Jump to content


Amphibious tanks + Perks

Tanks Japan Amphibious Light

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

Dwarrior96 #1 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:00

    Private

  • Players
  • 4272 battles
  • 5
  • [KGC] KGC
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011
With all these water maps like Fjords, Lakeville, Port, Fisherman's Bay, Malinovka etc. I think it would be useful for the developers to add amphibious tanks +perks in this game like the Japanese  Type 2 Ka-Mi,Type 5 To-Ku,and the Type 3 Ka-Chi with snorkels for heavier tanks crossing shallower waters and the system of floats and propellers for mediums like this duplex drive Sherman  overall i think these amphibious tanks + perks should be included as an addition to the game as it can play a big part in expanding the style and role of gameplay and i thought id share the idea and get it out there so maybe the developers could make this a reality

(sorry for the lack of images for some reason i keep getting this "You have entered a link to a website that the administrator does not allow links to" so I'm having a hard time posting images ill put a list of the links for the
tanks, snorkels, and duplex drive

Type 2 Ka-Mi http://www.wwiivehic...phibious-02.png

Type 5 To-Ku http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/TOKU2.jpg

Type 3 Ka-Chi http://www.tanks-enc...ype3_Ka-Chi.jpg

Snorkel (on Tiger tank) http://news.bbcimg.c..._snorkel017.jpg

Duplex drive Sherman http://t2.gstatic.co...mQ2SEpCRafdAzYQ

another505 #2 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12259 battles
  • 460
  • [5CAD] 5CAD
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
i remember they said no, but they rarely give any reason why

zachdogg #3 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 5232 battles
  • 1,766
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
personally i would hate that because my hellcat would be chasing a japenest tank and he would just go into the water and shoot me. it happened i nreal life but bad idea for wot

Dwarrior96 #4 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:05

    Private

  • Players
  • 4272 battles
  • 5
  • [KGC] KGC
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postzachdogg, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:03, said:

personally i would hate that because my hellcat would be chasing a japenest tank and he would just go into the water and shoot me. it happened i nreal life but bad idea for wot
those japanese tanks are very light and would serve better as scouts i dont think they could do that much damage plus if they release the tank i dont think the tank can just go into the water that easily he will sink like a rock

Akatora12 #5 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11148 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011
While the addition of Japanese tanks would be something, the idea of tanks being able to go underwater is a bit... worthless. Even with snorkels or water tight hatches, the tank would move at a very slow pace and nothing aside Arty would be able to damage it, as currently shells don't go through the water. Without water tight hatches as well, the tanks would flood and the crew would drown. To add to that, it takes too much editing and scripting to make this happen.

Kroz1776 #6 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11609 battles
  • 1,390
  • [GANDP] GANDP
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostDwarrior96, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:05, said:

those japanese tanks are very light and would serve better as scouts i dont think they could do that much damage plus if they release the tank i dont think the tank can just go into the water that easily he will sink like a rock

For some reason after reading this post, I envisioned a line of tanks made solely of light tanks. :teethhappy:

Kroz1776 #7 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11609 battles
  • 1,390
  • [GANDP] GANDP
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostAkatora12, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:09, said:

While the addition of Japanese tanks would be something, the idea of tanks being able to go underwater is a bit... worthless. Even with snorkels or water tight hatches, the tank would move at a very slow pace and nothing aside Arty would be able to damage it, as currently shells don't go through the water. Without water tight hatches as well, the tanks would flood and the crew would drown. To add to that, it takes too much editing and scripting to make this happen.

Actually they do.  I've destroyed fully submerged tanks before thus robbing them of their kill rob.

Dwarrior96 #8 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:14

    Private

  • Players
  • 4272 battles
  • 5
  • [KGC] KGC
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostAkatora12, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:09, said:

While the addition of Japanese tanks would be something, the idea of tanks being able to go underwater is a bit... worthless. Even with snorkels or water tight hatches, the tank would move at a very slow pace and nothing aside Arty would be able to damage it, as currently shells don't go through the water. Without water tight hatches as well, the tanks would flood and the crew would drown. To add to that, it takes too much editing and scripting to make this happen.
the tanks could make great scouts and they could go
across the map and cap the flag while the land is being overrun by enemies making it impossible to reach the flag plus they can have better camo that way they aren't easily detected and there aren't that many amphibious tanks to edit and script japan is one of the few nations that had them in ww2

icoleman #9 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 5902 battles
  • 6,994
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012
Either way, the Snorkel tiger is a joke.

SuperJaws100 #10 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6298 battles
  • 1,039
  • [NHS] NHS
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011
They almost did add an amphibious tank- the BT-SV. I think the Amphibious-tank idea is great but not the perks. That would cause an imbalance in the game, as not all tanks had amphibious capabilities. Perks and Skills are for all tanks.

killen5 #11 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15750 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
WG said they'd do this...AFTER they implement larger maps. Current maps (like malinovka) make amphibious tanks useless.

"Ooooh wow, I gained 100m advantage by floating through some shallow water before being killed trying to climb an exposed incline"

Anti_Tank_Tanker #12 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:22

    Private

  • Players
  • 88 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012

View PostSuperJaws100, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:19, said:

They almost did add an amphibious tank- the BT-SV. I think the Amphibious-tank idea is great but not the perks. That would cause an imbalance in the game, as not all tanks had amphibious capabilities. Perks and Skills are for all tanks.
yea maybe the perks aren't needed or maybe it can be a thing you can
research like researching the duplex drive on the Sherman

killen5 #13 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15750 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostSuperJaws100, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:19, said:

They almost did add an amphibious tank- the BT-SV. I think the Amphibious-tank idea is great but not the perks. That would cause an imbalance in the game, as not all tanks had amphibious capabilities. Perks and Skills are for all tanks.

BT-SV is amphibious? Where did you learn that, 'cause it certainly is not.

icoleman #14 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 5902 battles
  • 6,994
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012

View Postkillen5, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:24, said:

BT-SV is amphibious? Where did you learn that, 'cause it certainly is not.
SV was a tank meant to pass through deep swamps and other water terrains while keeping its high speeds even underwater. The armour shape prevented the tank from getting sucked in when entering a swamp area, 4 headlights added to see through the water. The plans were a failure and the tank never saw amphibious terrains. So no one really knows if it was successful or not.

Edited by icoleman, Mar 30 2013 - 17:29.


TheDarkWarLord #15 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14051 battles
  • 52
  • [ATP] ATP
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
Also keep in mind tanks cannot fire there guns underwater. As soon as you open the breech of the gun the it would flood the tank. The DD sherman had sheeting up above it so that you could not see to fire.

killen5 #16 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15750 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View Posticoleman, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:28, said:

SV was a tank meant to pass through deep swamps and other water terrains while keeping its high speeds even underwater. The armour shape prevented the tank from getting sucked in when entering a swamp area, 4 headlights added to see through the water. The plans were a failure and the tank never saw amphibious terrains. So no one really knows if it was successful or not.

Are you shitting me? Underwater? Have you seen the way the radiators are mounted on that thing? Go anywhere deep enough and you'll just stall the engine, and lose the tank if not drown. Now it LOOKS like it could float, but what the hell is the point of floating if you have no water propulsion system? The BT-SV was not an amphibious tank. The idea is ludicrous.

Hunter12396 #17 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7934 battles
  • 987
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012
later they said

icoleman #18 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 5902 battles
  • 6,994
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012

View Postkillen5, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:35, said:

Are you shitting me? Underwater? Have you seen the way the radiators are mounted on that thing? Go anywhere deep enough and you'll just stall the engine, and lose the tank if not drown. Now it LOOKS like it could float, but what the hell is the point of floating if you have no water propulsion system? The BT-SV was not an amphibious tank. The idea is ludicrous.
The idea is what it is, Remember this is Soviet russia during ww2, they had many crazy ideas for tanks, no doubt the BT-SV was one.

killen5 #19 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 17:53

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15750 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View Posticoleman, on Mar 30 2013 - 17:42, said:

The idea is what it is, Remember this is Soviet russia during ww2, they had many crazy ideas for tanks, no doubt the BT-SV was one.

Ok, the BT-SV was an attempt to utilize sloped armour to increase the armour protection of a tank without actually increasing armour thickness or manufacturing complexity. It was one of the prototypes which lead the Soviet designers to believe that sloped armour was superior to unsloped and that mounting sloped armour on all sides of the tank allowed for better all round protection. The lessons they learned from building the BT-SV prototype eventually lead to the development of the A-20 and, eventually, the famous T-34 series of tanks. I have no idea where the notion of "the BT-SV is an amphibious tank" came from, but it's like saying "the Maus is big, therefore it could have been an APC, yeah, trust me, it could have guys". The BT-SV looks like it might be able to travel over water, yes, but the design specifics arent there. There is NO way for it to travel over water, and therefore it's design is completely useless for flotation. Hell, even the structures on the side for mounting the sloped armour aren't even attached to the hull bar from the top due to the design of the running gear. If it was designed to go under water, then it should be equiped to do so, most likely with a snorkel system. If you drive your car underwater, it will quickly fill up, then remain underwater permanently without help.

Soviet designers arent retarded. They dont just trial and error on such a big scale.

ironcladtanker #20 Posted Mar 30 2013 - 18:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4689 battles
  • 1,307
  • [THK] THK
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012
I'm all for it!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users