Jump to content


Fact v Fiction


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Mav75 #21 Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35013 battles
  • 1,828
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

AMX-13/105 is still in use in Ecuador, Indonesia and Peru. Former users are France, Lebanon and the Netherlands with more users opting for the 13/75 and 13/90.

There is also the Austrian SK-105 Kürassier which is classified as tank destroyer. Kürassier user being Austria, Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Marocco and Tunisia.

 

Of these at least some of the Austrian Kürassiers were deployed with UN troops in the 80's and French AMX's were deployed with French forces in various operations.



Nishi_Kinuyo #22 Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:39 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9173 battles
  • 6,415
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 26 January 2019 - 11:16 AM, said:

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 25 January 2019 - 11:36 PM, said:

The soviet ones?

Spoiler

 

 

You will have to be more specific, and maybe add something in the spoiler actually. If you're referring to actual sources from the Soviet era (doubtful), would be interesting to read them. If you're referring to the developers, well they're Belorussian. In case you are actually referring to the developers, could you point me to their statement(s)? 

Well, the image is there, it just doesn't support hotlinking which I didn't find out until now. >_>

Rehosted it somewhere else.



Dava_117 #23 Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 22747 battles
  • 5,156
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostMav75, on 26 January 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

AMX-13/105 is still in use in Ecuador, Indonesia and Peru. Former users are France, Lebanon and the Netherlands with more users opting for the 13/75 and 13/90.

There is also the Austrian SK-105 Kürassier which is classified as tank destroyer. Kürassier user being Austria, Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Marocco and Tunisia.

 

Of these at least some of the Austrian Kürassiers were deployed with UN troops in the 80's and French AMX's were deployed with French forces in various operations.

 

IIRC AMX 13 105 was for export only, with France prefering to keep the 13 90.

barison1 #24 Posted 26 January 2019 - 04:37 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44202 battles
  • 2,295
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View PostSfinski, on 26 January 2019 - 08:38 AM, said:

 

Question was about active service, not if they existed.
 

View PostHundeWurst, on 26 January 2019 - 10:33 AM, said:

 

I was talking about actually "mass produced" tanks. And for me prototypes dont really count in this.

 

 

"With other words some of the tier 10 medium tanks, wich are actually just MBTs are real. The rest is fake."

 

that made it sound way differend, so i was correcting on that part.

 

 

 

 


Edited by barison1, 26 January 2019 - 04:40 PM.


Mimos_A #25 Posted 26 January 2019 - 04:50 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29141 battles
  • 2,429
  • [SPESH] SPESH
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostHundeWurst, on 26 January 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

maybe like 10 out of the 60 we have, if even.

 

Here a Rundown

Germans:

E100 - nope

Maus - nope

JPE100 - nope

Grille15 - nope

GWE100 - nope

E50m - nope

Leopard 1 - yes

RHM PZW - nope

 

Russian:

T62A - yes

430U - nope

140 - nope

907 - nope

705A - nope

IS7 - nope

IS4 - yes

260 - nope

279 - nope

268 - nope

268v4 - nope

261 - nope

LT100 - nope (also physically impossible to exist)

 

French:

50b - nope

30b - yes

BC25T - nope

13105 - nope

AMX54 - nope

Foch - nope

BC arty - nope

 

British:

Super Conq - nope

FV215b - nope

CAX - nope

FV4005 - nope (built but not actually massproduced)

FV armored TD - nope

Badger - nope

CGC - nope

(Chieftain - yes)

 

Chinese:

NOPE

 

Polish:

NOPE

 

Checz:

NOPE

 

Japanese:

Type 71 (STB-1) - yes

Type 5 - nope

 

Sweden:

STRV - yes

Kranvagen - nope

 

With other words some of the tier 10 medium tanks, wich are actually just MBTs are real. The rest is fake. Honourable metion to the IS4.... the only real tier 10 heavy that existed.

 

 

 As others said, the 13 105 has been produced and used by several countries. Even to the point where they found out that the 105 gun posed problems with the turret showing cracks as it couldn't handle the recoil of the 105 mm gun very well.

HassenderZerhacker #26 Posted 27 January 2019 - 04:32 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31434 battles
  • 3,345
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostHundeWurst, on 26 January 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

maybe like 10 out of the 60 we have, if even.

 

Here a Rundown

Germans:

E100 - nope

Maus - nope

JPE100 - nope

Grille15 - nope

GWE100 - nope

E50m - nope

Leopard 1 - yes

RHM PZW - nope

 

Russian:

T62A - yes

430U - nope

140 - nope

907 - nope

705A - nope

IS7 - nope

IS4 - yes

260 - nope

279 - nope

268 - nope

268v4 - nope

261 - nope

LT100 - nope (also physically impossible to exist)

 

French:

50b - nope

30b - yes

BC25T - nope

13105 - nope

AMX54 - nope

Foch - nope

BC arty - nope

 

British:

Super Conq - nope

FV215b - nope

CAX - nope

FV4005 - nope (built but not actually massproduced)

FV armored TD - nope

Badger - nope

CGC - nope

(Chieftain - yes)

 

Chinese:

NOPE

 

Polish:

NOPE

 

Checz:

NOPE

 

Japanese:

Type 71 (STB-1) - yes

Type 5 - nope

 

Sweden:

STRV - yes

Kranvagen - nope

 

With other words some of the tier 10 medium tanks, wich are actually just MBTs are real. The rest is fake. Honourable metion to the IS4.... the only real tier 10 heavy that existed.

 

 

AFAIK, AMX 13 105 has been in service in Argentina and the Netherlands, which ordered quite a number of them from GIAT

 

on the chinese side,

the 121 was in service as designation "type 69"

wz-132-1 is probably type 62-1, which also was in service

 

 



fighting_falcon93 #27 Posted 27 January 2019 - 05:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostHundeWurst, on 26 January 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

Type 71 (STB-1) - yes

 

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 27 January 2019 - 04:32 AM, said:

the 121 was in service as designation "type 69"

 

This makes me wonder why WG named it STB-1 and 121 instead of Type 71 and Type 69? Anyone that knows? :unsure:


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 27 January 2019 - 05:11 AM.


HassenderZerhacker #28 Posted 27 January 2019 - 10:54 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31434 battles
  • 3,345
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 27 January 2019 - 05:09 AM, said:

This makes me wonder why WG named it STB-1 and 121 instead of Type 71 and Type 69? Anyone that knows? :unsure:

 

for the Chinese, tanks have a "public name" and a "prototype/design/internal name". WG chose the internal name instead of the tank's common designation in armed forces.

Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 27 January 2019 - 10:54 AM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #29 Posted 27 January 2019 - 12:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9173 battles
  • 6,415
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 27 January 2019 - 05:09 AM, said:

This makes me wonder why WG named it STB-1 and 121 instead of Type 71 and Type 69? Anyone that knows? :unsure:

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 27 January 2019 - 10:54 AM, said:

for the Chinese, tanks have a "public name" and a "prototype/design/internal name". WG chose the internal name instead of the tank's common designation in armed forces.

Not so much a public name in so much as a designation of when it was accepted for service.

And in that regard, the Chinese copied the Japanese system.

Type 3: 2603 (Imperial Japanese Calendar, 1943 CE)

Type 69 = 1969.

Type 74 = 1974.



pudelikael #30 Posted 27 January 2019 - 02:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24847 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015

WOT is a pure fantasy game. 

 

Big tanks must be more viewrange because they are higher.

Small tanks must be less viewrange because they are lower.

It's simple physics  - but not in the game

 

If we compare ELC and Maus, Maus viewrange must be 1 km and ELC 200m  - but not in the game

 

Guns.

The longer the gun is the more accurate and the bullet speed is higher - but not in the game

 

WOT is a fantasy game with tank pictures

 

 

And russiand med tanks like t-54 and t62a turret armor was only 55mm steel  - but not in the game, games this armor is 300mm

Then the Russians thought out Reactive Armor. The Russians did not know how to make steel.


Edited by pudelikael, 27 January 2019 - 02:59 PM.


DracheimFlug #31 Posted 27 January 2019 - 02:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10000 battles
  • 4,277
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

WOT is a pure fantasy game. 

 

Big tanks must be more viewrange because they are higher.

Small tanks must be less viewrange because they are lower.

It's simple physics  - but not in the game

 

If we compare ELC and Maus, Maus viewrange must be 1 km and ELC 200m  - but not in the game

 

Guns.

The longer the gun is the more accurate and the bullet speed is higher - but not in the game

 

WOT is a fantasy game with tank pictures

 

 

Not quite so simple... if the Maus can see the ELC, then the ELC can see the Maus. Again, simple physics. 

XxKuzkina_MatxX #32 Posted 27 January 2019 - 02:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,614
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

WOT is a fantasy game with tank pictures

 

Yet it generates almost half a billion dollars in revenue per year! :)

fighting_falcon93 #33 Posted 27 January 2019 - 04:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

Big tanks must be more viewrange because they are higher.

Small tanks must be less viewrange because they are lower.

 

This is very flawed. What matters the most in tank vision is the viewports, namely how many of them, how large they are, their quality, and the total radius they cover. And this also goes hand in hand with protection. More viewports means more weak points in the armor which means worse armor protection. 

 

Also, on land, the usual limiting factor for how far you can see is based on obstacles in front of you (terrain, trees, smoke etc). So if a tank is 1-2 meters taller doesn't really affect things so much. What you're thinking about is how it works at sea, but there we talk about ship heights that are much more than 1-2 meters in difference and distances that are far greater and than those on land.

 

I'm not saying that the spotting system in WoT is realistic, but what you're describing here is not realistic either.

 

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

Maus viewrange must be 1 km and ELC 200m  - but not in the game

 

No sources, no calculations. Are these numbers coming from your backside? :facepalm:

 

In reality, there is no set "viewrange" in the first place. How far you see is dependant on multiple separate factors, such as the quality of your optics, the shape of the terrain, the weather visibility, obstables, smoke etc. You can have the best binoculars in the world, but if there's vegetation, smoke or fog in the way you might not even see 100 meters in front of you. Same goes for terrain shape, if the terrain is bending upwards, you might see quite far, but if it's bending downwards, you might not see far at all.

 

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

tanks like t-54 and t62a turret armor was only 55mm steel

 

If you want to talk about realism, you seriusly need to stop taking numbers out from your backside. According to wikipedia, the T-54 had 205 mm of armor on the turret front.



pudelikael #34 Posted 27 January 2019 - 05:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24847 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015

Go back to school.

 

Maus is 3.66m height and scope is roof.

Elc is 1,58 m height. 

If you climb the roof of the house, will you see more or less? Ask your father

 

And t-54 turret was steel and composite mix. 

 


Edited by pudelikael, 27 January 2019 - 05:57 PM.


DracheimFlug #35 Posted 27 January 2019 - 06:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10000 battles
  • 4,277
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Go back to school.

 

Maus is 3.66m height and scope is roof.

Elc is 1,58 m height. 

If you climb the roof of the house, will you see more or less?

 

And t-54 turret was steel and composite mix. 

 

 

Regardless, if you can see something from the roof of the house, then the spotter on the roof of the house is likely not hidden from the thing seen. Line of sight is a separate issue from view distance when terrain is unobstructed. This is not naval combat where the majority of terrain is flat subject only to the curvature of the Earth and thus the horizon.

pudelikael #36 Posted 27 January 2019 - 06:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24847 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015

View PostDracheimFlug, on 27 January 2019 - 06:00 PM, said:

 

Regardless, if you can see something from the roof of the house, then the spotter on the roof of the house is likely not hidden from the thing seen. Line of sight is a separate issue from view distance when terrain is unobstructed. This is not naval combat where the majority of terrain is flat subject only to the curvature of the Earth and thus the horizon.

 

:deer:

fighting_falcon93 #37 Posted 27 January 2019 - 06:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Go back to school.

[...]

Ask your father

 

And this is coming from someone that picks numbers from his backside and hasn't presented any calculations or sources to his claims. Statements like that doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes you look even more stupid. If you want to pretend that everyone is a kid and you're an adult, maybe you should first learn to discuss as an adult?

 

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Maus is 3.66m height and scope is roof.

Elc is 1,58 m height. 

If you climb the roof of the house, will you see more or less?

 

You have to live in a very tiny house if the difference between the ground and the roof is 2 meters.

 

Anyhow. Do you understand how long distance is required for you to benefit from those 2 meters of extra height? I don't think that you understand what absurd distances we're talking about. Usually at land, you can't see that far anyway, because your vision is blocked by terrain irregularities, vegetation, obstacles, etc.

 

Maybe you should read a bit here instead of telling others to go back to school. Here's an image from that link:

 

 

Then once again, you need to remember that on land, you have terrain with ridges and vegetation and obstacles that will block your sight long before you get any real use of those extra 2 meters height.



FluffyRedFox #38 Posted 28 January 2019 - 01:38 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 25286 battles
  • 9,150
  • [FLOOF] FLOOF
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 27 January 2019 - 04:09 AM, said:

 

 

This makes me wonder why WG named it STB-1 and 121 instead of Type 71 and Type 69? Anyone that knows? :unsure:

STB-1 was named since at the time, WG cared about having a limit on how recent a tank is with the cutoff point being around 1970. STB-1 was chosen since it appeared in 1968 while the Type 74 came in 1974.

As for the 121 and Type 69, they're completely different tanks. The Type 69 is essentially just a Type 59 upgraded with either a smoothbore 100mm or an L7, with a few upgrades elsewhere like a better engine and better rangefinders etc.

Not sure whether the 121 actually existed or not, but this is probably the closest we can get to it.


HassenderZerhacker #39 Posted 28 January 2019 - 01:46 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31434 battles
  • 3,345
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostFluffyRedFox, on 28 January 2019 - 01:38 AM, said:

As for the 121 and Type 69, they're completely different tanks.

 

you might want to correct the Wikipedia article then:

https://en.wikipedia...hina#Type_69/79

 



TankkiPoju #40 Posted 28 January 2019 - 09:15 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 23743 battles
  • 7,356
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Postpudelikael, on 27 January 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Go back to school.

 

Maus is 3.66m height and scope is roof.

Elc is 1,58 m height. 

If you climb the roof of the house, will you see more or less? Ask your father

 

Sure that makes sense, but like already said... WoT is a fantasy game. It's hardly realistic anyway. Otherwise why would light tanks be spotting for super heavies in the first place. Or arties shooting single tanks.

 

Also, tanks like Obj430U and Obj140 etc are quite flat so they have very good stationary camo in WoT - but still have 400m view range. Maybe some WoT balance expert can explain why Obj430U has 36.5% stationary camo with a camo crew :)

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users