Jump to content


M45


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

WolfArcher #21 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 05:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6216 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-15-2011
which update does this enter the game?

ramp4ge #22 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 05:19

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
It's already in the game. Pershing with 2nd turret and derp 105.

The_Dutch_Oven #23 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 06:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 3005 battles
  • 4,784
  • Member since:
    07-17-2011
I'm a little late to the party, but i have to get it out of y system. That thing is a derp pershing.

Heliosphere #24 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 06:57

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10435 battles
  • 83
  • [CURE] CURE
  • Member since:
    04-27-2010

View PostQJW, on Dec 01 2011 - 00:31, said:

will the T23 ever come back to the game? if so when is it possibly back?
The reason they removed it in the first place was because it was almost exactly the same as the T20 except it had slightly more health, and could turn in place. In my experience it also seemed to be much more vulnerable to module damage. I far preferred the T20 myself.

However I think I've read somewhere sometime ago that the devs may consider adding the T23 back in as a premium tank. But the probability is very low.

ramp4ge #25 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 07:24

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
You don't want the T23 as a premium tank. All of the premium tanks in the game have their historical armor, weapons, engines, etc. So a historical T23E3 would be terrible because...

It'd have a 76mm glacis at 47*
It'd have the Ford GAN
It'd weigh 37.65 tons
It'd have a power/weight ratio of 11.95 horsepower/ton
It'd have the 76mm M1A2

That'd be acceptable as a tier 6 premium, maybe..But nothing above.

Aesir #26 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 07:56

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9414 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Dec 01 2011 - 07:24, said:

You don't want the T23 as a premium tank. All of the premium tanks in the game have their historical armor, weapons, engines, etc. So a historical T23E3 because...

It'd have a 76mm glacis at 47*
It'd have the Ford GAN
It'd weigh 37.65 tons
It'd have a power/weight ratio of 11.95 horsepower/ton
It'd have the 76mm M1A2

That'd be acceptable as a tier 6 premium, maybe..But nothing above.

The T23 as the regular MT7 would be nice.

SFC_Storm #27 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 07:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
The T23 was the best I miss it sooooo much, it wasso stupid to remove T23 and not remove the T20

The_Chieftain #28 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 18:19

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13184 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postramp4ge, on Dec 01 2011 - 05:19, said:

It's already in the game. Pershing with 2nd turret and derp 105.

Well, not really. It doesn't have the extra armour.

That said, it has given us an idea here in the office....

iceman1601 #29 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 18:20

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12659 battles
  • 87
  • [4X4] 4X4
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostCmd_Storm, on Dec 01 2011 - 07:58, said:

The T23 was the best I miss it sooooo much, it wasso stupid to remove T23 and not remove the T20


why? that tank was a piece of garbage in beta and im sure it was still a piece after release lol at least the pershing can bounce shells the t23 absorbed them like a friggin sponge

FaustianQ #30 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 18:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Dec 01 2011 - 18:19, said:

Well, not really. It doesn't have the extra armour.

That said, it has given us an idea here in the office....

Planning on storming the Belorussian offices, beating them into submission with superior historical evidence until they sign a charter that gives the American offices equal weight in tank design and balancing? Maybe?


Viva la revolution?

HomieG14 #31 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 18:57

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 24666 battles
  • 228
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View Posticeman1601, on Dec 01 2011 - 18:20, said:

why? that tank was a piece of garbage in beta and im sure it was still a piece after release lol at least the pershing can bounce shells the t23 absorbed them like a friggin sponge

T23 was alot better than the T20, more hp, faster, and more gun depression.

The_Chieftain #32 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 19:21

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13184 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostFaustianQ, on Dec 01 2011 - 18:25, said:

Planning on storming the Belorussian offices, beating them into submission with superior historical evidence until they sign a charter that gives the American offices equal weight in tank design and balancing? Maybe?


Viva la revolution?

Funny you should mention that....

ramp4ge #33 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 20:04

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Dec 01 2011 - 18:19, said:

Well, not really. It doesn't have the extra armour.

That said, it has given us an idea here in the office....

It's got the extra mantlet armor, but not the extra turret face armor. The mantlet on the 2nd turret for the Pershing is far stronger then the stock turret. So it would appear anyway that the mantlet armor is there, just not the turret face addition.

The_Chieftain #34 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 20:28

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13184 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postramp4ge, on Dec 01 2011 - 20:04, said:

It's got the extra mantlet armor, but not the extra turret face armor. The mantlet on the 2nd turret for the Pershing is far stronger then the stock turret. So it would appear anyway that the mantlet armor is there, just not the turret face addition.

Does it? I've not paid attention to it. Still, that further reduces the appeal of "M45." Few people use "Derp Pershing" because the long 90mm is pretty good and you get the mantlet armour. What would happen if the only gun you could use with the thick armour was the 105mm or a 3" gun? Would require people to make a more considered choice.

Twelfth #35 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 20:43

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6296 battles
  • 124
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

Quote

Does it? I've not paid attention to it. Still, that further reduces the appeal of "M45." Few people use "Derp Pershing" because the long 90mm is pretty good and you get the mantlet armour. What would happen if the only gun you could use with the thick armour was the 105mm or a 3" gun? Would require people to make a more considered choice.

i love this idea

Twelfth #36 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 20:45

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6296 battles
  • 124
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
i also want my t23 back i dont care how you get it chieftain but i want it.

ramp4ge #37 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 20:58

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
Yeah, the 2nd turret's mantlet bounces almost everything and makes Pershing very, very tough in a hull-down situation. Auto-aiming on a Pershing will bounce almost anything as the center-of-mass targets the mantlet. I've bounced S-70 and 128mm shots off the mantlet. It's pertty sweet.

Maybe you could pass along that the 2nd turret should have 127mm frontal faces instead of 114mm, eh?

But I don't really like the idea of the 2nd turret only being able to mount the 105 or the 76mm. That'd be a disaster to the Pershing as it is in-game. As it is now the only advantage it has over the Panther II is it's mantlet. Post-7.0 with the normalization changes and the buffs to the L/71, the Panther II will be better in every measurable way. It's gotta' keep the mantlet.

Hunnicutt's Firepower also makes reference to multiple Pershing variants that mounted long-barreled 105mm guns..Even one with the T5E1(Yuck)..So much Persh-awesome to be had..

Hihibob #38 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 21:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 3476 battles
  • 1,594
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011
You what this calls for?

Pershing buff! Pershing buff! Chant it with me now! Pershing buff!  :Smile-izmena:

FaustianQ #39 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 22:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Dec 01 2011 - 20:04, said:

It's got the extra mantlet armor, but not the extra turret face armor. The mantlet on the 2nd turret for the Pershing is far stronger then the stock turret. So it would appear anyway that the mantlet armor is there, just not the turret face addition.

Nope, it doesn't. It has the M45 turret look but is in fact the SAME EXACT values as for the stock turret. Mantlet is 114mm thick, turret face is 102mm thick. IMHO, it should still be buffed.

Here is a question for you Chief, since I can't find the proper information on it - would the T54 90mm gun be equal to or better then the T15E2 currently available for the Pershing? From what I understand, the T54 was a "practical" T15E2 90mm gun for medium tanks.

ramp4ge #40 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 22:38

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
I was going off experience. You should PM me how you're looking at actual in-game values. I'm very interested.

In-game experience tells me the 2nd turret's mantlet is much bouncier. But if the values in-game are the same, then yes, the 2nd turret needs to be buffed..




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users