Please take your time and read the blog rules

Jun 2, 2013

Ensign's Q&A Answers #6

By EnsignExpendable

Previous edition here.

Q: How was the Sherman compared to the T-34 by the red army? Did they perhaps like them any better? Worse?
A: The Sherman was seen as a good tank, with a very nice gun. Tankers lamented the flat side armour and tall profile, but enjoyed the quality of the interior finish and comfortable seats. Tank infantry like Shermans too, since they shook a lot less in motion. Hooking up their belts to a Sherman, they could remain still enough to shoot more or less accurately at a distance of 100-150 meters, just enough to either suppress or drive off Panzerfaust soldiers hiding in ruins.

Q: Do you have any info about Germans capturing Soviet tanks, and how they modified those?
A: Overlord wrote an article about it a while ago:
There are also photos of KV-2s with commander cupolas and at least one KV-1 with a 75 mm gun. 

Q: Were Shermans modified by the Soviets? Did the US supply the USSR with downgraded stuff?
A: Metal tracks and spurs were pretty standard modifications of Lend-Lease vehicles, since American rubberized tracks performed poorly in the winter. As for downgraded stuff, both Britain and the US kept the Soviet representatives well informed of the latest and greatest in development. I have a document that mentions an "American 90 mm AA gun on a Sherman chassis, used as an AT gun" that they should look into before the M36 was even adopted by the US army. Britain was even friendlier, freely trading intelligence with the USSR. If you have a book on the Pz 38(t), there will almost certainly be a photo of a tank with the turret number 543. That tank was given to Britain by the Soviets. 

Q: Did anyone else ever want to build the T-34? They were superior to, at least, the M3.
A: The British and Germans did, in a way. Not much came of it.

Q: Could you explain the differences (and advantages/disadvantages) between frontal transmission and rear one?
A: A front transmission, of course, will be shot more. In game this is bad, but in real life, a shell getting stuck in the transmission might save the crew's life. Depending on the design, it might be easier to get to. A transmission in the back means you need less shafts and whatnot running through the tank itself, and there is more room inside the crew compartment. I am sure that the mechanical engineers will be able to debate this a lot better than I can.

Q: What tanks are candidates for Soviet high tier lights?
A: There's the PT-76, but it's pretty slow, and its gun is not very impressive. Despite being a post-war tank, it can, maybe, be a slower T-34 with worse matchmaking.
Object 101 is a little better. Still a 76 mm gun, but it can move at 50 kph. Not very much is known about this tank, since only two prototypes were built, and both failed trials.
Then, there's Object 906. It has a much more impressive speed (75 kph), and either an 85 mm D-58 gun or 90 mm D-62 gun. Its armour is pretty thin, up to 30 mm, and the gun is rifled, so it fits in with the era. I don't have penetration data on the gun, so it's hard to judge what tier it would be.
Object 685 also had a rifled gun, 100 mm in caliber. The gun was equipped with an autoloader and a stabilizer. The armour was not steel, but titanium. At 70 kph, it would also make a pretty impressive light tank. Object 934 has similar parameters.

Q: Do you have any information on the IS-5?
A: The IS-5 was an IS tank with a 100 mm gun. It had a vertical stabilizer, a loading assist mechanism, and was, according to Svirin, the most accurate on the move, fastest firing, and highest penetrating heavy tank of its time. However, the D-25T had more than enough penetration do deal with anything the Germans had, and its HE capability was much higher, so the project was cancelled. 
In game, it can be approximated by the IS with the 100 mm gun, but through the magic of Russian Bias, the penetration, rate of fire, and accuracy on the move, the three things that made the project at all special, are not present. 

Q: Is the ISU-130 fake, or was there ever such a vehicle planned?
A: It was very much real. I wrote about it before, here

Q: In WoT we have the 122mm guns A-19S and D-25S on the SU-152, was there a plan to equip it with these guns in reality?
A: Yes. There was also a plan to equip it with the BL-9, but I guess Wargaming didn't want to make it too OP.

Q: Do you have any details about the S-34-I and S-34-II guns mounted on the IS-4 prototypes?
A: The S-34-II was similar to the D-25T, but with some differences. The most noticeable one was the lack of a muzzle brake, increasing concealment of the tank and making it safer for infantry riders. The gun also had a mechanical rammer to speed up loading, and a bore evacuator, to prevent gases from entering the turret after firing. The gun was originally designed for the IS-2, but the changes to the turret were deemed too large, and it was postponed until the IS-4. However, the gun lost to the D-25T once again, since the D-25T was judged sufficient for a current generation heavy tank, and the S-43-II was insufficient for the next generation. 
The S-34 was a 100 mm gun, the same as the IS-5 had. The S-34-I seems to not have very much written about it, aside from that it's either 85 mm or 100 mm (sources vary, but they might be confusing the S-34 and S-34-I).

Q: I am a bit confused with the different versions of the SU-14. Different sources give different names. Could you please explain what SU-14, SU-14-1, SU-14-2 and SU-14-Br2 are?
A: The SU-14 was developed in 1933. It consisted of a chassis based on the T-28 and T-35, and a 203 mm howitzer in an open mount. The only crew member protected by armour was the driver. The SU-14-1 was developed in 1935. It had a superior chassis, and a better driver compartment layout. Otherwise, it was largely the same. The SU-14-Br2 was the SU-14-1 with a Br-2 gun instead of the B-4 howitzer, built in 1936. This gun had a higher rate of fire, and more range. The SPG, in preparation for the Winter War, gained a closed fighting compartment in 1940, and the index SU-14-Br2. The other prototype SU-14 also gained armour, had its gun replaced with a B-30 gun, and was named SU-14-2. 

That's it for this week! Keep sending those questions to 

0.8.6 IS model change

The IS model (and size) was changed in 0.8.6 test. Here's how (thanks to buenonacho94 for this one)


- there is no free skill reset planned in connection with new camo system introduction
- the initiative to change the camo system apparently came from SerB
- WoT not suitable for cybersport? "You don't have to take part in cybersport events"
- SerB on cheat mods: "If you don't value your account too much, you can try. They offer no exceptional advantages, but nasty surprises are guaranteed." and "Nasty surprises - I must warn you. No details, of course." (SS: currently, it is sort of confirmed that developers do have a system, which recognizes used mods from replays. I assume it's not really that hard to apply the system into the client to work in real time...)
- players won't be able to put their own inscriptions oh tanks (SS: SerB mentioned earlier he doesn't want a "chuj" (dick/fuck in Russian) and Waffen SS inscription epidemy)
- apparently, the reason behind the earlier Superpershing nerf was historicity (SS: it was confirmed by Storm that the nerf won't come)
- Q: "What the hell, I can't see a tier 10 TD shooting at me from 56 meters..." A: "What a horror..."
- Q: "So we can forget the 'no nerfs to premium tanks' principle?" A: "You can of course forget anything that you made up by yourself - noone can stop you from that. Look at the wording of our responses: we try not to change the characteristics of premium tanks without serious need. Incorrect configuration of vehicle hull does fall into the "serious need" category."
- if you get automatically unlocked the new arties implemented into the game, because you researched its predecessor, you will have them unlocked, but they apparently won't have their modules researched in any case, even if the original arty has the same gun as the newly unlocked one. This is intentional.
- premium accounts running only when players are playing won't be implemented
- it's possible Tiger will have its maximum speed increased like the IS-7 had (without buffing horsepower)

Superpershing nerf won't happen


Just a quick update on the Superpershing frontal armor nerf.

Storm personally confirmed it was a mistake and that the armor will stay, as it is:

0.8.6 E-25 on public test

Hello everyone,

since the supertest, the E-25 has been changed, so the previous supertest data don't apply. Here's how the new one looks:

Armor remained scheme is the same:

And here's the data that got changed (old supertest value is in brackets):

Crew: 4
Tier: 7
MM weight: 32,4 (27)
Hitpoints: 830
Armor: 50/30/30
Speed: 65/20
Engine: 700hp Maybach HL230 TRM P30
Penetration: 150/194/38 (198/244/38) - massive nerf
Damage: 135/135/175
ROF: 20 (18,75) - buff
Accuracy: 0,3 (0,31) - slight buff
Aim time: 1,5
Gun traverse: 12 degrees to each side
Gun elevation: -8, +15
Ammo capacity: 60
View range: 360
Radio range: 710
Weight: 25,2t (26,025t) - a buff

As for the 112, that one didn't get changed at all compared to the supertest version.

The T23 Medium Tank (History and Possible Re-introduction into WoT)

Author: Priory_of_Sion

For those who have been playing WoT for a while should recognize the name "T23". The T23 was a tier 8 American Medium before the M46 and M48. Ever since the removal of the T23 there has been a lot of player support to reinstate the T23 as a higher tier American Premium.

There is a problem with that though, beyond the fact WG has no current plans for it. As you should know premium vehicles are usually kept exactly as they were/suppose to be in real life. The T23, as it was in real life, would be terrible as anything over tier 6.

The T23 was developed in 1943 and at the time was a perfectly fine tank. It was equipped with the M1A1 76 mm gun and had 500 gross horsepower. The first pilot T23 was fitted with a quickly produced cast turret, the next couple of pilots came with the same turret as the T20(stock turret in WoT), and the last pilots and the production series of T23 were equipped with a new turret(used in the later M4 Shermans).

This is the T23 with VVS suspension and the same turret as the T20.

All of the T23's were powered by the Ford GAN engine which produced 500 hp and could accelerate the T23 to speeds upwards to 56 km/h. The first T23's used the vertical volute spring suspension as the early M4 Shermans did. The T23E3(the one WoT had, the T23E3's turret had the basket on it too) used an improved torsion bar suspension. A few T23s were tested with HVSS suspension as well. The T23 used an unique electric drive system, which meant the engine's power was directly used to power the tracks. Also another interesting fact is that you could drive the T23 via remote control and you didn't need to be in the tank to drive it.

The T23 itself is not a suitable candidate for tier 7 or 8 primarily due to the gun. A premium T23 or T23E3 wouldn't be more/less an M4A3E8 with less RoF and a higher top speed. The T23/T23E3 would be a good tier 6 premium, at tier 7 it is a stock T20 with better turning while being outgunned by most tier 6 tanks, at tier 8 it would be simply fodder.

Now in July 1943 the T23E3 was to be accepted into service as the M27. The damned Army's bureaucracy ruined the proposed M27. If it did see production the M27 would bring firepower to the US that wasn't seen until late 1944 in the form of 76 mm armed Shermans. The T23 chassis was later developed and worked with and formed the basis of the M26 Pershing(T25 Medium Tank).

If you really wanted the T23 as it was back in the game you would need it to be a researchable vehicle. I'd personally call it the T23E3 or the M27 to be more accurate. To my understanding WG gives tanks some leeway if they didn't see production and modifies them hypothetically as they add on non-historical modules(they do this to all the nations by the way, ), but the hypothetical upgrades are logical if that vehicle was developed for a longer length of time. So if re-introduced, the T23E3/M27 could be armed with the M3 90 mm gun or even the T54 90 mm gun(same ballistics as the T15 90 mm guns in a smaller package), it could even mount a larger/more powerful engine like the old tier 8 T23 did.

This T23E3/M27 with logical and hypothetical improvements would be a great tier 7 or 8 vehicle in an alternative American medium line. There is an abundance of other American medium tanks out there and it could easily be done to create a new line. Hopefully one day the T23 will come back to WoT either as a tier 6 premium or as a higher tier vehicle in a new American medium line.

Now for those disappointed that the good ole T23 would be back as a tier 7/8 premium, cheer up. As I said in the last paragraph, the US has an abundance of medium tanks and any could fill the void of a higher tier premium tank that acts as a true medium(The T26E4 is a medium in name only). I can list about half-a-dozen off the top of my head, however I don't want to spoil any future articles.

Hunnicutt's Pershing