Straight Outta Supertest: FV201/A45 British Premium HT7

Posted on by

Source: various

Hello everyone,

this is the upcoming tier 7 British premium heavy tank, FV201/A45.

jmqQcwoO1pk

Description:

Developed by 1944 by the English Electric company as a part of the new program to create a new infantry support tank to replace the A43 Black Prince. The tank was never accepted in service due to the change in the concept of tank forces, but it served as a basis in the creation of post-war heavy tanks.

Hitpoints: 1500
Engine: 800 hp
Weight: 55,883 tons
Power-to-weight: 14,32 hp/t
Maximum speed: 31/16 km/h
Hull traverse: 28 deg/s
Terrain resistance: 1,151/1,342/2,014
Turret traverse: 37,5 deg/s
Viewrange: 380
Radio range: 594,4

Hull armor: 76,2/50,8/?
Turret armor: 152,4/88,9/?

Elite gun: 17pdr
Damage: 150
Penetration: 171
ROF: 14,551
DPM: 2182,7
Reload: 4,123
Accuracy: 0,374
Aimtime: 2,21s
Depression: -8

Armor:

arm1

arm2

arm3

arm4

wk1

wk2

wk3

wk4

118 thoughts on “Straight Outta Supertest: FV201/A45 British Premium HT7”

    • Hehe more of a SHIT clone.

      - hilarious damage ☑
      - pathetic speed ☑
      - paper armor ☑

      This tank better have a max T7 preferential MM, because even it’s good depression, rof and aim time will not be enough to save this crap. At T8 being slow and delivering pathetic damage will not win a game. The Su-122-44 shits on this.

      At least T28Proto is slow, has great gun depression, but it’s gun can wreck a team. Sturer Emil is also slow, amazing gun depression but it’s gun can two shot most of the tanks in it’s tier and hurt T8 pretty bad. The list can continue.

      This shit is slow, no armor, no damage. LOL!! i guess WG is running an internal contest for the shittest balanced premium. Not even Hitlerpanther is as shit as this.

      • THIS BLOG IS BECOMING THE SANCTUARY OF ALL SUB PAR WHINERS.

        SS, soon you will have enough followers to open a cult, the seances will consist of standing in circle and crying your hearts out.

      • Why? The Black Prince using the same gun doesn’t get preferential MM. Yeah, it has armor, but it’s also slow. This thing has some mobility and still has a rather well-armored turret front.

    • I don’t see the problem here. In fact, that might actually be a good thing, because it plays similarly to the high tier British heavies, which allows it to serve not just as a crew trainer, but to train the PLAYER so that they can figure out how to drive the top-tier heavies on that tree, which means they might be a bit better once you end up having them driving a tier 10 Fv215b on your team.

      • Well said mate,
        The first time I realised I have to take hull down so serious that even ENSK I went to the easy.
        They are all about hull down, turret armour not stronk but with a snappable gun. Only thing to worry are the fuel tank and the ammo rack.

  2. Pingback: [Sammelthread] World of Tanks - Seite 1941

  3. Fairly mobile, but slow (31 kph). Centurion armor (nice turret) and a decent gun.

    If it gets pref MM it’s a good tank in my opinion.

  4. So basically a stock Caern with its top turret and nerfed depression. Not to mention paper hull. Lets hope it gets pref MM (not that I intend to by it anyway)

  5. Cant WG just copy whole WoT and rename to WoT: Premium?
    Why to introduce a clone to every single tank one at a time -just do it all at once :D

    • That would be AT15A – 20kph + 17pdr and MM limited to T8 max

      oh ant that little thing about 240mm of frontal armor and 150mm of side armor :)

  7. Oh good another 17pdr. Looks like a sort of tier 7 excelsior to me.

    Looks like the upper and lower plate are both ~90mm thick though but other than the gun mantlet it doesn’t look particularly well armored anywhere and has 2degrees less depression than the Caern. It also has some tumor on the front above the upper plate that looks like it might be deceptively thick at the front but maybe not from the sides.

    Overall, meh. Better DPM than BP by a fair bit though.

    • The Caern’s 2 more degrees of gun depression do precious little to actually increase protection. At tier 7, it’ll face lower pen, lower accuracy guns, which is about the best protection for a turret like that.

      • Yea at tier 7. At tier 7. You must have a cool mod to play this all the time at tier 7 right? if this will not have pref MM, then a t7 battle will mean 1 out of 10. And the rest you will be food for the high alpha guns of T8 and 9.

      • Other than the mantlet, the 152mm of the turret is still not really that thick, there’s quite a few tier 6s with enough pen to defeat that, you just have to shoot either side or below the mantlet. Poor pen and bad accuracy are the guns that will struggle with this, and what sort of gun is that? A-44 maybe.

  8. I remember times when I played stock Caernarvon vs X tiers… even there, the 17pdr can work :D The tank might be fun.

  11. Whining for pref MM already? This is T7, comparable to Black Prince. With better mobility and DPM, the only downside is weaker hull armour, which you can easily hide in hulldown. No point in pref MM here.

    • People want pref MM on everything. Next step will be B2/Valentine II levels of MM for everything.

    • People want preferential MM because they pay REAL MONEY for a premium tank. And a premium tank needs to at least be FUN.

      But then anyone giving WG money for this shit and then complaining it sucks in T9 games is a retard. Just as the Hitlerpanther situation.

      • rly BP is shit tank for u??gimme a break u don’t now what u are talking about..bp is good tank afcourse it’s not good when he is against e75 m103 but what tier 7 is..all british tanks are good meds and heavies and this tank is going to be exelent in tier 7-8 and if it and up in tier 9 battle just play it more cautios and look for the chance to do some suport damage

    • Being a player started with both Brits mediums and heavies.
      Your comments concluded this (these) tanks so well.
      A “well” located fuel tanks and engine.
      M44 can torch these FV200 chassis with splash.

  13. I loved the Caernarvon, so this is a pretty nice tank to have. Lets hope it will be mission reward sometime :)

  14. Nice trolling again from wargaming! Serb will be proud! Now give us your money minions!!

  16. Looks like the times when premium tanks were unique, exotic models is long gone. Now the recipe is: take existing tank, select a combination of modules so that it’s in between the stock and the elite configuration, release it as premium.

  17. At tier 7, the armour might actually be good. And I got no complaints about the 17pdr on that level either. I will probably buy this if it becomes a normally sold premium.

      • It is funny because a Walker Buldog will fuck this paper heavy pretty good. And then you will tell yourself : hey look! that light has more firepower than this crap ive paid money for.

        This heavy needs it’s damage buffed to 20pdr level.

        • And how much HP does a Bulldog have ? How long can it survive in direct combat ? How long can it hold against multiple enemies ? The tank is perfectly fine. Keep in mind that it can also meet T5 tanks. This thing, with this armor and gun as top tier will be totally epic. With that DPM you can kill 4 tier 5 tanks in a minute.

  19. so… This tier VII “heavy tank” is basically performance-wise (as armour looks more close to it than to Caer) Centy 1 with 2nd gun and sloth with barely 50% training for driver? looks really fun…

    Can’t they give Brits some useable tier VII-VIII premium med? We allready have Excrementior and Hot TOG, we don’t need more british heavies, and certainly not if they are basically nerfed copy of one allready in the game, not to mention it’s fourth tank with EXACTLY THE SAME TURRET.

    • None of the FV200 (apart from its size)
      Plays like a heavy in game.

      You want something Excelsior with a flat hopeless manlet turret ?
      Usable medium ?
      Maybe the question goes to “Why Brits had the idea of universal tank that early?”

      • because their war designs all sucked?

        let’s see…
        Early cruisers… sucked. Nuff said.

        Matilda II… Sucked after 1940. 2pdr gun… just the stock gun here, not the Littlejohned thing called X-B in the game. Armour was pretty decent, tho… as long as Jerries didn’t get the idea of pointing their Flaks at them.

        Valentine… sucked. This thing was even worse than Matilda, just little cheaper. Oh, and also capable of being upgraded with more modern guns that could actually penetrate some armour.

        Churchill… Well, i can’t actually say it sucked, it was actually pretty successfull design, but… it was built for trench warfare, first prototype was supposed to have guns in side sponsons and even thefinal product looked so 1920-ish Jessies didn’t actually believe those things left on Dunkerque beaches (Churchills mk. I) are brand new tanks. But i have to admit, Churchills were performing actually pretty good.

        Crusader… sucked. Most of them IRL were armed with 2pdr (6pdr version was kind of a swan’s song to it, plus came when 6pdr was allready getting oblsolete) + fought mostly in desert (where speed and manouverability are not that important – not that those parameters are as important IRL as they are in WoT)

        Cromwell… Sucked. Really, as OP it might look in WoT, IRL this thing was one of the most idiotic designs of WW2 british armoured forces. Yes, it was fast and agile (as i said, not nearly as important as in WoT, without some hi-tech gun stab anyways), but this thing came with riveted, totally flat, unsloped turret armour to the european theatre of 1944 – years after introduction of fully sloped BTs, T-34, Panther, heck, even Shermans got sloped front – not to mention Crusader’s turret sides. But brits just decided they don’t need no lousy sloped armour like everyone else. Plus they fitted it with the so-caled “universal gun” 75mm. Yeah, very clever building new tank around gun which was basically the same as the one on Sherman – even ‘murricans refitted some of their Sherms to 76mm, and mind this – According to US doctrine tanks weren’t supposed to fight enemy tanks – that’s what TD’ were for. BUT – Cromwells, as “Cruiser tanks”, were actually meant to exploit their superior speed to break through enemy lines and FIGHT ENEMY TANKS. With puny lo-pressure gun constructed for infantry support. Way to go.

        So it actually leaves basically only 17pdr designs, of which one was prototype only (Black Prince), one was not really 17pdr (Comet, althrough 77 HV was with APDS nearly as powerful as 17pdr it used different ammo and thus caused problems in supply chains), one was extremely rare (Challenger) and last one (and most prominent one, to be honest) was actually rearmed ‘murrican design (Firefly)

        With so many designs that sucked and doctrine based on two diametrally different (and actually pretty limiting) roles it’s no surprise they actually loked for tank that was supposed to “have it all”… well, not really all, but all that really matters in battlefield

        • Early cruisers were as good as any other nations tanks in 1939/40 that they were going to face and the 2pdr was one of the best guns (due to be replaced by the 6pdr starting 1940).

          Matilda Senior was better than anything it faced in 1939-40 and was still capable in 1941 (although the 2pdr was getting long in the tooth) until the Germans brought in their upgunned tanks and 50mm ATG’s – strangely as a result of not being able to deal with the Matilda senior when they met in France.

          Valentine was undergunned for much but tough armour and reliable – did its job in North Africa and was still being used in 1945 in N Europe, Italy and by the Soviets who thought it was a great light tank.

          No Churchills at Dunkirk – I assume you mean Dieppe – and they were a mix of Churchill I, II and III along with some Oke Mk I. More fool the Germans for not learning the lessons when they captured them – or how successful they really were on the beach despite the odds.

          Crusader after initial problems was fast, long range and with the Mk III and 6pdr equivalent to the Panzer III (most common German tank it faced) and a match for most of the Panzer IV (only the specials which were in short supply outgunned it).

          Cromwells came in welded and riveted versions, British industry built what they could build, not designs they could not – armour was not sloped but was thicker than the Sherman, it was faster, lower and had excellent cross country ability.

          US doctrine never said tanks were not to fight enemy tanks – internet fallacy perpetuated – Tanks destroyers were for defensive purposes originally (they came in towed and SP versions as well not just the M10/M18/M36 most think of).

          The 75mm was a medium velocity gun (not low pressure) and designed ash a dual purpose (better HE than the 6pdr and 76mm but worse AP) – it was good enough for the majority of targets it faced – Infantry, towed and self propelled guns, relatively few Panzer III and IV.

          77mm never caused problems with supply chains – it was called the 77mm to prevent problems with the 3″ AA and 17pdr guns as all three were 76.2mm guns – someone read something wrong.

        • I’m pretty sure historians and many tankers from back then wouldn’t agree with much of that tbh tobi_1989…

          The only thing that you can really accuse the British of is getting their tanks out late. Many of the British tanks were truly fantastic tanks, they often just didn’t arrive in enough quantities early enough to really shine.

          And they kept that trend up to the very end (yes centurion I’m looking at you) Fact is the British arguably had the best tank of the war with the centurion, just that it arrived so late it didn’t see any real combat at the time. The 10 or so iterations of the centurion after the war and it’s long service record speaks for itself.

        • You are one of those people who thinks you can just slope armour without giving anything up huh. You think the Germans didn’t know about sloped armour when they designed the Tiger?

          When it comes to the design of tanks it is always a trade off between weight and internal volume. The design parameters will have a desired effective armour thickness which will be met regardless and the designer must decide whether they sacrifice internal volume (as sloping takes up twice the space) or weight (as flat armour needs twice as much thickness as sloped). The Cromwell needed the internal volume for the large gun and engine, so the armour was flat. If they had gone for sloped armour the effective thickness would still have been the same requested, they would just have a much lighter tank, probably with room only for a 2-pdr gun. Given the Cromwell was already so mobile it is hard to see what would have been acheived by that. But then if you think the Churchill (production started 1941) was left on the beach at Dunkirk (1940) maybe such understanding is beyond you.

          British tank designs of the war were generally not too bad for their time (an exception being covenanter/crusader). The just had to keep on going up against the next generation of German tanks, though they met few of these as it was so it was rarely the issue people think. The early cruisers you dismiss as terrible were designed 1934-1938 yet totally dominated Italian designs of the same era in 1939 and held their own against much more modern Pz3 and 4 in 1940 (they were far superior to the Pz 2, Germany’s equivalent to a cruiser tank designed in the same period). It was only upgrades to the Pz 3 and 4 in 1941 that made the cruisers obsolete and their greatest weakness while in service was not anti tank (they easily dealt with early Pz 4) but in their crappy HE performance. Matilda was a 1937 design yet it completely outclassed the German tanks it met in 1940, pity there was so few of them. The predicament Britian (and the USSR who was the one actually using the matilda the most) was in meant it was forced to stay in use well past its prime and it suffered, but that is hardly a design fault. Valentine was a 1938 design which performed well in 1941 other than crap HE performance of the 2-pdr. Even though it was a cheap option compared to the matilda it was superior to any German tank designed at the same time (early pz3 and 4). Circumstance merely meant it had to keep fighting while better variants of German tanks came along.

          The initial churchill trench fighter design was done in 1940, when it is perfectly possible such combat could have arisen. They could not have known France would collapse, and when it did they immediately revised the design. The idea that there was no trench style combat in ww2 is complete fallacy and its trench fighting roots were why the churchill proved such an effective infantry support tank in its final guise. The fighting in Normandy was ideal for it.

          The cromwell itself was a 1942 design which had to do its fighting in 1944 and 1945. It still performed ok, it hardly ever faced German tanks after all. If it did it was being misused. The cruiser tank concept was to exploit breakthroughs, not create them. They were meant to roam about in enemy rear areas cutting communications, destroying ammo dumps et all. It was envisioned the enemy would have reserves of fast tanks of their own which the cruisers would need to engage, hence the desire for an anti tank weapon. The German doctrine went entirely the other direction however, having small numbers of slow heavy tanks. So the Cromwell is outclassed tank on tank, but then if it was actually carrying out its cruiser tank role that would be irrelevant since its not like that lone Tiger is going to chase around France after it.

          So yeah other than a constant issue with HE shells in high velocity guns and the rather bad covenanter/crusader period British tank designs were mostly fine. And the biggest problem with Crusader (and Covenanter) was bad reliability, something the rest of the British tanks were very good with. I mean were German designs with their massive guns and heavy armour really so special when they constantly broke down. Or were the soviet designs gunned down in their thousands so fantastic?

          • Somewhat optimistic in some areas, but pretty much spot on. The problem with British tanks, which persisted right up to the Centurion, was that they were designed with small turret rings (mostly down to needing to fit on British railway transport, and therefore needing to be fairly narrow to fit in the Victorian tunnels). It was the turret rings which caused them to become obsolete so quickly, whereas the German designs could accommodate upgrades more easily.

            All being said, there were some absolute stinkers in the British tank story – mostly brought about by the fact that until ’39, the tank designers had little or no interaction with the tank crews or theorists, and had to work with the traditionally British military thing of building everything down to a budget.

            Also, as an island nation with a sprawling empire, the Army was usually starved of cash during the inter-war years. The Royal Navy came first – it had to – and then the RAF’s rearmament had to take priority in the late 30s. In effect, the Army was a designed and equipped more as a colonial police/skirmishing force, than a continental juggernaut for stopping the Germans (don’t forget in ’39, the French army was considered the biggest and best equipped in Europe, if not globally).

            In 1940, the BEF had some utter rubbish designs, some excellent designs, but were mostly badly handled, and lacked sufficient combined arms support.

            5 RTR at Arras stopped 7th Panzer Div in its tracks with their A12 Matildas, but ultimately had to retreat due to lack of infantry and artillery support. What is usually forgotten is that before the A12s arrived on the field, the A11 Matildas of 3 RTR (IIRC) were ripped to bits.

            Queen’s Bays at Huppy, in their A13s, were sent to assault entrenched German AT positions in woods, with two A10 CS borrowed from 12th Lancers firing smoke from their 3″ howitzers, because the HE shells had been left back in the UK. They got shredded.

            Tank on tank, the German designs were lacking against French and British designs – they simply couldn’t stop the A12 Matildas or Char B1s. The A13 Cruiser was faster cross country than the 35t, 38t, and early Pz.II and III, and packed a better AT gun… however, it rarely (if ever) saw them in direct combat in 1940. It was the combined arms use by the Germans which won the day, helped by the lack of coordination and training, and piecemeal use by Britain and France.

            In the desert, the British tanks again were generally better than the Germans 1 on 1 – however, the Germans had the 88, and worked brilliantly with them to draw the British tanks onto the AT positions – on the arrival of the M3 and M4 with 75mm HE gave the British something to actually shoot the 88s with. On top of that, the British persisted for a long time (too long) in firing on the move, whereas the Germans had learned to stop and fire.

            TL:DR
            It is a myth the German panzers were ultimate machines who stomped all before them. It was the better use of the panzers with combined arms that made them more effective.

          • Yeah, i apologize on the Dieppe mixup, totally way to make an asshat of me.

            But saying “British tanks were great, they just came later than hoped for” is not really way of proving they didn’t suck.

            Mind this: Cromwell of 1944 (yes, there was Centaur in 1942, but those things were much less mobile, considering they were powered by Crusader’s Liberty engine, yet almost as heavy as future Cromwells) was in most matters equal (or veeery slightly superior) to T-34 of 1940.

            Gun- about equal
            Armour- comparable
            Agility- comparable, maybe slightly better
            Top speed & acceleration- okay, better
            User-friendliness and ergonomy- i admit, way better, as it didn’t need hammer to change gears and was generally more comfortable for its crew – something ruskies never really gave a damn about.

            Also, Crommies should not be compared to Pz.III, as those things were generally obsolete by 1943 and never really fought Cromwells in any considerable numbers. WH’s armoured forces’s backbone of 44 was Pz. IV of late models armed with L/48 and even though the tank itself was rather inferior in terms of mobility and armour protection (well hey, the gun might be from 1943, but the chasis was around since invasion of poland), its gun was clearly superior – Pz. IV was able to penetrate Cromwell’s front at more than 1500m, Cromwell had to be much closer to repay the favor.

            Not saying Jerry tin cans are superior (well Panthers and Tigers were… in the rare moments their gearboxes weren’t broken or engines overheating y’know), just saying brits had one really good gun, about equal to or slightly better than L/70 (17pdr), but were not able to field it en masse. Sure, Jerries weren’t fielding /L70s and 88s en masse too, but Pak/KwK/StuK 40s were clearly superior to british 6pdrs and 75mms – in terms of long-range penetration.

            as for the Centurion – i myself don’t consider it War design that came too late, but as proper postwar MBT that came really early. Considering the sheer fact, that of all those early postwar designs only Centies and T-55s are still in service (and i dont mean service like in some third world country fielding 1930s-era tanks because of low budget, what i mean is proper use… well, still because of low budget, but with upgrades and modernization packages that keeps this thing badass-ish even today).
            Late war design were things like IS-3, T-44 or Pershing – all quickly turned obsolete by 1st gen MBTs. Centurion was kind of hipster – he was MBT long before it was cool.

  20. What I don’t understand is why WG didn’t put this vehicle in the tree and save the British premium heavy “slot” for FVRDE’s tank design from 1951 with the cleft turret and non-autoloading 105mm T140?

  21. Slightly better traverse speed
    Slightly better specific power
    Worse terrain resistance

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-thUhQoVK9oJ:quickybaby.com/forums/18/1718+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox

    In this case;Consider medium terrain.

    Tier 8 sort of FV221 has a 650 stock engine and 810 top engine,
    and a nice ratio between hard and terrain resistance.
    the actual traverse speed probably >24

    being a Premium,
    Engine power / stock engine power ratio = 1
    so on medium terrain it will not be 28, but less than that.

    Still. FV200 chassis, hardcore.

  22. Pingback: WoT: Neuer Premium Panzer FV201/A45 im Supertest › ZockerOnkel

  25. Great, just what was missing from the game. Another british tank with the 17pdr, and another clone.

    • its not WG fault the 17 pdr was such an excellent wepon , and dont like it dont buy it , simple

        • Ask those who get plastered by Archers, I think they have a quite different opinion to yours.

        • That would be why they are tomatoes. Any sensible player has a healthy respect for high DPM, fast rate of fire guns. Contrary to popular belief, a high rate of fire is acutally quite a lot better than a slow rate of fire with a high alpha. Unless that high alpha is capable of taking out a tank in one, it is a pretty serious handicap. Every time you shoot, people can move about with impunity. If you miss, or bounce, you suffer a more severe setback. High rate of fire allows for more reliable module damage, amongst which track damage is the most important. Perma tracking is deadly. Smaller guns also come with a nice perk: cheap ammo.

  26. Exactly what we need in random matches… another useless second line support sniper… almost able to hulldown and almost able to relocate…. pref mm or not this is even below 88panther lvl…

  27. Heavy tank with medium tanks gun. Surely that would work if WG would give it a premium MM, but let’s be realistic that won’t happen

    • It’s the very same gun as the Black Prince uses, except it gets considerably more DPM. Go figure what MM this tank will have.

  28. So basically, Centurion 1 one tier lower/ with better MM. I remember that with APCR the 17pdr was capable at tier8-9, so i guess it should be fine as a HT one tier lower.

  30. Pingback: Straight Outta Supertest: FV201/A45 British Premium HT7 « The Crow Clan

  31. Pingback: Supertest: Nový britský těžký premiák

  32. Wasn’t the FV201 planned to have the 20 Pounder? The 221 ended up with the 17 Pounder (for testing) and was named Caernarvon Mk I, not the 201…

    • Come to think of it, why even use this vehicle at all? It’s an interim vehicle between Centurion and Caernarvon (what would develop inot the Conqueror), so technically T8 material (as said, it was even planned with the 20 Pounder), but they choose the FV221 Caernarvon Mk I variant (Centurion turret, FV201 hull, 17 Pounder because they just wanted to test the vehicle) and drop it to T7 as a ridiculously slow heavy that has no armor to speak of, looks like a Centurion/Caernavon-clone and behaves like a bastard between Black Prince, TOG II and stock Centurion and needs to be driven like a medium (which it can’t do due to lack of speed). What makes this vehicle premium material?!

      Oh and P.S.: The only really good thing about it is, that it has the DPM-level that the BP should have.

      • Just no. The FV201 or A45 was planned with the 20 Pounder, not the 17 Pounder. The 17 Pounder was *only* used on the FV221 (Caernarvon Mk1), which was the A45 hull, married with a Centurion Mk2 turret and using the 17 Pounder. The FV201/A45 would be A45 hull, any Centurion turret and 20 Pounder, which never happened.

  33. It is an okay tank other than the hull armor. People are looking at the top speed as slow but it has an excellent HP/t Ratio of 14,32 which is almost as much as the cromwell. I play many british tanks and well the 17pounder may lack alpha damage but it makes up for it with reload and accuracy. Combine it with the okay pen of 171 you can pen tier 9s easy enough. Its more of a medium tank to be honest.

  35. So, basically its a worse Caernarvon? But a tier lower. Meh, i’d go with the Caernarvon anyday.

    • It’s the Caernarvon Prototype (aka Caernarvon Mk1). Only 1 was ever built and the project was further developed into the Caernarvon Mk2, which is what we have ingame.

  36. it’s hard to consider getting this tank. while it’s only ideal for players that are grinding up the British heavy tank line, as it’s crew numbers are ideal for the Caernarvon and beyond

    i certainly am not going to buy it. i suffered enough with the stock gun on the Caernarvon

  38. Pingback: World of Tanks - Neuer britischer schwerer Premium Panzer FV201/A45 - Himmelsdorf.de

  40. Is this anyhow related to the expected changes in the medium British line, featuring FV4202? Btw any news when this will happen?