Jump to content


M60A1 & 2nd American Medium Branch Campaign HQ (NA)


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

Life_In_Black #21 Posted Sep 09 2015 - 04:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 24303 battles
  • 10,830
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostCK16, on Sep 08 2015 - 19:39, said:

 

Alright never mind then haha. What tier they going to have it? I mean there are a few a few American meds that could be used as premiums for other countries as well. West Germany had M48's along with South Korea? Along with other tanks like the  M41 for Japan and W. Germany?

 

Eh anyway back on topic! I have a feeling the best way to get this up on the front page for WG to see and think about is we need support from The_Chieftain and him yo back is up. Anyone got his number? Lol

 

 

 

The M47 can work at tiers 8 and 9, as the Italians had quite a number of modifications for it, including giving it the M60's engine and transmission as well as the 105mm L7. So a more normal M47 at tier 8 with maybe an engine upgrade, and then the heavily modified one at tier 9. Which is why I left the M47 out when I made that post, and instead included the T42.

CK16 #22 Posted Sep 09 2015 - 16:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostColddawg, on Sep 08 2015 - 19:14, said:

I think the discussion needs to look at the modules in the game compared to their timeline in history as well as the tank.  The USA has always had the idea of making a good/great tank body and upgrading it instead of taking the time/money/manpower to create a whole new design.  Case in point, M4, M48, M60, M1 Abrams.

 

First we'll skip the components that don't have any module upgrades: suspension, turret, radio.  After that if we look at the different real life M48 variants we see that the M48A5 is very similar to the fully upgraded tier 10 tank, the only difference being the Continental engine variant (gas opposed to diesel).  Really the in game M48A1 fully upgraded is the M48A5 introduced in the mid 1970's.

 

To a degree you are right. But we are not complaining to much about the M68 gun or its handling. It is more how the armor layout of the M48 is inferior compared to others since it has no speed to get away this is just one short coming from many. While the M60A1 would offer now better slopped hull armor, though still not great it's better then the rounded hull. The turret is slimmed down and cheeks now have a lot better angle along with a better gun mantle atleast giving it a decent chance to bounce rounds from the front now and probably still a decent turret traverse speed. Mobility wise the M60A1 would act probably just like the current M48A1 with a top speed of 30mph and probably once again decent hull traverse. The M48A1 is still ancient in many respects...I mean the configuration you speak of was for reserve units really not ever meant for front line units that alone and still was hardly a match for T-62's...

 

But you are right with a rework of the tree looking at the modules will be key as well to keep the tree as historical and realistic as possible.

 

I wonder what the Chieftain's ideal tree rebuild would be now since some restrictions are are not implace that were there when the tree was originally implemented.



CK16 #23 Posted Sep 11 2015 - 02:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Dont mean to double post but...

 

Guys get your banners here to wear!

 

Got three options, the more we can even get support with even minor things like this the better!

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

M60A1 and T95E6  - 2016!



A_Crusty_Body_Pillow #24 Posted Sep 11 2015 - 06:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12526 battles
  • 170
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostCK16, on Sep 10 2015 - 17:16, said:

Dont mean to double post but...

 

Guys get your banners here to wear!

 

Got three options, the more we can even get support with even minor things like this the better!

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

M60A1 and T95E6  - 2016!

 

I like these banners

US_3rd_Army #25 Posted Sep 12 2015 - 00:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 34370 battles
  • 2,013
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostCK16, on Sep 10 2015 - 20:16, said:

Dont mean to double post but...

 

Guys get your banners here to wear!

 

Got three options, the more we can even get support with even minor things like this the better!

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

M60A1 and T95E6  - 2016!

 

The Banners are nice, as well as your avatar pic

 

swat kats was a fun show, sad it was cancelled



CK16 #26 Posted Sep 12 2015 - 02:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostUS_3rd_Army, on Sep 11 2015 - 17:24, said:

 

The Banners are nice, as well as your avatar pic

 

swat kats was a fun show, sad it was cancelled

 

Yes it was! haha rumor has it a revive and continuation is due to drop soon.

 

On the side note. Got not just a banner but working on more "poster" type creations the more support the better! I really encourage wearing the banners cause they can say it with out having to always post about it just by the nice image there!

 

Posters (for profile not sign)

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

 

Banners

Posted Image

 

EU targeted Banners (need feed back to much still?)

Posted Image

Turkey

 

Posted Image

Greece

 

Posted Image

Austria

 

Button?

Posted Image

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by CK16, Sep 12 2015 - 02:53.


CK16 #27 Posted Sep 13 2015 - 02:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Front page updated and refined. Added 2nd tree info a well! 

Credit  also given to ones who have helped!



Slayer_Jesse #28 Posted Sep 13 2015 - 05:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 26515 battles
  • 9,048
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

I too would like to see the modules historical as possible.

 

While we're fixing things, Jumbo needs it's stock and elite turrets swapped around. It was purpose built with that thicker turret, and yet for some reason it's "stock".


Edited by Slayer_Jesse, Sep 13 2015 - 05:18.


Legiondude #29 Posted Sep 13 2015 - 05:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,994
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Sep 12 2015 - 23:08, said:

I too would like to see the modules historical as possible.

 

While we're fixing things, Jumbo needs it's stock and elite turrets swapped around. It was purpose built with that thicker turret, and yet for some reason it's "stock".

Well the stock turret carried the 75mm and M1A1C, whereas the elite turret carried the M1A1 and A2, so by the guns ranking, they are arranged as they are

 

But the Jumbo does have a slightly different turret from another company's contribution to the production run, and The_Chieftain mentioned finding a full blueprint of a brand new turret for the Jumbo, so there is material for replacing the T23 turret



M4A3E8sherman #30 Posted Sep 14 2015 - 03:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
Posted suggested stats in this thread.

CK16 #31 Posted Sep 14 2015 - 05:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 13 2015 - 20:40, said:

 

Well done that is good stuff man! You willing to do the T95E9 as well sometime? 

 

Also if you guys have EU people that would be interested I have landed there as well. Multifront campaign! 

M60A1 & T95E9 For Tier X - 2016! EU Beach Head HQ



BajaJames #32 Posted Sep 14 2015 - 06:17

    Captain

  • Players
  • 63500 battles
  • 1,290
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    10-29-2012
Nice work.

I really think your onto something here

M4A3E8sherman #33 Posted Sep 14 2015 - 09:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostCK16, on Sep 13 2015 - 23:44, said:

 

Well done that is good stuff man! You willing to do the T95E9 as well sometime? 

Here, have the whole tree.



Life_In_Black #34 Posted Sep 14 2015 - 12:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 24303 battles
  • 10,830
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 14 2015 - 04:27, said:

 

The T42 was chosen over the M47 for a reason, namely that while the M47 deserves a place in the game, the US has no real need of it and didn't use it for very long. It's far better to keep the M47 for nations like Italy, which needs to have at least one in order to complete its medium branch.

CK16 #35 Posted Sep 15 2015 - 01:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
I can't believe with what I posted I get hardly anything even votes in a poll. I mean stuff like this gets far more attention from them...any reason to try to talk to that OP results in just a hastag.

Harkonen_siegetank #36 Posted Sep 15 2015 - 06:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 27948 battles
  • 5,441
  • [_LOL_] _LOL_
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
While I want to see M60A1/A3 with the option for the A2 gun (yes the starship, it'll be fun), I dont see M48 at tier 9 could work. I mean it's the same tank with the same MM (will meet tier X regularly), along with the same weakness. It will be the weakest tier 9, and tier 9 Mediums are will pretty much neck to neck with each other (except for the lorraine 40t).

Edited by Harkonen_siegetank, Sep 15 2015 - 06:27.


CK16 #37 Posted Sep 15 2015 - 06:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Eh I wouldn't say all. The M48 would fit well with the Centurion 7/1 and E-50M slower more armored meds with good 105mm guns at the end. The T95E3 on the other hand would probably be more like the current M46, T-54, and the JP tier IX (can't remember off top of my head sorry). Both could fit well at their tiers easy and not be op or underpowered. 



qcarr #38 Posted Sep 15 2015 - 20:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27471 battles
  • 1,802
  • [REJCT] REJCT
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 08 2015 - 17:23, said:

Putting the T25 at tier 8 would require some unhistorical modules to make it work, as it's no different to the current T20 at tier 7. The best tier 8 candidate is the T42 as it's where the elite turret for the current M46 comes from, only it's much lighter, which could lead into a T95 variant at tier 9, and a T95 variant at tier 10. So the tech tree would look like this:

 

Tier 6:     M4A3E8       T20

Tier 7:     M26              T25

Tier 8:     M46              T42

Tier 9:     M48              T95E3/E7

Tier 10:   M60A1          T95E9

Hi Life_in_Black,

 

I like your revised and proposed American medium lines, but I really want the T23E4! Speed of a T20, agility of an Easy 8, armed with M1A2 76 mm.  Maybe a Tier 7 premium?

 

Also, I very much agree with your thought process around the M47 in the American tree.  While the US Army did use them for a short period of time, I feel the M46 earned its relevancy in combat in Korea.  The T42 is appropriate for the US, while the M47 will work just fine for other countries' tech trees.



Life_In_Black #39 Posted Sep 15 2015 - 20:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 24303 battles
  • 10,830
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View Postqcarr, on Sep 15 2015 - 15:38, said:

Hi Life_in_Black,

 

I like your revised and proposed American medium lines, but I really want the T23E4! Speed of a T20, agility of an Easy 8, armed with M1A2 76 mm.  Maybe a Tier 7 premium?

 

Also, I very much agree with your thought process around the M47 in the American tree.  While the US Army did use them for a short period of time, I feel the M46 earned its relevancy in combat in Korea.  The T42 is appropriate for the US, while the M47 will work just fine for other countries' tech trees.

 

The T23E4 could be a premium tier 6, or it could be an upgraded form of the T20. Wargaming had to buff the clan wars reward T23E3 to have not only preferential matchmaking, but to also see fewer tier 8 matches than other tier 7 preferential premiums. So at tier 6, it would probably be balanced quite well.



M4A3E8sherman #40 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 03:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

Alright, I figured out a solution for the tech tree, but it requires a rework.

 

I shared my suggestions with a couple of guys at wotlabs, and the feedback was generally positive, but one guy brought up a good point: adding the T95E9 would make the existing T54E2 and the T95E6 redundant. Instead, why not make the T95E3 a tier 10? After all, it does get a 390 alpha 105mm gun.

 

I thought this was fair enough, particularly since I don't think the T95E3 really finds optimal placement in tier 9. Reason being that the T95E3 is too heavily armored to be balanced around an M46 gameplay style (in fact, the turret armor is superior to the M48A1's, and closer to the M60A1's), which would mean that, with the tier 9 M46's replacement, there would be nothing left to fulfill its role. Instead you would be left with one armored tier 9 medium with a high pen low RPM gun and another more heavily armored tier 9 medium with a low pen high RPM gun. 

 

The idea is to uptier the T95E3 to tier 10, and use the T42 to replace the tier 9 M46. The T42 works almost perfectly as a drop-in replacement, because you have the same turret and similar hull armor, and I'm sure the mobility stats can be fiddled with to replicate the Patton's. In order to fill the gap at tier 8, we could use the original T95 or the T95E1 medium tank instead. Gets a more heavily armored turret than the M46, but would be slower with greater dispersion while moving-a good fit for the tier 8 Pershing's niche.

 

So the 2nd US tech tree would go as follows:

 

T20->T25->T95E1->T42->T95E3

 

For a premium, we can add the T23E4 at tier 7 with a 76mm M1A2.

 

Thoughts?

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users