Main page

hahahagreatname, on Jan 08 2012 - 23:10, said:

Reading comprehension? I said tanks that saw combat should be in "first" as in being priority, do the US have heavy tanks of this period that saw combat that i don't know about? The british had many tanks of around tier 4-6 that saw combat such as the crusader, cromwell, valentine, matilda and challenger. Even the grant and firefly should be more important if considered premiums.

all those tanks will be in game for sure the firefly will ONLY be premium, it is ONLY a sherman and as so is already in game in the US tree the firely will follow suit of the churchill in the russian tree and only be gold.

There is alot of ways the commonwealth tanks can be considered for ply in the actual tree and that is what I/we are trying to get considered by the dev's

I think it's important to note the organization of the Commonwealth and her armies.

British troops, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand troops participated in combat along with one another. To say that the British and her dominions were seperate fighting forces in the second world war would be simple minded. While the nations at the beginning of world war two had autonomy, the armies themselves were intrinsically linked.  We used the same weapons, the same uniforms (for the most part) we shared technical advances and knowledge, resources and equipment. To simply put that the "British" being a seperate entity and set the indigenous developed tanks from Canada and Australia as entirely separate developments is tripe. These tanks were developed using British weapons with British tank developers assisting in development- both the RAMII and ACI-II-II were developed to take advantage of some of the most advanced weapons of the day.

The RAMII was developed in response to the Canadian military's disapproval of the M3 Lee/Grant, and was built upon the lower chassis design.  It was developed, designed and built BEFORE the Sherman tank, and there is some evidence that shows that American observers of the RAMII at the Aberdeen proving grounds used it's design as a basis for the Sherman tank. In some ways, the RAMII was a superior tank to the early Shermans. It had thick armor, a thick mantlet, and while it suffered from a lack of Anti-Infantry (due to a choice to use the 6 pounder) it had the same potential to be upgraded to 75mm or 76mm or beyond.

The Sentinel was an entirely different tank- designed with a different drive terrain in mind(same chassis), lighter armor, but larger cannons- the Australians needed a weapon to protect themselves from Japan and quickly armed it with larger and larger cannons and turrets. They heavily modified a 25 Pounder to fit the turret(the experience gained from this actually lead to the development of a new, lighter 25pnder) and eventually even stripping off the majority of the side armor so they could successfully mount a 17 Pounder in the turret. It was said that this experience lead to the British development of the Firefly.

Anyway- I've been working on a Commonwealth tree (for fun)
http://forum.worldof...monwealth-tree/

I personally think a Commonwealth tree should be implemented, not only would this prevent all commonwealth tanks from becoming premium (not saying that premium tanks are a bad thing though) it would make the tree ever more interesting.  And the Commonwealth fought just as hard as the Mainland United Kingdom and should be recognized (ANZAC anyone?)

I know there is a lot of love and passion for the AC Sentinel, it was a great design, but really...

100 British tanks + 1 or 2 Canadian copies of American vehicles + 1 or 2 AC Sentinel versions (designed by a Brit) doesn't make a Commonwealth tree, its makes a British Tree + 2-4 premiums

none of the Australian or Canadian tanks saw combat

It should be a British Tree

(don't mention the Sexton, it was Canadian-made but built especially for British specifications and use)

the title commonwealth is only suggested so as these tanks can be considered in the tree as it is calling it the brit tree is largely the excuse given why these tanks MUST be gold.  I don't believe these should all be gold.

History is cruel, Canada and Australia were never major tank developers. If you study the history, and how the Ram, Grizzly, and Sentinel came about and why their production ceased that becomes very clear.

I think its insanity to re-brand the lineage of tanks from Little Willie to the Mark V, from the Churchill to the Centurion, and from the Chieftain to the Challenger II as miraculously overnight 'Commonwealth' to arm-twist WG into making what tank you want to be a non-premium.

British tank design begin in 1917 and hasn't really stopped. Canada and Australia tank design was WW2 only. I'm sympathetic to the desire not to have your favourite tank placed in premium hell, but such re-branding is overkill.

It should be a British Tree

Added - if Australian/Canadian tanks must absolutely not be premium, then how about the same solution as found in the German Tree. The Czechoslovakian and hybrid German-Czechoslovakian tanks – Panzer 35(t), Panzer 38(t), Grille, Hetzer, Marder III are all in or going to be in the German tree, but no one in their right mind would rename the German Tree. Thus the Grizzly, Sentinels, etc. could identically join the British tree in the same fashion, but it remains the British tree. Surely what is good for the Germans is good enough for the British.

Ill say it again so as you can perhaps understand me better.  People are declaring from the heavens that " aussie and canadian tanks can't be in the tree because they arn't british".  To this point i suggested then why not rebrand it the commonwealth tree then you cant argue the point they arn't british.  I am also not suggesting the tree lose british tanks in exchange for them only that they have a chance to be in the tree.  I have not rearranged any trees to suggest how it is done just asked consideration.

Also the tree that is going around is a PRE - Alpha this means it isnt even Alpha stage and that means it really isnt concrete at all.  Therefore i made use of the Forum to do as it's intended and allow discussion so as the dev's can have some idea what their player base is wanting whan they actually start considering for real what they are going to do with this tree.

I understand what you want, I just don't agree. When you consider the tiny number of designs the Aussies and Canadians developed over a limited period, designs that didn't see combat, they simply 'don't bring enough to the party' to warrant the loss of the British alias to the British tech tree. Also I believe that a name-change would confuse and alienate many players who have been asking for British tanks for over a year now.

As for a discussion among the player base, that's cool, but you cannot use democracy to rewrite the past. If Canadian and Australian gave the British tech tree 1/4 of tanks apiece, we might have something to agree with, but they didn't and this smacks of a crazy move to make the Sentinel or Grizzly (or whatever your poison is) a non-premium tank.

There has been some discussion about how the British Commonwealth fought together, and this is true. Yet this game isn't about factions, its not a strategy game, its about tanks, and the tanks are overwhelmingly British. To be brutal the British tree doesn't need the Grizzly or Sentinel, they would be nice, but are not needed, and yet you have the audacity to rename it! I have the greatest respect for the Australian, Canadian, New Zealander, South African, Indian and other combatants of the British Commonwealth who died alongside the British combatants to preserve our freedoms back then. I appreicate that the Canadians and Aussies had innovative ideas for tank design during the Second World War. But any British tech tree is going to be 99% British tanks, and so to call it anything else but the British tech tree, is nuts, its anti-reality.

I know I'm making no friends saying all this, and I'm sorry for causing offence, but the history of British tanks and tank design is phenomenal, and deserves it's own British tech tree. I don't wish to see the Sentinel or Grizzly in premium-hell, but somethings are too important to be messed with. Anyway being upgradeable is no protection in World of Tanks, just look at what's happened to the most famous tank of all, the Tiger. Yet the premium Chinese Type 59 shines.

I don't buy the "Didn't See Combat"

Some of the VK tanks had a single prototype. Some were built without turrets, even.

With the RAMII, just under 2000 were built. All of them served either in Driver/Gunner training (also pulling double duty and protecting Britain.) they were converted into the Ram-Kangaroo APC (where they served in combat without their turrets) and, many were also converted into Sexton SPGs

With the case of the Grizzly, again, 188 examples were produced- a significant number.

And with the Sentinel, 65 were produced- again, enough to warrant a space in the tree.

The reason why these tanks were not used by deployed armies was no reason other than simplicity of transport. It is the same reason why the British army mainly deployed shermans, and not Cromwell tanks. Shermans, provided for cheap, from the US, could be deployed widely along the front, parts were in good supply and that helped maintainence. It has nothing to do with these designs being lacking

I also think, to ignore the lessions learned from these tanks would actually rob the tree some effective vehicles.

I think the "Didn't see combat" excuse is getting old. The Valiant was in the alpha-tree, and it didn't see production- hell, it didn't even finish it's first 8 hour of trials and it made it?

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 20 2012 - 01:27, said:

By this accord any and every tank design should be included. Too much focus is being spent looking at trival details, when the big picture is being ignored. I’ll say more than this later, but first.

The "Didn't See Combat" is important from a technical point of view because it is the final stage of a tank’s development where flaws are found, and either fixed or the lessons learnt hopefully passed on to future tank designs. This didn’t happen, so whatever their merits, the Australian and Canadian designs were frozen, never to improve or teach new lessons.

Part of the power of tanks is the epic and terrible battles and wars they fought in. While this glamour is rarely spoken about, it is what defines the histories of the famous tanks like the Tiger, T-34 and the Centurion. This is too something the Australian and Canadian designs lack. They lack history, real warfare history. Yes, it is true that the game is full of untested prototypes, but each tree is anchored with real tanks with a combat history, like the Panzer IV, they are the glue that bind it altogether, this is something that the Ram, Grizzly and AC lack.

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room. The obvious unspoken reason why the Australian and Canadian tanks are to be premiums. Australia and Canada were never major tank design and producing nations like France, Britain, Germany, USA or Russia. Or even Italy or Japan. They didn’t partake in tank design in World War One, the Interwar Period, Cold War, or the Modern Era. Their brief flirtation with tank design and building was due to necessity, and it ended once the USA could build enough tanks alone for the Western Allies.

Thus neither Canada or Australia alone or combined warrant a tech tree nor have the tanks to fill one. They simply never have been major tank producing nations. Their designs were either derivatives or stop-gaps that lead no where. Simply put, the fact they are trying to edge themselves into slots in another nation’s tree, shows exactly and clearly why they were to be premiums in the first place.

The Ram, Grizzly, and AC demanding a spot in the British tech tree, and further demanding the name be changed to the Commonwealth tech tree is an extreme case of the tail waging the dog. If you look at the British tank history from 1917 with the landships to the upgrades to the Challenger II of today, it would be laughable if the exponents of this invasion were not so serious. They should stop trying to co-opt another nation’s tech tree with a few I’m sorry to say relatively insignificant tanks.

97 years of British tank design + 100+ British tanks + 2 Canadian tanks + 2 Australian tanks doesn't equate to a commonwealth Tech Tree, it equates to the British Tech Tree.

Who do you think you're fooling? Get real.

Personally, I don't care what they name the tree.  Just as long as the tanks are in there, it doesn't matter at all.  And I'm Australian.  I would just love to see how these tanks went against the tanks that did see service.  You can do little side branches that dead end, that's fine, it's not as though it hasn't been done in the other trees.  I would just like to see the tanks being used.  Nothing sadder than something that never sees the light of day due to circumstances beyond anyone's control.

Souv, on Jan 05 2012 - 17:13, said:

Historical documents show the British Eighth Army, for example, was often contemporaneously described as comprising "Commonwealth" troops. The term was sufficiently common that even Rommel used it in the diaries he wrote in Nth Africa (one of my favorite quotes from his diaries is, "the Australians were undoubtedly the elite troops of the Commonwealth", but I'm biased).

anglomanii, on Jan 07 2012 - 09:14, said:

The reference to Commonwealth on the Australian Army badge exclusively refers to the Commonwealth of Australia, the official name for our country. It has nothing to do with the British Commonwealth of Nations, which came into being after the war as the British Empire dissolved, and therefore it is not a rebuttal to Souv's comment.

Getting back to the topic at hand, while I can see the arguments that Australian and Canadian tanks should be premiums because they were effectively adjuncts to the main British tank development line, I fear the way this will pan out on the British tree as a whole. The pre-Alpha has the AC-3 as a premium tier 5 TD, for heaven's sake! It was a medium designed to be able to beat a Pz4 (at the time the AC was designed the Pz 4 was the heaviest German tank in Nth Africa, where the Australians had seen the bulk of their combat to date).

Mr_Diadochi, on Jan 20 2012 - 03:47, said:

Would a dead end branch  for Commonwealth Aussie and Canadian tanks on the British tree offend you?

Travlla, on Jan 21 2012 - 07:02, said:

No sir, it wouldn't.

As long as we get the Bob Sempel Tank,  commonwealth can join the party.


My gut however is telling me, they will probably be premiums

I'd also like to point out that the poll is completely invalid.

Anyone who wanted to vote "no, no, none" can't do so, they have to support a commonwealth tank in the tree.....as such may have completely not voted, or just ignored it.  It's also a little too late to go back and add the option in as you've already accumulated over 100 votes, this is probably why the Yes/No ratio is so lopsided, anyone voting in the poll would have to be in favour if they answered all three questions.

Mr_Diadochi, on Jan 21 2012 - 08:46, said:

To be fair it should be called the British Tree(IMO),and just have a dead end Aussie and Canadian branch,the Brits get their tree,us colonial guys get our tanks so everyone should be happy,as for that Kiwi thing,it was armed with Bren guns which are .303 in calibre,sorry but that wont pen anything,plus the fact it prolly had a top speed of 10kmh (it was a 1930's tractor/bulldozer after all ) it would sux balls,would it be a critical hit if the mattress one of the gunners had to lay(i shit you not) on was hit?

I think people are more then happy about it being called british if our tanks get considered. The purpose of commonwealth proposal was in reply to those who declared we couldn't have our tanks in the brit tree because they arnt british (despite non native tanks being in the germane tree). Commonwealth fixed that arguement.

razielkaine, on Jan 23 2012 - 08:49, said:

This is basically it. You can call the tree whatever the hell you want- as long as you include the RAM, and the AC and the Firedfly series of tanks within the tree- rather than being stuck in premium hell.

Quote

Yes and no. Some were converted to Kangaroos, some were used as forward artillery observation posts, but most were just abandoned in Dutch territory, where they were used to form the first Dutch armoured unit, then supplemented with more Rams more than happily provided by Canada and Britain, until Centurions were leased to the Dutch from the US in 1951 (which leads to the question: why did the US have Centurions?).

Quote

The Grizzly is still just a modified M4A1, with Canadian Dry Pin tracks, longer range, thicker, more sloping frontal armour and a thirteen tooth idler gear in the suspension instead of a seventeen tooth gear. It would be nice to have it available, but with the M4(A1) already in the US tree, there's no way it can be incorporated, at least without six or more Shermans being excessive.

If anything, the M4A4 should be added, although with the Firefly coming, because most were based on Sherman Vs (M4A4), it might be excessive, especially since the Chrysler A57 Multibank engine (five Chrysler 250 CID straight sixes geared together) is currently available, at least for the M3 Lee, it should be made available as an engine upgrade to the M4 Sherman.

http://en.wikipedia....r_A57_multibank

I assume the Firefly will be based on the V and not the I  (M4A1) Sherman, for obvious reasons.

Quote

Not quite. The real reason was US production. It was deemed sufficient for Allied armour demand. There were a number of British units equipped with Cromwells. They were less common than Shermans, yes, but they existed.

The adoption of the Sherman as the main Allied tank led to a halt of the Ram's production, and Montréal Locomotive Works shifted over to the Grizzly. When US production became sufficient, it shifted to Sexton Mk II SPG (based on the Grizzly).

The Ram was an adequate design for the time, but the decision by Canadian high command halted its production.