Jump to content


About the british TD line

firefly? Need Clarity FAO Ectar/Mods

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

Ectar #21 Posted 19 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 6086 battles
  • 6,677
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012
It's not been confirmed anywhere.   There is lots of maybe/might/possible/could be/perhaps.   The devs haven't 100% confirmed where it will be.

Listy #22 Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:01 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 11576 battles
  • 5,715
  • [OAP] OAP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostEctar, on 19 January 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

It's not been confirmed anywhere.   There is lots of maybe/might/possible/could be/perhaps.   The devs haven't 100% confirmed where it will be.

Well how about releasing the tech tree? So we can actaully see whats planned?

I mean its less than two months to go and all we know is there's going to be 9 tiers in it.

Edited by Listy, 19 January 2013 - 02:02 PM.


Ectar #23 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:35 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 6086 battles
  • 6,677
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View PostListy, on 19 January 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Well how about releasing the tech tree? So we can actaully see whats planned?

I mean its less than two months to go and all we know is there's going to be 9 tiers in it.

As soon as we know, the portal will be updated

Listy #24 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 11576 battles
  • 5,715
  • [OAP] OAP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostEctar, on 19 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

As soon as we know, the portal will be updated

Could you not prod Minsk... maybe with a really long pole?
Please...

sharpneli #25 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 19849 battles
  • 2,311
  • [DOGE] DOGE
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostListy, on 19 January 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Well how about releasing the tech tree? So we can actaully see whats planned?

I mean its less than two months to go and all we know is there's going to be 9 tiers in it.

If they release some preliminary plans before they're not 100% sure they risk huge shitstorm if they decide not to do exactly as their preliminary plan indicated. So if they're not sure and want to keep their options open they cannot tell anything.

You can blame the community for this, all sneakpeeks are taken as a Word Of God and if they don't pan out exactly like that players will whine and scream.

Listy #26 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:45 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 11576 battles
  • 5,715
  • [OAP] OAP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Postsharpneli, on 19 January 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

If they release some preliminary plans before they're not 100% sure they risk huge shitstorm if they decide not to do exactly as their preliminary plan indicated. So if they're not sure and want to keep their options open they cannot tell anything.

You can blame the community for this, all sneakpeeks are taken as a Word Of God and if they don't pan out exactly like that players will whine and scream.

This close to release if they don't know what they're doing then I'd be very worried.

Kellomies #27 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14980 battles
  • 4,774
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
The players will "roll and shout" anyway, mind you.

sharpneli #28 Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 19849 battles
  • 2,311
  • [DOGE] DOGE
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostListy, on 19 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

This close to release if they don't know what they're doing then I'd be very worried.

The line might be ready save for one tank as an example. They might be running tests if the 183mm FV215B is a suitable tank gameplay wise and perhaps they have some backup plan up their sleeve if the FV is not a good choice. Or they're testing the potential T10 heavy replacement to check if they should still leave the FV215B at it's place. Who knows? There are plenty of plausible reasons why they don't have the whole line nailed down yet.

But oh yeah sorry, we're talking about WG which according to community never ever could have a reason like that. It's naturally because they're drunk and incompetent and whatnot, so yeah it's probably not a real reason just incompetence </sarcasm>

Scrap #29 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6667 battles
  • 631
  • [-VIC-] -VIC-
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
I don't get why people are confused upon what a TD is. It is very simple. No turret. Don't argue. Or you could call a Tiger a TD as it had the 88mm infamous tank destroyer AA gun.

Its really easy and all I need is one example, the aforementioned Tiger. Why isn't the Tiger a TD? Simple, because as if it was built as a TD it would be more effective at that role.

Oh behold, we actually have a Tiger TD called the JagdTiger. What did they change? A bigger gun, no turret to save weight and the need to balance the damn thing and more frontal armor.

So a TD is something that has no turret and has more armor. If the Sherman Firefly lost it's turret and they added that saved weight into it's armor or a bigger gun it would be a TD.

Listy #30 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 11576 battles
  • 5,715
  • [OAP] OAP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Postsharpneli, on 19 January 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

The line might be ready save for one tank as an example. They might be running tests if the 183mm FV215B is a suitable tank gameplay wise and perhaps they have some backup plan up their sleeve if the FV is not a good choice. Or they're testing the potential T10 heavy replacement to check if they should still leave the FV215B at it's place. Who knows? There are plenty of plausible reasons why they don't have the whole line nailed down yet.

But for a tech tree the very start of it is the what tank goes on what tier. The project can't go forward without that peice of infomation. And this close to release and htey don't know what tank is going on what tier....? I find that very hard to believe.

Without knowing what vehcile goes where you can't model the tank, the guns or start the coding or reserch with out it.

View Postsharpneli, on 19 January 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

But oh yeah sorry, we're talking about WG which according to community never ever could have a reason like that. It's naturally because they're drunk and incompetent and whatnot, so yeah it's probably not a real reason just incompetence </sarcasm>

I've never said any of those things. the worst I've accused them off is lack of knowledge on the subject of the British tech tree, and/or Rushing that tree out so they could concentrate on the Chinese tree.
My point is it'd be bloody incomptent to be this close to a release and not know what they're doing.

Listy #31 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:12 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 11576 battles
  • 5,715
  • [OAP] OAP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostScrap, on 19 January 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

So a TD is something that has no turret and has more armor. If the Sherman Firefly lost it's turret and they added that saved weight into it's armor or a bigger gun it would be a TD.

A30 Avenger, Achilles, M36 Jackson, Type 2 Ho-I (arguably) and Charioteer are all TD's with a turret...

Scrap #32 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6667 battles
  • 631
  • [-VIC-] -VIC-
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostListy, on 19 January 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

A30 Avenger, Achilles, M36 Jackson, Type 2 Ho-I (arguably) and Charioteer are all TD's with a turret...
The point remains. A real M36 Jackson (or any of your examples) TD would of allowed it to lose the turret, from the gained weight add extra armor and mount a bigger gun.

I know there are turreted TD's  in history but going by why TD's where even made M36 Jackson might be called a TD but it really has no benefits to a standard tank.

Hence the Tiger is a TD example I did before. M36 might be a so called TD but a better M36 TD would be without a turret as it would allow it to improve on 2 major requirements to destroy a tank, great armor and big gun.

                       gun/armor
King Tiger 88mm  /180mm
JagdTiger 128mm /250mm


                          gun/armor
Achilles          76mm/57mm
Firefly           76mm/89mm
Sherman M4 76mm/76mm

I ask you what did Achilles or Firefly gain that made them that much of a better TD than a regular Sherman?

Corvi #33 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 31362 battles
  • 1,579
  • [ORLY] ORLY
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostRockoon, on 19 January 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

In the ASAP video they said, that now they work on the chinese tree and the brit's have to wait :Smile-angry:

Wut ? Did we watch the same ASAP ? In the one that i watched SerB said nothing like that ..

Kellomies #34 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14980 battles
  • 4,774
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
*cough* Modern "gun TDs" like the Centauro would like a word with you. The Sagaie, though more a reconnaissance vehicle, probably also fits the bill.

View PostScrap, on 19 January 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

I know there are turreted TD's  in history but going by why TD's where even made M36 Jackson might be called a TD but it really has no benefits to a standard tank.
The original idea behind the US Tank Destroyer doctrine was to build a fleet of fast, cheap and well-armed tanks-in-all-but-name to tackle enemy armour, leaving the tanks proper to run roughshod over softer targets and go on to exploit breakthroughs. It never quite worked as intented (and the Hellcat was probably the only vehicle that actually met the criteria anyway), which is one reason the whole concept got dumped - another was that it became obvious this just created unnecessary overlap and redundancy, and that just building some more "full" tanks with bigger guns fulfilled the same purpose while avoiding a lot of hassle and redundant AFV models.
Not to mention that for example the M36 pretty much was a straight-out medium tank no matter how you looked at it; it was a "Tank Destroyer" only by the virtue of A) being designated as such B) being organisatorially under the Artillery.

Scrap #35 Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6667 battles
  • 631
  • [-VIC-] -VIC-
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostKellomies, on 19 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

*cough* Modern "gun TDs" like the Centauro would like a word with you. The Sagaie, though more a reconnaissance vehicle, probably also fits the bill.
So you took a jump into the late 20th century and produced a non tracked vehicle that basically is a paper armored gun on wheels. Today we have all sorts of materials and chemicals to play with to produce armor, guns and shells and the term TD arguably doesn't really apply anymore as we don't have tank types anyway. In WW2 times it was simple. Sacrifice weight in some part to put something other usually better on it.

And I know full well the basic doctrine of British TD's. It suited their style as Germans where mostly on the defensive and needed fast speedy tanks to exploit any gap the Germans allowed them to have. Still a TD was designed to kill tanks, for that it needed a good gun and as it got in contact with tanks survivability against them so good front armor, Brits opted for speed in that apartment. Still as good as a 76mm gun can be even I doubt how valid that TD name was. It gave the tank no benefit than a " Oh wait, our chassis can hold that 17 pdr" discovery and ability to fight enemy tanks more or less equally.

By your definition the regular Tiger or King Tiger could be called a TD as they mounted an anti tank gun capable of destroying enemy tanks.

Again I know other nations called some of their tanks TD's, same way some called their lights medium, or mediums heavy. These are labels that people gave from their countries perspective. I am only saying these kind of turreted TD's didn't really achieve nothing more than mounting a more effective gun on it that could of been mounted on a regular M4, well actually that's what most British TD's where, slap a better gun and call it a TD as before they couldn't destroy enemy tanks that well.

BurningWreck #36 Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:01 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 8900 battles
  • 8
  • [T_0_B] T_0_B
  • Member since:
    09-08-2010

View PostScrap, on 19 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

So you took a jump into the late 20th century and produced a non tracked vehicle that basically is a paper armored gun on wheels. Today we have all sorts of materials and chemicals to play with to produce armor, guns and shells and the term TD arguably doesn't really apply anymore as we don't have tank types anyway. In WW2 times it was simple. Sacrifice weight in some part to put something other usually better on it.

And I know full well the basic doctrine of British TD's. It suited their style as Germans where mostly on the defensive and needed fast speedy tanks to exploit any gap the Germans allowed them to have. Still a TD was designed to kill tanks, for that it needed a good gun and as it got in contact with tanks survivability against them so good front armor, Brits opted for speed in that apartment. Still as good as a 76mm gun can be even I doubt how valid that TD name was. It gave the tank no benefit than a " Oh wait, our chassis can hold that 17 pdr" discovery and ability to fight enemy tanks more or less equally.

By your definition the regular Tiger or King Tiger could be called a TD as they mounted an anti tank gun capable of destroying enemy tanks.

Again I know other nations called some of their tanks TD's, same way some called their lights medium, or mediums heavy. These are labels that people gave from their countries perspective. I am only saying these kind of turreted TD's didn't really achieve nothing more than mounting a more effective gun on it that could of been mounted on a regular M4, well actually that's what most British TD's where, slap a better gun and call it a TD as before they couldn't destroy enemy tanks that well.

The definition of a TD (Tank destroyer) is a mobile chassis with a mounted gun/cannon that is a dedicated AP firing gun with optics that allow the tank to fire accurately from a stationary position in line of sight to their target. Such a gun is an Anti-tank gun. It's role is to pierce armour and kill enemy armoured targets (Tanks funnily enough)
Now, Scrap, historically speaking here, the gun used on the Tiger 1 and King Tiger was designed to be an anti-aircraft gun, but was found to have amazing range when fired horizontally and was then given a dedicated AP round (instead of the solid-shot and HE round respectively)
As for British TD's, The M4 sherman was standardly armed with a 75mm short barrel artillery gun. This had a dedicated AP round for anti-tank use but the gun's effective range (4-500 metres against 2.5 inches of armour) was not enough. The decision to make the Firefly was a desperate move to fit a 17pounder Anti-tank gun (only fired AP rounds as er the british mindset that all AT guns fired AP and all other guns only fired HE or solid shot) and fit that to an M4A4 chassis. The result? A sherman that retains it's mobility and (debatable) armour protection but with the ability now to hunt and kill any German tank on the field at a safer range of up to 900 metres (against 4.5 inches of armour)
Now: The 17 pounder gun's barrel is easil double the length of the standard 75mm. This gave the gun a higher muzzle velocity, sending the shell faster in to the target with lower trajectory. Also the 75mm was a 6 pounder shell, and the 17 pounder is self explanatory. So. What makes the firefly a huge step up? Re-read this post buddy :)

ExoVyper #37 Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10110 battles
  • 410
  • [T_0_B] T_0_B
  • Member since:
    09-29-2011

View PostScrap, on 19 January 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

  gun/armor
Achilles   76mm/57mm
Firefly    76mm/89mm
Sherman M4 76mm/76mm

I ask you what did Achilles or Firefly gain that made them that much of a better TD than a regular Sherman?
Really?!

you do know the difference between the two guns?
The sherman had an anti infantry short nose 76mm

and the sherman firefly got an anti tank 76.2mm (17pdr) gun which was capable of penetrating the front of tigers...
the snubnose had to get to nearly point blank range with a side or rear hit to take a tiger out

It's not about the calibre of the gun...
The 17pdr had a longer barrel and used different propellant which is what made the rounds pack such a punch

If the 17pdr wasn't an improvement on the original sherman then why would the german tank crew get specific instructions to destroy the fireflys first in battle?

Dead_Skin_Mask #38 Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:31 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12293 battles
  • 1,719
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostRautaa, on 19 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

They also had the Cromwell based Challenger A30 (17pdr), and Charioteer (20pdr). Can you imagine what you could do with a Cromwell, that has a 20pdr? :)

Firefly, Challenger (A30), and Charioteer could be turreted tier 5, 6, and 7 TD's...

So where is then place for Achilles? :) I think that those tanks will be another branch of meds.

Dead_Skin_Mask #39 Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:52 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12293 battles
  • 1,719
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostScrap, on 19 January 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

I don't get why people are confused upon what a TD is. It is very simple. No turret. Don't argue.

So a TD is something that has no turret and has more armor.

Thats not true. M10, M36 or M18 are tank destroyers. It is hard to say that M18 has more armor. It will be true only when we compare M18 with Jeep.

You are just too focused on one version of TD's

In German and Soviet armies TD's were unturetted vehicles. Thats right. But they didn't have any specially stronger armor then tanks. The only real difference was more powerful gun mounted in given chassis. Because those vehicles were build to improve mobility of AT units.

In US during WWII idea was different. Tanks main job was supporting infantry in fight with infantry. For fighting tanks US build turreted tank destroyers - M10, M36, M18 - with guns designed for penetrating targets (while tanks used mainly HE cause in real war tank vs tank fights were quite rare) and in most cases with very high mobility. These were hunters, which - according to US tactics - should be used only against tanks. Of course war is a chaos, so US TD's were also used to fight infantry, when it was necessary. The more so, US vehicle most similar to German and Soviet TD's  - T28/T95 - was build as super heavy tank! He was designed mainy for destroying bunkers.

So do not tell us that what is tank destroyer should be decided only by German or Soviet conceptions.

Tank destroyer is a vehicle designed purely for fighting tanks. Tank is a vehicle designed for fighting with all kinds of targets (infantry, buildings and tanks).

mondog #40 Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:15 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14369 battles
  • 2,203
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011
Tank destroyer as a definition isnt universal. The US used to state any tank that was built to take on other tanks is a tank destroyer. Under a 30's US designation the Panzer 3 would have been a tank destroyer. They changed this in the mid 40's because it didn't make much sense. A tank that can't take on another tank was quickly discovered to be a terrible idea.

The British generally called anything that wasn't a obviously a front line tank an SPG (like the 215b, which is an SPG ;) ). The Firefly should just be a normal medium tank both by hull, use, gun or anything else.

Wargaming has really confused definitions because its called lines tank destroyers when in fact some of them are not. They're normal tanks, SPGs and assault guns.