So on most WW2 Tank discussion the supposed fact that it takes 5 M4s to kill 1 Panther(sometimes it is the Tiger, Tiger II, or every Panzer, but I will focus on the Panther) or a Panther is 5 times as effective as the M4 always seems to pop up. I believe I have tracked down the source of this claim which didn’t surprise me at all. In Belton Cooper’s Death Traps on page 175 he claims “The German tanks had a qualitative superiority of as much as five to one over our M4 Sherman.” This has been repeated everywhere from internet forums to the “History” Channel. Well I must say that even though Cooper’s war experience detailed in Death Traps is a good read, his claims go well beyond his understanding and have little, if any, supporting evidence.

Continue reading →

Last year there was a leak that revealed a large number of supertest icons, this is nothing new but I just want to take a closer look at one of vehicles before I go on vacation.

Continue reading →

What are you doing?

America!

Stahp!

Humor aside, this is the Falcon(the flying one) and the Aerie which are among the strangest vehicles proposed by the US right next to the DAPRA “humvee-copter” in my opinion. Back in 1955 the Ordnance Tank Automotive Command(OTAC) designed a new medium tank, a light airborne tank, and an aerial recon vehicle/carrier of said aerial vehicle.

The 1.5 ton Falcon was powered by a radial engine and was to have the flight characteristics of a helicopter(VTOL). It could hover or could fly at speeds near 161 km/h. The Falcon was armed with a .30 caliber MG and ten 4.5 inch rockets(basic rockets in use at the time). 25.6 mm of titanium armor was to protect the Falcon’s pilot.  A parachute feature was also developed.

The Aerie tracked vehicle was based on the Rex tank(the medium tank of the OTAC which  later helped in the T95′s development–a subject for another day) and weighed ~20 tons. The Aerie and the Falcon did not progress very far in development and there is a near certainty these won’t be in WoT ever, would be a good laugh though.

Source: Hunnicutt’s Abrams

EXTRA PSA:

The Maus had these armor values:

Maus Armor according to Panzer Tracts 6-3 (Jentz/Doyle)

I ran across a few threads recently that stated the Maus in WoT has had its armor nerfed from real life. In actuality it is the other way around.

Now the Americans already have one don’t they? Well, by playstyle the T26E4 doesn’t really fit the stereotypical medium role does it? So are there any other vehicles that could be introduced to fit in a tier 8 premium medium spot? Yes, a lot actually.

Lets start off with the more logical choices. The T42 might be the easiest vehile to implement. Historically the T42 was based off the T37 light tank and was to be better armored than the M46 while keeping approximately the same firepower. The T42′s turret was used in the M46E1(upgraded M46) and the  M47 Patton. The chassis is already ingame as the T69′s chassis while the turret and gun are represented by the M46′s upgraded turret and the 90 mm gun M36. The T42 would have 4 crew members and could achieve speeds of 51 km/h (with 13.3 hp/t).

Another choice is the M47 Patton itself. The M47 used a hull based off the M46 Patton but featured better sloping so the protection would be equal to the T42 hull. The gun is the same as the T42(the M36). The M47 had a top speed of 48 km/h while having 15.9 hp/t. The M47 should be superior to the T42 in mobility besides top speed, also you get to train 5 crew members in it. I’d be happy with an M47 premium but I’d like to have the M47 as a researchable tank at tier 9 and have the M26 and M46 combined as a single tier 8 tank, we could see it in the Euro Tree too.

You could have the M47 as a German Premium too…

The T25 and the T25E1 were modified T23s that were fitted with the  90 mm gun T7(aka M3) in a new turret. The T25E1 used a more conventional transmission because the original T23 Electric transmission(used in the T25) couldn’t deal with the weight being added. The T25E1 would be a better choice than the original T25 in my honest opinion.  The T25E1′s turret was 76 mm thick with an 89 mm thick mantlet. The frontal armor is 76 mm thick at a 46 degree slope to protect the crew of 5. The T25E1 could reach speeds of 56 km/h but only in short spurts, its sustained top speed was 48 km/h and had 12.9 hp/t. the T25E1 would be the most sluggish and weakest armed and armored out of these 3 vehicles and would need good “soft” stats for compensation.

Now for some prototype/conceptual vehicles. In 1952, the first Questionmark conference was held. Out of this conference the M-1, M-4/M-5, and the M-7 could be viable tier 8 mediums.

The M-1 was the most conventional out of these vehicles, being similar to the M48 Patton. It had 102 mm of frontal armor sloped back at 60 degress and had a powerful 500 hp engine(AOS-895, used in the Walker Bulldog). The M-1 was armed with the 90 mm T139 gun(which in all practicality is the 90 mm M41 gun). I would think this would be a little too much out of a premium, the M-2 design armed with the 105 mm T140 gun could make a good tier 9 tank with the M-1 being stock.

The M-4 and the M-5 only differed in powerplant, the M-4 was to use a failed engine(AX-1100) while the M-5 was to use the AOS-895 and would have good mobility(13 hp/t). They had 102 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees to protect the 4 crew members. The turret for these designs was placed in the rear to minimize overhang of the gun which was the 90 mm T139 gun. The M-5 should still get a good deal of comfort(which all these other tanks have an exceptional amount of comfortable gun depression). I think the M-5 would be a good choice as it unique and it isn’t over/underpowering.

The M-7 is a strange vehicle. It has the same chassis as the M-5 as above but the turret is a pod with an autoloaded 90 mm T139 gun. The weight of the M-7 was only 32 tons and would have 15.6 hp/t. There was to be no dangers of gun fumes or recoil but this arrangement also made vision more difficult for the crew of 3. The M-7′s autoloader would have access to many more rounds and for this reason it would be near impossible to balance as a tier 8 unless it is extremely nerfed, however the M-6(37 tons) was armed with a 105 mm T140 making the M-6/M-7 a tier IX candidate.

This is actually the M-7 with the 105 mm gun.

Now the last vehicle that I would endorse will come from the third Questionmark conference. Here many medium tanks were proposed but most either had composite armor or a smooth bore 90 mm gun so that only leaves one vehicle from the conference available, the TS-3. the TS-3 was a 40 ton vehicle armed crewed by 4 tankers and was armed with the 90 mm T139 . The armor was 96.5 mm thick and sloped back at 60 degrees; overall the TS-3 had less overall armor than the M48. The hp/t ratio would be ~14 hp/t giving the TS-3 good mobility with the 560 hp AOI-1195 engine. The TS-3 could be an effective premium if balanced properly.

There are more concepts from the US which could fill this position but most of the ones not here didn’t receive a proper designation and are pretty boring to be honest. I don’t want to talk about the “90 mm Gun Tank Proposal” or the “Lightweight Medium Tank” and you really don’t need to know, but they do exist.

Sources: Hunnicutt’s Pershing, Patton, and Abrams

Author: Priory_of_Sion

Earlier I was reading through some Q&As SilentStalker posted and I ran into these.

- Q: “Is the T110E4 armor historical?” A: “Well, give us the data of the REAL E4, we’ll be happy to have a look at it”

- the source for T110E3, E4 and E5 tanks is the Hunnicutt: Firepower book

This is a strange response by SerB. Honestly either he cannot read or someone has tampered his $200+ Firepower book. I’m going to try to set things straight with the T110E4.

Before I jump into Hunnicutt lets see what The_Chieftain had to say about the T110E4′s historical background back when the first screenshots came out (had to go digging in the “Epic Thread” for this one).

The info in Firepower tells this about the T110E4: The T110E4 was Chrysler’s response to the problems in their T110E3 design(power pack issues).  The T110E4 was planned with a AOI-1490 located in the rear of the hull along with the transmission. The rear section of the hull was to be covered with infrared shielding. The main weapon of the T110 series (the T123 120 mm gun, prototype to the M58) was to be mounted in a gimbal ring mount(aka what the SU-85 & the T110E3 have).This arrangement gave the T110E4 15 degrees of movement either left or right and -10 to +20 degrees of depression/elevation. The gun mantlet was to weight ~2 tons and would be ~230 mm thick without any curvature being taken into consideration. The rest of the T110E4′s hull was to be protected by 127 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees(254 mm of effective armor). There was to be 4 crew members with the driver and gunner being located uncomfortably in the front of the vehicle wedged against 127 mm of armor. The cupola was to have a .30 caliber MG and was to use an OPTAR rangefinder(using pulsed light instead of a laser which haven’t been discovered yet) .

There is no mention of any 180 degree turret in Hunnicutt’s book. There are even diagrams of the T110E4 that show it is impossible for there to be a turret because of the mantlet, the engine deck, and the lack of anything resembling a turret traverse mechanism.

The last image is the most detailed view of the T110E4 and has no signs of any 180 degree turret.

It is really sad that SerB claims to use Firepower as a source for the T110E4 but it has no information to support the T110E4 in WoT and rather destroys the idea of WG’s T110E4. The turret, the gun, and the armor(the armor values are actually pretty close, but they aren’t exactly the same due to WG’s imagining of the T110 series hull shape and the stupid turret on the E4–I sorta guess SerB’s first post is as bad as I originally thought, oh well) is all pretty messed up on WG’s T110E4. It would be a sign of intelligence to admit the T110E4 is a fake rather than making yourself look like you are illiterate and blind.

Sorry if this was sorta unorganized, I was kinda ranting and going in a hurry.

Source: Firepower