Jump to content


Historical Validity Tech Trees Part Deux


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

FrozenKemp #61 Posted Mar 29 2017 - 19:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 43064 battles
  • 4,945
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

Well since this thread has been bumped...  I took a gander at the British page of the spreadsheet and I have to say my hat is off to you, Legiondude - you obviously put a LOT of work into it!!

 

One tiny thing:  The Mk VIC is listed as "limited production" but this one website says 334 vehicles were produced, which is more than the entire production run of the Tetrarch or Challenger (listed in the wikipedia article).

 

Based on:

http://www.historyof..._tank_mkVI.html

https://en.wikipedia...ng_World_War_II


Edited by FrozenKemp, Mar 29 2017 - 19:28.


Legiondude #62 Posted Mar 29 2017 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,041
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postblueribbon, on Mar 29 2017 - 01:28, said:

I'm referencing this from the Sensha blog by Eun Ae Sun

Huh, could have sworn Ae Sun had given me previous commentary on the chart already

 

View PostFrozenKemp, on Mar 29 2017 - 12:28, said:

Well since this thread has been bumped...  I took a gander at the British page of the spreadsheet and I have to say my hat is off to you, Legiondude - you obviously put a LOT of work into it!!

 

One tiny thing:  The Mk VIC is listed as "limited production" but this one website says 334 vehicles were produced, which is more than the entire production run of the Tetrarch or Challenger (listed in the wikipedia article).

Thanks, Brit tanks are not my forte but I had some help along the way.

 

This thread seems to point towards a more conservative number, but still high enough to qualify for the 'Production' label



blueribbon #63 Posted Mar 30 2017 - 00:13

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 197
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013

View PostLegiondude, on Mar 29 2017 - 11:21, said:

Huh, could have sworn Ae Sun had given me previous commentary on the chart already

 

I suppose it's possible more information was discovered/published since then, but since I am definitely not an expert on the subject I'll take their word for it.



blueribbon #64 Posted Dec 03 2017 - 12:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 197
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013

I'm necroing this thread because I found out something pretty interesting - the in-game Batchat 12T apparently did exist as a turretless prototype. As such, the Batchat 12T's icon should be changed from "Modified Native Idea" to "Functioning Prototype" (assuming that the given max speed of 73 kilometers per hour meant that the tank at the very least underwent mobility trials)

 

 Credit for that goes to Teckyota of the European server, who spent a lot of time researching various inaccuracies of the current French tech tree here. While a lot of balancing choices are questionable (even Teckyota himself admits that the unhistorically smaller clips on the AMX 13's are much more enjoyable to play with in the last post on that thread), it's still definitely an interesting read, especially if you are into the historical details of these tanks - including the blueprint only ones! It is entirely in French though, so you'll need to bear with Google Translate if you can't read French.

 

 

 

Other things I was wondering about:

  • Quite a few French tanks are listed as being in the Formation stage that didn't have wooden models/mock-ups built of them. Specifically, these are:
    • the AMX 40
    • the S35 CA
    • the AMX 45 and AMX CDC in the planned tree (the CDC is listed as Paper Concept in the regular tree)
    • the AMX 105 AM
    • the Lorraine 39L AM - I haven't actually seen any blueprints for this one, though given how many different variations there were of the Lorraine tracked carrier it really wouldn't surprise me if the French considered sticking a howitzer onto it at some point.
  • The Batchat 25T AP is a complete fake, according to Teckyota.
  • The Char 2C Bis was fully built (or rather converted) though ended up being changed back to the standard 2C.
  • I'm reasonably sure that the VK 16.02 shouldn't be a Native Paper Concept. I think it was only ever a wooden mock-up, as these three images (1 2 3) weren't actually the prototype of the VK 16.02. Those are pictures of the wooden mock-up, correct? I'm actually not sure about that, though I'll change the VK 16.02's WoT wiki page right now regardless - the historical gallery currently lists them as being the actual prototype.
  • The entire Chinese tank destroyer line is missing! Not that they'll be hard to add in, since the consensus is that none of those vehicles are real, considering we haven't seen any blueprints or even historical documents behind those tanks. As such, the "Mostly/All WG Concept" would probably fit - although to be fair, these were created by Kongzhong, not Wargaming. 
  • The 121B is fake - the 121 that we have in-game was cancelled years before the Chinese got access to the British L7 105mm. It's kinda confusing because the Type 69, which was chosen for development over the 121, was also known as the WZ-121. To make matters more confusing, the Type 79, an upgraded version of the Type 69 with the 105mm L7, was also called the WZ-121D. Yeah...But in any case, the Type 79 wasn't built until the 80's, whereas development of the 121 was cancelled in 1963 and all prototypes were destroyed in nuclear tests. Source for this here.
  • Regarding the planned Japanese tech tree section:
    • The Type 97 and Type 104 (which should be called the Mitsu-104) were both built and, surprisingly enough, saw combat. While the Japanese documents aren't out public yet, there is an American identification sheet for the Mitsu-104 as well as a British POW's sketch on the Type 97. I understand being skeptical about these though since these aren't actual pictures of the tank, but David Lister's book should have more information on them (whenever that's being published). 
    • The Ho-Ri (III) prototype was built and put under trials - and we do have actual documents for the trials, too! So the Ho-Ri III Prototype definitely fits under the Functioning Prototype category. 
    • According to Eun Ae Sun the Ho-Ri I was partially built and the Ho-Ri III production models were finished but I'm still trying to find more files on those, since the evidence Eun Ae Sun gives for the Ho-Ri III (a production chart for January 1945 through April 1945) was dated to December 26, 1944, making it a pre-production plan. As such, those two can probably stay as they are. There are apparently pictures of the Ho-Ri III under construction, but they're being held privately somewhere. 
    • The tier 8 premium "Ho-Ri III Prod." should probably be renamed to "Ho-Ri III Prototype", since the blog post on it describes the prototype as being much less armored with a weaker gun and such. 
    • A single Ka-To prototype apparently was built as well and work on the Chi-Se had started but I haven't seen documents on these.
  • The new FV217 "Badger" (I'm like 90% sure the name Badger was made-up by WG) had a model built of it, so it's safe to say that it's in the Formation stage.

Okay, this took way too long to type up. Ah well, I hope this helped.


Edited by blueribbon, Dec 03 2017 - 12:28.


Legiondude #65 Posted Dec 04 2017 - 18:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,041
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
If I consider returning to WoT, since I haven't touched it since June, I'll look for updating the charts

blueribbon #66 Posted Dec 05 2017 - 03:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 197
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
Fair enough, I haven't played in ages either.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users