Jump to content


British tech tree


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
87 replies to this topic

razielkaine #41 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 00:20

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6024 battles
  • 773
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 20 2012 - 23:58, said:

Lol NONE of the low tier british tanks are worth a pinch of piss...they all have around 15mm of armor Cruisers, Crusaders, Vickers...they could AAALLLL be T1 and it wouldnt be OP....even the Crusader III, it looks cool as hell but its armor is like what? 30mm at its thickest? I dont see how the BRITISH tree is going to be one known for its ARMOR while the US line isnt....none of their tanks, short of the T10s have any armor at all..hell, if Men of war is correct, even the CENTURION is paper...167mm turret, 76mm hull...PUHLEEZE that is NOT good armor...While the M103 is stuck here with 127/127/203 and what not and yet it cant stop an M1A2 76mm Frontally...

So, the Vickers medium being T1...its nothign to worry about.....it has a 50caliber as its main gun I think lol.

your comparing the armour of a medium to a heavy and complaining about it?  also your complaining about the armour of a cruiser tank? its a medium for christ sake, it was built as cavalry to flank and overwhelm the enemy so bitching about its low armour is just plain stupid. The armour of 51mm on the crusader 3 at tier 5 is better then almost all mediums and some heavies at tier 5 already in game so for a fast flanking tank thats quite good, combined with the fact it's almost the only tank in that tier with slope so that improves the armour again.

Ultimately complaining the armour of a tree is weak by using the stats on medium tanks is rediculous.

Ogopogo #42 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 01:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25362 battles
  • 6,994
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
Lets dissect this shall we?

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 20 2012 - 23:58, said:

Lol NONE of the low tier british tanks are worth a pinch of piss...they all have around 15mm of armor Cruisers, Crusaders, Vickers...they could AAALLLL be T1 and it wouldnt be OP....even the Crusader III, it looks cool as hell but its armor is like what? 30mm at its thickest?
Complaining about lack of armor on light/cruiser tanks... Well that is a new one. Also, better check up on your facts, as 51mm>30mm.

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 20 2012 - 23:58, said:

I dont see how the BRITISH tree is going to be one known for its ARMOR while the US line isnt....none of their tanks, short of the T10s have any armor at all..hell, if Men of war is correct, even the CENTURION is paper...167mm turret, 76mm hull...PUHLEEZE that is NOT good armor...While the M103 is stuck here with 127/127/203 and what not and yet it cant stop an M1A2 76mm Frontally...
Well maybe if you stopped looking at the medium line then you would see where the armor comes from

The centurion does have those numbers you listed, but it is also the tier 8 medium. The 76mm hull is actually sloped back at 57 degrees making it 140mm effective. For the centurion mark 4-9, the tier 9 medium have a look as some of the protection numbers for the Mk 6
Mantle: 200-230
Turret: 190-200
Glacis: 216 (118mm at 57 deg)
Lower front hull: 130

Now lets take a look at some of the heavy tanks you claim have little armor.
Matilda II 76mm (Tier 4)
Churchill 102mm (Tier 5) (Go read this)
Churchill mark VII 152mm (Tier 6)
Black Prince 152mm (Tier 7)
Caernarvon 180mm (Tier 8)
Conqueror 180mm-200mm (Tier 9)

Keep in mind that these numbers are not LOS thickness. So the heavy tanks are fairly armored. The cruiser tanks are not.


View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 20 2012 - 23:58, said:

So, the Vickers medium being T1...its nothign to worry about.....it has a 50caliber as its main gun I think lol.

False. It had a 47mm gun.

Edited by Ogopogo, Jun 21 2012 - 01:54.


Aesir #43 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 03:17

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9383 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
There is a tiny error in your math for the Mk.I's 3" glacis: you didn't take 7° normalization into account. With normalization, the Mk.I only has 118mm effective, so it would be the worst armored tier 8 medium. Fortunately, the Centurion Mk.I will be using the later 118mm glacis, so it will have 184mm effective making it the best armored tier 8 medium instead.

All of the other numbers you posted are correct, save for the Caernarvon and the Conqueror; both of which use a 130mm thick glacis at 60°, coming out to be 217mm effective. It is only marginally better than the M103, but it really won't be too bad if it has some mobility to back it up.


Ogopogo #44 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 03:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25362 battles
  • 6,994
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostAesir, on Jun 21 2012 - 03:17, said:

All of the other numbers you posted are correct, save for the Caernarvon and the Conqueror; both of which use a 130mm thick glacis at 60°, coming out to be 217mm effective. It is only marginally better than the M103, but it really won't be too bad if it has some mobility to back it up.[/size]


I've heard varying numbers for those two tanks actually. Some sources list its armor as 180mm to 200mm before normalization, others only 130mm like you say. I guess it depends at which points the armor is measured from, but wargamming has always seemed to use the absolute thickest when displaying their armor, even if it is only at one point.

Aesir #45 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 03:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9383 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
180mm? Perhaps on the front of the turret ring, maybe, but nowhere other than the mantlet is the armor that thick.

http://picturewars.n.../2559912f3c.jpg

Ogopogo #46 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 03:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25362 battles
  • 6,994
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
I was dubious with the 180mm myself, especially the 200mm. I couldn't find any diagrams like that one there, so just went by the fact that it is what wargamming will (likely) display for its stats.

KnightFandragon #47 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 03:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011
Very well =D  So will the british have no mobility to balance out their armor?  I know not many of their tanks were known for speed...churchill, matilda? i read somewhere once that the first matilda went 6mph.....or was it 6kph? as it wasnt supposed to be faster then infantry and only there to support them...As for their bigger heavies..hmm..how fast will theyend up goin in game?  Also, their guns...what are they all about?  Will they end up being the nation that invalidates the US in this game? getting most the US line abilities but then tossing armor on top?  all in all the British almost sound like a remake of the Russians in game now...lots of armor for brawling....

Edited by KnightFandragon, Jun 21 2012 - 03:42.


TheWackyWombat #48 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 15:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7847 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    03-04-2012
I don't think they'll invalidate the US tanks... Based on what I know about the actual tanks, and what little I've heard about their in-game counterparts, I think the British are going to slip in between the American and German tank lines. At top tier their guns will be similar to the US heavies (or identical in some cases, I think the Conquerer used the same gun as the M103) but they'll have heavier armor and a much slower speed, closer to the E line.

I can't really see them working well in close quarters, they'll probably suffer from slow turn rates and turret speeds like the E series.

This is all speculation of course, and it really depends on what niche WG wants the British to fill.

Edited by TheWackyWombat, Jun 21 2012 - 15:17.


razielkaine #49 Posted Jun 21 2012 - 18:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6024 battles
  • 773
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
my take on how they will play out

heavies, slow well armoured moderate to poor speed with rapid firing highly accurate guns high pen for calibre but low damage over all.  Late tiers moderately quick well armoured high pen and at the very top good damage.  I place these tanks most like the German Tanks with their heavy armour and sniper qualities.

Mediums,  Brits never really went for the light tank exactly but made moderately well armoured tanks with generally good speed and good firing on the move.  These tanks will definitely lack in the fire power department at least till mid tier but again will be fast firing accurate and high pen.  later tiers will be a slower but heavier then their counterparts be it raw armour or design (as it has been said about the centurion above).  These late tier tanks will start with the 17lb gun and progressively improve, with this in mind they will most resemble the patton/t110 with high pen and descent damage and again fast firing.

TD's,  Low tiers should be descent pen but low damage high reload then become underpowered until the 17lb around tier 5.  toward the end it will come to resemble the American td line with the A39 Tortoise at tier 8 maybe being better then the t28 at tier 10 they will be the alpha kings of the game but suffering for bad armour and oversized, here i would predict much like the German's.

SPG's, this one is a bit of an unknown, should be high fire rate, low damage and high accuracy.  Choices known for calibres currently are limmited which is the kink i find in this tree and is the unknown factor.

KnightFandragon #50 Posted Jun 22 2012 - 14:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011
In all seriousness...did the British ever use a Howitzer bigger then the 25Lber?  I know they had the Bishop with the 25lber and the Sexton whcih was a Priest mounting a 105mm...but did they ever use anything bigger?  I dont know much about WWII British past their tanks were fairly mechanically unreliable...kinda like RL Russians and the RL M103....That and they used the 17Lber as their AT gun which ROCKED lol.

Also, I  wonder...will the Tetrarch be turned into a T2 British Premium? I think it always shoulda been...you know, kinda like a minitaste of the British...it being Russian is kinda meh..though it ROCKS as is lol.

As for their TD's...I bet those will be undergunned for most the tiers..the Tortoise's main gun was a 93mm? 32Lber gun?  In WoT terms that is like 240dmg.....unless they lolwut frankentank the guns up quite a bit and give it a 155mm or something.  The Archer had a 17lber, Achillies, 17lber....76mm in WoT have bad dmg....cant imagine the 17lber being any better.

Edited by KnightFandragon, Jun 22 2012 - 14:13.


Dominatus #51 Posted Jun 22 2012 - 14:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
The Royal Artillery used a number of larger guns, mainly BL 4.5 and BL 5.5s I think. Also, here's hoping the Cromwell gets a 4" front plate.

Ogopogo #52 Posted Jun 22 2012 - 14:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25362 battles
  • 6,994
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 22 2012 - 14:09, said:

In all seriousness...did the British ever use a Howitzer bigger then the 25Lber?  I know they had the Bishop with the 25lber and the Sexton whcih was a Priest mounting a 105mm...but did they ever use anything bigger?

Although neither gun was mounted on a vehicle the British did have a few howitzers larger than the 25lber. The largest of them were the BL 9.2inch (233.7mm) and the BL 12 inch (304.8mm). The 12 inch didn't really see much use, while the 9.2 inch saw limited use in world war 2 in France. There was also the 4.5inch howitzer, the 95mm howitzer, the 7.2 inch and the 8 inch to name a few.





KnightFandragon #53 Posted Jun 22 2012 - 15:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011
Ya know, how could I forget about the AVRE!  It was an AWESOME vehicle in CoH...the 290mm Petard Mortar!! FIRE THE SPIGOT!!!!  Derp...that would hurt in WoT lol.

maxman1 #54 Posted Jun 23 2012 - 01:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 4640 battles
  • 2,301
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 22 2012 - 14:09, said:

In all seriousness...did the British ever use a Howitzer bigger then the 25Lber?  I know they had the Bishop with the 25lber and the Sexton whcih was a Priest mounting a 105mm...but did they ever use anything bigger?  I dont know much about WWII British past their tanks were fairly mechanically unreliable...kinda like RL Russians and the RL M103....That and they used the 17Lber as their AT gun which ROCKED lol.

There's the BL 60 Pounder, or 5 Inch Field Gun, the BL 4.5 Inch, which used shells weighing roughly 55 pounds, and the BL 6 Inch 26 cwt Howitzer, which used a shell of 100 pounds in WWI, and 86 pounds in WWII.

Those big enough?

KnightFandragon #55 Posted Jun 23 2012 - 16:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View Postmaxman1, on Jun 23 2012 - 01:20, said:

There's the BL 60 Pounder, or 5 Inch Field Gun, the BL 4.5 Inch, which used shells weighing roughly 55 pounds, and the BL 6 Inch 26 cwt Howitzer, which used a shell of 100 pounds in WWI, and 86 pounds in WWII.

Those big enough?

Hecks yeah lol =D

zaibatsukid #56 Posted Jul 01 2012 - 07:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 19936 battles
  • 503
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010

View PostVollketten, on May 30 2012 - 15:18, said:

Anyone else notice the ridiculous weights given for the Crusader and Cromwell?. 50 tons....I presume that it the weight of two tanks. At that weight they wont be able to even move at the speed of a syphillitic ant or is this to 'balance' the game?

Yeah it's in the same weight tier as a Tiger! LOL
Crusader VS Tiger... hmmm... I wonder who'd win?

I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the designs of the British Tanks they tend to look like a metal box with a gun. No real ingenuity, just slap on more metal... They all look pretty ugly except the lines of the turret on the Crusader, and well, I guess I have to say the Tortoise TD is pretty cool too... not the most handsome tanks, but what the hey, welcome to the family!

Wyvern2 #57 Posted Jul 13 2012 - 21:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
The british cruisers will probably have poor to decent to good armor, depending on the tier and a good low tier gun with some decent higher tier guns, they should probably get a serious bonus on teh lower tiers on the move accuracy, the british tanks had a stock fitted to all 2 and 6 pdr's, making them uncannily accurate in a close in, high speed tank fight. As for their heavies, they'll probably have huge armor, weak guns and slow speed, though their top tiers might have better guns. I personally cant wait till the crommie comes out, 40mph with a decent gun, thats a winning combination, I just hope they come out with the challenger as a offshoot of the cromwell

themacdaddy #58 Posted Jul 13 2012 - 23:07

    Private

  • Players
  • 1494 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    02-13-2012
You've got a point but i am still really exited about them

themacdaddy #59 Posted Jul 13 2012 - 23:08

    Private

  • Players
  • 1494 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    02-13-2012
I hear that they're taking the Pz B2 off the market! Man, right when i was going to buy it. :(

Kladenstein #60 Posted Jul 14 2012 - 04:41

    Private

  • Players
  • 4053 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011
If no one noticed the Centurion MK 5-9 is already a modern day tank! And one of the best Modern Day tanks there are! :Smile_Default:
Some say even better than the M1 Abrams which is coming in 2014 to WoT!!! :Smile_teethhappy:
So any way that Centurion Is Well and I mean WELL Known for its unbelievable and Classified armor that most tanks can't penetrate.
Don't ask "If it is so great why isn't it tier 10??" I don't know why WoT didn't put it as that. :Smile_mellow:
Oh ya and since it is "CLASSIFIED" WoT will not put the real armor strength but if it knows it's tanks it would put the armor percentage high VERY high.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users