Jump to content


British tech tree


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

razielkaine #61 Posted Jul 14 2012 - 07:07

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6024 battles
  • 773
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
Are you thinking of the chieftain?

sharlin648 #62 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 00:03

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15078 battles
  • 1,499
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Well considering the Germans are getting the Leopard 1, the French the AMX-30 both of which are MBTs, the Brits by all means SHOULD get the Cheiftan.

KnightFandragon #63 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 01:14

    Major

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

View Postsharlin648, on Jul 15 2012 - 00:03, said:

Well considering the Germans are getting the Leopard 1, the French the AMX-30 both of which are MBTs, the Brits by all means SHOULD get the Cheiftan.

And yet the US cant get the M60...

Ogopogo #64 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 01:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25503 battles
  • 6,997
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View Postsharlin648, on Jul 15 2012 - 00:03, said:

Well considering the Germans are getting the Leopard 1, the French the AMX-30 both of which are MBTs, the Brits by all means SHOULD get the Cheiftan.

The prototype at most. The chieftain had far to powerful a gun to be allowed in the game. The prototype had a similar armor layout (if not a little weaker) and had the 120mm which the T110 also has.

Take the penetration numbers as why the production version of the tank would be a bad idea.

120mm British L11A5 (not the prototype's gun)
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)

Edited by Ogopogo, Jul 15 2012 - 01:39.


Cooldude12900 #65 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 01:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9834 battles
  • 324
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostB0X, on May 29 2012 - 17:41, said:

Is it just me, or is the tier 1 a medium tank?

I see it too buddy. Im scaared as to what it will do. :P jk.

sharlin648 #66 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 03:17

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15078 battles
  • 1,499
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
The gun would be berserk if they put the production 120mm gun in it, but then they could change it (IE Nerf) to make it a touch less OP, but the thing is WG has started a rather dodgey precident by putting in MBTs, their guns are going to creep up and up whilst armour goes down and down.

RRR3 #67 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 03:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 26442 battles
  • 2,890
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
Cool but when do they come out becuse i cant wait :)

KnightFandragon #68 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 16:08

    Major

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

View PostOgopogo, on Jul 15 2012 - 01:37, said:

The prototype at most. The chieftain had far to powerful a gun to be allowed in the game. The prototype had a similar armor layout (if not a little weaker) and had the 120mm which the T110 also has.

Take the penetration numbers as why the production version of the tank would be a bad idea.

120mm British L11A5 (not the prototype's gun)
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)


Historical accuracy is a bad example why tanks shouldnt be in this game, in fact, there is no good reason behind why any tank shouldnt be allowed in this game...WG can simply play with numbers to make the tanks what theywant them to be in this game...and even tank that were never even dreamt of are in game, so if some modified ATAT made it into WoT, that wouldnt seem off to me lol...so yeah, BRING ON THE CHIEFTAIN!!!  No reason not to....or the M60, or the Leo I and 2 and 3....whats it up to now?  L2A6 Leo II?

As for to powerful for the game, well, were up to 300+ pen guns with NORMAL ammo now....why shouldnt they just keep right the hell on going up to 450, 500...heck, let the Russian tanks fire PG7VL RPG warheads...like 800+mm of armor penetration...powercreep to the max...why not eh?

Edited by KnightFandragon, Jul 15 2012 - 16:09.


Xlucine #69 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 16:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostOgopogo, on Jul 15 2012 - 01:37, said:

The prototype at most. The chieftain had far to powerful a gun to be allowed in the game. The prototype had a similar armor layout (if not a little weaker) and had the 120mm which the T110 also has.

Take the penetration numbers as why the production version of the tank would be a bad idea.

120mm British L11A5 (not the prototype's gun)
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)


You got those from J Collins site, right? Because just above the L11 figures is the L1:

Quote

US M103 120mm APC 221mm at 1000yards; 199mm at 2000yards at 30 degrees
UK Conqueror 120mm AP 255mm at 1000 yards; 226mm at 2000 yards (1.8km)
UK Conqueror 120mm L1A1 APDS 446mm at 1000 yards (914m)

M103 gold round doesn't pen as much as this would indicate (381mm), so playing a similar trick with the L11 wouldn't be without precedent.

Also, prototype armour layout was a lot weaker. IMO anything below production levels would make the IS-8 seem bouncy.

sharlin648 #70 Posted Jul 15 2012 - 23:39

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15078 battles
  • 1,499
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Cheiftans were tough frontally thanks to the metals that make up their armour.  It didn't need to be thick, hell the M1-A2's armour is roughly equivalent in thickness and resilience to the 17 inch armour of the Iowa's conning tower, if not greater.  MBT's are built to fight from long range, their armour is focused on their front, but its not thin on the sides by any means, its because of the metals they are made of instead of raw thickness.

Xlucine #71 Posted Jul 16 2012 - 01:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Not really. Composites like on the abrams are a whole different ballpark - steel itself hasn't changed that much since WW2, and that's all the chieftain had (at least until stillbrew).

Ogopogo #72 Posted Jul 16 2012 - 02:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25503 battles
  • 6,997
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostXlucine, on Jul 15 2012 - 16:13, said:


M103 gold round doesn't pen as much as this would indicate (381mm), so playing a similar trick with the L11 wouldn't be without precedent.


Except the 340mm penetration for the L11 was for its standard round, not its gold round.

Xlucine #73 Posted Jul 16 2012 - 18:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
L15 was APDS, not proper AP. I still think WG should make up a "prototype" L11 - higher RoF than L1, similar AP performance (representing the crew putting L1 projectiles in front of bagged charges) and silly gold pen. Would make more sense than the 133mm.

Kazunemaru #74 Posted Jul 16 2012 - 19:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11640 battles
  • 233
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
Just wanted to throw out there Vickers license produced a 130mm for the Imperial Russian Navy (130mm/55 b7 pattern 1913).

Before you get all uppity, I'm not saying this or its 1936 upgrade will be what we see nor am I saying it is what we should expect, simply throwing it out there.

Edited by Kazunemaru, Jul 16 2012 - 19:41.


Slakrrrrrr #75 Posted Jul 16 2012 - 19:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 22233 battles
  • 6,435
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011

View Postsharlin648, on Jul 15 2012 - 00:03, said:

Well considering the Germans are getting the Leopard 1, the French the AMX-30 both of which are MBTs, the Brits by all means SHOULD get the Cheiftan.
The prototype as a tier 10 medium and the Mk II as the tier 10 heavy IMO.

Xlucine #76 Posted Jul 17 2012 - 00:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostKazunemaru, on Jul 16 2012 - 19:40, said:

Just wanted to throw out there Vickers license produced a 130mm for the Imperial Russian Navy (130mm/55 b7 pattern 1913).

Before you get all uppity, I'm not saying this or its 1936 upgrade will be what we see nor am I saying it is what we should expect, simply throwing it out there.

Gun has been confirmed as this. Wiki sez 76mm of penetration for the AP round*

*at ~9500m

View PostSlakrrrrrr, on Jul 16 2012 - 19:43, said:

The prototype as a tier 10 medium and the Mk II as the tier 10 heavy IMO.

pedant alert: FV4202 wasn't a prototype, it was a technology test bed. there's a difference. Mk1 chieftain was (arguably) the prototype, being only used for training and trials

maxman1 #77 Posted Jul 17 2012 - 05:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 4655 battles
  • 2,302
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View Postthemacdaddy, on Jul 13 2012 - 23:08, said:

I hear that they're taking the Pz B2 off the market! Man, right when i was going to buy it. :(

They did that in February.

View Postsharlin648, on Jul 15 2012 - 00:03, said:

Well considering the Germans are getting the Leopard 1, the French the AMX-30 both of which are MBTs, the Brits by all means SHOULD get the Cheiftan.

We're asking for the Chieftain to be the tier X heavy tank, not medium, and even then we're asking for the prototype, with the L1 120mm, not the L11A5.

All of the so-called 'first generation' MBTs were, in fact, medium tanks.

wysoso #78 Posted Jul 17 2012 - 05:56

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 11018 battles
  • 28
  • [NOPEN] NOPEN
  • Member since:
    01-13-2011

View PostXlucine, on Jul 17 2012 - 00:08, said:

Gun has been confirmed as this. Wiki sez 76mm of penetration for the AP round*

*at ~9500m


the wiki page also stated that it has 7-8rpm, very nice number for a Tier 10 gun. but I doubt the loader in a tank turret could reload as fast as inside a much bigger battleship platform?

and this makes me even more looking forward to world of battleship :P

Edited by wysoso, Jul 17 2012 - 05:58.


1RandomGrey1 #79 Posted Jul 18 2012 - 03:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2860 battles
  • 346
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Crusader III tank looks amazing

LordYinYang #80 Posted Aug 03 2012 - 18:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 30048 battles
  • 302
  • [ML] ML
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

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.
The British had two tank types (from their classification) Cruisers and Infantry.  Your talking about the Cruisers, which were meant to be the breakthrough tanks with high speed and good firepower.  Then we have the Infantry tanks, which were to escort the Infantry with their thick armor and knock out soft enemy emplacements.  The heavy tank like is going to be based on the Infantry tanks, which are slower with thicker armor with weaker guns (sorta like the Germans).  Cruisers make up the Medium tank line, with relativity thin armor with good firepower, though later medium tanks should have armor when the British were trying to combine the Infantry and Cruiser tanks.  Basically the Cruiser tanks act somewhat like the AMX light series (sans the AMX 40) without the autoloaders.  Makes me wonder if they would have extra flammability (something they suffered from quite a bit.

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jun 21 2012 - 03:41, said:

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....
Again Cruiser tanks were the ones to move around, while the Infantry tanks supported... well infantry.  

View PostKnightFandragon, on Jul 15 2012 - 16:08, said:

Historical accuracy is a bad example why tanks shouldnt be in this game, in fact, there is no good reason behind why any tank shouldnt be allowed in this game...WG can simply play with numbers to make the tanks what theywant them to be in this game...and even tank that were never even dreamt of are in game, so if some modified ATAT made it into WoT, that wouldnt seem off to me lol...so yeah, BRING ON THE CHIEFTAIN!!!  No reason not to....or the M60, or the Leo I and 2 and 3....whats it up to now?  L2A6 Leo II?

As for to powerful for the game, well, were up to 300+ pen guns with NORMAL ammo now....why shouldnt they just keep right the hell on going up to 450, 500...heck, let the Russian tanks fire PG7VL RPG warheads...like 800+mm of armor penetration...powercreep to the max...why not eh?

I think it would be hard to market a tank game with no tanks.  That aside, I do agree the M60 should have been the tier 10 medium, since the Euro-Panzer tanks (Leo 1 and AMX 30) are being added.  They mess with the numbers for "balance", though maybe they should have a multinational group dealing with the balancing of said tanks.  Maybe they would be more even like that.  As for the warheads, Wargaming has stated there is no reason for missiles to be brought into game.

Personally, I'm excited for the British tree, though I'm not going to use gold to blitz my way to the tier 10s (considering Wargaming's Vicious circle of

Release
\/
OP reaction
\/
Nerfbat
   \/
Repeat.

Just going to take my time, grind up the medium first (getting some of the Infantry tanks like the Matilda II and Valentine and staying there), and then I'll see what they do the the heavy line.  Then go from there.


Edit:  Fixed the poor diagram I made and fixed the odd text size.
Edit 2:  Forum hates my text diagram, removed it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users