Comments on: Tanks that did not Make It: K-90 Amphibious Tank

By: MR_albinocreeper

MR_albinocreeper — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:33:00 +0000

i find it weird why WG doesn’t want more amphibious tanks, the BT-SV was amphibious, although its not modeled in WOT i see machines that could go on water an advantage and disadvantage.

By: ReactiveMist

ReactiveMist — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:09:20 +0000

True, the BT-SV wasn’t made for amphibious use. It looks sick tho.

By: Katyusha

Katyusha — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:08:09 +0000

The BT-SV wasn’t actually amphibious, though. It looks like it, but it wasn’t.

By: SeanPwnery

SeanPwnery — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:50:58 +0000

We need amphibs…. just like we need maps substantially larger (at least 5k x 5k or larger) so these little guys can traverse rivers or small pools in obscure areas to do some *real* scouting.

By: SACEUR

SACEUR — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:11:01 +0000

What gun depression? :-/

By: Xelos

Xelos — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:07:56 +0000

A number of Russian tanks have over buffed gun depression even though that should be their major drawback, most notably the KV-1S.

By: IndygoEEI

IndygoEEI — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:37:59 +0000

I personally want to see PT76 even with sans Amphibious capability. The PT-76 has an awesome gun and was extensively modified by countries who managed to get their hands on such a vehicle.

By: CrimsonSam

CrimsonSam — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:47:12 +0000

Give us back the BT-SV! And make it amphibious!

By: AkinaGG

AkinaGG — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:48 +0000

I don’t see a point of not having amphibious…It just a bit bigger and more boxy shape….give it to LT class so has better camo to compensate….

The only reason WG said no and most players can accept is; they can’t ram a drowning arty….:(

By: 23r0_NA

23r0_NA — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:53:32 +0000

Agreed. I mean, we have the BT-SV in the game, which was amphibious irl but isn’t in the game, so it could work.