To begin, let’s go far far back to the 1920s. There are no Shermans, Tigers, or T-34s. The greatest war mankind has ever known has just ended, and everyone is busy developing the latest and greatest killing machine. Huge and slow monsters did not seem interesting to the US Army, and development was focused on vehicles that were quick and agile, but paid for that agility with thickness of armour. For instance, here is an attempt to produce 6-12 mm armour plates that protect against .30 and .50 caliber bullets in 1922.

Maximum hardness!? This isn’t the American armour we know and love! Don’t worry, they have two decades to get there. In the meantime, let’s see how well thin armour like this turns out.

Well that’s not good. To be fair, the unrolled plates didn’t crack, but were covered in free cementite, which was what the metallurgists were trying to avoid. Ok, so the early armour wasn’t of amazing quality. How well did it resist attack? A document about corrugated armour conveniently mentions the ballistic limits for flat armour defined by specification AXS54 Rev. 2 in a table. We see that the 12.7 mm plate can be penetrated by a .30 caliber bullet at a speed of 2250 f/s and a 14 mm plate can be penetrated by a .50 cal bullet at 1930 f/s. Both of those bullets were very capable of achieving those speeds, so early American vehicles were still vulnerable to small arms fire. I suppose it’s worth mentioning that Soviet vehicles with similar armour thicknesses were not vulnerable to .30 caliber bullets, but that was a few years later.

All right, so the armour can be penetrated by bullets. Does it still spall? The Americans invented a pretty sweet process for taking pictures of rapidly moving things, which indicated that yes, yes it did.

Oh dear. Let’s fast forward to 1938, a year before the world erupts into total war once more. American armour has improved to this point. It got a little softer (400 BNH ideal hardness) and a little thicker, now expecting protection from proper 37 mm guns.

1700 m/s is the ballistic limit of an inch of armour against a 37 mm gun. This gives protection from 37 mm AP from about 850 meters. To put this value into perspective, English reports indicate that the American 37 mm guns penetrate 30 mm of German armour from 1600 yards (1463 meters). This is very high quality armour. Also note that the armour no longer spalls when hit with .50 cal bullets. These values are satisfactory against the current German army, but they won’t be limited to PzIs, PzIIs, and PzIIIs with 37 mm guns forever.

The Americans needed more tanks and needed them quickly. How do you get more tanks quickly? Casting!

119 cast armour plates from 9.5 mm to 76 mm were tested in 1940 in order to figure out how well this sort of thing can be done. The report only mentions that “some” plates passed the specifications, but fails to mention how many. Another report, however, does mention some pretty serious issues with casting.

Yikes, that’s not a good thing to hear when you’re about to participate in a huge war. This is where the Americans rapidly started leaning towards softer armour.

Watch as the hardness falls from 400 BNH to only 255! Also, note the superiority of Canadian manufactured armour. Take that, Americans!

Let’s look at slightly thicker armour. A document on welding provides a table of ballistic limits of 1.5-2 inch plates with and without weld repairs. Not only is the ballistic limit of a plate with a weld not that much less than an undamaged plate (remember all those popping German seams?), it’s only decreased when the shell strikes within an inch of the seam. This is pretty damn good. Furthermore, the ballistic limit of a 2 inch plate is 1512-1640 f/s, which corresponds to 500-900 meters (at least according to Soviet tables for the M3 gun). Recall that both Soviet and German data indicates that the Tiger can be penetrated in the side from the outer limit of that range. The quality of American armour far surpasses the quality of German armour, even though the plate is overmatched in the American case. While this assertion is only backed by theory, battlefield performance seems to agree.

Damage to vehicles consists mainly of broken tracks, tank fires, broken turret rings and damaged suspension system. Apparently armour plate quality superior to that of Germans.

While the cast turret rings seem to still be a bit of a problem, the armour shows itself splendidly.

No observed complete penetration to front sloping plate, front tank doors, nor gun shields. Final drive housing struck by what is believed to be 6-pounder armor piercing projectile was dented with no effect on operation.  One penetration reported by armor piercing 6-pounder on edge of door next to T member, numerous penetrations of side plates and back plates with no effect on operation of vehicles.

And this isn’t even the Sherman we’re talking about, but the meek M3 Stuart. 

My communist benefactors are looking over my shoulder, so I have to say something negative about American armour now. Uh, let’s see here…

Ha! The tanks are falling apart in winter! How cold did that winter get, anyway?

Oh, pretty damn cold, huh. Sadists can read some of the detailed descriptions of the damage in extremely cold temperatures (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but for those of you that don’t have time, the damage is very similar to that of German vehicles at room temperatures: cracking, spalling, fragments falling off.

So there you have it. Both cast and soft armour came from necessity instead of some kind of inherent superiority, but the Americans pulled it off. The quality of armour sent to Europe and the Pacific was largely excellent, and definitely superior to the armour of the vehicles it was fighting against.

Tiger #250001, the first serial production Tiger. The history of this vehicle is well known. This first Tiger was made in May of 1942, drove around for thousands of kilometers (not without numerous parts replacements, of course) at Kummersdorf, and was then sent to Leningrad with three other Tigers. All four were knocked out. The Germans managed to recover three, but the last one remained in No Man’s Land for months, without any interest from the Soviets. Eventually, the Germans blew up the abandoned tank, “sparing no expense on explosives” according to the archaeologists. This is what they’ve managed to find so far:

This discovery introduces many new facts into military history. For instance, it’s widely believed that the first Tigers were painted gray, but this Tiger has remnants of dark yellow paint on its fragments.

Here’s the full video, for those that want to see more.

Q: Several sources state that Soviet tank crews were forbidden from opening their hatches in combat and had to fight while buttoned up, reducing their ability to observe the battlefield. Is this true?

A: Not entirely. TL;DR: Soviet tank crewmen must observe their surroundings with open hatches out of battle. When contact with the enemy is made, they must close the hatches, but may reopen them if the target is lost. In urban combat, hatches must remain closed.

Q: Is it possible to ignite a T-34 by shooting at external gas tanks?

A: External gas tanks were either emptied or removed when entering combat, so their presence would be unlikely. Even if the vehicles were attacked mid-march, the fuel tanks are not connected to the fuel system, and if one catches fire or explodes, it will not destroy the tank.

Q: Do you have any information on reclamation of tanks and weapons? I heard that the Soviets didn’t start cleaning up the battlefields until the 1970s.

A: Soviet recovery teams searched battlefields immediately after the battle for tanks that could be towed back to recovery areas (SPAMs) and either repaired there or sent to back to a factory for refurbishment. However, tanks stuck in forests or swamps that were lost without a trace remained there for ages. Some are still there to this day.

Also, there was a significant drive to recover steel after the war, so it’s unlikely that perfectly good materials would be left for decades. I’ve talked to people that were born in the early 40s, and they recall playing in salvage yards filled with rusted tanks and guns in their childhood, which would put the start of massed recovery efforts into the late 40s or early 50s.

Q: What is a good guide for ranges at which German tanks could penetrate Allied armour?

A: For nice colourful diagrams, there is always the Tigerfibel. For other vehicles, Osprey books have tables of how far tanks have to be from each other to penetrate various parts of their armour, but I haven’t looked into how accurate they are or whose sources they use.

Q: PzIII, PzIV and Panthers had side skirts to protect their side armour. How effective were these modifications?

A: The side skirts protected from only anti-tank rifles, and were ineffective against any cannon caliber. I’ve read reports that the side skirts were extremely unwieldy, especially when driving in wooded areas, and would always get caught on things, but were useful in urban combat.

Q: How is an HE shell’s performance evaluated? I thought that a bigger caliber HE shell would perform better.

A: Effectiveness of shells is evaluated by the amount of lethal shrapnel produced, and how far it flies. Bigger shell does not necessarily mean better HE action. If you put too much explosive in a shell, it will explode into dust, generally having a poor fragmentation effect. Too little, and the shell will crack open into only a few fragments, barely killing anyone at all. A good HE shell has a balance of explosive substance.

The material the shell is made of also matters. American research showed that Soviet HE shells made of cast iron fragment better than American made shells of similar calibers, but are restricted to lower muzzle velocities.

As for the standards of effectiveness, the Soviets define an area of effect as a rectangle in which at least 50% of the targets are struck by lethal shrapnel. The British define this area as an area “on which the average density of throughs and deep strikes on vertical wooden targets is 1 per 10 square feet”. I haven’t come across German or American standards, but even these two show that the evaluation of HE varied from country to country, as did standards for AP penetration.

Q: You mentioned you had a table of ranges at which the T-34 can penetrate a PzIII. Can I see it?

A: Certainly. Digits cut off by the scan are shown as Xes.

That’s enough for today, I suppose. Don’t hesitate to send more questions to tankarchives@gmail.com.

The ISU-152 has long been a menace at tier 8 with its devastating 152 mm BL-10 gun, capable of bringing the pain to even top tier adversaries. What about its predecessor, the SU-152? You can have a D-25S to make it a poor man’s SU-122-44 or get the ML-20S, sling gold to hope to pen anything, and rapidly become a poor man. This just will not do. To the archives!

Let’s start with boring things, like the rate of fire. In game, it’s 3.39 RPM. “Aha!” you may yell, “the real rate of fire of the SU-152 was N RPM! Russian Bias!” I’ve heard many values for N, usually less than 2. As usual, people have read a number on the internet, didn’t understand it, and wish to yell it as loudly as possible. Soviet testing standards for rates of fire included using every rack (not just the ready rack), and re-adjusting targets. According to Yuri Pasholok’s book SU-152 and other SPGs on the KV tank chassis, the SU-152 achieved a rate of fire of 2.8 RPM using the first availability racks (10 shells), and the loader could load a shell from the most convenient rack in 16 seconds. Since WoT exists in an ideal world where every shell is in your best rack and your loader just chugged his own weight in Red Bull, the peak ROF (3.75 RPM) is not unreasonable.

“But Ensign!” you say, “I can get 3.75 RPM with a rammer or vents! Surely there is something better in your vast repository of knowledge!” Uh, let’s see, what else. A common field modification was an extra ammo rack of 5 made out of wooden spacers, placed underneath the gun, that’s a thing I guess. A ROF boost and few more shells isn’t so bad, give me a break, not every Soviet tank can get a huge and awesome buff.

Ha, I’m kidding, of course it can. For instance, that 122 mm BL-9S on the ISU-152 that I haven’t seen once in my many thousands of battles? It was originally developed under the name OBM-50. One of the vehicles it is discussed as being suitable for is the KV-14, which is, of course, an early index of the SU-152. Bam, how’s that for a buff? Now people will actually use this gun, since there is no other clearly better option available!

Nope, I lie again. The same document mentions the OBM-43 152 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s as another viable weapon for the SU-152. This is a towed gun that inherited the barrel, and the ballistics, of the Br-2 152 mm gun. This gun was eventually mounted into the ISU-152 with some minor changes, increasing the index to OBM-53. My well-read audience should be able to recognize this as an index of the BL-10 high power 152 mm gun. Indeed, scroll down, and the engineering drawing demonstrates both guns mounted in the SU-152, not its IS-based successor.

If you don’t like re-using the same guns tier after tier, you can have a new 152 mm high power gun, the M-21. However, it isn’t really that different, being able to penetrate 208 mm at 1000 meters instead of the BL-10′s 205.

152 mm ought to be enough for anyone, right? Do I hear 203 mm? Of course I hear 203 mm! Experience with Soviet artillery should have taught you that if it takes a 152 mm gun, it can take a 203 mm gun, so let’s get down to business and cram this baby into the SU-152.

Apparently, Soviet commanders have been drooling over a 203 mm SPG for heavy anti-fortification work, so there were several of these projects. One project was indexed SU-203, using the M-4 203 mm mortar with an even shorter barrel and comically large muzzle brake. The lower muzzle velocity made it pretty bad at concrete piercing, but the size of the HE shell would make it a pretty tough opponent in World of Tanks. Another project was the M-17, an M-40 203 mm howitzer on the SU-152 chassis. It had much worse ROF than the SU-203 (1 shot every 80 seconds as opposed to 1 shot every 40 seconds) due to more primitive loading assistance equipment, but carried more shells (16 vs 14 on the SU-203). The M-17 also ended up with superior concrete piercing performance, matching the SU-152 instead of being greatly inferior to it, which will help with those satisfying all-or-nothing shots to the side of an unsuspecting enemy turning a corner.

There you have it, lots of exciting choices that can really liven up your tier 7 TD experience.

Recently, VDV Day (paratrooper day) occurred in Russia. This is one of several days on which historical re-enactment events are held. In one such event in Samara, a newcomer appeared!

It’s a Tiger tank!

Okay, maybe it’s not exactly a Tiger tank. I’m sure many of you have already identified what vehicle this used to be by the suspension, but here’s the full story.

“Craftsmen from Samara made an excellent version of the famous Tiger tank in their spare time. The Soviet MTLB-4 was used as a base, since finding a decent chassis for the German was difficult. The MTLB was bought for almost its scrap value, and work began.

When the engine and transmission from a ZIL-5301 were obtained, the project really got off the ground. Piece by piece, everything that could have helped was assembled: blueprints, photos, drawings. Nearly everyone that the owner knew that had any experience in the field of metalworking or automotive engineering contributed to the project to some degree. It took 7 men three years to complete the project.

“We told everyone we put the tank together using original German blueprints. We actually got the blueprints from the Internet, the Bavarian tank factory website, we don’t know if they are originals or not. We were having fun, then bought an artillery tractor tub, which happened to fit the hull.

]]> http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/02/diy-tiger/feed/ 29 http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/07/30/historical-matchmaker/ http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/07/30/historical-matchmaker/#comments Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:19:12 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=14886 For years, SerB’s answer to a request for buffing or nerfing stats like HP or matchmaker weights was “show me a document where is says the historical matchmaker weight”. Of course, such a feat was impossible. That is, until today! Among many other interesting items in the CIA’s FOIA database, there is an alleged Soviet document giving the combat potential of domestic and potential enemy weapons. The section that interests us is, of course, “Tanks and Self Propelled Artillery, Infantry Combat Vehicles, Armoured Personnel Carriers”.

Although this was a report written in 1977, it still includes a number of vehicles we consider low. Starting at the very bottom, once we get past the IFVs, we have the SU-76 (in the “potential enemy” section, so likely a Chinese one) with a rating of only 0.32. Rather fitting for a “tier 3″ vehicle. From here, we must jump all the way to tier 5, with the Type T-34 (marked only as T-34 with 76 mm gun, but in the Chinese section) with a rating of 0.43 and SU-85, with a rating of 0.48. Seems that no other “tier 5″ vehicles made it into post-war service. So far so good, WG’s tier model seems to follow reality with two data points. Let’s move on to tier 6.

At tier 6, we have the T-34-85 (0.49), SU-100 (0.55). Seems that, like in WoT, the numbers are stacked towards anti-tank performance. Having a turret only earns the T-34-85 0.01 additional points over the SU-85. However, there is still correlation between tier increase and combat potential increase. The system works!

Heading up a tier, we finally get a larger selection. The IS-2M (even though it’s not really in the game, but I doubt a one-plate upper glacis would have scared anyone in the 70s) scores a hefty 0.7 points. The rest of the tanks in this tier are lights: the M41 Walker Bulldog (joining us in patch 9.3) at 0.36 points, Type 62 at 0.42 points and…AMX 13 75 at 0.8 points!? OP FRENCH AUTOLOADERS NERF PLZ

Going up a tier once more, we hit the ISU-152, stripped of its fearsome BL-10 at 0.79 points, IS-3 at 0.83 points, T-44 at 0.75 points, and AMX 13 90 at a mystifying 0.54 points. The Type 59, which enjoys preferential matchmaking at this tier certainly has not earned it, with an astronomical score of 0.9 points. Still, if you strip out those pesky light tanks, Wargaming’s system works.

Tier 9 is where things get interesting, as we get into post-war tanks. The T-54 earns 0.87-0.9 points, depending on configuration. The SU-122-54 (abbreviated to just SU-122) earns a meager 0.6 points. The T-10M (IS-8 in game) has a whopping 1.51 points to its name!

Now, tier ten, the one you’ve all been waiting for! The Americans have two whole contestants here, the regular M48A1 Patton with a single point and Clan Wars reward M60A1 Patton that beats it narrowly at 1.1. The Leopard 1 also scores 1.1 points. The Soviet showing at this tier is not exceptional, as the T-62, even with the smoothbore gun absent in the same, only manages one point even.

So there you have it, aside from outliers like the SU-122-54, IS-8, and light tanks, the system work! Wargaming’s hammering of tanks into rigid tiers more or less follows the evaluation of actual military professionals.

It was requested in the comments of the last article, so let’s do the T-34-85 “Rudy” first. This tank is not a real tank, but is from a Polish television show Four Tankers and a Dog (Czterej pancerni i pies), following the exploits of a Polish tank crew and their tank, “Rudy” (“Ginger”). In the book the show was based on, the tank is initially a T-34-76 (thus explaining the only four tankers), but the show only has a T-34-85.

Here’s how it looks in game.

And here’s how it looks on the show’s poster.

Not even close. The eagle isn’t there, the number isn’t there, and the tank’s name is on the  turret, not the hull. Boo, next.

Here’s a T-34 with a pretty common history, “Donbass Avengers”. After the residents of the Donbass area returned to their homes, two brothers and their cousin decided to pool their miners’ incomes and purchase a tank. They sent a letter to Stalin, who approved their request, and, after tank crew courses, they joined the war with two other, non-relative, crew members. The tank fought both in Europe and in the Far East, and made it through to the end of the war.

Here’s how it looks in game.

And here’s what it looked like in real life.

Come on, Wargaming. It’s not that hard to at least get the font size right.

Next, a KV-1S, Sovetskiy Polyarnik (Soviet Northerner). Many specialists working in the far north were indispensable, so their management could not let them go and die in a war, but they wanted to help the front anyway. Money was donated to buy an entire tank regiment and uniforms. The tanks began their combat path at Stalingrad, and continued fighting into 1944, when they were replaced with more modern vehicles. Here’s how the tank looks in game.

And in real life:

Not bad, WG! The font is a little off, but it’s mostly right.

Next, a T-34-85 “Chervonniy” (archaic word for red, or gold with a reddish hue). This tank was driven by Junior Lieutenant Frolikov when he first burst into occupied Minsk, destroying a Ferdinand and a couple of guns. These heroic actions earned him the title of Hero of the Soviet Union (regrettably, posthumously). You too can drive his tank in game!

Except it looks like ass compared to the real deal, as always. Tiny text in the wrong font.

Join me next time for a few more inferior reproductions.

For starters, one of the most famous T-34 tanks, Boyevaya Podruga. The game translates it as “Fighting Girlfriend”, but it’s more of a “friend that is a girl” word. In Russian, as in many languages, it does not imply romantic associations. A brief history of the inscription: Mariya Vasilievna Oktyabrskaya, whose husband was killed in battle, donated all of her savings in order to buy a tank for the front (as many did), but then sent a letter to Stalin personally, requesting to be made the tank’s driver, and to give it its name. Stalin granted the request. Mariya fought in the rank of Guards Sergeant in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps. After the first tank was knocked out, three additional vehicles inherited its name. The fourth tank lived to see victory, but, unfortunately, its “mother” did not.

Here is how the tank looks in game:

And here is how it looks in real life.

Kind of shatters the “historically accurate” theory, eh? The font is much smaller, it’s written in two lines instead of one, and there is no inscription on the hull. Not exactly a precise replica.

Next, a KV tank, “Remorseless”. This tank was paid for by a poet, Nikolai Tikhonov (joined by many other writers), who donated an award that he received for a poem in 1942. The tank fought until 1943, when it was damaged beyond repair in battle. Here’s how it looks in game and in real life.

Well, the doodle of the tank shooting Hitler to pieces is missing, as are the kill marks, but the size of the inscription is mostly right, if not its placement and font. Unfortunately, there is another part of the tank’s decoration we are missing:

A poem by another famous Soviet poet, Marshak, written on the turret. My poetry is awful in any language, but I think you will get the idea of it:

Storm them with your fire
Our heavy tank
Go into the fascists’ rear
Hit them in the flank

Your fearless crew
Without blinking
Carries out Stalin’s
Combat orders

Sadly, all we get is the name. I would have paid double for an exploding Hitler on the side of my tank!

Next, another T-34, Leningradets. The tank belonged to the 1st Red Banner Tank Brigade, and is a part of several tanks named for their achievements in battle. The order awarding the tanks their names can be found here.  

Oh boy, lots of things missing. The Order of the Red banner is gone, the inscription is the wrong size and font, but also the wrong colour. The most famous photograph of this tank is in winter camouflage, and yet the WoT version is white, not red. As a result, it is unreadable.

Let’s do a less famous tank, the meek T-70. There were named versions of this tank too. I can’t find much on Avtozavodskoy Shkolnik (Automotive factory school student), but photos show it in a group of similarly marked vehicles.

Minor problems with the font, a little too small, and the top line isn’t arched. But congrats, WG, so far this is the least wrong.

 My previous article on ways that the IS-2 can be buffed was received with great enthusiasm, so I figured I’ll do the rest of the series!

The IS-1 and IS-2 have been covered by the previous article. The IS-3 was barely in use at all and has barely any room for improvements over the production model, which Wargaming has already implemented. Same as the IS-4. The IS-5 isn’t in the game (we were promised the turret for it as a KV-1S module ages ago, get your shit together, WG). The IS-6 is another one-off prototype, so the most I can do here is split hairs about the transmission (which will actually make a difference in 9.0 9.1 KTTC). So let’s do the rest of the series, IS 7 through 10!

The IS-7 was a good tier 10 tank, a long time ago. Then the T110E5 was introduced, and it was basically everything the IS-7 was but better. Oh, and then the gun penetration was nerfed, as if it was super-awesome to begin with. Might as well start with the gun. The rate of fire in game is just over 4 RPM. This rate of fire is completely made up. The automatic loader of the IS-7 was capable of 6-8 RPM. Of course, some individuals will remark that it was only capable of it with a full cassette, but this game models the loading on all tanks from their ready rack, so you might as well do that for the IS-7 too. If not, then use proper autoloader mechanics, which eluded the IS-7 since they have been introduced in the game two years ago.

Then there’s the engine. It’s fine, of course, but the magic tracks prohibit the tank from reaching its top speed from anywhere but freefall. Despite the tank’s tester remarking that the tank reached its top speed and controlled easily, in game it is slow and clumsy. Better tracks would go a long way towards making this tank actually fun to play.

Next onto the IS-8! And 9 and 10. They are the same vehicle, as the index changed throughout its development. The in-game vehicle accurately reflects the T-10M tank, until some point, anyway. To ensure that the tank stayed competitive with the American M60 and British Chieftain, two shells were introduced into the tank’s repertoire: APCR (penetrating 320 mm at 2000 meters) and HEAT (penetrating 450 mm). The HEAT shell on the gun right now penetrates 340 mm, which is weaker than either of those (I’m sure the APCR loses more than 20 mm of penetration over two kilometers). The AP shell penetrates 214 mm at that range, so even if we’re looking at the same penetration fall-off (and APCR loses penetration faster than AP), the penetration at 100 meters would be 385 mm. That’s quite a drop from real life!

The engine can also use an improvement. The T-10 itself only ever had a 750 hp engine, which is reflected in game, but this is WoT, so we can bend reality to our will a little bit. For instance, a 1000 hp A-7 engine fit into the rocket version of the tank (Object 282), so there is no reason that it wouldn’t fit into the regular tank. That ought to make it stand out from the tier 9 crowd a little bit!

“FORBID WORLD OF TANKS!

I worked there for almost a year. The developers are specifically chosen to be gays. This project is sponsored by the West. When they told me I had to go on a date with the department head (male), I had to quit.

It’s about 80% gays. Our department had less, but the rest have tons. Why do they pick out gays? It is simple. Their hate of normal family life gives them additional stimulation to work. They also use “25th frame” subliminal messaging and subconscious zombifying. The main goal of this game is to drag the male population of this country into the web of addition, and destroy the family as a part of society. Also it gives massive profits from addicted gamers.

I know of suicides because of this game, mostly teenagers. The company knows this and spends massive amounts of money to hide it. I would advise unhappy wives to write to the Belorussian KGB with the goal of forbidding the game on the territory of the CIS.”

Breathing a sigh of relief, Yuri Pasholok embraces his secret nature.

So next time you post about a conspiracy theory on the forums, get creative!