Jump to content


This new separate hull / turret camo lark


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

qpranger #1 Posted 21 December 2017 - 11:16 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33722 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

Watching a replay on YouTube, hull with camo, turret bare, feels so weird.

Are there any examples of it from real-life tanks in active service?



SuedKAT #2 Posted 21 December 2017 - 11:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,610
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View Postqpranger, on 21 December 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Watching a replay on YouTube, hull with camo, turret bare, feels so weird.

Are there any examples of it from real-life tanks in active service?

 

Nah you generally want to camouflage the entire thing, if you spot a "bad guy" tank turret in a bush you'd shoot at it even if it didn't have any hull.

Edited by SuedKAT, 21 December 2017 - 11:36 PM.


Spurtung #3 Posted 21 December 2017 - 11:37 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65911 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
They changed how camo works for concealment bonus, so I guess it's just people adapting and saving gold/credits. Soon enough there will be a mod to automatically swap camo, then WG will probably lock camos in place and change concealment bonus to be cumulative by applying camo to different parts of the tank. After that, people will have to spend more gold and credits again, everyone happy.

Edited by Spurtung, 21 December 2017 - 11:38 PM.


znapper74 #4 Posted 22 December 2017 - 01:40 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10681 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    02-20-2016

I have yet to see this in-game.

To me all the tanks looks the same as they always have......what's the point of this if it isn't visible?



Gremlin182 #5 Posted 22 December 2017 - 01:50 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 49577 battles
  • 8,339
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

At the moment the weird paint jobs are limited to tier 10 tanks and tier 8 premium tanks.

Since painting your tank blue or yellow gives no camo bonus I doubt we will see many of them about.

The effect is turned off by default in settings so unless you turn it on you wouldn't see any such tanks anyway.

 

 



Spurtung #6 Posted 22 December 2017 - 02:12 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65911 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostGremlin182, on 22 December 2017 - 02:50 AM, said:

At the moment the weird paint jobs are limited to tier 10 tanks and tier 8 premium tanks.

Since painting your tank blue or yellow gives no camo bonus I doubt we will see many of them about.

The effect is turned off by default in settings so unless you turn it on you wouldn't see any such tanks anyway.

You completely missed the whole thread. You're special.



Enforcer1975 #7 Posted 22 December 2017 - 02:50 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20932 battles
  • 10,917
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostSpurtung, on 21 December 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

...change concealment bonus to be cumulative by applying camo to different parts of the tank. 

This...needs to be done. It looks so cheap when you try to save 50-100 gold per tank. It's not like players are short of gold when they bought the Xmas boxes and if you wanted a kind of permanent camo without spending gold you can just buy the 100 games pack for 75k silver. It's not like 750 silver per game is difficult to earn. 



SuedKAT #8 Posted 22 December 2017 - 05:54 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,610
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View Postznapper74, on 22 December 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

I have yet to see this in-game.

To me all the tanks looks the same as they always have......what's the point of this if it isn't visible?

 

By default you'll have hide none historical camos enabled in your settings, it hides custom camos, paint, some(?) inscriptions and emblems so you will never see them if you don't disable it. I had it on for a couple of days just to see what people came up with and saw some weird stuff, now I got it enabled and intend to keep it that way.

qpranger #9 Posted 22 December 2017 - 09:10 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33722 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
So am I right in assuming that no actual human army out there ever bothered camo-painting just the hull and not the turret for whatever reason?

Baldrickk #10 Posted 22 December 2017 - 09:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30507 battles
  • 14,635
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postqpranger, on 22 December 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

So am I right in assuming that no actual human army out there ever bothered camo-painting just the hull and not the turret for whatever reason?

Probably, because what's the point of not painting it?

 

They paint gun barrels despite being the hardest part of the tank to see.

Why would they miss out on the turret.

 

*there may be an instance somewhere of an in field camo job going unfinished due to time constraints.

Never heard of one, but that's the only thing I can think of.



250swb #11 Posted 22 December 2017 - 09:49 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23141 battles
  • 5,256
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postqpranger, on 21 December 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

Watching a replay on YouTube, hull with camo, turret bare, feels so weird.

Are there any examples of it from real-life tanks in active service?

 

No, there wouldn't be any point in real life only camouflaging the hull and not the turret, given the turret is the thing that sticks out above the skyline most. I suppose if it was a field repair a tank would go back into service with a mismatched gun barrel, maybe even a turret, but it wouldn't be the plan.

 

It's hard to know what WG have in their plans for the camo, I don't imagine we've seen the end of these changes particularly as now some tanks, such as turretless TD's, get all over camo in one application, and a turreted TD needs two.



DracheimFlug #12 Posted 22 December 2017 - 09:54 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9095 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postqpranger, on 22 December 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

So am I right in assuming that no actual human army out there ever bothered camo-painting just the hull and not the turret for whatever reason?

 

View Post250swb, on 22 December 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

 

No, there wouldn't be any point in real life only camouflaging the hull and not the turret, given the turret is the thing that sticks out above the skyline most. I suppose if it was a field repair a tank would go back into service with a mismatched gun barrel, maybe even a turret, but it wouldn't be the plan.

 

It's hard to know what WG have in their plans for the camo, I don't imagine we've seen the end of these changes particularly as now some tanks, such as turretless TD's, get all over camo in one application, and a turreted TD needs two.

 

Not the army and similarly not deliberate, but this was actually based on a true story. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053143/

 

There really was a US submarine that went into combat with only pink primer.... 



Lord_Edge #13 Posted 22 December 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5989 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View Postqpranger, on 21 December 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Are there any examples of it from real-life tanks in active service?

 

IIRC towards the end of WW2 the Germans fielded numerous tanks that had camouflaged/painted hulls and unpainted/uncamouflaged turrets/guns just coated in red oxide primer.  I don't know if this is due to the tanks being repaired in a rush or something like that.

 

If you google for images of German tanks with red turrets or something then there's numerous models people have built/painted following this design (and super useful black and white photos lol).



Gremlin182 #14 Posted 22 December 2017 - 11:20 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 49577 battles
  • 8,339
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 22 December 2017 - 02:12 AM, said:

You completely missed the whole thread. You're special.

 

Actually I was replying to the post directly above mine I took his comment as a general one about not seeing none standard finishes.

 

But you are right the thread was not  about weird coloured paint pots but about the division of camo into  parts  hull turret and gun.

This is available for all tanks and the paint pots scheme is completely different.

I guess I am special that or tired out as it was nearly 2 am when I posted.

 

Your Sarcasm was fresh and well rested though ;)



Spurtung #15 Posted 22 December 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65911 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postqpranger, on 22 December 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

So am I right in assuming that no actual human army out there ever bothered camo-painting just the hull and not the turret for whatever reason?

 

I did it in 3 tanks, waiting for discounts to do it properly:

- the FV 183, because they transferred the camo to the Badger

- the AMX 65t and the WZ-111G FT because I'm grinding them.



Spurtung #16 Posted 22 December 2017 - 02:49 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65911 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Post250swb, on 22 December 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

some tanks, such as turretless TD's, get all over camo in one application

 

Not true. Most need 2, one for the hull and another for the gun. The Alecto seems to even need 3, adding another for the "gun mantlet".



Spurtung #17 Posted 22 December 2017 - 03:02 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65911 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostGremlin182, on 22 December 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Your Sarcasm was fresh and well rested though ;)

Thank you, I take good care of it to keep it snappy.



malachi6 #18 Posted 22 December 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 50441 battles
  • 3,686
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
I would expect there were tanks with mixed camo as tanks were often cannibalised after combat.

HassenderZerhacker #19 Posted 22 December 2017 - 06:46 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27746 battles
  • 2,459
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

I do that...

It's for saving me the hassle to switch the camo from one tank to another.

Plus, there were 3 camo given out, meaning that when one tank with camo is in battle, I still have two others to use on other tanks.



vasilinhorulezz #20 Posted 22 December 2017 - 07:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

If that was applicable IRL, it would make more sense to camouflage the turret and not the hull as a priority, because, you know hull down tactics,

also camo wasn't only for battle, but for making tanks less visible from air when stationary, in base,

so no I don't think someone would prefer to camo the hull and leave the turret intact.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users