Jump to content


The Valentine - Dodgy Armour Thickness?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

_Knight_Commander_Pask_ #1 Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3773 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011
Hello everyone!

I've been messing around on the 8.1 rest server quite a bit as of late, and I noticed something a bit odd about the Valentine after browsing Wikipedia:

"Valentine III: Modifications to the turret design - moving the front turret plate forward and a larger rear bulge - gave room for the addition of a dedicated loader to ease the duties of the commander. The side armour was reduced from 60 mm to 50 mm to save weight."

Now, the Mk. III is the one WG has decided to include. But when I looked at the hull armour, I couldn't help but notice that the side thickness is only 30mm! I couldn't find anything else about any further armour reductions in later marks, so are we being cheated of a whopping 20mm of steel here? Or has Wikipedia been telling porkies (again)?

Alzoc #2 Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16045 battles
  • 1,172
  • Member since:
    01-03-2012

View Post_Knight_Commander_Pask_, on 24 October 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Or has Wikipedia been telling porkies (again)?

Doubt so because nowadays, people who post in wikipedia are passionated peoples and moreover they have to supply very solid references in order to be allowed to post.


For the missing 20mm I can only think about gameplay balance.
Didn't played in the test server but is this an issue?
If yes try to report it directly to WG. (Don't know if it's till possible thought)

saml6131 #3 Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 3,821
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Post_Knight_Commander_Pask_, on 24 October 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hello everyone!

I've been messing around on the 8.1 rest server quite a bit as of late, and I noticed something a bit odd about the Valentine after browsing Wikipedia:

"Valentine III: Modifications to the turret design - moving the front turret plate forward and a larger rear bulge - gave room for the addition of a dedicated loader to ease the duties of the commander. The side armour was reduced from 60 mm to 50 mm to save weight."

Now, the Mk. III is the one WG has decided to include. But when I looked at the hull armour, I couldn't help but notice that the side thickness is only 30mm! I couldn't find anything else about any further armour reductions in later marks, so are we being cheated of a whopping 20mm of steel here? Or has Wikipedia been telling porkies (again)?

You think that's bad? The Conqueror had 180mm of front hull armour in real life, it has 130mm ingame. That's 50mm taken off the front. It should be thicker than an E-75, but it's not.

As for the Valentine, it could be spaced armour. The Matilda Black Prince's side armour is stated to be thinner than what it should be, but the rest is spaced armour. There's a chance that the side armour on the Valentine could be spaced armour.

jetpack5 #4 Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 17122 battles
  • 1,122
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostAlzoc, on 24 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Doubt so because nowadays, people who post in wikipedia are passionated peoples and moreover they have to supply very solid references in order to be allowed to post.


For the missing 20mm I can only think about gameplay balance.
Didn't played in the test server but is this an issue?
If yes try to report it directly to WG. (Don't know if it's till possible thought)

Yap i agree ..my words  :Smile_popcorn1:
@knight: omg your profile pic makes me sick  :Smile_teethhappy:

_Knight_Commander_Pask_ #5 Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3773 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011

View Postsaml6131, on 24 October 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

You think that's bad? The Conqueror had 180mm of front hull armour in real life, it has 130mm ingame. That's 50mm taken off the front. It should be thicker than an E-75, but it's not.

As for the Valentine, it could be spaced armour. The Matilda Black Prince's side armour is stated to be thinner than what it should be, but the rest is spaced armour. There's a chance that the side armour on the Valentine could be spaced armour.

Oh man, really? That's awful. Though the spaced armour thing could also explain why the regular Matilda 'only' has ~50mm of armour listed while the old LL one has 75mm.

View Postjetpack5, on 24 October 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

@knight: omg your profile pic makes me sick  :Smile_teethhappy:

:Smile-tongue:

saml6131 #6 Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:01 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 3,821
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Post_Knight_Commander_Pask_, on 24 October 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Oh man, really? That's awful. Though the spaced armour thing could also explain why the regular Matilda 'only' has ~50mm of armour listed while the old LL one has 75mm.



:Smile-tongue:

Actually, just looking at other sources for the Conqueror, the mantlet is 180mm, the upper glacis is 5 inches, or rounded up to 130mm. Although it was designed to be able to resist the 122mm on the IS-2 and IS-3, but I'm not too sure if it is thick enough to block 175mm penetration shots.
Lower glacis is 76mm thick, can probably be pentrated by any tank with over 120mm pen. Not as armoured as I'd like to hear.


And using this armour calculator it says that it has over 250mm of armour protection - http://www.panzerwor...rmourcalculator
Didn't feel like it on the test server.

raziekaine #7 Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 554
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
could be a spaced armour thing...

LGrum #8 Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010

View Postsaml6131, on 24 October 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

You think that's bad? The Conqueror had 180mm of front hull armour in real life, it has 130mm ingame. That's 50mm taken off the front. It should be thicker than an E-75, but it's not.

As for the Valentine, it could be spaced armour. The Matilda Black Prince's side armour is stated to be thinner than what it should be, but the rest is spaced armour. There's a chance that the side armour on the Valentine could be spaced armour.

Seems unlikely that Valentine would have its side armour spaced. Unlike the cruiser designs where the moving suspension with its springs are between two plates, the Valentines bogies are fixed to the hull sides.

White doesn't mention armour thickness changes in the AFV Profile, though he does say the three man turret added 1/2 ton of weight.

saml6131 #9 Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:18 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 3,821
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostLGrum, on 24 October 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Seems unlikely that Valentine would have its side armour spaced. Unlike the cruiser designs where the moving suspension with its springs are between two plates, the Valentines bogies are fixed to the hull sides.

White doesn't mention armour thickness changes in the AFV Profile, though he does say the three man turret added 1/2 ton of weight.

I'm just saying it could be spaced armour ingame. It's either that, a typo or WG have screwed up with the armour thickness.

Morty_Jhones #10 Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:51 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16146 battles
  • 134
  • [WAG] WAG
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011
yea i knowtised that as well, sad to say after testing it a bit it dos seem that yess that is how thin they have made the side, no spaced armour just thin plate

It the same on all brit tanks Super think nose and arse and thin sides

ChObAm #11 Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6382 battles
  • 131
  • Member since:
    11-21-2011

View Post_Knight_Commander_Pask_, on 24 October 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hello everyone!

I've been messing around on the 8.1 rest server quite a bit as of late, and I noticed something a bit odd about the Valentine after browsing Wikipedia:

"Valentine III: Modifications to the turret design - moving the front turret plate forward and a larger rear bulge - gave room for the addition of a dedicated loader to ease the duties of the commander. The side armour was reduced from 60 mm to 50 mm to save weight."

Now, the Mk. III is the one WG has decided to include. But when I looked at the hull armour, I couldn't help but notice that the side thickness is only 30mm! I couldn't find anything else about any further armour reductions in later marks, so are we being cheated of a whopping 20mm of steel here? Or has Wikipedia been telling porkies (again)?

My experience of Wot is that the armour values are blown out their backside's, they pick what they think, and not whats written, this goes for speeds and armour and guns, Wot's so call millitary historians and advisers must be taking something, because  the stats are so bad, also wiki is pretty reliable now as  it usually takes a citation from reliable publications.

I'll give you a russian Example off the top of my head, the 107mm gun (kv2) this was never fitted to any of the ingame builds where it can be an option, the only KV that it did appear on..in game its not an option (the KV1-s) which they give 85mm and a 122mm, which i'm pretty darn sure it was never built with the 122mm,but i'm fairly certain that a 100mm was considered for the kv1-s, but it wasn't,as it was fitted to another variant  then discarded, as many of the KV designs were design experiments to make the KV1, an awfull tank not much more battlefield mobile than a British WW1 markIV,(In some cases the driver had to use a hammer on the stearing linkage to make it turn) which only had its armour thickness as a plus, into a practical Heavy tank, this was achieved partly through the KV1-s and evolved into the IS series.

For all its faults I have a soft spot for the KV series, as they are badly over shadowed by the t-34, and they did bring about the development of the is series which were good tanks and brought about western tank designs like the conquerer, to counter them.

Just accept that WoT developers will mess around with  all the stats, to suit their want, and very few of the pixel skins, perform anything like the historical counterparts and you'll be alot happier


Edited to clear some stunningly bad grammar errors and to make 'slightly' more sense

Edited by ChObAm, 27 October 2012 - 10:59 AM.


LGrum #12 Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010
WoT fix the tanks to fit into the Tiers rather than take the more traditional wargame approach of assigning a given item a points value and use the points to balance forces.

If tanks were to be more "realistic", then the Matchmaking would have to be tweaked more on a per tank basis to even up the sides.

The other alternative would be more finer distinction of levels and admit to gaps between levels.

PanzyBattalion #13 Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10911 battles
  • 619
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
When I read dodgey armour, I thought it meant tanks that listens to alot of Cher and like to hang about night club bathrooms.

Well, the whole armour thing, look at Churchill, according to its ingame stats it has frontal hull of 152mm thick, but thats a tiny part of the tank, booboo on WG's side. Though this is a pretty big booboo, it still in the test phase doode, so no need to worry bout it really, hopefully it will be improved.

But does it matter, with all the gold ammo that will be flying because everyone can afford 4,800 credit per shot :p.

And to ChObAm, the KV-1S is the 122mm version, the 85mm version is the KV-85 or sommit like that, and they were produced, just not in many numbers, also, KV-2 did get a 107mm version, though it was a trial run, but it did happen.

ayway back to dodgey armour, yeah, armour values you shouldn't really worry about, specially on low teir vehicles :p.

eoin666 #14 Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 36311 battles
  • 68
  • Member since:
    07-07-2011
the KV-1S was as the stock in game version, with the small turret and 85mm gun, the Russians did trial fit a 122mm using the IS-1 turret, though this was dropped the IS-1 turret was fitted with the D5T 85mm to become the KV-85 though only about 175 were produced.....currently building a KV-1S and KV-85 mod.

The plan was to fit the D10T 100mm into the IS series but with lots of spare 122mm barrels they went for the D25T eventually

Honza_H34 #15 Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18483 battles
  • 649
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011
Side armor of valentine is imho 60 as on premium valentine. It is close to impossible to pen with ~60mm pen guns, so it cant be 30mm. Matilda (on tier 4) on the other side has easy to penetrate side hull armor.

Edited by Honza_H34, 01 November 2012 - 11:17 PM.


Thomas_The_Tank_Engine #16 Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15530 battles
  • 553
  • [OCUK] OCUK
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
I agree ^.

I dunno about armour values, but I know my one bounces and absorbs a lot of shots, especially in the sidescrape position. Already got a steel wall in a game with several kv-1 tanks on the other side.

fdsdh1 #17 Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5978 battles
  • 449
  • [PLATY] PLATY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
WG must give us the extra armour at the moment the British tree is horribly underpowered




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users