Jump to content


Which any tank ever would be suitable for a Tier above 10?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

wEight_Tanker #1 Posted 05 January 2019 - 06:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8804 battles
  • 627
  • [VI90M] VI90M
  • Member since:
    11-13-2016

Like Abrams (I would say Tier 11 or 12), Panzer 9 and 10 (Tier 13, 15) Or Rattatouille (Tier 9000). I don't know any better, so what do you think? Any tank ever from the real world. (No Apocalypse included D':).



PanzerFever #2 Posted 05 January 2019 - 07:44 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24244 battles
  • 18
  • [FP-EU] FP-EU
  • Member since:
    04-23-2015
In there first.... Wait for it!!!

ApocalypseSquad #3 Posted 05 January 2019 - 07:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26893 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

Hey, why discriminate against me???

 

:amazed:



lord_chipmonk #4 Posted 05 January 2019 - 11:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35089 battles
  • 10,279
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostwEight_Tanker, on 05 January 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

Like Abrams (I would say Tier 11 or 12).

 

There are problems with implementing such tanks. As you mention the Abrams, let's look at what the Abrams would bring to the table armour wise and see if you can find the problem. I've included some American tanks through the tech tree to illustrate the massive upgrade in armour provided by the Abrams.

 

T1 Cunningham (tier 1)

Year of design: 1927

Effective thickness of frontal armour: 10mm 

 

M4 Sherman (tier 5)

Year of design: 1940

Effective thickness of frontal armour: 70mm

 

M48 Patton (tier 10 and 1st generation MBT)

Year of design: 1051-53

Effective thickness of frontal armour: 200 mm

 

M60 Patton (tier 10 and 2nd generation MBT)

Year of design: 1958 (ish)

Effective thickness of frontal armour: 200mm (it was basically a modified M48)

 

M1 Abrams (not yet in game and 3rd generation MBT)

Year of design: 1972-79

Effective thickness of frontal armour: 350-600mm vs armour kinetic rounds (AP, APCR, APDS etc) and about 700mm vs HEAT depending on which sources you believe and these numbers are for the base variant before the US army decided it needed more armour. Combine that with 23+ HP/ton etc etc etc and I think you get the idea. 



WoT_RU_Doing #5 Posted 06 January 2019 - 05:03 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50161 battles
  • 1,992
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postlord_chipmonk, on 05 January 2019 - 10:40 PM, said:

 

M48 Patton (tier 10 and 1st generation MBT)

Year of design: 1051-53

 

I always considered the M48 to be an old design, but wow!

McLovers #6 Posted 07 January 2019 - 04:17 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14949 battles
  • 147
  • [SETI] SETI
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 06 January 2019 - 04:03 AM, said:

 

I always considered the M48 to be an old design, but wow!

 

It was produced between 1952–1959 however it was designed between 1951–1953

Simeon85 #7 Posted 07 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 4,039
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Tier 11 or above tanks would instantly devalue everyones accounts, because people have ground or even free XP'd to all these tiers 10 which are the 'ned game' and always top tier, but now they wouldn't be, I'd imagine lots of people would be annoyed.

 

 



Frostilicus #8 Posted 07 January 2019 - 04:50 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22495 battles
  • 3,137
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011
Challenger 2, Abrams, Meerkat thing - all of those would break the game imo

4nt #9 Posted 07 January 2019 - 08:39 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24121 battles
  • 320
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013
For abovementioned reasons- particularily modern ceramic's effectiveness- I can't see probable that WoT will ever include tanks like M1, late model Chieftain or Challenger, T-64 or T-72A, MBT-70 or -80 etc.

The guns are a secondary problem, and not so game-breaking. But armor effectiveness, where over 400-500mm of HEAT and near 350mm of AP pen is needed just isn't sustainable on current tier structure. Also, I doubt engine could be modified to apply two different armor values.

wEight_Tanker #10 Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8804 battles
  • 627
  • [VI90M] VI90M
  • Member since:
    11-13-2016
Wait. Did I open two same topics??
20:53 Added after 1 minute

View PostApocalypseSquad, on 05 January 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

Hey, why discriminate against me???

 

:amazed:

 

The God of all tanks. Makes Leviathan look like a mud sculpture.



Obi_Wan_Chernobyl #11 Posted 08 January 2019 - 04:07 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 532 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    12-23-2018

View PostMcLovers, on 07 January 2019 - 04:17 PM, said:

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 06 January 2019 - 04:03 AM, said:

 

I always considered the M48 to be an old design, but wow!

 

It was produced between 1952–1959 however it was designed between 1951–1953



Robi85 #12 Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:06 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 27356 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Object 268 v4, Object 430u, Type 5, Super Conqueror?

Oh yea, t100lt...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users