Jump to content


Alternative to WG's TD changes


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

Tarix819 #1 Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

Just watched WG's 9.20.1 Developer video and not pleased. They think that the FV205 is the FV217, two completely different vehicles, and are stupidly putting it at the top of the first British TD line.

 

Firstly, the FV205 is based on the FV201 chassis, NOT the FV214 chassis, which is what they showed in the video. The tank model of the replacement vehicle is technically a fake. The FV205 looks like this:

 

Related image

 

As you may notice, the side skirts are different, and this is one of the subtle differences between the FV201 chassis and the FV214 chassis. In WoT, the FV214 chassis is used on the Conqueror, Caernarvon and soon to be Super Conqueror, whereas the FV201 chassis is used on the FV201 (A45), FV207 and should be used on the FV205 as well. 

Secondly, not only would the speed be just 31km/h (Same as FV201), but the armour is probably only about 76mm (The same thickness as the front of the FV201 chassis), remember, it was designed before the FV214 Conqueror, and by logic would most likely be inferior. this tank would NOT be Tier X material. Tier VIII at best.

 

So now lets talk about the true candidate for the tier X of the first British TD line: The AT 18.

 

There is basically no other tank (Maybe the AT 17) that would work better in this context than the AT 18. Here are the blueprints:

Image result for AT 18 tank blueprints Nuffield 1943

The AT 18 is essentially a Tortoise, but over 10 tonnes lighter, boosting the top speed to potentially around 30km/h. Whilst historically it was planned to have a flamethrower, but this could be replaced with a 120mm ultra-high DPM gun just like the Tortoise. The Gun arc is 27 degrees on either side - that's even more than the AT 15, meaning the 228mm of armour that this beast has can be angled incredibly well around corners. It is a FAR better option than the FV205 or FV217.

 

So what will happen to the FV205 and FV217?

 

Well I propose that a 3rd British TD line is created, featuring fast(er) non turreted TDs with the FV205 at tier VIII, the FV3807 at tier IX, and the FV217 at tier X.

 

The FV3807 is actually the Jagdchieftain, basically a prototype Chieftain based TD.

 

Image result for FV3807

 

It would have a 42km/h top speed with a high-dpm 120mm gun.

 

The FV217 at tier X was a concept tank and thus never even made it to blueprint stage as far as anyone is aware. It was basically supposed to be a Conqueror with a superstructure instead of a turret, which would come with benefits like better armour, faster reload time and higher ammunition capacity. It would look something like this:

 

Image result for FV217

Unlike the FV205, this vehicle would have a 34.4km/h top speed, 130 or 178mm of frontal hull armour, 254mm of sloped frontal superstructure armour, and a 120mm gun. Whilst the FV205 is based on the more primitive FV201 chassis with 76mm of frontal armour and more basic side skirts, the FV217 is based on the FV214 chassis with 130 or 178mm of frontal hull armour and more complex side skirts among other changes.

 

Here is a tech tree proposal I made featuring these changes among others:

 

Final British Tech Tree.png

 

I will probably make another post on this in the near future.



leggasiini #2 Posted 15 September 2017 - 08:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11573 battles
  • 6,015
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

I assume AT-17 has wider gun arc and lighter weight because instead of whole gun it has just a...flamethrower? Having an AT-XX design after Tortoise doesnt make sense, anyways, because Tortoise is what the AT-XX series eventually became.

 

Third TD line would be cool but there are quite a few lines that deserves to be implemented before a third TD line, one of them being another two more British lines (LT, 2nd HT). Actually, there are so many other lines still that I wouldnt even expect a 3rd line.



cro001 #3 Posted 15 September 2017 - 08:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28394 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View Postleggasiini, on 15 September 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

I assume AT-17 has wider gun arc and lighter weight because instead of whole gun it has just a...flamethrower? Having an AT-XX design after Tortoise doesnt make sense, anyways, because Tortoise is what the AT-XX series eventually became.

 

Third TD line would be cool but there are quite a few lines that deserves to be implemented before a third TD line, one of them being another two more British lines (LT, 2nd HT). Actually, there are so many other lines still that I wouldnt even expect a 3rd line.

 

So swap them. AT-17 tier 9 and Tortoise tier 10. Done deal. Also, the gun doesn't weigh 10 tonnes, so besides lacking gun, something else is in place.

 

It's kinda interesting that one random internet dude made better proposal than WG.



Tarix819 #4 Posted 15 September 2017 - 09:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 15 September 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

I assume AT-17 has wider gun arc and lighter weight because instead of whole gun it has just a...flamethrower? Having an AT-XX design after Tortoise doesnt make sense, anyways, because Tortoise is what the AT-XX series eventually became.

 

Third TD line would be cool but there are quite a few lines that deserves to be implemented before a third TD line, one of them being another two more British lines (LT, 2nd HT). Actually, there are so many other lines still that I wouldnt even expect a 3rd line.

 

Tortoise was design AT 16 and was used because it was the most cost-effective whilst still being able to use the 32-pdr, so the AT 18 would be a more powerful vehicle, it was just too expensive for its role.

 

The AT 18 has such a wide gun arc because of the different mantle and gun emplacement to the Tortoise, so it would still work on the 120mm.

 

And if you looked at my tree proposal I included in the post, you would see I have also included a second brit heavy line, a second brit medium line and brit light line.



Tarix819 #5 Posted 15 September 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View Postcro001, on 15 September 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

 

So swap them. AT-17 tier 9 and Tortoise tier 10. Done deal. Also, the gun doesn't weigh 10 tonnes, so besides lacking gun, something else is in place.

 

It's kinda interesting that one random internet dude made better proposal than WG.

 

Thing is, the AT 18 has about 10 tonnes of fuel for the flamethrower in it anyway, bringing it up to 67 tonnes, so replacing all of that with a 120mm gun and ammunition would reduce the weight even more, so I think if implemented into the game, it could get to about 30km/h, whilst still being heavily armoured like the Tortoise before it.

cro001 #6 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:06 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28394 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View PostTarix819, on 15 September 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

Thing is, the AT 18 has about 10 tonnes of fuel for the flamethrower in it anyway, bringing it up to 67 tonnes, so replacing all of that with a 120mm gun and ammunition would reduce the weight even more, so I think if implemented into the game, it could get to about 30km/h, whilst still being heavily armoured like the Tortoise before it.

 

Idea seems fitting, I don't see why it shouldn't be tier 10.



jack_timber #7 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:44 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31887 battles
  • 1,780
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

Nice to see someone doing a lot of research, interesting proposals. 

As a 'follower' of British TDs a faster Tortoise would be welcome as I have a soft spot for this tank, not as soft as it's armour though....

Will await WG deliberations as to the replacements or addition to T9/10.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users