Main page

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 11 2012 - 21:27, said:

I am sorry, I just do not agree that tanks bearing the "Made in U.S.A." logo (Stuart, Lee/Grant) should be in the British tree unless there was a unique & demonstrable RL difference (welded hull & larger radio shack do not count, superior guns do, imo) between LL and U.S. used models.  Using Commonwealth designed and built tanks in the British does significantly add to the character of the British and WoT overall.  Re-treading tanks from another tree seems lazy and unimaginative (except to make them premiums), plus an insult to the fine designs from Britain & Commonwealth minds.  there is no dearth of designs that can go into the British tree, please do try to be less ardent in what you want vs. what is good for WoT, sir.

razielkaine, on Jan 11 2012 - 21:38, said:

I hear what you are saying but disagree as the Firefly was different enough modification with the 17lber on it to be included in the tree, just as the Ram was a modified M3 Grant/Lee hull.  Plus it could be a tier 5 medium as the Firefly was derived from M4a1/ Grizzly I (Canadian built M4a1) hulls.  Also, the Canadians and (iirc) south Africans used Fireflys in addition to the British.  Just think about it?

razielkaine, on Jan 11 2012 - 21:38, said:

I do not know what you are smoking,

But Fireflys are American and Canadian built Shermans (Grizzlies, M4, M4A1 and M4A4) converted in Britain for British troops. The firefly never served in the US army except as a demonstration vehicle.

the sherman is only a modified gun! the gun is british the tank is american can you not understand the difference?

The Chassis is modified, the Turret is modified and the gun is different. Also, the British have access to their weapons

I'm sure it could accept the 6 Pounder, QF 75mm, 17 Pounder, or perhaps even the 20 Pounder.

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 12 2012 - 05:27, said:

6lb yes 75 probably 17lb barely did 20lb no chance in hell.  My point is modified does not make it a different vehicle.  I might buy a commodore stick a kit on it to make it look like an HSV maybe even a new engine but it's still only a commodore not an HSV

I think you've done a great job.  Here is the proposed Commonwealth Tree:



http://chuffy.www.id.../UKtanktree.jpg

razielkaine, on Jan 12 2012 - 04:53, said:

I understand what you are saying here and your other post about the LL British tanks as Russian Premiums using Russian designed guns, and I would agree with you except for two important points:

1)Having a "Commonwealth" branch of the British tree makes it as unique as revolver system on French tanks.  The Firefly was far too important a tank to Britain to relegate it to Premium status.
2)Sherman tanks were built in Canada (the Grizzly) and the entire turret had to be modified to accept the British 17lber.  Russia never built any of the LL models or variant thereof, the British Commonwealth did.

Thanks for all the comments, guys! I'll be making a modified version tommorow with a couple of suggested changes.

I have seen the "proposed/unoffical" tree. I dislike it for a number of reasons.

1) It simplifies some of the middle-war tanks too much. The difference between the Churchill III and the Churchill VII is huge (104mm~ vs 147mm~) in terms of frontal armor. A total Chassis change in addition- one had a different gearbox, a widened chassis with wider tracks and whatnot. It was a significant improvement in terms of protection and mobility- although it had the same sized turret ring and weapons it could accept.

2) The crusader is hardly the same as Panzer IV, Sherman and T-34. It is a much lighter, earlier war vehicle, and a comparable would be the Centaur/Cromwell (which is actually the same vehicle- the Centaur had a awful small engine, and the Cromwell had a wonderful V12 Meteor Engine)

3) Similarly to the Churchill, the Cromwell VII was a significant upgrade to the chassis (while it retained similar armaments, it's armor was increased from 76 to 101)

4) The Black Prince is fucking awesome and is probably worth a Tier 7 in all honesty.

5) Some of the progression makes no sense (Excelsior being a medium tank? Having it at the same Tier as the cromwell? Having the Churchill lead into it? The Excelsior was an attempt to turn the Cromwell into a Infantry tank so that they wouldn't HAVE to build Chruchills. It had thicker armor (frontally) than the VII Cromwell (101 vs 114-116 (I've read different sources) and had thicker side armor and armored skirts.) Another issue is having the Valentine (a infantry tank) come after a Cruiser tank. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

6) The Valiant. 'nuff said. (It was one of the worst tank designs in British history. It was developed poorly and did so poorly in trials that it was immediately canned. I could see it as a T5 premium- perhaps. But not within the actual tank tree.

These are my attempts - one excluding all non-British commonwealth tanks, one including all of them plus the American hulled Firefly and Achilles.

My tree includes a few things yours doesn't, namely:

• A tier 5 light
  
• A completed artillery branch
  
• A second TD branch, with the top tiers split into turreted and casemate

I've also gone for the Churchill mk I because it has the hull howitzer, and the Mk III is already ingame as the Lend Lease premium. I switched the Carnaervon to the medium line because it was a medium, used to test the Conqueror hull while they made a bigger turret, but also the attempt at making the medium tank of the FV200 Universal tank series that was let go because the Centurion was better.

I'll just link the image rather than paste it whole   http://i.imgur.com/b6j2G.png

I'm still sceptical about the Churchill Gun Carriage though, I can't find any information suggesting it ever existed. The Conqueror Gun Carriage neither, but we know at the very least they did plan to make a heavy self propelled artillery piece, amongst many other vehicles, from the FV200 Universal Tank project.

razielkaine, on Jan 12 2012 - 04:53, said:

LOL, the Sherman had a modified interior, modified turret, loader side hatch added, modified radio, the crew layout was modified to allow the mounting of the gun, modified gun cradle, modified ammunition stowage. -> I mean it is pretty much an extensive modification.

razielkaine, on Jan 12 2012 - 06:00, said:

The thing is, the 20lb use exactly the same breech as the 17 lb, it was a design feature of early centurions, the 17 pounder barrel can be unscrewed and the 20 pounder one installed. Also israilies M51 super shermans carry the 105mm L7 which is a bigger gun than the 20 pounder at 84mm.

So you think that the M60 is the same tank as the M48 which is the same as the M47, M46 and ultimately the M26? Or that the T90 is same as the T72, which is the same as the T62, T55, T54 and ultimately the t44 as they were all just subsequent modifications?

Or do you believe that the M4 sherman is only a M3 which is really a modified M2 medium and so is the same tank?

I don't think the Churchill MK I is a good idea- mainly because of that hull howitzer. Due to weight restrictions, it wouldn't allow a main gun any bigger than a 2 Pounder, really. They made very few of them. That isn't to say that it couldn't be included (perhaps as an alternative tank to the Valentine within my tree) or as a Preimium tank- but I hardly think it's worthy of tier V. It's armor, layout and "upgradability" just isn't up to par with what generally Tier V tanks are able to do.

I also find your Commonwealth tree really strange. The RAM as a Tier 2 is just funny- it has 87mm of frontal armor and it's basically a Sherman in all respects- it just had a 2 Pounder, rather than the 6 Pounder of the RAMII. The RAM II and RAM I are just minor upgrades and should share a single vehicle.

The Sentinel III and IV are very different vehicles. The Sentinal III was an attempt to upgun it to increase firepower. The ACIV was stripped of all it's side armor and the hull was changed slightly so that the weight of the new turret and gun could be accepted- it was essentially a TD

I, too, am skeptical of the Churchill gun carriage (which I've heard about only on world of tanks.) I am not convinced that it exists, at least under that particular name.

The only TD tree that I've done is a "Heavy Turreted/Upgunned Last Generation Vehicle" tree (so far) as I feel the majority of the British WW2 anti-tank was such. You can track the Lineage from ACIV to Firefly, and from Cromwell to Challenger, with lessons of both incorporated into the Charioteer and Conway tanks. Even the early tanks (the 2 Pounder and 6 Pounder Bren carriers) feature fully rotating turrets.

I do plan on introducing a fixed turret TD tree- I'm just trying to think of a place for it. (I'm thinking on the hard right- since it can branch off from the Valentine and the Heavy Churchill.)

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 12 2012 - 08:53, said:

1. I wouldn't say a Churchill at T6 is a good idea. No reason why the devs cannot just simply make the tank have 152mm of front armour, and have different turrets. I sure don't want a 6pdr at tier 6.

2. Ogopogo has provided some good counters to this argument, enough to convince me, almost completely.

3. Same as Churchill.

4. Eh, 152mm of armour is nice, but it was slow as hell, and a 17pdr wouldn't be that fun. We might get a 20pdr for it, but only maybe.

5. Can't comment on Excelsior, but for your Matilda -> Valentine suggestion, it's a good idea, but with one issue. The Matilda was very heavily armoured, but unlike the AMX-40, it's gun could actually do something. Not to mention the possibilities of getting a upgraded turret with a 6pdr gun (as in some field mods). Don't see that working for a tier 3.

6. WoT ignores the ability for the tank to kill the driver. Also, one of Germany's worst tanks was the VH3001(H) with it's horribly underpowered engine. Here, it's a speedster, so I can see it working.

Also, I don't like the Matilda I being in the tree, as I can't see one fitting anything more than an MG in that tiny turret. Even a 20mm Oerlikon would be stretching it.

Dominatus, on Jan 12 2012 - 23:54, said:

1. The Churchill III is already in the game (as a Tier V) so I could hardly see the improved version at the same tier. All of the British infantry tanks are sort of undergunned (as I explained in the introduction post). Keep in mind that the Churchill VII also had a few improved guns (L/50 6 Pounder, QF 75mm, QF 25 Pounder (or the improved) QF 95mm Howitzer) and at 150mm of armor, it would be very difficult to penetrate by ANY of the other Tier 6 Medium tanks.

2. I'd like to see the counter-arguments- but I hardly see that tank as having the same upgradability and longevity as the other teir 5 mediums (which tend to be rather versatile and up-gradable.) A better comparable would be the "Centaur" and "Cromwell I" which are essentially the same tank.

3. I disagree~

4. I assumed we would get the 20 Pounder in addition (considering that, I believe, the 20 Pounder was designed to be similar in size to the 17, it's breech block was similar in size and it had requirements for a similarly sized turret ring.

5. I did know that the Matilda used a 6 Pounder- however, for the most part, I honestly didn't feel that wargaming should include it in the Matilda upgrades- considering that it was such an early war tank, I'd limit it to the QF 47mm, the 2 Pounder, and the QF 3 Inch. Perhaps the Black Prince Matilda as a Premium tank?

6. The Valiant was such an awful design. It's turret ring was small, it couldn't be upgraded, it has poorly sloped armor, etc. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included- but even the 3001(H) had more potential than it- it certainly deserves to be a premium tank or something of the sort.

The Matilda I, I believe could be armed with the .50 Vickers, 15mm BESA and perhaps the 20mm Oerlikon. Again, it IS an infantry tank, it had a cramped turret (it was a poor design to begin with) but it's frontal armor was good for it's tier. Like all the Infantry tanks. Undergunned, overarmored and slow.

Undergunned can only be to a point though, as even a 20mm Oerlikon would be horribly weak for a tank stuck with only an autocannon at tier 2. The Panzer II gets a pretty powerful L/112, which is pretty nice, but the Oerlikon is much shorter, and there is no way a 15mm Besa would be playable.

To the Churchill, I have the same point. It might be heavily armoured, but that's useless if it can't penetrate ANYTHING. The 95mm is much weaker than the 105s other nations get at tier 5, and it goes without question that the 75mm gun is useless against armour. The 6pdr's nice, but in a higher tier match, the Churchill would be like a KV-3 but without the hard-hitting gun, basically an easy target. With the Churchill's low mobility, the 6pdr's pretty weak on it at tier 5, let alone 6.

Also, I noticed no Archer or Churchill 3in TDs?

Well, the Matilda I did have 60mm of frontal armor (although exposed tracks) making it a difficult nut to crack (for a T2!) Compare that to the 14-20mm that is MOST of the T2 tanks.

Again, there is a big reason why I wroteup in my opening post that it wouldn't be fair to treat British "Infantry tanks" the same as "Heavy tanks" but rather, the matchmaker should treat them like mediums and keep them within mostly their own tier.

I plan on doing a Turretless TD tree next. It'll probably include the Churchill, Archer and the Tortoise, in some fashion. I'm just trying to make it make sense.

And while the 95mm will be less effective (in terms of raw splash), perhaps a RoF change will make it's DPS better or more consistent.

Also- again, I swear I saw a longer 6 Pounder, something of L/65 or L/70- and not the 8 Pounder. I read about it in a British tank development book during highschool. It supposedly was a nice improvement- but the 75mm had already been standardized- and the 17 Pounder was already being developed, so it's development was dropped. I don't remember any of the stats, but it was a pretty nice increase in penetration and accuracy- with APDS rounds especially. However, I can't seem to be able to find anything about it on the internet.

I guess it might have been a typo, incorrect or lost information.

The British were promised around Christmas 2011 I do believe. I'm still waiting to see them implemented, when they are finally added I will return to this game. Sampling a few tanks via the Soviet nation tree does give a small bit of satisfaction, but with out the customizations they are bland and not satisfying. I'll check back in another 12 months to see if you have updated by that time.

Dominatus, on Jan 13 2012 - 02:07, said:

why should british tanks be stuck with what they used historically? those guns you mentioned would fit tier 5 fine, the tier 6 mk7 churchill could get perhaps the 77mm used on the comet, or even the post war demolition gun the churchill used (165mm?). sure the 77mm may not be as powerfull as the 122mm the russians get but it would be along the same line as the 6 pounder the tier below, fast firing, good accuracy and decent pen. you're also talking more armour than the KV-3. (not sure if it would be as bouncy, but on paper its more)

NTRabbit, on Jan 12 2012 - 10:24, said:

I disagree with your valentine to the comet progression since the comet is very clearly a derivative/descendant of the crusasder/cromwell line of tanks...but you do have some valids points...however, its all moot as the dev's are going to to follow their prosed tree very closely.

Redwing6, on Jan 13 2012 - 16:11, said:

The problem is that the Excelsior was a developmental dead end, there's nothing you can do with it except move to a new family line. I could switch the Comet and the Challenger around, but they both came from the Cromwell, and the way I've set it up has the better tank of the two being the one that is compulsory to advance the final steps to the Centurion. You'll notice on the Alpha tree that Excelsior leads to the comet there too.

Also, my choice of the Loyd Light Tank could be replaced by the A46 Light Tank, it was the war time prototype which morphed into the postwar FV300 series.

Additionally, for those hunting for TD models to use, a number of models can be dug up from the FV300, Conqueror and Centurion programs http://henk.fox3000.com/FV300.htm