29 replies to this topic

[MalikCarr]

I'll get right to the salient points of this topic.

Do not increase hit points on KV-2 with second turret mounted.

The +50 HP, a nice thing to be sure, is a deliberate effort to suggest the use of the mass-production KV-2 turret - the so-called "fridge turret" we're all familiar with. The initial production turret MT-1, very nicely modeled in game, has much better armor sloping but inferior turn speed and also less vision blocks and periscopes. This is fine and good.

The mass production turret (I'm not sure if this thing was actually referred to as MT-2 or not) was designed because turret MT-1 turned so slowly, and couldn't even turn at all on inclines greater than about 12-15 degrees due to its incredible mass. It was also simpler to make due to its square and boxy shape, and realistically speaking, KV-2 shouldn't be being hit by enemy tank guns anyway.

But this is WoT - things are a little different here than they were in Barbarossa. Having that sloped armor can really be helpful, especially when a tank with a big gun that KV-2 never had to actually fight is shooting at you.

To wit, I feel it would be a fair thing to ask that the KV-2's hit points not change when you're changing turrets. The heavier, better sloped turret turns slower and has an inferior view range, as it should. So why increase the hit points when you're using what's flatly the inferior, by design, turret arrangement?

Either buff KV-2's normal hit points up to 860, or nerf them so they're 810 regardless, or make it meet in the middle at 830. MT-2 turret should be an option for faster turning and better visibility, like it actually was, rather than a sort of "forced upgrade" like it is now.

[Skygunner]

Though I'm not on to see the two different turrets (screenshot maybe?)

I do like the idea of identical HP turrets that counter balance each other.  In this case,  Turret Slope vs View Range/Rotation.  The amount of players who insist that added survivability of slope coupled with the 1000kg weight saving of the first turret makes it the obvious choice of turret.   No, you can kill them faster so you don't need the additional armour with the second, etc, etc.  It would be argued to death and there would never been an accepted answer.

However, if one turret has 50HP over the other, yeh, that is sorta a forced upgrade.  


Second reason I'd want relatively equal turrets would of course be for astetics. I like variety, so if both turrets are viable for competitive tanks, we'd just see more in game.

[TargetOnTracks]

If it isn't sloped, more shots will go through it and do more damage. The extra hit points may not even make up the difference...perhaps it took more damage to disable it.

[MalikCarr]

Okay so. KV-2 was designed as a "heavy artillery tank" and production began in 1940. About 300 KV-2s were built and almost all of them were lost during Barbarossa (usually due to getting stuck or running out of fuel). Most of the survivors were converted back to KV-1s because the 152mm M-10 howitzer wasn't suited for anti-tank combat.

Initially, KV-2 was designed with turret MT-1, which had 90mm frontal plate and 75mm sides and rear, with a roughly pentagonal shape that was sloped on the front and angled on the back.

http://modelingmadne...oss/84815bt.jpg

This KV-2, "Kill the Fascists", is fitted with the original MT-1 turret. However, the ponderous weight of MT-1 made it very difficult to use. Of the 300 about 70 were made with turret MT-1. The design was changed to the simplified box turret we see now, which weighed almost a ton and a half less than MT-1.


http://www.dvsm.org/...s/AMPS-KV-2.jpg

This KV-2, "For Stalin", is fitted with the mass production turret that we're all familiar with.

The box turret, in addition to being able to rotate faster, had a better arrangement of its periscopes and vision blocks, and also had a 7.62mm DT machine gun fitted in the rear to shoot people off the engine deck or to provide enfilading fire after crossing an enemy trench. Its armor thickness was identical - 90/75/75 - but is totally flat.

EDIT: Here's a pair of much better comparisons. From a pure armor standpoint, it doesn't take a genius to see that the MT-1 is a much better turret. It really doesn't seem right to encourage the use of the mass production turret with a bonus 50 hit points for no other reason than other tanks get a HP upgrade when they use what is typically a better turret anyway.

http://www.armchairg...KV_2U0_bp01.jpg

[MalikCarr]

Wait a minute, are you kidding me? I just went back and had a look at the Test Server again...



The mass production turret weighs more? Even though it turns faster? Come on, Wargaming! This is amateur! Turret MT-1 was only used on the first production run of KV-2s because, among other things, it weighed too much! And yet, even though the MT-2 turret weighs more in this silly version of things, it also turns faster?

I... I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish by doing this. You put in the (armor-wise) superior but rejected initial turret, and then give players a Hit Point impetus to switch to the inferior mass production turret, and yet IT STILL WEIGHS MORE? Seriously?

[Wesrin]

 MalikCarr, on Apr 21 2012 - 21:06, said:

The mass production turret weighs more? Even though it turns faster?

With the KV-2 came increased power in the motors and gears that turn the turret. It may weigh more, but as with the T-34-85 and other improvements later on in the war, the electric/hydraulic systems used for automated turret movement increased drastically. Its not that far fetched to me.

[MalikCarr]

The KV-2 didn't actually receive any such upgrades, though. They were uniformly withdrawn from active use in 1941 because the few that survived Barbarossa weren't suited for tank warfare - most of them were converted back into KV-1s.

The whole point of the flat MT-2 turret was that it weighed less and could be turned more easily.

[Lisped]

Err.. Why dont we just switch the Mt-1 and 2's places then? MT-1 looks much better, anyways.

[MalikCarr]

 Lisped, on Apr 21 2012 - 22:18, said:

Err.. Why dont we just switch the Mt-1 and 2's places then? MT-1 looks much better, anyways.

That would also work and be a logical progression from a gameplay standpoint - it's just backwards vs. the real design process since the better sloped turret was used first with the "fridge" turret that came later being done purely to improve handling.

[ColonelColt]

I'm in agreement with Malik on this one. This might make slightly more sense history-wise (which they usually ignore) but gameplay wise it doesn't make any sense. Give people the option between the two.

[Petuko]

Signed, I wholly approve.

[CareerKnight]

 MalikCarr, on Apr 21 2012 - 01:22, said:

I'll get right to the salient points of this topic.

Do not increase hit points on KV-2 with second turret mounted.

The +50 HP, a nice thing to be sure, is a deliberate effort to suggest the use of the mass-production KV-2 turret - the so-called "fridge turret" we're all familiar with. The initial production turret MT-1, very nicely modeled in game, has much better armor sloping but inferior turn speed and also less vision blocks and periscopes. This is fine and good.

The mass production turret (I'm not sure if this thing was actually referred to as MT-2 or not) was designed because turret MT-1 turned so slowly, and couldn't even turn at all on inclines greater than about 12-15 degrees due to its incredible mass. It was also simpler to make due to its square and boxy shape, and realistically speaking, KV-2 shouldn't be being hit by enemy tank guns anyway.

But this is WoT - things are a little different here than they were in Barbarossa. Having that sloped armor can really be helpful, especially when a tank with a big gun that KV-2 never had to actually fight is shooting at you.

To wit, I feel it would be a fair thing to ask that the KV-2's hit points not change when you're changing turrets. The heavier, better sloped turret turns slower and has an inferior view range, as it should. So why increase the hit points when you're using what's flatly the inferior, by design, turret arrangement?

Either buff KV-2's normal hit points up to 860, or nerf them so they're 810 regardless, or make it meet in the middle at 830. MT-2 turret should be an option for faster turning and better visibility, like it actually was, rather than a sort of "forced upgrade" like it is now.

Out of curiosity does upgrading the turret improve the rof of any of its guns? I know that on a couple of tanks upgrading the turret improves this (the t32 with its stock turret fires the 105mm gun slower than the t29).

[Petuko]

 I double checked that myself, it doesn't. The rate of fire is exactly the same on both turrets, as well as accuracy and all that jazz. 

[MalikCarr]

Right. The interior arrangement of these tanks was both more or less the same. Turret MT-1 was built using the floor layout of a KV-1 turret and then basically made it really tall with a rhomboid back, whereas MT-1 MT-2 is essentially a box with sides that bulge a bit to create a hexagon.

[CareerKnight]

 MalikCarr, on Apr 22 2012 - 20:06, said:

Right. The interior arrangement of these tanks was both more or less the same. Turret MT-1 was built using the floor layout of a KV-1 turret and then basically made it really tall with a rhomboid back, whereas MT-1 is essentially a box with sides that bulge a bit to create a hexagon.

You accidently called both turrets mt-1

[littlebob]

Malik i also think you are correct about the turrets being wrong but this game has very little to do with history if it did half the tanks in the game would be gone and the ones that we are left with would have to be be down graded to even be close to the real ones, once again i agree with your point.

[MalikCarr]

 CareerKnight, on Apr 22 2012 - 21:36, said:

You accidently called both turrets mt-1

Derp. Fixed it.

 littlebob, on Apr 22 2012 - 22:07, said:

Malik i also think you are correct about the turrets being wrong but this game has very little to do with history if it did half the tanks in the game would be gone and the ones that we are left with would have to be be down graded to even be close to the real ones, once again i agree with your point.

This game doesn't have "very little" to do with history, many of the vehicles in the game are done up quite accurately and most of the ones that have been noticeably adjusted are done so within parameters that make sense.

The turret thing is just dumb. There's no reason for the lighter, simpler mass production turret to give a bonus to hit points - that turret was designed to make the turret rotation faster, not to make it harder to kill. Quite the inverse, really.

Most tanks that have upgraded turrets are a demonstrable improvement over their predecessors so the bonus HP makes sense. The Tiger II is a great example of this. The Porsche turret with the rounded front and square gun mantlet is quite clearly worse in terms of armor protection compared to the much more solid Henschel one, even though the latter turns somewhat slower due to its greater mass. The same goes for the IS-3 having the prototype Kirovets-1 turret to start with and then the familiar "pancake" turret we're all familiar with (with 250mm frontal thickness) making the second slot, although again its rotational speed takes a hit due to the increased mass.

KV-2 on the test server is the only tank I know of whose second turret is remarkably heavier (this is factually WRONG), has worse armor, AND somehow turns faster. Think about it for a minute.

[littlebob]

I see your point about the turret they kinda got it in reverse, but i don't agree that many of the tanks in the game are correct the progression of the upgrades may make sense in some cases but most of the upgrades never really happened in real life The King Tiger as you said did indeed have more than one turret but has a 105 upgrade never happened the KT had one gun the 88mm L71 or long 88, the Tiger 1 or as they call it Tiger H never had the L71 it had the L56 or short 88, would the 105 even fit in the turret of the King Tiger we will never know and if it fit would there even be enough room for the crew to function under battle conditions will we never know that either but enough on the history lessons for now i think we are stuck with the KV turrets which look to be reversed in thier upgrades, either way a very good topic to post on and a pleasure to have opinions that don't degrade into name calling plus one for you.

[MalikCarr]

 littlebob, on Apr 22 2012 - 23:42, said:

I see your point about the turret they kinda got it in reverse, but i don't agree that many of the tanks in the game are correct the progression of the upgrades may make sense in some cases but most of the upgrades never really happened in real life

Some of these were conjectural (like the T28 Prototype and most of the E-series tanks) but most tanks either have what they had in reality or were a close approximation thereof.

 littlebob, on Apr 22 2012 - 23:42, said:

The King Tiger as you said did indeed have more than one turret but has a 105 upgrade never happened the KT had one gun the 88mm L71 or long 88

Upgrading the Tiger II's firepower to the 10.5cm KwK 45 was planned for 1945, but the guns were never installed due to the rapidly deteriorating war effort as well as the fact that the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 could adequately destroy any Allied tank at combat range (Remember that IS-3s were never deployed operationally in the West in 1945).

Why do you think the gun is called KwK 45?

 littlebob, on Apr 22 2012 - 23:42, said:

the Tiger 1 or as they call it Tiger H never had the L71 it had the L56 or short 88

KwK 43 L/71 was tested on the Tiger I and could have been mounted there in serial production, but this was considered a waste of resources by the Waffenampt when the much more capable (at least on paper) Tiger II already existed. To wit, plans to up-gun the Tiger I with the KwK 43 were abandoned to focus shop time on the Tiger II. So, while it never happened operationally, it was neither physically impossible nor an untested fiction on WG's part.

 littlebob, on Apr 22 2012 - 23:42, said:

for now i think we are stuck with the KV turrets which look to be reversed in thier upgrades, either way a very good topic to post on and a pleasure to have opinions that don't degrade into name calling plus one for you.

Well thanks for the +1 if nothing else. That being the case, this confusion with turrets MT-1 and MT-2 seems to stem from the fact that all other turret upgrades in WoT follow the same path. So gameplay dynamics are being preserved at the expense of the figures being not merely "alternative", like the Tiger's gun arrangement, but totally factually wrong.

Turret MT-2 *did not weigh more* than turret MT-1.

Period.

That was the entire point of MT-2 in the first place. The inferior armor arrangement was a trade-off to make the turret lighter, easier to turn, less likely to tip the tank over, and also to give better periscope arrangements.

This would make about as much sense as the Panzer IV's Ausf.J turret being its second upgrade, even though that was a serious *downgrade* in terms of ability due to constraints of material resources and factories being bombed (the turret wasn't even powered...). Of course, somehow it would add HP even though it was thinner...

[NergiZed]

I think this should mirror the ARL 44. Make the first turret heavy as hell and turn agonizingly slow, but have much better armor. Have the second turret be a much lighter and turn much faster. The HP addition or not is more of a balance issue and isn't relevant in this historical discussion.

I think making the turrets sufficiently different will encourage turret diversity and I believe that is a wonderful thing.

I almost kinda hoped that they'd hook up repair costs to what turret you have, as some turrets were better but much more expensive to maintain due to the new tech within it.

Either that or just switch the two. I'd rather have the more armored and heavier turret actually be the more armored and heavier turret in-game.