Jump to content


Italian Tanks (I-VII) ST


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Simeon85 #21 Posted 08 March 2018 - 02:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1101 battles
  • 4,057
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
Paper tanks with horrible accuracy, seems legit. God forbid a heavy tank gets sniped by a medium......

Search_Warrant #22 Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:00 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27851 battles
  • 6,435
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostSimeon85, on 08 March 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

Paper tanks with horrible accuracy, seems legit. God forbid a heavy tank gets sniped by a medium......

 

Or a light tank! you seen them tier 10 accuracy stats? :P

CamperKaempfer #23 Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24131 battles
  • 369
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017

View PostDava_117, on 07 March 2018 - 11:58 PM, said:

Looks intresting! Is that the top configuration?

 

i forgot: here is how i came to this conclusion

in the daily bounce's website there are pages about most of italian tanks singularly where you can check out the stock guns. here's the p26/40 for example

https://thearmoredpa...pertest-p26-40/

the gun in the p26/40 picture (judging by its stats, not appearance) appears to be the top one since it's the best of the three. same thing goes for all other tanks that have a dedicated page.

sine the guns are "top", the most reasonable assumption is that everything else is also "top", which would be the way to go anyway. i don't see why wg would rather show us the bottom configuration.

other elements are also consistent with this hypothesis. the turret on the tier 3 was not the standard variant, and maybe it wasn't even mass-produced. the box behind it for larger ammunition storage was a later development we only know about due to a picture taken at the eastern front. if they decided to use it at all it can't be a stock turret, unless it's the only one (which i'm sure it's not) since it would be odd for the earlier version to come after it

similarly, the p-26/40 had to two turrets, and that in the picture happens to be a later version with improved armour (you can see both turrets in the wikipedia articles about the tank (first and last picture, the one is hte middle is unclear because it was taken from the side)

https://en.wikipedia...rro_Armato_P_40

lastly, the engine power given in every tank's dedicated page should also be "top", because: 1) it's already more than adequate for its tier, and 2) all historical alternatives are weaker (for example the p-26/40 was also fitted with a 330hp diesel, which is weaker than the 420 hp engine that was also tested), yet they aren't the ones we're shown. it's possible the historical weak engines haven't been used at all and and more powerful top engines lie ahead, but apart from the fact that it's not consistent with the other stuff i've mentioned, i doubt wargaming would not shun historically accurate weaker engines to be used as bottom as bottom.

with the turret it's more simple because while then can get away with adding unhistorical engines, not so much so with turrets without making the tanks look ridiculous, so while it's possible that the turrets we can see are the only ones, and there are no stock turrets preceding them, there still can't be any succeeding

edit: the engine in the daily bounce is reported to be 400hp powerful, not 420, but i still believe it's a balanced version of the 420 petrol engine than a completely different engine i don't know about, used as a bottom engines instead of the well known 330hp and then succeeded by an only 5% better 420hp engine


Edited by CamperKaempfer, 08 March 2018 - 03:10 PM.


vuque #24 Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:10 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17956 battles
  • 3,132
  • [YOQ] YOQ
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

View PostKillingJoker, on 07 March 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

 

the gun numbers are:

 

Penetration: 152/194/154 

damage 240 / 240 / 320 

 

if the High explosive rounds have 154 penetration... certainly will not be a "trash" 

plus, the frontal hull seems very well angled, even if its only 100mm, it all will depend on how mobile it is, and its gun depression

 

But i am very curious about the gun, that 154mm of penetration in the HE damage

 

 

There was a typo, HE pen for that tank is 45mm.

SlyMeerkat #25 Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:11 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 17096 battles
  • 2,539
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
I am really looking forward to this new tech tree :)

Search_Warrant #26 Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:23 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27851 battles
  • 6,435
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postvuque, on 08 March 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

 

There was a typo, HE pen for that tank is 45mm.

 

Oh well..there goes the only reason to play that tank then. id rather play Leo in that case.

CptBarney #27 Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:32 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 3,993
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

these tanks look sub-par too be honest, im not even going to bother with an inferior tech tree such as this with poor dpm, non-existant accuracy and bad alpha damage.

 

not sure what wargaming is smoking to be honest.



undutchable80 #28 Posted 09 March 2018 - 09:33 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 9315 battles
  • 2,481
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014

*values are subject to change*

 

I hope so. No need to play into the historical bias that Italians werent good...;)



mortalsatsuma #29 Posted 09 March 2018 - 09:53 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 1,702
  • Member since:
    06-13-2014
They all seem really sub-par to my eyes but as stated, these characteristics are subject to change. Not really getting why they all seem to have horrible accuracy.  




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users