Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 11, 2013

New posts/articles?

First, the quick poll for the 2nd WoT anniversary results - the question was:

In the 2nd anniversary gay-rage, some European flags (notably the scandinavian ones) are missing. How do you feel about it?

Well, looks like around 50 percent people don't give a crap (coincidence: 50 percent people who read this blog are Americans or Russians :) ), 23 percent people think it's because silly Soviets can't tell one country from another anyway, 12 percent think WG is intentionally trolling and 16 percent think it doesn't matter because it's not like we can tell a difference between Russia and Belarus. Oh well :)

Now, on to this post's topic.

You might have noticed FTR now has several authors with more perhaps incoming. I tried to pick people according to their specialisation and availability, so we have a German tank guys, American tank guy (American tanks is something I know very little about in fact) and Soviet tank guy, with a British tank guy on the way (you could have seen the Commonwealth article today from him - yea, the typos will improve, no worries).

That sort of leaves me the possibility to write whatever I feel like, with various topics available. So, a question for you (obviously only for those who read something else than the translations): what articles and topics would you like me to cover?

Obviously, there is no need to mention the translations and leaks. Translations won't stop and the leaks... well, as long as there is something to leak, those won't stop either. So, apart from that, I have several ideas:

  • more Czechoslovak tech articles (for example: amphibious tanks, various CZ T-54/T-55 versions, various light tanks etc.)
  • WW1 tanks (various obscure beasts, their history, WW1 tanks in Russian civil war)
  • Improvised tanks (Odessa, Bob Semple, Kubus and many others)
  • Special tanks (Engineer vehicles, ARV's)
  • Other nations tanks (Argentine, Ecuador, Africa, Afghanistan... yes, they actually had tanks)
  • Main nations obscure prototypes, that might make it to the game (various Soviet Objects, etc.)
  • "Freedom tanks" (armored vehicles, used by citizens of the eastern bloc to forcefully cross the borders despite army/police resistance)
Or something totally else? Please let me know. As I mentioned however, I will leave German vehicles to Zarax and Thor, American to Priory_of_Sion and Soviet generally to Ensign Expendable, unless there is a specific vehicle you'd like to write about.

I made a special poll for this, so please vote.


- the third T-80 crewmember was historically the gunner
- the old tracer system (where you could see tracers even from undiscovered enemies) will not return
- devs have enough ideas for game optimalisation for several years of implementation
- all arties will be completely rebalanced up to the point of implementing new guns
- official WG "noobmeter" is planned for very distant future (SS: if I understood this correctly, it's somewhat unclear, since a part of the original question is missing)
- single-click crew transfer from tank to tank (premium to regular and back for example) is planned
- devs consider KV-1S balanced and alright
- Object 261 (based on IS-7 hull) maximum speed won't be increased
- you can spend only 3 battles in a row at the bottom of your team, the 4th battle the MM forces you to be on the top or in the middle of your team
- in the future, accidentally sold crews will be possible to restore, for now, it's not possible even thru tech support
- the rules for teamkill/teamdamage punishments will be changed (intentionally not said how), devs are working on it right now. Current system does take recidivism (previous bans) in account when selecting proper punishment. The changes in rules (and possibly to whole mechanism) ETA is not yet decided
- the cancelled tech tree transfers (Hummel - Pz III/IV etc.) were not included in the patchnotes because Storm forgot about them
- Storm states that it's useless to angle the Löwe, it has a weak hull for its tier - you gotta take shells with the turret
- it's possible the "average damage per battle" stat will be implemented into the player's official profile
- new "mechanics explanation" movie (SS: I believe in English the series was called Interesting mechanics or something like that?) will come relatively soon
- SerB states that the problem with implementing the T-62A was that some its stats were too good while others sucked, the tank was also considered "too new", but SerB is happy with how it turned out
- the maximum gun elevation angle in game is 45 degress, that's when the arty shell flies the longest distance. For example if the arty stands on the 30 degrees slope, that angle would be 15 degrees
- devs do not watch player-made bug movies on youtube
- for arty vehicles using 2-part shells (shell + charge separately) it was considered to allow them to use reduced charge fill so the shell would fly with more curved trajectories. The idea was however scrapped.
- there was no "1941 pattern T-44", there was only the A-44 project (SS: regarding Soviet medium tanks, players are trying to post suggestions for various alternative Soviet types)
- Object 430 will not be implemented as tier 8 Soviet vehicle (SerB: "Share the marihuana joint") (SS: Object 430 was a late 50's medium tank project, designed to improve/replace the T-54. While it was not a bad vehicle, its performance was not much better than that of T-54 and the project was scrapped. It would make a fine T10 I think).

Commonwealth Uncommons

Author: OhSlowpoke, US forums

Silentstalker: This article was sent to me by the aforementioned author for publishing. If you like it, there can be more where this came from.

Edit: cleaned the worst typos, some are probably left

Commonwealth Uncommons

This is Commonwealth Uncommons. The goal here is to take a look and investigate some really uncommon and interesting designs from the UK and her Commonwealths. Today, it's Canada. I've got some probably unheard of guns, and some vehicles that might fit their way into a tank tree or premium vehicles.

I absolutely love weapons that are made and designed as a last resort, or their purpose is of arguable or debatable benefit, and you'll find that a lot of my research (particularly) into commonwealth designs tends to be a lot of stuff that was built “because they had to” rather than what they wanted. It's more interesting that way! I like the struggle to find a solution rather than simple procurement.

David Gun

Named after “... a little fellow who throws a small stones with great speed and accuracy.”, the David gun was a a fairly simple idea, designed at a time when resources were of absolute importance. Make a gun that used existing 2-pounder ammunition and barrels and improve performance as much as possible.

Using common components from the 2-pounder and 6-pounder, the David gun was, in layman's terms, a 6 pounder casing necked down to accept the smaller 2-pounder projectile . Although designed as an infantry based weapon, it was intended to be mounted on any tank that could accept the 6 pounder (and some that could accept the 2-pounder).

The most impressive part of the David gun can be shown in a raw statistic- rounds would leave the barrel at 4150 fps (SS: 1264 m/s)! Compare this to the seemingly meagre 2650 fps (SS: 807 m/s) when the same ammo type was fired from the 2-Pounder Mk X. This was a true hyper velocity gun, firing at over 4000 feet per second- and, with the addition of the Littlejohn adapter and the Mk 1 Littlejohn ammo, that number increased to 5058 fps (1550 m/s)!

The gun managed to penetrate with the 149mm armor penetration while using the APCR ammo during point blank test fires on flat armor. No penetration performance of the shot with the Littlejohn was recorded (at least none that I could fine) but one could postulate a bit and ballpark the number at in the 170-180mm range, of course, this was at very short ranges.

“Canuck” Gun

Much like the David Gun, the Canuck gun was requested at a time when guns were at an absolute premium. The Commonwealth in its entirety was scrambling to find a replacement for the 6 pounder in order to keep up with German development, and several projects were started concurrently, such as the 8-pounder, 12-pounder, 75mm Vickers and 17 Pounder Projects. The Canadian contribution was the so-called “Canuck Gun”

The gun was effectively a lengthened 6-pounder, stretched out from the earlier L/43 and L/50, to the L/63 length. Tests with the weapon showed a muzzle velocity of from 990 m/s with APCBC. Compare this with average of 792 m/s and 831 m/s for the L/43 and L/50 guns. Firing APCR the recorded penetration was 130mm at 30 degrees compared with the 100mm penetration of a L/43 shooting APCR with both shots at 400 yard.

Although the weapon was seen as an improvement and a success it was abandoned, as existing 6-pounder designs, firing the more advanced APDS ammo could achieve similar performance. I don't believe the weapon was ever tested for performance with APDS rounds. Although oddly enough the weapon was used as a testbed to test muzzle breaks for later marks of 6-pounders, firing APDS with high pressure casings (performance of that was never recorded as the weapon as a project was abandoned by that point.)

In World of Tanks, we get 105 and 110 with silver, 170 and 180mm with 'gold' round penetration (on the L/43 and L/50 respectively). I'd imagine the Canuck gun might be able to achieve 140mm and 200mm “gold” penetration, using ballpark figures. Wargaming's penetration figures are a little wonky on the 6-pounders (they're using APCBC for “AP” and using APDS figures for “APCR”) but at least we wouldn't be consistently wrong.

The Canuck was only slightly more heavy than the existing 6-pounder and as such could feasibly be mounted in just about any tank that uses a 6-pounder. It was also planned to test it in mountings in a number of tanks, supposedly it was predicted that it could be used to engage German Tigers and Panthers. The M10 or M4 tank or a SPG mounting on a Bren Carrier or Loyd Carrier were a few examples of considerations. I would particularly enjoy a RAMII in the tank tree with such a weapon.

6 Pounder SP – Airborne

In April 1943 plans were drawn up for a light-weight, low profile tracked 6 pounder to take either the 6-pounder or the QF Mk V 75mm (a bored out 6-pounder).

It was based off a universal carrier with one less roadwheel per side, powered by a 60 hp Jeep engine with the Jeep gearbox. It would have a crew of two and carry 70 rounds of ammunition. Total length would be no longer than 4.6m, with 1.3m high, with atop speed of 64 kmph, a gun traverse of 15 degrees in either direction, elevation of 20, depression of -7.

It was designed for airborne type operations, but due to the fact that even with its tiny size it failed to fit inside the Horsa gliders, it wasn't adopted. It was however, an extremely tiny tank!

The artillery users' committee considered its use as a replacement for a standard 6 pounder but this was seen as unfeasible, as the 2 man crew would severely limit the gun's rate of fire (a second carrier was suggested to carry the remainder of the crew and ammo). This would be suitable as a low-tier TD.

Sexton tank destroyer

During 1942, there was a concern within the Canadian military about the supposed shortage of proper, effective armored vehicles, which were able to engage the rapidly improving german armor. Canadian Lt. General McNaughton made a request to mate the 25 Pounder Ram SP (later called the Sexton) with a 17 Pounder.

The concept was a sound one, early 17-pounders were actually built into existing 25-pounder carriages, without much modification to their recoil mechanisms- so why not simply mount it on a tank that had the same mountings?

It wasn't long before a prototype was mocked up, and it turned out that the 17 Pounder was a little difficult to mount than previously expected. Once mounted correctly, the gun stuck out a bit too far from the front of the vehicle, exposing important mechanical parts to potential damage. The long gun and huge breech and recoil length kept the guns' traverse quite limited and required some significant changing of the internal crew layout of the Sexton.

There was also a plan to mount the 3.7 inch Anti-Aircraft gun (it had a superior HE round and supposedly slightly superior armour penetration at all distances) and it was claimed the two guns would be “interchangeable” with very little effort. According to documents it was less difficult to mount the 3.7 inch gun than the 17, the gun was shorter and allowed overall greater traverse. Mountings for the British pattern 3in Anti-Aircraft gun were planned as well, if weapons such as the 3.7 or 17-pounder could not be procured.

Source: Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army by Roger Lucy