Jump to content


make more premium captured tanks

premium tanks captured tank soviet tanks nazi tanks american tanks

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

Poll: MORE CAPTURED PREM1IUM TANKS (15 members have cast votes)

add more captured tanks

  1. yes, need more captured premium tanks (12 votes [80.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

  2. no, just no (3 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

tod914 #21 Posted May 31 2017 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 65453 battles
  • 6,942
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostSpeedy_DePalma, on May 31 2017 - 13:38, said:

It was a keyboard command, you'd have to sit still and then go into lowrider mode to choose which sides to manipulate, so not only up and down but also left and right so you could be the side of a hill and have yourself minimally exposed.

 

Wow that sounds really cool.  Seems well thought out.

LemonyFreshAnarchy #22 Posted May 31 2017 - 20:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15283 battles
  • 151
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

I remember that site about the 17-pdr T-34 and KV-1-155... a couple years ago that BS was debunked as late April Fool's jokes (check the dates, 2nd week of April).

 

The T-34/76 could never accommodate a 17-pdr gun: its cartridge case alone was around 8 inches longer of brass for a gunner to be swinging around in a turret

(17-pdr gun used 583mm case thereabouts).

The British needed a "detuned" one for a reason in the Comet: turret ring diameters limit the space behind a gun breech to load ammunition, because the gun breech dips below the turret ring race when the gun elevates, and recoil space also is limited because of the turret ring race.

The Russian 76mm F34 gun in the T-34 used a considerably shorter case. The T-34/85 turret would've worked: that 85mm case was over 600mm in length.

But no T-34/76 was ever going to allow for a 17-pdr gun to be installed and loadable from any angles.


 

The KV-1 with the 155: bogus also.

There's a reason the Reds needed that giant barn turret on the KV-2 for a 152mm gun. No KV-1 turret was going to fit a 155 of any sort, even with separate loading ammo and needing a feed tray and two loaders, and ammo storage would be vastly limited.

If a 155 could've been made to fit, the Reds would've done as such, without the bulk of the KV-2 turret (there were enough production resources to implement an improved KV-1, but nothing surfaced with as such).

At that, it could've then just as well fit the 122mm of the IS tanks.. so why didn't it?

BECAUSE IT JUST WOULDN'T FIT. PERIOD.

Besides, what sufficient 155mm field piece did the British have that would've actually FIT, without itself needing a KV-2 sized turret to accommodate the gun, extra loader, AND ammunition?


 

This is all just a rehash of what was mentioned on other more credible sites proving why these two notions (T-34/17-pdr and KV-1-155) were just BS jokes.

But, this is World of Tanks. Fantasy BS tank for the sake of filling out the ranks is the norm here.


 

A 17-pdr fitted to a T-34/85 could work... but the 85mm shell still has better HE and even HEAT ammunition available.

A KV-1-140mm (5.5-inch) would be a more sensible British adaptation, or more likely, a 120mm (60-pdr) field piece.

But those weren't short-barrel weapons suitable for a heavy assault tanks without cutting the barrel length down.

There's a reason the Brits DIDN'T field such weapons. Both in a concept they saw no need for, and in suitable armament to actually install (look at the beast they made in the Tortoise, just to fit a 3.7-inch gun... yet the 20-pdr was bored out to become the 105mm L7 and it fit a Centurion turret just fine... ).


 

These two Russo-Brit hybrids were April Fool's jokes, nothing more.



FrozenKemp #23 Posted May 31 2017 - 20:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 54159 battles
  • 10,092
  • [8ARMY] 8ARMY
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

I'd like to see British versions of the Tetrarch and Churchill III as premiums.

 

I don't much like the way the Panther ends up performing in WoT, but a premium of the British-captured "Cuckoo" would be kind of cool. 

 

Base colour would be olive drab with white Allied star.  Winter camo: 

 



FrozenKemp #24 Posted May 31 2017 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 54159 battles
  • 10,092
  • [8ARMY] 8ARMY
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostDOOM8_1, on May 30 2017 - 21:17, said:

sweet, its good to see the love this post is getting from fellow tankers, and its about tanks because i submitted a ticket about more prem tanks of this sorts, and they said to make a post about it. so here it is.

 

IMO... if you want to make a suggestion to WG, you should put your post in the SUGGESTIONS folder.  Not Off-Topic.

PrimarchRogalDorn #25 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 00:49

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 1,846
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostLemonyFreshAnarchy, on May 31 2017 - 14:28, said:

I remember that site about the 17-pdr T-34 and KV-1-155... a couple years ago that BS was debunked as late April Fool's jokes (check the dates, 2nd week of April).

 

The T-34/76 could never accommodate a 17-pdr gun: its cartridge case alone was around 8 inches longer of brass for a gunner to be swinging around in a turret

(17-pdr gun used 583mm case thereabouts).

The British needed a "detuned" one for a reason in the Comet: turret ring diameters limit the space behind a gun breech to load ammunition, because the gun breech dips below the turret ring race when the gun elevates, and recoil space also is limited because of the turret ring race.

The Russian 76mm F34 gun in the T-34 used a considerably shorter case. The T-34/85 turret would've worked: that 85mm case was over 600mm in length.

But no T-34/76 was ever going to allow for a 17-pdr gun to be installed and loadable from any angles.


 

The KV-1 with the 155: bogus also.

There's a reason the Reds needed that giant barn turret on the KV-2 for a 152mm gun. No KV-1 turret was going to fit a 155 of any sort, even with separate loading ammo and needing a feed tray and two loaders, and ammo storage would be vastly limited.

If a 155 could've been made to fit, the Reds would've done as such, without the bulk of the KV-2 turret (there were enough production resources to implement an improved KV-1, but nothing surfaced with as such).

At that, it could've then just as well fit the 122mm of the IS tanks.. so why didn't it?

BECAUSE IT JUST WOULDN'T FIT. PERIOD.

Besides, what sufficient 155mm field piece did the British have that would've actually FIT, without itself needing a KV-2 sized turret to accommodate the gun, extra loader, AND ammunition?


 

This is all just a rehash of what was mentioned on other more credible sites proving why these two notions (T-34/17-pdr and KV-1-155) were just BS jokes.

But, this is World of Tanks. Fantasy BS tank for the sake of filling out the ranks is the norm here.


 

A 17-pdr fitted to a T-34/85 could work... but the 85mm shell still has better HE and even HEAT ammunition available.

A KV-1-140mm (5.5-inch) would be a more sensible British adaptation, or more likely, a 120mm (60-pdr) field piece.

But those weren't short-barrel weapons suitable for a heavy assault tanks without cutting the barrel length down.

There's a reason the Brits DIDN'T field such weapons. Both in a concept they saw no need for, and in suitable armament to actually install (look at the beast they made in the Tortoise, just to fit a 3.7-inch gun... yet the 20-pdr was bored out to become the 105mm L7 and it fit a Centurion turret just fine... ).


 

These two Russo-Brit hybrids were April Fool's jokes, nothing more.

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html

Found this after some googling



DOOM8_1 #26 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 01:20

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3491 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

View PostSpeedy_DePalma, on May 31 2017 - 19:13, said:

 

Holy crap that's right that was a thing, War Thunder did it right by giving the STB the hydraulic suspension and wouldn't be a bad idea in this game to give it that extra couple degrees of depression.   Staying on Japan they did have a good deal of Chaffee's in their use well until the 70's so why not a JSDF M24? 

 

what is a JSDF M24, is it a special variant of the M24 chaffee?

 



DOOM8_1 #27 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 01:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3491 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

View PostFrozenKemp, on May 31 2017 - 20:50, said:

I'd like to see British versions of the Tetrarch and Churchill III as premiums.

 

I don't much like the way the Panther ends up performing in WoT, but a premium of the British-captured "Cuckoo" would be kind of cool. 

 

Base colour would be olive drab with white Allied star.  Winter camo: 

 

 

there were also soviet panthers to..captured of coarse 

DOOM8_1 #28 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 01:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3491 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

View PostFrozenKemp, on May 31 2017 - 20:57, said:

 

IMO... if you want to make a suggestion to WG, you should put your post in the SUGGESTIONS folder.  Not Off-Topic.

 

i did? crapi thought i put it in the suggestions tab, quick help me, how do i change it



LemonyFreshAnarchy #29 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 02:44

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15283 battles
  • 151
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on May 31 2017 - 18:49, said:

 

 

Yeah...

see this little snippet at the top of that article...

 

 


 

Sunday, 7 April 2013


 

What started as a simple joke that was going to be released closer to April Fool's Day, evolved into a full-blown sucker story, feeding the frenzy of the believe-everything-on-the-internet-because-WoT-said-so crowd.


 

Anybody with any real armored vehicle history knowledge knows enough about the above vehicles and guns to know that no T-34/76 could fit, load, and fire a full-power 17-pdg gun,

and no KV-1 would even remotely have ample turret space (AS DEPICTED BY THE LINE DRAWING SHOWN) to mount, load, and fire a 155mm gun. Period.


 

Hoax.


 

If solely for the fact it had NOT been released that close to April Fool's Day, it MIGHT have been believable. Like in October. Or January.

But come on man, a week after April Fool's, plenty of time to put together such a bullsh*t story and make it sound believable. 

Seriously, just reading the thing (that article).

THE GUNS WOULDN'T FIT WITH ROOM TO LOAD THEM.


 

The 17-pdr could fit in the American-developed M10 (Achilles), 1.75m (69 inch) turret ring diameter and open topped so not constrained by enclosed turret limitations.

A detuned 17-pdr (the so-called 77mm) fit in the British Comet with its 1.63m (64 inch) turret ring diameter.

But the T-34/76 only had a 1.42m turret ring. IOW, not even a detuned 17-pdr was going to fit, load, and fire....

Until the redesigned turret built to accommodate the 85mm gun, there just was insufficient room for a 17-pdr gun and its ammunition.


 

Ever heard of BOOKS?

There are a lot out there written not by internet fanbois and trolls looking for drama, but by respectable, established authors who spent years studying this material.

Amazon has many on the cheap, even Kindle editions so you can access them on multiple devices, any time, anywhere.


 

Might do some people some measurable good to actually apply themselves at proper research to separate fact from fanboi fiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



PrimarchRogalDorn #30 Posted Jun 01 2017 - 03:46

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 1,846
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017
Considering the Soviets managed to squeeze an 85mm gun (specifically the S-53) in that same turret, a 17pdr should fit with minimal issues as the breech sizes are quite similar. The specific gun planned for the rearmed KV-1 was the BL 6" 26-cwt howitzer, which if you look up you'll see that it has a fairly compact recoil system and breech, so it could fit into the KV-1's turret. Elevation was limited to 8º, but it was capable of indirect fire at ranges to around 5500 yards.

DOOM8_1 #31 Posted Jun 04 2017 - 06:15

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3491 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015
i wonder if its possible to mount the firefly's 17 pdr on a T-34-85.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users