The T110E4

Posted on by

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).

T110E4Chieftain

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.

T110E4Chrysler

T110E4Chrysler1.5

T110E4Chrysler2

 

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

WoT on Xbox?

Posted on by

Source: http://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/46/world-of-tanks-xbox-360/

So, we will now have World of Tanks for consoles. I guess it could be expected, I mean – with such a huge success on PC, it would be strange NOT to have a console game based on the same principle.

I assume that due to the different nature of both systems, console players will be kept on separate servers from PC players. That’s a good thing, maybe it’s just my impression, but I kinda guess the console crowd is considerably… younger, than PC WoT gamers.

Personally, considering the fact that Xbox360 is getting replaced by Xbox One (somewhere I heard the two systems will NOT be compatible, is that true?), I am surprised the game was announced for the 360. Still, I am even more surprised about the

a) cool sounds in the trailer
b) cool explosion and destruction effects in the trailer
c) new battle interface, noticed that?

Why don’t we have that in World of Tanks PC too?

10.6.2013

Posted on by

Today, we have some very interesting stuff going on, as there are multiple sources of answers. First, Vallter (a Russian developer) was so kind as to answer some questions of EU players on his blog. Here’s a summary of his answers (including the Quasar fail, see previous article):

- woman crewmembers and kill barrel rings are unlikely to be ever implemented
- as mentioned in earlier posts, Superpershing rebalance is still being discussed, at this moment there is no plan for SP penetration buff
- premium consumable price will likely stay as it is now, that 10k on test server is for test purpose only
- 8.8 will not bring US vehicle branch (SS: as it was speculated earlier), but there will be something interesting in it
- Waffenträger E-100 gun being 150mm L/68? “No comment, but you will like it” (SS: earlier, it was confirmed it won’t be the 210mm gun, so there are various options, including 150mm L/68 or 128mm FlaK 45)
- Firefly will be implemented after other tanks, that were promised earlier
- Garage battles most likely won’t come in 2013
- Superpershing historically had a GAF V8 engine (450-500hp), it’s not SP that is underpowered, it’s M26 that is unhistorically buffed
- you will be able to sell Superpershing for gold after it gets changed, so players have the opportunity to try it out
- at this moment, the visual camo system (you can buy only one of each type) will stay as it is
-

Vallter explains camouflage:

Camouflage bonus as a result of using camo net and camouflage was multiplied on the camouflage value of the given tank. This resulted in the situation when the tank with good camouflage (i.e. tanks of average size) enjoyed more advantages – for instance, if camouflageof the tank was 30% (relative value) and together with the camo net it made the following 30% * 1.25 = 37.5% – 7.5% difference. At the same time tanks with bad camouflage (i.e. tanks of a big size) this effect was very insignificant. – when the tank had 5% camouflage, together with camo net it made 5% * 1.25 = 6.25% – 1.25% difference. The coefficient from camo net and camouflage itself was equal for all vehicles – 1.25 and 1.05 respectively.

Bonus to camouflage from camo net and camouflage will now (starting from 8.6) be added to the camoflage value of that tank. In other words, camouflage and camo net use will provide a fixed bonus to the vehicle’s camouflage, which doesn’t depend on tank’s parameter but depending on the type of the vehicle. Due to the fact that during summarizing, old camo net and camouflage coefficients (+25% and +5%) would have influenced more – for instance, for the tank with 30%camouflage and camo net the overall rate would have been 30% + 25% = 55%, their value has been degraded and distinguished by types of vehicles – SPG and HT acquire a small bonus, LT and MT – average bonus, and TDs – a big bonus (the camo net bonus is still bigger than simply a bonus from camouflage – i.e. bonus from camo net for SPGs and HT is greater than bonus from camouflage for TDs).

Regular Q&A:

- tracks have various armor thickness, which doesn’t directly depend on vehicle weight and type of the vehicle
- toughness of tracks (SS: and it’s not clear, whether hitpoints, armor, or simply module thickness are meant here, even to the player asking) is 3 times bigger in the center of the tracks module than on its edges, it’s connected with the fact that a loss of one supporting wheel is not as critical as a loss of a roadwheel)
- the reason of 50 meter automatic detection distance is somewhat realistic: at this distance, the infantry supporting the tanks can hear another tank and warn the tank crew. However, as SerB states: “want realism? join the army”
- there will be no infantry in WoT, because it would raise the game age restriction
- apparently (SS: and this is based on one Russian blog post), chat rules are practically not enforced on test server. A player tried to report some other players for advertising some botting or fake gold seller, got told that Support doesn’t deal with tickets regarding test server, SerB stated only that developers don’t deal with this
- developers, even the big boss (V.Kisly) pay for gold
- the purpose of test server is not for players to test all the vehicles (SS: SerB replies on whine that other vehicles than arties are practically impossible to test)
- SerB states that stats such as these are possible even without botting (102k battles, 48 W/R)
- apparently, there were cases, where some developers were banned from the game and forums too, for breaking the rules
- there is a theory on RU forums that in the 2nd German TD line, the tier 10 TD will be the Jpz E-100, in the first line it will be replaced by Jagdmaus. SerB: “No comment” (SS: that would be truly retarded, as performance-wise, those vehicles were very close to each other. And yes, there was a Jagdmaus project.)
- will some high-caliber guns be nerfed somehow in connection with their increased accuracy in 0.8.6? “If needed.”

There was a KWG post from Storm too, I’ll get back to that in a separate article.

Spherical Tanks

Posted on by

About two months ago, Wargaming put out a fake news post on spherical tanks: the ShT-1A and ShT-2T. They went as far as making a fake historical article on them, as well as fake wiki pages. Apparently, people will believe anything, since I’m still seeing Google searches for those tanks.

However, spherical tanks are very much real. During my last Q&A, interest was shown in them. Here are a bunch of spherical and rolling tanks that were actually designed, and some even built!

Additionally, Yuri Pasholok, Wargaming’s historian, is working on a book about Soviet spherical tanks, titled “Stalin’s Steel Balls”. Keep an eye out for that one.

WG EU fail: Quasar edition

Posted on by

So, once again, WG EU dropped the ball.

For those, who don’t know him, Quasar is the EU server “developer/producer”, who occasionally posts some answers to some questions. Nothing wrong with that, the problem is, he occasionally posts bullshit.

Some of you might remember that some time ago, Quasar posted that Panzer 58 and other Swiss tanks won’t be implemented, while the Russian developers said they would. What I did was I asked Edrard (the wot-news guy), who relayed this question to Veider (RU forums developer), who confirmed they have a high chance of coming in the EU tree. Quasar later backedited the post.

Well, Quasar did it again:

67. Was the idea of the female crew completely abandoned?
Not at all, but it has a very low priority for the moment.

65. Any update regarding more options for customizing the exterior of our tanks?
Also at this moment in time, we are also working on projects of the rings for the gun barrels:

Edit: a screenie, because at some point it will probably get backedited, as it did in the Panzer 58 case.

quasar

These are his answers. Those, who follow my RU translation know both of these options were denied specifically by SerB and Storm, that’s why I went and asked Russian developer Vallter directly (this post is made with his knowledge). To quote him:

“No, they will most probably not happen”

If you don’t believe me, Vallter has a blog, you can doublecheck the answers there. In other words, Quasar is pulling answers out of his ass, without checking with Minsk central. Makes you wonder, what good is such Q&A for and what ELSE is wrong…

(Special thanks to Vallter for indulging my incessant questions)

Super Pershing penetration buff? A misunderstanding…

Posted on by

Well, folks, I have bad news for you.

Vallter, who yesterday sort-of confirmed the Superpershing penetration buff, just went back on it. Apparently, it’s still being discussed at Wargaming, but we can be reasonably certain some sort of buff will take place, since the vehicle barely reaches the intended 49 percent winrate as it is and a frontal armor nerf could send it plummeting.

To make this absolutely clear: it is possible, that the penetration buff will happen, but not nearly certain.

Super Pershing buff: penetration

Posted on by

Source: http://valltergaming.blogspot.cz/2013/06/premium-vehicles-changes-in-86-update.html?showComment=1370790912535#c2308734353144119631

Earlier today, developers hinted at the fact that in order to compensate the armor loss for Superpershing, it will also recieve a buff. Now, Vallter (one of the developers on his blog) unofficially confirmed that (possibly amongst other changes), Superpershing will recieve more penetration, around 200mm:

spershing

 

9.6.2013

Posted on by

- you hear the sounds not from the spot where your tank is, but where your camera is: that’s why you can’t hear the sound of your own shooting when in arty satellite view, because the camera is high away from your vehicle
- apparently there are differences in additional XP between RU and NA server (NA server gets extra XP for some archievements as parts of some events, RU server doesn’t), SerB doesn’t think it’s a big of a deal (“Experience depends on how you play. You play well, you get experience, you don’t play well, you don’t get experience, you don’t read the rules of this thread, you’ll get a RO ban”)
- apparently, the Superpershing will also get some sort of buff along with its frontal armor nerf, to keep its winrate around 49 percent
- even if you bought the Superpershing in discount (for less than it costs now), you will still be able to sell it for full price
- developers don’t consider it a mistake that they didn’t develop one game for all three weapon types (tanks, airplanes, warships) at the same time within one platform.

Bonus: Listy (British armor buff from the World of Tanks EU forum) started writing on Overlord’s blog – he started with a historical event where a Firefly shot up 5 Panthers, definitely worth reading!

8.6.2013

Posted on by

- Storm, when asked, whether World of Tanks can get such physics as on this video, Storm states that the server couldn’t handle it and without server support, there would be way too many graphic issues
- Q: “Did you nerf FCM 50t profitability?” A: “That’s not our area of expertise, sorry, that’s a matter for a psychologist”
- apparently, on RU server players are getting banned for even mentioning War Thunder
- apparently, Port won’t be taken down for rework
- when dealing with teamkills, developers (or, rather, all WG people) don’t really care “who started”
- vehicles will be rebalanced in connection with the increased accuracy “if necessery”
- details about the roaming (switching from one server to another temporarily) will be disclosed later, but there will be some restrictions, SerB states he’s not interested in crowds of noobs moving around
- KV-2 removed HEAT shells will in 8.6 be sold for silver for their purchase price
- SerB states that the thing that happens to Superpershing (armor change->removed from shops->possibility to sell it for gold) won’t be possible for other premium vehicles, unless they get changed really seriously. It will also happen according to developer discretion.

Sorry, not much else today.

Posted in Q&A