Jump to content


Size of german tanks and "Historical accuracy"


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

CommissarRykov #21 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 03:29

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5744 battles
  • 506
  • Member since:
    10-20-2010

View Postshdowhunt60, on Jun 09 2012 - 03:00, said:

Yes, Russian tanks were very small. What I have trouble understanding, is that the Sherman is very light for its apparent huge size, it weighs around 30 tons. Even the Jumbo with its huge armor upgrade isn't that heavy. So where does the KT get all its weight then?
Thicker armor the Shermans were lightly armored.

Odin_The_Wise #22 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 04:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9006 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
the german tanks were bigger in every way.  they had more armor, which means you need a bigger engin, which means a larger fuel consumtion, which means more fuel capacity, which mean a greater over all mass

Stormrane #23 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 08:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8145 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    05-25-2011

View Postshdowhunt60, on Jun 09 2012 - 03:00, said:

Yes, Russian tanks were very small. What I have trouble understanding, is that the Sherman is very light for its apparent huge size, it weighs around 30 tons. Even the Jumbo with its huge armor upgrade isn't that heavy. So where does the KT get all its weight then?

Initially the Sherman was that tall simply because they were using a radial engine, Shermans used various engines over the years but redesigning the hull would have rendered the production efficiency of the Sherman void. Essentially it would have been roomy inside :)
The weight of the KT would have come from various sources, the tracks were wide to allow offroad use because of the weight, whilst adding to the weight :P the engine would have been hugely heavy to make the horsepower it did, thus the driveline would be similarly heavy, the gun would have been heavy, each shell carried weighed more than the Shermans', armour was much thicker and thus heavier and so it goes on.

Imaginary_Star #24 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 08:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8282 battles
  • 223
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011
It seems to be more of a Sharman issue. But making M4, a Tier V medium tank, that big will make it tough for it to survive.
Taking it in reverse, and making KT that small... it'll make an already wonderful tank, simply amazing (lower lower glacis weakness? let's make it half the size :D )

I'm fine with status quo, in this specific case.

Haides #25 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 10:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 9246 battles
  • 2,166
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011
Actually a size decrease is also a nerf, as well, as your upper plate won't be as high so enemy tanks will either not shoot up into it if they are smaller, or will shoot down into the upper plate, if they are bigger.

It's why the IS-4 was less bouncy after 7.2, same with the IS-7. It's both a nerf and a buff.

Mow_Mow #26 Posted Jun 09 2012 - 22:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostHaides, on Jun 09 2012 - 10:31, said:

Actually a size decrease is also a nerf, as well, as your upper plate won't be as high so enemy tanks will either not shoot up into it if they are smaller, or will shoot down into the upper plate, if they are bigger.

It's why the IS-4 was less bouncy after 7.2, same with the IS-7. It's both a nerf and a buff.

I'm of the opinion that it made IS-4 much weaker, because tall tanks such as KV-5 and KT can just troll the IS-4 by shooting and pentrating the turret roof. All that armor because useless if they can pen your 20mm or whatever roof armor.

Haides #27 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 00:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 9246 battles
  • 2,166
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Jun 09 2012 - 22:44, said:

I'm of the opinion that it made IS-4 much weaker, because tall tanks such as KV-5 and KT can just troll the IS-4 by shooting and pentrating the turret roof. All that armor because useless if they can pen your 20mm or whatever roof armor.
Well, it's 30 mm, but still negligible, a Bison can hit up there for about 300 damage a shot. :Smile_veryhappy:

But yes, it was indeed a fairly major nerf. There's not only that, but the armor itself was closer to the ground which meant, even at range, German guns in particular would be shooting down into the armor.

Edited by Haides, Jun 10 2012 - 00:46.


Horrorsh0w #28 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 02:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6438 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
If we compare pics with people in them to give us some sense of scale, I think it's pretty clear that it's the Sherman that's too small, not the KT being too big.

Posted Image

Posted Image



I'd say the WoT Sherman is at least 2 feet short.

Odin_The_Wise #29 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 03:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9006 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011

View PostHorrorsh0w, on Jun 10 2012 - 02:56, said:

If we compare pics with people in them to give us some sense of scale, I think it's pretty clear that it's the Sherman that's too small, not the KT being too big.

Posted Image

Posted Image



I'd say the WoT Sherman is at least 2 feet short.

your sherman is not an m4 but an e2 :P

Horrorsh0w #30 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 03:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6438 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
They're the same size.

Odin_The_Wise #31 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 04:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9006 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
i know, i am just saying

ket101 #32 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 04:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,404
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Even if it's an E2, it's still an M4.

AznTank7 #33 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 07:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20706 battles
  • 460
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011

View Postket101, on Jun 10 2012 - 04:37, said:

Even if it's an E2, it's still an M4.

View PostHorrorsh0w, on Jun 10 2012 - 03:43, said:

They're the same size.

View PostKeekenox, on Jun 10 2012 - 03:08, said:

your sherman is not an m4 but an e2 :P

Fk the size! Those lucky guys in the pics get to be in the tanks!

tlun315 #34 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 18:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13523 battles
  • 785
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
I don't really think they will fix this...
Just like many "HISTORICAL ACCURACY"...
for example, the thickness of E100 armor..I don't need to post the photo, almost everyone who read those post know which one I am talking about...

thekillaii #35 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 18:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6231 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View Postshdowhunt60, on Jun 09 2012 - 03:00, said:

Yes, Russian tanks were very small. What I have trouble understanding, is that the Sherman is very light for its apparent huge size, it weighs around 30 tons. Even the Jumbo with its huge armor upgrade isn't that heavy. So where does the KT get all its weight then?
The massive 88 L71 Probably added quite a bit of weight. The gun itself is almost as long as the sherman lol.

VRMoran #36 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 18:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 19405 battles
  • 2,255
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
Actually, doing my own visual comparison I'm not seeing much of a height problem. My Sherman is a tad bit shorter than he Jagdtiger and Lowe, which are (or at least should be) roughly the same height as a King Tiger. It seems appropriately sized, although obviously a lot less massive.

Oh, and I have those exact models as well lol

CoconutFred #37 Posted Jun 10 2012 - 20:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1425 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
Sherman was a lot larger than I previously thought then. And the M3 Lee, isn't that even larger than the Sherman?

Scruffee #38 Posted Jun 11 2012 - 04:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13101 battles
  • 467
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
technically, if you look at the Jagtiger and the other TDs, in game the jagtiger is significantly taller than the others, but in real life the T95 was actually close to the same height as the Jagtiger and the ISU-152 (couldnt find measurements for the object) was only 1 Ft. shorter.

Guest_Gryphon__* #39 Posted Jun 11 2012 - 19:01

  • Guest

AznTank7, on Jun 10 2012 - 07:25, said:

Fk the size! Those lucky guys in the pics get to be in the tanks!

A WW2 tank in WW2 wasnt a great place to be. When I was a kid, someone who served in one in the Western Desert told me to never, ever, be a tankie in the army. Sound advice. I became an RAF pilot instead, which worked out to be a pretty good deal.

Gyarados #40 Posted Jun 11 2012 - 19:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14368 battles
  • 11,504
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
Someone pointed this out recently with the IS-7 being way, way, way too short, and it actually needs to be around 40-50% larger. The German tanks are properly proportioned from what I could tell, but every other tank seems to be smaller than it should be.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users