called Thunderbolt with a 25pdr gun (derp Sentinel) and the last model (ACIV) was equipped with a 17pdr AT gun. Its armor makes it effectively tier 6 though (don’t overestimate the 17pdr).

AC_E1(AWM_P03498.010)

330 horsepower engine (in fact, 3 engines) for 28 tons, 65mm armor and a 17pdr, that’s tier 6 material, just like the Firefly (which could theoretically be tier 7, but I have a bad feeling about the armor of the thing). Which leaves us with empty tier 7,8,9 and 10. Nothing. Nada. Tier 10 could theoretically be Vickers MBT, but since there are apparently other plans for that particular tank (as in, possible replacement for the FV4202), this variant is unlikely. Even IF it happened, you still have to fill tiers 8 and 9 (if Firefly was pushed to tier 7) and there are literally no candidates for that. No, no Vickers MBT prototypes, they were practically identical to Vickers MBT Mk.I.

So, here’s what I think will happen.

Tier 6 – Firefly
Tier 7 – Avenger/Challenger
Tier 8 – Charioteer
Tier 9 – FV4004 “Conway”
Tier 10 – FV4005 Stage 2

Think about it. Replacing the upper part of the branch with tank destroyers is a perfect solution. Just to be clear what we are talking about:

Avenger/Challenger

A 17pdr tank destroyer on Cromwell chassis, 32 tons, 102mm frontal armor, 17pdr gun in a rotating turret, 600hp engine. Read more on Wikipedia.

Challenger

Challenger_axb01

Avenger (would serve as an alternative turret)

05629

Charioteer

A tank turretted tank destroyer design, based on Cromwell chassis with a 20pdr gun. Perfect tier 8 candidate.

Charioteer-latrun-2

FV4004 “Conway”

An experimental vehicle based on Centurion chassis, equipped with a 120mm gun. FYI, the turret armor is 132mm thick (19 deg slope)

conway1

FV4005 Stage 2

183mm gun (yep, the one you already know) on Centurion chassis (if you are thinking Stage 1 – the one with 183mm autoloader – forget it, that will not be implemented, I asked). I am not sure how thick the superstructure (turret) actually is, but don’t expect miracles, I think it was 100mm or so.

fv4005_stage2__001

Now, before you start freaking out, think about it – in fact, I think it’s the only solution, that can happen. There are no hightier candidates for another British medium branch apart from the Vickers, combining the medium line with a turretted tank destroyer line is the logical step.

- all these designs have turrets and relatively light armor, relying on their guns (and partially mobility) to get around
- all these designs are quite original and cannot be called copies of existing vehicles
- the gameplay remains basically consistent throughout the branch gameplay despite the “MT – TD” jump
- practically the only solution for high tiers (the only one I could figure out at least)

So, what do you think?

115 thoughts on “About the Firefly Line

  1. Well it works if you label tier 4 and upwards as support vehicles, because thats what they effectively were.
    That being Grant, Sherman III, Sherman V, then what you suggest.

  2. “…just like the Firefly (which could theoretically be tier 7, but I have a bad feeling about the armor of the thing).”

    Medium tanks generally don’t rely on armour – Chi-To/Chi-Ri for example :)

      • Care to explain why?

        Those mentioned are basically large boxes with sharp angles that a lot of T4 will penetrate, no notable troll mantlets etc :)

        • Well yes the T-54 is more of an MBT than a traditional medium tank. But let’s compare to Shermans, Comets, Pershings etc. that have passable armor and you get a formula that medium tanks at large were made to be armored, though not heavily armored. If it’s not armored much at all, it’s more of a light tank as WZ-131/132 or the RU251 that we might or might not get some day. Tanks like the leopard 1 ride the thin line between the categories but medium tanks as such do carry armor to protect them from more than just small arms fire

          • Actually, Leopard falls under the MBT designation and the story behind it’s thin armor is quite funny,
            The design büro saw all the new amo (APDSFPSDSTPS!!1) and thought “screw that, it will penetrate any armor no matter it’s thickness” so they just focused on mobility and the gun.
            Also, this was in the time before laminate or reactive armour.

  3. The British Turreted TD line would have the Achilles’s as Tier 6, wouldn’t it?

      • I would put the Crusader 17pdr at tier 5 (S 35 CA has the 17pdr as stock). The Achilles’s as tier 6, leave out challenger (it was a medium) and thr rest are good.

        possible archer as tier 5 Premium.

        • Then, what else do you want? The British just love their 17-pdr so much that they put it on practically every freaking tank.

          • That’s because the 17pdr was one of, if not, the best allied AT gun of the war, thus it was widely adopted. The 20pdr was developed after the war and the 105mm L7 in 1954

        • 20pounder is painfull on tier 8, alpha sux, pen doesn’t matter (prem ammo), accuracy is nice but not something to be exited about after sigma patch, dpm of it on centurion is joke… Nothing good on 20pounder in wot

          • 20pdr would be OK on something like Hellcat/T49 – fast and with a turret

            • Charioteer wold be glass cannon therefore it could have L7 105, i believe the Jordanians tested the idea.

  4. Ehh… it works I guess.
    Am I the only person here that would prefer to see Comet and Cromwell at tier 6 and 7 respectively? Not because they are underpowered (both rock at their tiers) but because of historical reasons.
    Comet was a good tank all in all, but not an equal to Panther 1.

  5. I think the Firefly at t6 is wishful thinking. I would not expect lower than 7.

    The gun is the OQF 17pdr – the same gun being used on the Black Prince and the AT7/AT8. This gun is extremely strong compared to other T6 medium guns at the moment. Unless they will give it some ‘gimped’ version of the gun, it just won’t be at t6.

    Frankly, I fear that the Firefly is going to be a massive disappointment because of this – something on a sherman chassis at t7 might be a bit sad.

    • Dude the thing will be slow as shit because of all the weight (the M4 Sherman right now is pretty slow already) and will have absolutly worthless Armour at tier 6. It will probably also keep the shitty camo the M4 Sherman has.

      The only thing the Sherman Firefly will have is it’s gun, turret and gun depression. Perfect tier 6 candidate.

    • There is also a tier 5 TD(S 35 CA) that has the 17 pdr as it’s stock gun. The Firefly at tier 6 is totally reasonable.

    • I dunno how you come to this conclusion. The gun is considered the weak point of the BP on a tier 7 heavy. The 17-pdr has been balanced by reload time and aiming characteristics in the game so far. The lowest tier vehicle with it is the French tier 5 td which has it as stock gun. The firefly having a lower rof with it than the tds would balance it just fine, and would be historically quite apt given the maneuvering they had to do to fit the 17-pdr in the turret in the first place.

      I don’t know how the challenger would be anything higher than tier 6 either though. A cromwell with worse turret armour, worse camo and worse maneuverability in exchange for a 17-pdr sounds like it is still tier 6 material to me.

  6. they should do the stage one *troll face* give it 2 shots, a 55 second reload, zero armor, and wargaming makes a fortune for everyone that techs right to it, then after the massive push to get one dies out, they finally nerf it, HMMMM i wonder if we have seen this before.

  7. I dont see WG doing stage 2 though only because it would basically be the same as the 183 now, they will either do what i said, or will make the top of this branch the 183 and buff the tortoise to tier 10

  8. Sure, why not… you can make the T30 a “Tank Destroyer” based on the gun – might as well consider the Firefly one as well since it is one of the more powerful sherman designs out there. Just call it a TD hybrid line or something to justify it.

  9. at least they all exist….for now anyway, but when WG get their hands on it……fake, fake, fake….ooh. we’ll make this one up!

    good job on this SS!

  10. So what do you expect to be the start off point of the line? The Firefly as a second t6 medium coming from the Crusader? Or maybe T5 Crusader –> T6 Crusader –> T6 Firefly, like with the T3 Marder II –> T4 Marder 38 –> T4 Stug3 B? (Until the last patch I thought this would be impossible, but now…)

    At least I hope they don’t just copy the American Medium line until T6.

    On the other hand, I do believe the 17pdr on Sherman chassis is just ridiculously over-hyped. All serious study seems to show, that it had no serious operational advantages to any M4 with an 76mm M1 variant… ;)

    • Well the best guess based on what we know is
      M2A1, Stuart I, Grant, Sherman III, Sherman V
      at tiers 2-6 respectively.

  11. - If we add another 183mm carrying tank destroyer to the game, wouldn’t it just increase the whining? I guess we can call this one different in terms that it has a fully rotating turret, but trades it for poorer turret armor and a small mantlet.

    - Also, 4004 Conway is not so interesting, you might as well get a Centurion 7/1 or Conqueror, because it’s something based off the Cent chassis but with the same 120mm cannon, but even worse turret armor.

    - Okay, Charioteer. I’m guessing it’s going to be just basically a spammy 20pdr like the AT15 but instead has no armor and a turret. Fair enough.

    - Challenger.. Cromwell with a 17pdr similar to the Black Prince’s and armor good enough to stop 105mm howitzer rounds? Ehh sounds interesting. Although 17pdr is complained about on the Black Prince and a supposed tank destroyer having such low alpha as well would be quite amusing. They’d have to buff the ROF on this one even further.

    I don’t know man. Seems like part of this line is going to make the Nuffield AT line very redundant and absolutely not worth playing (I’d play the Charioteer over the AT15 any day, 20pdr has no place on an supposed assault tank), but the other parts of the line, like the Conway or the FV4005 Stage 2 don’t make me really consider playing down that line to end up with what I currently could have, i.e Deathstar 183.

    If this is truly a good estimate of the upcoming composition of the LL line, then I am skeptical about it’s success. However, a good article on some research and at the very least a preview of the storm (or glory) that is headed our way.

    • thats what im saying it makes no sense, therefore i believe wargaming will try and make a fortune off of the stage 1

  12. Why do people always try to combine the Avenger and Challenger? The turret is different and the HULL IS DIFFERENT. Seriously, look at the hull again. They aren’t the same. You can’t just swap out turrets.

    Then again, this is wargaming, so yes, yes they can.

    • Yeah, looks more like a Comet chassis with the return rollers…

      • Haven’t you heard about the wonderous alternative hull thingy that WG are doing along with the HD models?

        • Actually, that isn’t for sure. At least T-54 didn’t get it’s second hull with the HD update.
          Also, the Avenger and Challenger are two totally different vehicles, you can’t swap the hulls and turrets around as you like. How would that tank even be named?

          • Its General Staff A number, A30

            And I didn’t say that vehicles would get them at the same time as their HD models.

  13. …I’d prefer just another TD branch. firefly? chuck it with cromwell. America has two tier six meds anyway.

  14. The tier VII-IX TDs would need retardedly overbuffed gun stats to be competitive.

  15. SS, what do you think of adding Egyptian vehicles? They may have been British Empire, althought maybe only in T1 era.

    Regardless, I believe that the British still can furnish two medium, one heavy and two TD lines, along with a extended light line. It’s time some love was shown.

    For Ex: Tier 10 Medium line
    2: Vickers Independant
    3: Matilda 1 (T3 only MM)
    4: Sentinal AC.1/3 (Top Gun 2×25 Pdr like MLTS)
    5: RAM
    6: Grizzly Firefly. (T6 Premium Sentinel AC4)
    7: Indian/Egyptian Sherman (With up to FL-10 turret)
    8: Centurion AVRE
    9: Vickers Vijayjanta (IRL it was not as good as leopard, nerf it’s soft stats)
    10. Vickers MBT Mk.4 (Same gun as T10 Heavy) = (Less mobile Leopard with bigger gun)

    • Vickers Mk 4 is not getting in. The 120mm is not the same as the tier 10 heavies, as it was either the L11A5 120mm (which woud be overpowered on that chasis), or one of two smoothbores

    • Only Vickers Mk.4 has been designed in late seventies and as such falls outside of WoT timeframe. And that’s only the beginning of what’s wrong with Your proposal.

      • I am obviously new at this, but my point still stands. The British are due for more lines…

        I don’t know though

        (T5 Up)
        Valiant
        Super Excelsior
        Super Valiant
        Churchill AVRE
        Centurion AVRE
        FV215a (The AVRE 215b)

        • The French need a proper medium tank line first (and possibly the non-autoloading heavy line as well), as they were supposed to have these tanks since the day they were added to the game much earlier than the British were(some of them even showed up in the trailers for the French tech tree).

  16. Are there research materials concerning high tier light tanks for Great Britain? I wonder if i keep my xp on my crusader or if i convert into free xp.

  17. I like it SS, a lot. Well thought out, and querky, like every other British line.
    I do hope with this like comes the Grant with working Multi-gun/Turrets.
    Cheers,
    Appy

  18. “I think it was 100mm or so.”

    Erm, it was thinner, or at least the non-mantlet area was thinner.

  19. Again, for the life of mine I can not imagine how Vickers MBT can be considered valid as tier X. Can someone explain it to me please, how a tank slightly faster, armed with the same gun and waaay less armoured than a tier IX Centurion is a better choice than Centurion Action X?

  20. More armour for the people, penetration is useless to even have if there aren’t armor to bounce it, and all new lines, japanese,new german td and how this will ruin that armour penetration balance, might as well play battlefield where hit = pen derp

  21. The FV4005 stage 2 based on information given to me from Bovington told me it was a 6 shot auto loading mechanism with the ability to prepare 3 rounds in advance for reload ( 2 part ammunition).

    • I should add the Sentinel tanks were designed for continual development and upgrade for their service life. the turret and turret ring were designed to house any forseeable gun and in fact had intentions of mounting the 3.7 inch AA gun.

  22. Really?? FV 183 on a Centurion, at tier 9?? You cant be serious!

    • It has NO armor. Archive reports state only 14mm of turret armor. Plus the centurion hull is only 76mm thick, at best. Credit goes to Ogopogo for archive report.

    • BL-10 at tier 8? German 128 mm at tier 7?

      Although I suppose the alpha is still relatively high compared to those.

      • BL-10 at tier 8…okay you got me there.

        The German 128 on the Sturer Emil has only 15 shots, and let’s just say those shots can run out at the worst possible times. Furthermore, it’s the gun the vehicle actually had in real life.

  23. *tree under construction*
    http://i.imgur.com/Jay2vJh.jpg
    There’s my shot at the other med line. I still think that the 17-pdr would be fine at T8. 3,5s 150 damage gun can’t be worse than 18s 390 damage gun, right? Remember the aiming times and dispersions and all that.
    The early parts of the branch can be refigured.
    Also note the changes at the Valentine.

    • why not at tier 10?srly tier 5/6 better ,S 35 CA has 17pdr as stock gun

    • Hmm, I like this tree. The second medium branch /is/ at least somewhat realistic. But I disagree with other layout, Matilda should still lead to Churchill, and Churchill to GC. Moving the FV from tier X to tier VIII premium is a very good move. UK does need a tier VIII premium.

  24. Sentinel could be both tier 4 and/or tier 5.

    The production version had a 2pdr. Thus it could be a mobile matilda. For tier 4 worse gun handling or other soft stat nerfs could balance it with the better mobility.

    Tier 5 could use the 6pdr that was planned. If you were going to use it for both tier 4 and 5, perhaps use the 25pdr to make a tier 5 KV-2. Easy enough to make the gun balance since its not used anywhere else.

    • 25 pdr is just 88mm, that would be a worse derp than P4 and M4 have.

      • guess you are right. Still the projectile wieght is close with 11.5kg for the 25pdr vs 14.97 for the 105mm.

        The 25pdr field gun did have a 1400 fps vs 1000 fps for the 105mm, so maybe it could be balanced like a “short 88″ with the AP round being primary

          • Wow, wargaming hates them some british. I blocked out that it was in the game as lets face it, the british derp guns are useless in game.

            no pen, moderate alpha, sloooooow reload.

            AWESOME.

            oh yah, slow shells and accuracy among the worst.

      • 84mm.

        Also there was a version with dual 25pdrs to see whether it could handle the recoil of a 17pdr.

        • Actually the 20-pdr is 83,4mm, 25-pdr is 87,6mm and the 32-pdr is 94mm.

          • As far as development cohesion goes the Sentinel/Thunderbolt is a bit messy.
            AC1 has the standard 2 pounder (not the Mk-XB with the little john adapter), the AC2 was proposed as a means of up gunning it with either a 6 pounder or 75mm (either British or american, they also wanted to make changes to the power plant as well) but neither of these guns could be obtain so the AC2 design was shelved (there was another design titled AC2 as well, it also go shelved).
            AC3 was fitted with the short 25 pounder (so it would probably have worse stats than the alecto one because of the lower muzzle velocity) however there was also an intention to fit it with the 6 pounder/75mm if they became available(which they never did). AC4 never got past the prototype stage (the one in the photo is an AC3 hull with AC4 turret, final paper design had a remodelled engine bay for a new power plant) but was proposed in variants with both the 17pounder and the 25pounder.
            so potentially you could actually split it across tiers 4-6 if you spaced out the guns right, the only issue would be the crappy 25pounder being the stock gun at tier 6 (unless WG get creative and give it the 75mm/6 pounder as the stock gun)

            In regards to the dual 25 pounder setup I doubt it will make it into the game, it was purely a testing design and the guns took up so much room in the turret that there isn’t any space for the crew. during the tests it was fired remotely

  25. “There are no hightier candidates for another British medium branch apart from the Vickers, combining the medium line with a turretted tank destroyer line is the logical step.”

    sorry to disagree. The obvious solutuion for 2nd Brit line is, while including the firefly (have to put in game somewhere..) is to create a new medium line up to t8, then add Chieftain proto at tier 9 followed by Chieftain mk1-3 at tier 10, as a heavy.

    This was done in US tree, no reason it cannot be done in UK tree. Anything else would be a serious error by WG methinks, letting down community.

    (and talk of Vickers as a tier 10 candiate is frightening, it was in reality no better than a standard centurion, with “export” additions.

  26. You sir, SS, are a dyed in the wool optimist. Hello? It’s Wargaming. No tier whatever in real life? – No Problem, We’ll just make shit up.

  27. I’m sure the stage 2 has an autoloader too, it’s just enclosed.
    or I’m thinking about another tank.

  28. I dont think that the Vickers MBT is a suitable replacement for the FV4202 its characteristics are worse than the Cent MK 7/1 so I would say the Action X Cent is a better choice as for the Lend Lease Tree who says it has to finish at tier 10 straight away surly they could add 2 – 6 with it ending at the firefly then you can research the Comet from the Firefly and add the rest of the tanks at a later date.

  29. I disagree with one point SS – that the Sentinel AC4 could not be a tier 7 medium.

    Certainly, the chassis from the AC1 would be terrible, but there was an alternate chassis designed for the AC3, with a thick, flat upper glacis angled at 70 degrees to the horizontal. Combine that frontal plate with some ‘unhistorical’ mobility and a decent rate of fire on the 17lb, and I would wager it could manage itself at tier 7 – the bar’s already pretty low when it comes to tier 7 mediums.

    My quick research didn’t find the thickness of the armour, but here’s two images to support this idea:
    http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/ACs/ac3f.jpg
    http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/ACs/ac3f1.jpg

    • Hmm…it certainly doesn’t look any worse than the Comet in terms of capabilities. It could work.

      • AC4 was planned to have an upgraded power plant.
        The original desired engines for the AC1 were a Guiberson diesel or a Pratt&Whitney Wasp radial, neither of which could be obtained at the time so an alternate arrangement was created using 3 v6 petrol engines operating in triplex in a clover leaf layout through a common crank shaft (the engines were obtained from a local stock that had been commercially imported prior to the war). the AC3 changed the layout to something closer to a Chrysler multibank and the AC4 was proposed to finally get either the Pratt&Whitney radial engine or something equivalent as supplies from the US had at that time become available (however the project was cancelled before this could be implemented) so an upgrade in mobility is possible without being unhistorical.

        glacis isn’t that thick though, only 65mm, side is 45mm, upside is that its an entirely cast hull so the thickness should be largely uniform

        • it’s true that 65mm isn’t all that thick, but that front plate on the AC 4 is at 70 degrees, which is the WOT autobounce angle. Autobounce aside, that sloping brings the 65mm to an effective thickness of 190mm (65mm/cos(70)=190mm). Decrease the front slope to 60 degrees (let’s say your enemy had a bit of high ground) and it’s still 130mm.

          Your Comet can’t manage that.

  30. Fuck the Vickers MBT. I can’t stand it, when people bring this shitty thing up as a replacement for the FV4202. Current FV4202 eats the Vickers MBT for breakfast, spits it out, rolls over it, sets it on fire and pushes it over a cliff.

    • FV4202 isn’t that great, but that is more to do with how WG set up the metagame. Until WG make space armour destructible, AVRE Centurion and Conqueror are the best replacement for tier 10.

  31. Those gun ain’t as powerful as German 12,8 and 15 because WG don’t want to acknowledge valley of tears.

    In addition, Avenger’s hull is modified to have lower profile then Challenger, so they should be two tanks, maybe Challenger can be a tier 6/7 premium.

    I also think there are enough British hull to complete the ‘turret’ TD line, since WG isn’t shy from fantasy land.

  32. FV4004 at tier9? It would be worse than Conqueror, same gun as Conq but has high profile and no armor.