Jump to content


Historical Battles Coming in 9.0


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

Slash78 #141 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 04:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12020 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

View PostNL_Celt, on Apr 14 2014 - 16:16, said:

 

Like I said, there was a prototype, but never went into production as far as any things I've ever been able to read. An effort does not sound like it really had any success. As I said, a few others in past posts seem to indicate that a few may have actually been available to some countries doing there own modifications. But I still haven't seen anything more than a few unsupported assertions. I'm fine to know there is actual evidence that even one Hellcat was ever attached to a unit while mounting the 90mm (don't care about actual action). For the game, a prototype has always been fine.

 

You are full of bullshit.  "Never, ever" means just that.  It took me less then 10 seconds using Google to find "Hellcat 90mm gun" and find something not WoT related.

 

Hunnicutt had photos and a description.  It has been documented elsewhere.  It work, however by the time they did it, no one wanted the Hellcat, even with a 90mm gun.  The Hellcat being a TD Command pet project that didn't live up to it's hype.  Funny thing was most of the TD battalions in the ETO didn't want the Hellcat.  It's speed wasn't seen as useful, it's gun was no better then the M10 and many crews and commanders preferred the M10's more ergonomically fighting compartment to the Hellcat's cramped one.

 

Super Hellcat never made it because 1) the M36 Jackson was better protected and as mobile as it needed to be and 2) no point of building a new 90mm armed TD (or even converting old ones) when you're starting to build 90mm armed Tanks and 3) Tank Destroyer Doctrine was found flawed and TD Command had fallen out of favor, so why waste additional resources on them.



NL_Celt #142 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 05:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 28786 battles
  • 5,970
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

View PostSlash78, on Apr 15 2014 - 00:35, said:

 

You are full of bullshit.  "Never, ever" means just that.  It took me less then 10 seconds using Google to find "Hellcat 90mm gun" and find something not WoT related.

 

Hunnicutt had photos and a description.  It has been documented elsewhere.  It work, however by the time they did it, no one wanted the Hellcat, even with a 90mm gun.  The Hellcat being a TD Command pet project that didn't live up to it's hype.  Funny thing was most of the TD battalions in the ETO didn't want the Hellcat.  It's speed wasn't seen as useful, it's gun was no better then the M10 and many crews and commanders preferred the M10's more ergonomically fighting compartment to the Hellcat's cramped one.

 

Super Hellcat never made it because 1) the M36 Jackson was better protected and as mobile as it needed to be and 2) no point of building a new 90mm armed TD (or even converting old ones) when you're starting to build 90mm armed Tanks and 3) Tank Destroyer Doctrine was found flawed and TD Command had fallen out of favor, so why waste additional resources on them.

 

Need I say it again?? There were prototypes, not production. I went through all those Google links (and other sites), before and tonight again. Just prototypes. Still as far as I can tell not one was ever mobilized for service. They could have envisaged rockets, mortars, AA, and even tried some experiments to see how it worked. But never bothered. That's my point. I'd love to know that some were modified and put in active service somewhere. But nothing you give confirms that. Just prototypes that are fine for WOT.



Slash78 #143 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 06:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12020 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

View PostNL_Celt, on Apr 14 2014 - 21:22, said:

 

Need I say it again?? There were prototypes, not production. I went through all those Google links (and other sites), before and tonight again. Just prototypes. Still as far as I can tell not one was ever mobilized for service. They could have envisaged rockets, mortars, AA, and even tried some experiments to see how it worked. But never bothered. That's my point. I'd love to know that some were modified and put in active service somewhere. But nothing you give confirms that. Just prototypes that are fine for WOT.

 

No, this is what you wrote...

 

Block Quote

NL_Celt: 

As far as I can tell the Hellcat never mounted a 90mm, ever. They were going to try it, had a prototype but the war ended and the program was scrapped. It's possible that some later modifications were made by other countries like Taiwan and the Philippines, but can't even see real evidence of that either. I know some commenters have indicated that somewhere the 90 was mounted but I can't see where and thus was a minor thing, if at all.

 

OK.  You are basically saying you don't know if it happen, it might have been been a small thing, "if at all".  And you insist it's not "really real" because it was never in serial production and never saw combat.  There is a difference between real and "mass produced and/or saw combat".  Real is real.

 

The Hellcat with a 90mm gun is real.  A real M18 Hell chassis was fitted with a real M36 turret that had a real 90mm M3 gun in it.  It really happened.

 

What is not real?  What never, ever happened?  The Vickers 75mm High Velocity gun.  It was never fitted to into a Cromwell, ever.  Even though it was designed to.  They took a QF 3-inch 20 cwt AA cartridge, fitted the projectile off a 75mm round used in the 75mm M3 gun to it and made a gun to fire it.  It did not fit and the performance wasn't what was desired.  So, because it wouldn't if, couldn't fit they designed a new tank to fit it.  While the A34 Comet was being designed they replaced the 75mm projectile with that of the 17-pdr, increased the amount of propellant, modified the gun to fire it and called it the 77-mm OQF.  Because of the changes it had much better performance then the QF 3-inch and US 76mm M1, though not as good as the 17-pdr.  

 

Ok, real means real.  It is realistic that a 90mm gun could be fitted to the Hellcat.  Just because it never got past the prototype stage because the Hellcat was little more then a hobby-horse of the head of TD Command and not particularly liked in the ETO doesn't make it any less "real" because it was never used in combat (AFAIK).  

 

I don't like people using the words "real" and "never, ever" because the WT forum is full of dumbass if-I-don't-know-about-it or if-I-don't-like-it it isn't real or it never happened.  Things like people asking if the Maus should be in the game or not and people say "it's not real".  Or confusing prototypes with "paper projects that weren't real" or somehow because something never saw combat it isn't "historical".  Like the Maus.  Like the TOG II.  Like the 200+ T23s that were built.  Nope.  None of it is "real" or historically accurate, never, ever.  Then I come over here and find people talking about things that were really built (if only as prototypes) saying the same stupid shit.  

 

 

 


Edited by Slash78, Apr 15 2014 - 06:34.


NL_Celt #144 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 15:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 28786 battles
  • 5,970
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

You have to learn to read and consider context. Right from the start I said there was a prototype. But it was never put into service, never organized into units to fight (but only missed out due to the war being ended and then were all scrapped). In subsequent posts I thought I made it clear that that was how I meant it to be taken. I guess you missed that.

 

And thank you but I will use the words never, ever and real as often as I feel like. Don't need any language police here.



M_K_Papa #145 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 16:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23516 battles
  • 327
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Balaton: Pz.III were present on the scene.

Prokhorovka: Churchill IV was also part of the show.



M_K_Papa #146 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 16:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23516 battles
  • 327
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostSlash78, on Apr 15 2014 - 01:31, said:

 

The Hellcat with a 90mm gun is real.  A real M18 Hell chassis was fitted with a real M36 turret that had a real 90mm M3 gun in it.  It really happened.

 

What is not real?  What never, ever happened?

 

I am laughing reading these infinite threads about Hellcat 90mm or KV-1S 122mm. Half of German tree has never happened, including their most OP bricks, and WG continues to bake them like hotcakes.


Edited by mkosulin, Apr 15 2014 - 16:46.


Legiondude #147 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 17:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postmkosulin, on Apr 15 2014 - 10:45, said:

Half of German tree has never happened

Not that much



Slash78 #148 Posted Apr 15 2014 - 18:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12020 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

View Postmkosulin, on Apr 15 2014 - 08:45, said:

 

I am laughing reading these infinite threads about Hellcat 90mm or KV-1S 122mm. Half of German tree has never happened, including their most OP bricks, and WG continues to bake them like hotcakes.

 

The difference between the Hellcat and the KV-1S is that in the Hellcat's case all it got was a new turret.  In the case of the KV-1S, it didn't just get a new turret.  The KV-85 was a new vehicle, not a straight conversion of old KV-1S.  More frontal armor, the turret ring was changed and a crew position was removed.  But it wasn't a simple conversion (kind of like the M26, M46 and M47, latter being a brand new tank).  Yes, the KV-1S was the basis of the KV-85.  But that's like saying the Cromwell was the basis for the A30 Challenger (and the Challenger being the basis for the Avenger TD).  So yeah, a 122mm howitzer was fit to a KV-1S, but the 122mm (or 100mm or even 85mm) wasn't found to fit in the tank with extensive rebuilding.  



Baron_von_Beergut #149 Posted May 11 2014 - 13:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 31569 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
The problem with historical is not enough players in the pool at any one time. Suggestion: if a player was to get all his historically eligible stuff ready, then click historical battle - would that give MM a better pool to start battles? So that way you might not get in or the side you wish, but you wouldn't be waiting forever to join something. Another option would be to have only one historical battle available each month and rotate between the 3 now listed and any others such as North Africa, or a hypothetical in Korea or Europe post WWII, or Spanish Civil War, France 40, etc... just advertise in advance so folks know what will come in future months if they want a tank ready... Also perhaps keep one as a constant such as Kursk - which might add more vehicle options such as PzII or Marder or others historically still around. BvB

dexatrin82 #150 Posted Jun 23 2017 - 18:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22435 battles
  • 682
  • [AR-PA] AR-PA
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011
OMG I remember these.

stalkervision #151 Posted Jun 23 2017 - 21:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 67836 battles
  • 9,632
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postdexatrin82, on Jun 23 2017 - 12:56, said:

OMG I remember these.

 

​yes and if wg would put a tenth of the effort into fixing what was wrong with them as they do creating new and better premium wallet busters we would have a even better version then what was tried before. :( 

Harvester_0f_Sorrow #152 Posted Jun 23 2017 - 22:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28148 battles
  • 1,056
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013
they did this before and it sucked

stalkervision #153 Posted Jun 24 2017 - 00:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 67836 battles
  • 9,632
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Jun 23 2017 - 16:06, said:

they did this before and it sucked

 

​actually your out in left field. It didn't work out because people just wanted to drive the best tanks as a choice of course and wg gave no thought in how to correct this whatsoever. They still haven't.  IMO if they made it a random choice of what tanks one owned that might have been better. No thought has been given since then to random battles though.

SnowPanzer #154 Posted Jun 24 2017 - 10:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 44835 battles
  • 3,053
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011
None of the extra modes ever went very far. Look at all of the ones that were started and cancelled. Company Battles was very successful, until they slowly killed it. I believe that it was the best. CW is around only because they can't make anything better it seems. Historical will never work with this game in the way the currently have it set up.

ImaKillYou #155 Posted Jun 24 2017 - 13:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27442 battles
  • 1,218
  • [-GENT] -GENT
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
Holy necro Batman! do you guys even look at dates on these threads??

Huck_ #156 Posted Jun 24 2017 - 14:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 34480 battles
  • 3,140
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011
Overlord said these changes will be implemented in the next patch. 

stalkervision #157 Posted Jun 26 2017 - 12:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 67836 battles
  • 9,632
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostHuck_, on Jun 24 2017 - 08:11, said:

Overlord said these changes will be implemented in the next patch. 

 

seriously? Got a link? :) 

dexatrin82 #158 Posted Jun 28 2017 - 03:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22435 battles
  • 682
  • [AR-PA] AR-PA
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011
Damn My Necro worked LOL, I haz Stronk Russian Necro Power

Gothraul #159 Posted Jun 28 2017 - 05:03

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 2426 battles
  • 5,655
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014

View PostImaKillYou, on Jun 24 2017 - 13:08, said:

Holy necro Batman! do you guys even look at dates on these threads??

 

The oldest necro thread I've ever seen was originally posted in the 1990s on another forum :amazed:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users