Jump to content


The M6A2E1


  • Please log in to reply
311 replies to this topic

Giganaut #261 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 07:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10956 battles
  • 2,969
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostShigure, on Jan 24 2015 - 03:57, said:

My Mutant has been sitting rather forlornly in my hanger for quite some time now unplayed.

I always felt bad not playing it. Its one of my favorites after all and I did pay a handsome fee for it.

 

Thankfully Personal Missions have breathed new life into it and i'm back to bouncing hits off my face and having people bemoan my presence. 

 

the joys of reds gawkingand raging at our magnificient 191mm of armor thinking that we have common M6 armor XD

fogline #262 Posted Feb 25 2015 - 17:42

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17523 battles
  • 528
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
I know very little about tanks historical specs and am asking for a little help. I have been reading on FTR that my favorite tank, M6A2E1 is having its model changed when the HD model is released. From my understanding the current in game model is using the M6A1 hull model not the M6A2 hull model which is prompting this change.

In trying to understand what this means I tried looking stuff up on the Internet. It appears the M6A2 was the unofficial designation of the T1E1, which was a project tank to test the T29 turret and the 105mm gun on a M6A2 hull which had between 82mm-88mm of hull armor at a 30 degree slope.

TL:DR my 2 questions are...

1 did the M6A2E1 have 191mm of armor like it does in game?
2. Should I be concerned the hull armor will be nerfed upon the HD release?

shapeshifter #263 Posted Feb 25 2015 - 17:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

This will get you good and confused.

 

http://forum.worldof...rized-overview/

 

 

In short no, the tank built in real life did not have 191mm of frontal hull armor. They never went ahead and up armored the hull as planned because the plug was pulled. (they only ended up building two tanks to test the turrets)

 

 

There is a LOT of conflicting info on these series of tanks. short of finding the drawing plans for the T1E1 and the M6A2E1 turret there's not much that  can be said to be concrete. (other then a late 1941 T1E2 with it's drawing plans)

 

+ the only "official" as in primary source info I have been able to dig up on the M6A2E1 itself says the following.

 

 

All of this was an estimation, we know it's incorrect as the actual turret when constructed was cut apart to be metallurgical tested.

 

The front of it was found to be 228mm in a curved section leading to 114mm (I would imagine on the sides). huge increase from the estimated 190.5mm to 127mm frontal.

 

That throws doubt on the total weight (it was a guess) same with top speed.

 

Here they call for 66.675 mm of side armor which is higher then anything I have ever seen listed on a M6 type hull. (perhaps they planned to up armor the sides a bit as well)

 

Then we have to wonder what does 7 1/2 inches basis mean for the front of the hull? do they consider that total armor, or factoring in the slope. what about the armor under the covered plate? is it 7 1/2 inches on the top plate welded + it's slope to get that figure or is it the top plate it's slope + the original hull under it + it's slope to get to that figure.

 

And if they did end up going ahead and building it would they have added even higher amounts of armor then the called for 190.5 mm? just as they did with the turret front.

 

 

As an example of how they may have done the armor.

 



fogline #264 Posted Feb 25 2015 - 18:43

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17523 battles
  • 528
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
Thank you for the very informative post. I'll +1 when I get home. I'm going to check out the other thread you linked, it seems interesting.

Would you expect any armor value changes with the HD release?


shapeshifter #265 Posted Feb 25 2015 - 18:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
changes to the side armor hull armor for sure.

H3dsnapper #266 Posted Mar 16 2015 - 18:30

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 5083 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
I love my M6A2E1. It gets lots of attention in almost every battle I deploy it. No one ever sees these anymore.

I faster more accurate 105 would be awesome as this monster is very slow.

I still have a lot of success and fun with it.  I've grown tired of t10 battles and find the t7/8 battles to be much much more fun and diverse.

Never selling mine.

Mpat120 #267 Posted Mar 27 2015 - 20:25

    Private

  • Players
  • 5357 battles
  • 9
  • [2CAV] 2CAV
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
I love my Mutant, expecialy when a stat padder in a IS-6 tries to face hug it, gets pushed UP a incline, bounces every shot and dies......all the while screaming OP-OP-you suck!....Makes my day.

boogalito #268 Posted Mar 31 2015 - 02:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5803 battles
  • 35
  • [W-T-P] W-T-P
  • Member since:
    03-18-2014
Facing one of these is a headscratcher. I dont see them that often and when I do I feel like a lion trying eat a tortoise. A tortoise that kicks really hard. It helps to have help.

CankedTank #269 Posted May 21 2015 - 18:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12389 battles
  • 96
  • Member since:
    01-16-2014

Will it ever be possible to acquire a "Mutant?"

I've never actually seen one in battle, just on youtube.



shapeshifter #270 Posted May 22 2015 - 20:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostCankedTank, on May 21 2015 - 12:18, said:

Will it ever be possible to acquire a "Mutant?"

I've never actually seen one in battle, just on youtube.

 

Afraid not.

 

up until about last year on the RU server you could still buy it, but they pulled it from the store.

 

View Postfogline, on Feb 25 2015 - 12:43, said:

Thank you for the very informative post. I'll +1 when I get home. I'm going to check out the other thread you linked, it seems interesting.

Would you expect any armor value changes with the HD release?

 

The Chief said recently;y we are going to end up with the sloped front version that was meant to be built.

 



Hotwired #271 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 02:50

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010

View Postshapeshifter, on May 22 2015 - 19:46, said:

The Chief said recently;y we are going to end up with the sloped front version that was meant to be built.

 

But what thickness is the upper plate.

 

And the lower plate.

 

And what angles.

 

And is it a spaced slope over a 102mm M6 hull or a regular flat plate which replaces the whole M6 front hull.

 

And does extending the hull mean that the weak 44mm side armour is extended with it, thus giving a better hull corner target as you come round hard cover or angle.

 

Important questions!

 

Also... side plate increased? Turret weak spot appears more angled? Is mantlet more useful?

 

Equal forward and reverse speeds too due to electric transmission.

 

 

The best scenario for the hull front is that it's a spaced plate over the regular hull, thus giving no extended 44mm sides to shoot at through the tracks. Also considerable protection against HEAT spam.

 

 

I need to update the first post with the original pictures again....


Edited by Hotwired, Jun 16 2015 - 07:26.


shapeshifter #272 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 17:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
Need to wait to see if any supertesters post screens to get those details now that the new tank inspector is out.

shapeshifter #273 Posted Jun 18 2015 - 20:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

 

Someone posted that on the RU forums


Edited by shapeshifter, Jun 18 2015 - 21:24.


shapeshifter #274 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 05:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

These were posted on a VK wot news blog.

 

 



Hotwired #275 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 08:33

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010

9.8 has a very thin turret ring with 44m of armour

9.9 has a very visible turret ring with 191mm of armour

 

9.9 cupola is flatter but still has a blunt angle

9.9 upper turret weakspot looks more angled but is still 44mm

9.9 turret cheek weakspots hugely improved by armouring up from 89mm to 152mm at a sharper angle. Not a hope in hell of any shell penetrating turret cheeks frontally.

9.9 mantlet is taller so there's less to aim at above and below it, also providing a larger area of protection against HEAT.

 

The turret still isn't T29 strong but it's stronger than it was by a good margin.

 

Frontal plate appears if I'm guessing right to be:

 

UFP: 191mm @ 47 = 280mm

LFP: 191mm @ -42 = 257mm

 

I do not understand why there is a small spaced armour plate below the LFP.

 

The secondary numbers on the SS appear to be the thickness from the camera angle so obviously from higher up the UFP will be thinner and from low down at a side angle the LFP will be close to impossible.

 

Bottom line is the frontal armour is increased significantly. The flat band where the armour used to curve between top and bottom giving a vertical strip of 191mm is now a slope of 280mm.

 

I also would like to know what the side armour on the frontal beak is, I see they left the sides at 44mm. Clearly if the extended hull beak is 44mm on its sides it's an easy choice to shoot through the 20mm tracks into the 44mm side armour if the M6A2E1 ever angles a bit or you get an angle on it.

 

With the penetration nerfs that weakened the highest pen T8 heavy gold shells you'd now need major luck to beat an M6A2E1 in a frontal fight with any T8 heavy since it now has an obnoxiously thick frontal package with your only options being to aim for the 191mm turret ring and the upper turret section where the 89mm cupola and 44mm roof section is visible.

 

However the M6A2E1 can turn the turret slightly to the right to reduce the visibility of the weakspot and keep moving to create a horrible target.

 

If we scrape up a bunch of T8 heavies....

 

M6A2E1 (if it gets the 105mm buff) @ 205mm and 248mm pen, same as T32

Tiger 2 @ 225 and 250mm pen

VK 4502 @ 208 and 244mm pen

KV4 @ 227 and 255mm pen

IS-3 @ 225 and 255mm pen

AMX-100 @ 232 and 263mm pen

110 @ 215 and 250mm pen

 

IS6 was a bug splat on the M6A2E1 frontal before this buff so whatever...

However the Lowe and T34 still have almost 300mm pen on gold shells, maybe they will keep that.

 


Edited by Hotwired, Jun 20 2015 - 09:50.


Hotwired #276 Posted Jun 26 2015 - 07:34

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010


SpectreHD #277 Posted Jun 27 2015 - 06:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16848 battles
  • 17,190
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostHotwired, on Jun 26 2015 - 14:34, said:

 

Nice video. And it seems the struts that hold the skirts aren't present.....

Skott #278 Posted Jun 28 2015 - 14:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 34835 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
I love my Mutant. I enjoy playing it. I sure hope they make it better and not worse.

shapeshifter #279 Posted Jul 02 2015 - 01:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

 

 

Nice Tweak to the turret specs. Shame about the hull sides still being 44mm.


Edited by shapeshifter, Jul 02 2015 - 06:36.


Hotwired #280 Posted Jul 05 2015 - 10:23

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
and the reverse speed staying at 10kph since with an electric final drive it would have been able to have an equal forward and reverse.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users