Jump to content


Object 140

Object 140 140 T-54 T-55

  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

Kolmiopaavo #61 Posted 04 September 2014 - 10:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 43909 battles
  • 1,220
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostWG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, on 03 September 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

 

As you stated the Maus is weak, so, it´s rather time to balance this tank properly.

 

Only because we have tanks which were obsolete concepts in real life as well doesent mean that every tank should be in the level of Maus crappines.

 

These vehicles are actually made with purpose on mind, while Maus is obsolete, waste of resources and failure as a concept. Its a game, but the Maus totally deserves to be as bad as it is.


Edited by Kolmiopaavo, 04 September 2014 - 10:29 PM.


Mediums_X_are_OP #62 Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:41 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51027 battles
  • 2,712
  • [TUN] TUN
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View PostKolmiopaavo, on 04 September 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:

 

Only because we have tanks which were obsolete concepts in real life as well doesent mean that every tank should be in the level of Maus crappines.

 

These vehicles are actually made with purpose on mind, while Maus is obsolete, waste of resources and failure as a concept. Its a game, but the Maus totally deserves to be as bad as it is.

 

No, at the time the Maus was designed it would be strong indeed, the only real threat would be the planes. But also in the game all the vehicles shall be balanced.

Kolmiopaavo #63 Posted 05 September 2014 - 03:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 43909 battles
  • 1,220
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostWG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, on 05 September 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

 

No, at the time the Maus was designed it would be strong indeed, the only real threat would be the planes. But also in the game all the vehicles shall be balanced.

 

Lol not quite. As you already mentioned, it would be retardedly easy kill for planes, its a doomed tank without the support of infantry around it. Its slow, in real life (as far as im aware) it could only do 13 km/h, if even that. Also ive read that it wouldve been problematic to move around as bridges and roads werent supposed to hold up that kind of a weight. Its tactical possibilities were severely limited due to its terrible mobility and size. Probably such a huge machine wouldve also suffered from all kinds of technical failures. And on top of that: its a waste of resources. How many Jagpanthers could you do with the amount amount of money required for a single Maus? I even think that Jagpanther was considered the best tank produced overall by Nazis themselves. Now its another matter how it would perform under ideal conditions but thats not what tanks are supposed to be about; theyre supposed to be as flexible as possible. This is the case the heavies faced in general. Its a lot more efficient to put better weaponry on more mobile, cheaper and flexible platforms.

 

Thats enough of history. The tank  wouldve been obsolete in real life, and so it is in the game. Heres a quote that describes Maus perfectly

 

Garbad

 “In 1944, a delusional Nazi engineer let his desperation and megalomania leak out onto a blueprint. Obsolete the moment it was designed, inferior in concept, a waste of resources, utterly ineffective in battle — this was the viscera and filth the Maus was birthed from. It was so comically awful yet so circus freakishly large it instantly came to symbolize the Nazi wunderwaffees, and in fact the entire twisted regime. This rolling disaster was introduced to WOT…and then SerB made it even worse. Every moment you spend in this tank is a small taste of the hell reserved for Nazis, and that is Working As Intended, Comrade.”



Mediums_X_are_OP #64 Posted 06 September 2014 - 09:09 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51027 battles
  • 2,712
  • [TUN] TUN
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View PostKolmiopaavo, on 05 September 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

 

Lol not quite. As you already mentioned, it would be retardedly easy kill for planes, its a doomed tank without the support of infantry around it. Its slow, in real life (as far as im aware) it could only do 13 km/h, if even that. Also ive read that it wouldve been problematic to move around as bridges and roads werent supposed to hold up that kind of a weight. Its tactical possibilities were severely limited due to its terrible mobility and size. Probably such a huge machine wouldve also suffered from all kinds of technical failures. And on top of that: its a waste of resources. How many Jagpanthers could you do with the amount amount of money required for a single Maus? I even think that Jagpanther was considered the best tank produced overall by Nazis themselves. Now its another matter how it would perform under ideal conditions but thats not what tanks are supposed to be about; theyre supposed to be as flexible as possible. This is the case the heavies faced in general. Its a lot more efficient to put better weaponry on more mobile, cheaper and flexible platforms.

 

Thats enough of history. The tank  wouldve been obsolete in real life, and so it is in the game. Heres a quote that describes Maus perfectly

 

 

Let this reasoning about waste of resources and air strikes be, just wrote under the air supremacy the Maus with it´s armour and gun would be the strongest. What the technical improvement of the years after the WWII concernes we don´t realy need to speak, initialy WoT was exclusively a WWII tanks game where the Maus would be strong enough, at it´s time in 1943-45 the Maus was the tank wich couldn´t be penetrated by any tank or TD, it would be imprevious to shots from front, side and back, meanwhile the Maus could penetrate any tank at almost any range. If air supremacy would be kept, all the other technical issues would be surmounted.

The fact that WG added some newer era tanks after a while without balancing those properly with the older tanks, that´s the problem. This made the Maus obsolete and not it´s parameters.

 

Of course that after the germans lost the war wich was indeed an attacking war so it was bad, all the people were ready to put under bad spot anything was very powerfull and technical advanced developed by the german industry.


Edited by WG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, 07 September 2014 - 03:32 AM.


Kawaiidesune #65 Posted 07 September 2014 - 01:11 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19372 battles
  • 141
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013
Cohen please,you re driving this thread off topic...Let us talk about obj140..

Charcharo #66 Posted 25 September 2014 - 03:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30855 battles
  • 1,414
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010

View PostWG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, on 06 September 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

 

Let this reasoning about waste of resources and air strikes be, just wrote under the air supremacy the Maus with it´s armour and gun would be the strongest. What the technical improvement of the years after the WWII concernes we don´t realy need to speak, initialy WoT was exclusively a WWII tanks game where the Maus would be strong enough, at it´s time in 1943-45 the Maus was the tank wich couldn´t be penetrated by any tank or TD, it would be imprevious to shots from front, side and back, meanwhile the Maus could penetrate any tank at almost any range. If air supremacy would be kept, all the other technical issues would be surmounted.

The fact that WG added some newer era tanks after a while without balancing those properly with the older tanks, that´s the problem. This made the Maus obsolete and not it´s parameters.

 

Of course that after the germans lost the war wich was indeed an attacking war so it was bad, all the people were ready to put under bad spot anything was very powerfull and technical advanced developed by the german industry.


World of Tanks was NEVER JUST a WW2 game. NEVER. 

There are more things in ware then TANKS. One is ARTILLERY, the other is PLANES  and then we have INFANTRY
The Maus was gonna get wrecked. Completely.

It was also complex, took a lot of time and resources to manufacture and was too damn heavy.
World of Tanks is what puts it in a more positive light.

However as a game, it NEEDS to be BALANCED. Gameplay >>>>>> History. ALWAYS.
 



Mediums_X_are_OP #67 Posted 30 September 2014 - 06:27 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51027 battles
  • 2,712
  • [TUN] TUN
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View PostCharcharo, on 25 September 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:


World of Tanks was NEVER JUST a WW2 game. NEVER. 

There are more things in ware then TANKS. One is ARTILLERY, the other is PLANES  and then we have INFANTRY
The Maus was gonna get wrecked. Completely.

It was also complex, took a lot of time and resources to manufacture and was too damn heavy.
World of Tanks is what puts it in a more positive light.

However as a game, it NEEDS to be BALANCED. Gameplay >>>>>> History. ALWAYS.
 

 

WoT was only WWll game actualy, at the beginning.

 

What in WWll were, planes and such just stated, Wehrmacht had to keep the air supremacy in order to protect the tanks generaly speaking and not only the Maus. That wasn´t the case anymore after 1943.

Now you´re assuming a bit to much by writing that Maus would get wrecked. Where´s no evidence there´s no evidence.´, in the contrary, assuming they would´ve kept the air supremacy, the Maus would be imprevious to any tank or even artilery.

Maus was to damn heavy? Actualy the tracks were so wide that the Maus had a good weight ratio dispersed on the tracks. Also it was due to it´s engines able to pull by itself out of mud and heavy terrain(wich it did) where the classic tanks woud broke the gears. You should check also the facts to back up your statements and not only those of the tanks you´re reviewing.


Edited by WG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, 30 September 2014 - 06:22 PM.


joyuesp #68 Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:18 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 53668 battles
  • 7,701
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012

View PostWG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, on 30 September 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

 

WoT was only WWll game actualy, at the beginning.

 

What in WWll were, planes and such just stated, Wehrmacht had to keep the air supremacy in order to protect the tanks generaly speaking and not only the Maus. That wasn´t the case anymore after 1943.

Now you´re assuming a bit to much by writing that Maus would get wrecked. Where´s no evidence there´s no evidence.´, in the contrary, assuming they would´ve kept the air supremacy, the Maus would be imprevious to any tank or even artilery.

Maus was to damn heavy? Actualy the tracks were so wide that the Maus had a good weight ratio dispersed on the tracks. Also it was due to it´s engines able to pull by itself out of mud and heavy terrain(wich it did) where the classic tanks woud broke the gears. You should check also the facts to back up your statements and not only those of the tanks you´re reviewing.

are you sure? is7 is there from the very beginning of the game and i didnt know it was a ww2 tank.

 

please stop derrailing the thread with stupidity, maus would have break down before it reached combat, since there is no F way to move it to the battlefield, the gas cost to move it is insane, cant be carried in train so the gearbox/engine/tracks would wear down quick, and ofc like all other german monsters once isolated infantry can destroy it.

 

ps.- the terrain resistance its higher than you think

 



Mediums_X_are_OP #69 Posted 04 October 2014 - 07:56 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51027 battles
  • 2,712
  • [TUN] TUN
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View Postjoyuesp, on 01 October 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

are you sure? is7 is there from the very beginning of the game and i didnt know it was a ww2 tank.

 

please stop derrailing the thread with stupidity, maus would have break down before it reached combat, since there is no F way to move it to the battlefield, the gas cost to move it is insane, cant be carried in train so the gearbox/engine/tracks would wear down quick, and ofc like all other german monsters once isolated infantry can destroy it.

 

ps.- the terrain resistance its higher than you think

 

 

Now the gas cost comes as argument, l see, as in war weren´t thousands of tanks wich had gas to function and at the same price. Another point, why build and let many weaker tanks destroyed and lost when the Maus was impenetrable, is that a better economy..? The germans weren´t dumb, the only problem was, the Maus came to late where Wehrmacht has already lost the supremacy but from a technical standpoint they were the best.

Also for the Maus were build special train wagons in Austria, so, no problem there: http://img-fotki.yan...a_884b5625_orig . Cite: "In order to transport the Maus, special 14-axle railroad transport car (Verladewagon) was produced by Graz-Simmering-Pauker Works in Vienna."

Your photo doesn´t prove anything as we may not know how hard or soft the particular terrain was and I don´t even see the tracks sunk there. The Maus absolved the tests, it could drive, turn in place and even pulled itself as l wrote, out of mud where the whole hull was sunk, a performance wich no other gear equiped tank would be able to. You further seem to not accomplish the system Maus was build at all, Maus had no gear but an diesel or gas engine as electric energy generator and 2 electric engines, so, no gears there. The Maus would rather had support, air as infantery also.

 

Ok, Is7 perhaps as exception, the only tank wich was build in 1946 short after war and not in 50-60 or even later like many new introduced tanks.

 

 


Edited by WG_pls_fixMM_and_OPs_thx, 04 October 2014 - 01:40 PM.


XtremeBlitz #70 Posted 06 October 2014 - 08:30 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9316 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

Lol, this is so far off-topic...  i nearly thought i was in the german heavy, maus section... or am i???:P

 



AceFocus #71 Posted 10 October 2014 - 01:02 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17376 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012
Lol guys i dont think that obj140 is op its atleast one normal dicent tank who need good driver to play whit him!

indu #72 Posted 24 October 2014 - 04:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34838 battles
  • 283
  • Member since:
    07-13-2011

View Postflexyzor, on 10 October 2014 - 01:02 AM, said:

Lol guys i dont think that obj140 is op its atleast one normal dicent tank who need good driver to play whit him!

 

Then why i am performing so good with obj140 and with M48 patton not ?

 

Its very mobile.

It has very good cammo.

It has very good turrent armor.

It has epic dpm.

 


Edited by indu, 24 October 2014 - 04:34 PM.


Ace_of_Sp4des #73 Posted 25 October 2014 - 08:14 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25481 battles
  • 1,047
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012
Gonna get it on 11.01 since it will get 30% discount, can't wait for it. :]

Kurghan #74 Posted 26 October 2014 - 08:18 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 37845 battles
  • 3,065
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

For me, even better  than T62a. Faster, smaller, better camo rating.

 



Tammahawk #75 Posted 01 November 2014 - 02:31 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15683 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Dont know if someone has already noted it but i think theres a typing misstake in the penetration section for the gun?

 

Penetration: 2641/3301/50  :unsure:



Ace_of_Sp4des #76 Posted 02 November 2014 - 04:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25481 battles
  • 1,047
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012
If gun isn't fully aimed (lacks a little bit) it shoots worse than kv2, it is trolling me quite often on a little bit longer range. Great tank, after 34 battles I'm already happy with it. Turret is very good against IX or lower. (against t10 it isnt reliable) Now I'll wait for discount on t62a :)

Palora #77 Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24925 battles
  • 432
  • Member since:
    03-17-2010

Yup, if it's not fully aimed it shoots worse then a KV-2.

It also burns from every other hit.

 

L.E. Had another battle just as horrible, i only took 3 shoots, 2 of them set me on fire. One was from a WZ t7 scout.


Edited by Palora, 04 November 2014 - 10:53 AM.


XtremeBlitz #78 Posted 04 November 2014 - 02:36 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9316 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

View Postmccqa, on 02 November 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

If gun isn't fully aimed (lacks a little bit) it shoots worse than kv2, it is trolling me quite often on a little bit longer range. Great tank, after 34 battles I'm already happy with it. Turret is very good against IX or lower. (against t10 it isnt reliable) Now I'll wait for discount on t62a :)

 

Same exprience, but its mostly because the circle is already so small so you expect it to hit centre :P

Great allrounder!



Palora #79 Posted 07 November 2014 - 07:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24925 battles
  • 432
  • Member since:
    03-17-2010

Damn it to hell. 

 

Am I the only who gets set on fire every other game in this? EVERY DAY! 

 

L.E. Yey I can go 3 battles w/o being set on fire. What crap. I've been set on fire more in the ~40 battles with this tank then all the battles with all the tanks before it.


Edited by Palora, 07 November 2014 - 08:10 PM.


Primal_Chaos #80 Posted 10 November 2014 - 08:58 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9525 battles
  • 282
  • [ACA] ACA
  • Member since:
    09-04-2011
Got the Obj 140. So far it feels amazing (first 5 battles) - a great update compared to the T-54 in every way.
Faster, higher DPM, higher view range, more HP... and most important much more penetration. No need for HEAT anymore.
Although I should have skilled wet ammorack. 4! damaged ammoracks in 5 battles. Bad luck? I will see.

Edited by Primal_Chaos, 10 November 2014 - 08:58 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users