Jump to content


Rhm Panzerwagen vs T-100 LT - There is something totally wrong


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

torloisk #1 Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:21 PM

    Corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 30806 battles
  • 157
  • [SHOR] SHOR
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013

The stats of these tier 10 light tanks make me wonder if logic played a role in their design. Let me explain.

 

The Rheinmetall Panzerwagen has a 1100 HP engine, it weighs 25 tons and has a power-to-weight ratio of 44 HP per ton.

The T-100 LT has a 720 HP engine, it weighs 15 tons and a has power-to-weight of 48 HP per ton.

 

So far so good. Now, when you look at the armor you would expect the Rhm Panzerwagen to be better protected than the russian light tank. The german light is 10 tons heavier. Wrong! It's quite the contrary. The 40 % lighter tank has the better armor by a large margin: turret 180/40/40, hull 90/40/40. The Rhm Panzerwagen has paper armor: turret 20/20/20, hull 30/30/8.

 

So why is the Rhm 10 tons heavier? Is it the gun? 105 mm vs. 100 mm? Come on. The 1-100 LT even carries more ammunition, 38 vs. 30. I don't get it. This does not fit at all.

 

 



FluffyRedFox #2 Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:25 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22967 battles
  • 8,387
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

Its the magic Ruski technology, the same stuff that allows the IS-3 to manipulate the fabric of the universe to place black holes in its side.

Edit: You're forgetting the most retarded thing about the T-100.

-5* gun depression.

With that flat turret.

Can someone explain how tanks with massive turrets like the Conway get shafted in the gun elevation/depression department and yet the T-100, with its extremely low profile turret manages -5. Did the Soviets manage to make tank guns that didn't have breaches? 


Edited by fishbob101, 24 June 2017 - 11:30 PM.


Enforcer1975 #3 Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,862
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Stop using / looking for logic in a WG product...

SABAOTH #4 Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:37 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 36793 battles
  • 2,914
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011
Because German the bad guys, Soviet the Heroes. :izmena:

Balc0ra #5 Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66275 battles
  • 16,274
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Gun is 2x heavier to. And you have one that is made with the best steel they can get their hands on. The other one is made of melted frying pans.

WindSplitter1 #6 Posted 25 June 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15951 battles
  • 2,560
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Anime logic made it into WG Development room.

 

Soo enough you'll see threads about cat girls or megathreads like this.



WindSpIitter1 #7 Posted 25 June 2017 - 01:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 277 battles
  • 1,043
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

The crew is fat. Too many Wursten, it's a Wunder they didn't burst.

 

Seriously though the RHM has no place at tier 10. It's such an utter trash tank. Even the T-100 is already underpowered even though it's actually good for spotting stuff, but the RHM is just so bad if you only look at the flipping tendency and profile, let alone the gun stats that make you want to stab your eyes out.



leggasiini #8 Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:05 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14187 battles
  • 6,194
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012
Rhm is more than twice as big...

lafeel #9 Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:19 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4964 battles
  • 1,503
  • [LAFIE] LAFIE
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

It's a bit difficult to explain but to put it simply: The smaller the amount of space needed to armor the less actual weight of armor you will need.

 

This is also why that Brad replacement a few years back ended up somewhere around 100 tons (considerably more than the Abrams nb) as it ran afoul of the same issue.



fighting_falcon93 #10 Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:29 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 31173 battles
  • 3,902
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Posttorloisk, on 24 June 2017 - 11:21 PM, said:

The stats of these tier 10 light tanks make me wonder if logic played a role in their design. Let me explain.

 

The Rheinmetall Panzerwagen has a 1100 HP engine, it weighs 25 tons and has a power-to-weight ratio of 44 HP per ton.

The T-100 LT has a 720 HP engine, it weighs 15 tons and a has power-to-weight of 48 HP per ton.

 

So far so good. Now, when you look at the armor you would expect the Rhm Panzerwagen to be better protected than the russian light tank. The german light is 10 tons heavier. Wrong! It's quite the contrary. The 40 % lighter tank has the better armor by a large margin: turret 180/40/40, hull 90/40/40. The Rhm Panzerwagen has paper armor: turret 20/20/20, hull 30/30/8.

 

So why is the Rhm 10 tons heavier? Is it the gun? 105 mm vs. 100 mm? Come on. The 1-100 LT even carries more ammunition, 38 vs. 30. I don't get it. This does not fit at all.

 

+1 to this, I completely agree. A perfect example of why realism should never be completely abandoned, regardless of how "arcady" you want the game to be :)



spuff #11 Posted 25 June 2017 - 07:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12423 battles
  • 658
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
Didn't I hear somewhere when the t10 LT's were announced that the t100 was so light because the armour was meant to be made out of some sort of plastic?

Hedgehog1963 #12 Posted 25 June 2017 - 08:19 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 51282 battles
  • 7,473
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postlafeel, on 25 June 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

It's a bit difficult to explain but to put it simply: The smaller the amount of space needed to armor the less actual weight of armor you will need.

 

 

 

On the contrary you explained it perfectly.

Laiskamato #13 Posted 25 June 2017 - 08:24 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45898 battles
  • 361
  • [KYS] KYS
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014

View Posttorloisk, on 25 June 2017 - 01:21 AM, said:

The stats of these tier 10 light tanks make me wonder if logic played a role in their design. Let me explain.

 

The Rheinmetall Panzerwagen has a 1100 HP engine, it weighs 25 tons and has a power-to-weight ratio of 44 HP per ton.

The T-100 LT has a 720 HP engine, it weighs 15 tons and a has power-to-weight of 48 HP per ton.

 

So far so good. Now, when you look at the armor you would expect the Rhm Panzerwagen to be better protected than the russian light tank. The german light is 10 tons heavier. Wrong! It's quite the contrary. The 40 % lighter tank has the better armor by a large margin: turret 180/40/40, hull 90/40/40. The Rhm Panzerwagen has paper armor: turret 20/20/20, hull 30/30/8.

 

So why is the Rhm 10 tons heavier? Is it the gun? 105 mm vs. 100 mm? Come on. The 1-100 LT even carries more ammunition, 38 vs. 30. I don't get it. This does not fit at all.

 

 

 

This game was made by ex ruskie to ruskies so what you expect?

Why do you think tanks like Tiger 1 and Centurion are so garbage.



Cobra6 #14 Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,770
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Because logic has never been in the dictionary of Wargaming unfortunately.

 

A tank with paper armour should be exceptional in the speed and gun department to compensate for the lack or armour (2 out of the magic 3: mobility, gun, armour) to be a balanced tank.

 

Cobra 6



AliceUnchained #15 Posted 25 June 2017 - 11:04 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postlafeel, on 25 June 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:

It's a bit difficult to explain but to put it simply: The smaller the amount of space needed to armor the less actual weight of armor you will need.

 

This is also why that Brad replacement a few years back ended up somewhere around 100 tons (considerably more than the Abrams nb) as it ran afoul of the same issue.

 

Very true, but you'd need a lot of that 20/30 mm armor plate to outweigh 180/90 mm plates. If anyone has actual dimensions for these 2 tanks (pain to obtain I would imagine) shouldn't be too hard to get an estimate on armor weight.

Nazgarth #16 Posted 25 June 2017 - 11:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28472 battles
  • 1,175
  • [-TWO-] -TWO-
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

What's more hilarious;

is that a German turret with armour values of 20/20/20, weighs 4500kgs

whereas a Russian turret with armour values of 180/40/40 weighs, only 3000kgs


 

Stronk realism, da



NiemandXL #17 Posted 25 June 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

It's a Russian tank so in this game it is allowed to ignore the laws of physics as much as it wants.

 

View Postspuff, on 25 June 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

Didn't I hear somewhere when the t10 LT's were announced that the t100 was so light because the armour was meant to be made out of some sort of plastic?

 

What you probably mean is composite armor.

 

Block Quote

 Composite armour is a type of vehicle armour consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics, ceramics or air. Most composite armours are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armour stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armour, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.

 

https://en.wikipedia...omposite_armour

 

And it kinda would make sense even thought I remember Wargaming saying that tanks with composite armor would not be added to the game. But you know Wargaming and the stuff they say...



lafeel #18 Posted 25 June 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4964 battles
  • 1,503
  • [LAFIE] LAFIE
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 25 June 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

Very true, but you'd need a lot of that 20/30 mm armor plate to outweigh 180/90 mm plates. If anyone has actual dimensions for these 2 tanks (pain to obtain I would imagine) shouldn't be too hard to get an estimate on armor weight.

 

You'd be surprised actually. And I agree it  would be interesting to see.

HundeWurst #19 Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 69911 battles
  • 4,337
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

It already has been siad that the T100LT is physically impossible.

 

Its to small, to heavily armored and to light than to make any sense.



8126Jakobsson #20 Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:18 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 66460 battles
  • 3,346
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostWunderWurst, on 25 June 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

It already has been siad that the T100LT is physically impossible.

 

Its to small, to heavily armored and to light than to make any sense.

 

Yeah but what about Heaters wink at you in post #7, and why did you decide to let it slide? 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users