Jump to content


A detailed analysis of the BT-42-problem.

BT-42 proposal detailed

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

M5A1 #1 Posted 07 February 2019 - 11:46 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

Hello commanders,

recently I've begun to think about the BT-42 again. A tank that fascinated me from the moment on when I first saw it in Battlefield 42: Forgotten Hope.

I know that the BT-42 has been requested from tank enthusiasts around the world multiple times now and I think I figured out the reasons why it still isn't implemented in the game. In the following thread I aim to deliver an overview over the tank, the problems associated with it and possible solutions.

History
The problems with the BT-42 in the game

 

Some basic points

The BT-42 should ideally be of a higher tier than the BT-7A that it was influenced by and be of a lower tier than the T-34/76 it could not destroy. The only choice that fits these requirements is tier IV. When looking over to the soviet tanks of this tier, especially the T-28, this choice seems reasonable.

It has a three-man-crew: A commander (who also works as radio operator and gunner), a loader and a driver. 

The weight is 15.3t, the engine is a Mikulin M-17T with 500HP. The armor does not really differ from the BT-7 with 6-13mm on the hull and up to 16mm on the turret.

 

When looking into the list of premium vehicles (later more about why I consider the BT-42 as a premium) you'll notice that there are a lot of tier II and tier III as well as tier V and VI premiums but only five tier IV prems of which only one is being sold regularly. The Valentine II is not really considered a tank worth driving which leaves us with a need of more (competetive) vehicles here. People ask me about useful tier IV prems a lot and I can't really recommend them one (when the T-28 and the B2 are not in store) so I guess we have a possible market here that WG could use. A lot of players who are not really happy with playing high tiers anymore go down to lower tiers where they drive Hetzers and Marders and KV-220s or Pz I Cs and would probably buy a BT-42 for the credits, the crew and the fun (The tank has also a relatively large fan-base not only because it was more or less the only "real" Finnish tank but also because it played a relatively large role in Girls und Panzer: Der Film).

 

Nation

A Finnish tech tree would not make any sense because there were not really a lot of more or less domestic tank projects apart from the BT-42, infantry-carriers aside. 

Now there are three options for the placement of this tank as a premium into an already existing tech tree:

  1. USSR: The BT-42 was based on a Soviet tank and roughly half of the vehicle wasn't modified so it would be possible to put the tank in this tree. The historical problem here is, that the BT-42 exclusively fought against Soviet tanks so this would be a bit weird. Plus, the USSR already has three tier IV premium tanks (The T-28E, the A-32 and the Valentine II) out of only five tier IV premiums that are already in the game.
  2. Germany: To be honest, the tank did not have a lot of German engineering in it. The licensed shells alone are not a reason to put the BT-42 here. But I see some similarities to the Toldi and the Turan which were also squeezed into the German tree because these tanks closely operated with the German tanks on the eastern front. And even though the Germans and the Finns did not work together that well, it would be a possible and plausible option for WoT. Regarding the tier IV premium tanks, the Germans only have the Pz B2, which is sold relatively rarely. Another plus for the Germans is that their base color is relatively close to the grey which the Finns used on their tanks.
  3. UK: The outsider on this list but still a possible home for the BT. The guns that were arguably the core of and the reason for the BT-42s came from the UK. The British tech tree features the AC1 Sentinel as a Premium tank which is the last of the tier IV premiums. Another plus for the UK is the fact that the British tree features the least premium vehicles of all these nations. But when considering premiums, we also need to notice that the Sexton is one of only two premium SPGs currently in the game (with the other being the infamous french LeFH18B2) so when thinking about introducting the BT-42 as a SPG (later more) the UK may not be the nation of choice.

 

Gun characteristics

When placing the BT-42 on tier IV we immediately notice that it will regularly encounter T-34 tanks which it failed to destroy in real life. This problem is not really as complicated as it may seem because the gun which the BT-42 uses is already implemented in the game. The tier V SPG "Bishop" from the British tree already uses the Q.F. 4,5 inch howitzer Mark II and has no problems damaging a T-34. On this tank it does 450 damage with a HE-penetration of 28mm and takes about 12.5 sec to reload. Obviously when considering a down-tiering of this gun, the reload should be made longer, maybe to 15 or 16 seconds. I'd even propose a small buff to accuracy and a noticeable buff to dispersion values and an even longer reload close to, but under, 20 seconds. We'll talk about this more when we get to the tank class discussion.

Side note: When the BT-42 would be introduced in the British tree, the fact that the tank uses the researcheable Q.F. 4,5 inch from the tech tree wouldn't be a problem as the Finns named their guns 114 Psv.H/18.

As far as ammunition is concerned, I'd propose the choice between standard HEAT ammunition with around 50-60mm of penetration and the already implemented HE-shell with no option to shoot premium shells.

 

Tank class

This would be by far the hardest decision when implementing the BT-42. Basically, there are three options: Putting the BT-42 as a light tank, as a tank destroyer and as a SPG. In the following part, I try to analyse these options and their effect on gameplay.

Light Tank: A light tank would be the first guess because it is the same thing that WG did with the BT-7A and the KV-2: When encountering such a hybrid in the development process, simply take the class of the vehicle that is is based on. 

A LT BT-42 could be a tank with relatively high view range due to the large turret, but horrible camo values due to said turret. It would play somehow similar to the T49 or the Sheridan from the US techtree. It could also be easily compared to the BT-7A. The pros of this tank would be the very high alpha, similar to the Hetzer, the relatively good camo on the move and the 360° turret. The cons would be a very long reload, bad camo values and a somewhat sluggish behavior as far as mobility is concerned - especially on soft terrain.

The main argument against this solution is, that it would be too similar to the BT-7A, just a little more extreme (compared with the standard BT-7).

Tank Destroyer: The main argument for this solution is that this gun can only be matched up against other guns of this caliber. The MM matches tanks using the tanks classes, so a hypothetical match where team A had 10 light tanks and team B had 10 light tanks of which one is a BT-42, team B would most likely have an advantage (okay this point is very debatable, but you can see this very problem with the Valentine / Valentine II). When choosing this solution, you could also limit the turret traverse to about 240° to add another con in exchange for an additional accuracy and/or dispersion buff. This would make the BT-42 a relatively fast half-turreted derp-support-2nd line support TD. It would be relatively similar to the StuG III B but with worse armor and a larger hull (and therefore worse camo).

SPG: When I say "SPG", I first have to note that I am not talking about the typical redline-kemping-bush-sitting apocalypse from above. I'm rather talking about an arty-light-hybrid similar to the FV304, but even more like a light tank.

This may sound insanely overpowered but I think I had a really nice idea for a balanced and unique tank there. Let me explain:

The SPG-BT-42 I have in mind would play similar to the LT-BT-42 described above. You can support your team from the 2nd line, take some key points with your relatively good speed (compared to tier IV mediums, heavies and TDs) and have to be very careful with your reload. At the same time, you can activate the arty aiming mode to accurately deal damage over hills and a bit larger distances. 

To make this work it is important that this hybrid needs to have multiple disadvantages that makes it ill-suited for the role of SPG or light alone. I have a few ideas regarding this topic:

Disadvantages vs. light: The main disadvantage against every light the BT-42 encounters is that it can't use the sniper view. Players have to rely on the rather "inaccurate" arcade view which make shootouts over medium distances a lot harder. Another important thing to notice is that SPGs have worse camo values than lights while moving or shooting, regardless of base camo. So a SPG-BT-42 would be spotted earlier than a LT-BT-42 with the same base camo value. Another disadvantage when playing the tank as a light would be the "focus factor": When players see arty being spotted, they prefer to take it out as soon as possible. The BT-42 would be a tank that was to be focused a lot, limiting the effectiveness on the frontline a bit. Atop of this, the tank has the aforementioned downsides of rather bad mobility compared to the other lights, and a large size.

Disadvantages vs. SPG: We really don't want another LeFH in the game so we need to see how we could make the tank not too OP in it's "arty mode". The Bishop already gives us half of the solution: Limit the gun range. I think, when taking the good mobility and the lower tier into account, we can even limit the range 20-30m more. A second change would be obvious when regarding the light-role the BT would be in: The shooting arc needs to be flattened a lot. This increases the BTs capabilities as a light a bit and decreases the BTs capability as a pure arty a lot because it can't shoot behind a lot of hills from the own base.

This balancing process is similar to the Italian revolver-autoloader which is worse than a single-shot gun as far as DPM is concerned and also does not match autoloaders in their burst damage.

Generally speaking, a SPG-BT-42 would have relatively good accuracy (for a SPG) and very good dispersion values while moving and turning the turret so it can also fulfill the direct-combat role. The question of HP is a hard one, it should be somewhere between tier IV lights and tier IV arties. 

Side note: Another plus for the SPG-BT would be the crew-training aspect: the UK, Germany and the USSR have arty lines and players wished for arty crewtrainers before. Here we need to consider that the UK already has a premium arty (even though it's hardly sold) so other countries should be given this SPG into the tree for balance reasons.

EDIT: According to Dava_117, implementing the BT-42 as SPG would mean that it can't use HEAT. So that would be a downside for this variant as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

 

I personally am in favor of the SPG option because it would add a vehicle to the game which is helpful for the team, unique and not overpowered or frustrating for enemy players. Also, with this option we have the problem #4 out of our way.

 

You will note that I did not use a lot of specific numbers in this text. Apart from alpha damage and maybe HE penetration, every single value is highly debatable and controversial, especially considering the different possible tank classes. For each concept there would be a whole new set of stats so I decided not to go into detail too much and keep this thread as slim as possible. The detailed balancing would be WGs job anyway.

 

Gallery

 

Thank you for reading this thread. I'd be happy if you share this text and tell me your opinion, especially on my unconventional idea of a light-SPG-hybrid. Maybe we can get a small lobby for the BT-42.

 

See you on the battlefield,

M5A1 / Liner


Edited by M5A1, 07 February 2019 - 04:10 PM.


Captain_Kremen0 #2 Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37998 battles
  • 1,727
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
Over to QPRanger

MeetriX #3 Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:32 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 3,035
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

Hmm...

So, any reason why it should be in the game?



PayMore #4 Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:33 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24342 battles
  • 189
  • Member since:
    05-24-2013

View PostM5A1, on 07 February 2019 - 10:46 AM, said:

Hello commanders,

recently I've begun to think about the BT-42 again. A tank that fascinated me from the moment on when I first saw it in Battlefield 42: Forgotten Hope.

I know that the BT-42 has been requested from tank enthusiasts around the world multiple times now and I think I figured out the reasons why it still isn't implemented in the game. In the following thread I aim to deliver an overview over the tank, the problems associated with it and possible solutions.

History
The problems with the BT-42 in the game

 

Some basic points

The BT-42 should ideally be of a higher tier than the BT-7A that it was influenced by and be of a lower tier than the T-34/76 it could not destroy. The only choice that fits these requirements is tier IV. When looking over to the soviet tanks of this tier, especially the T-28, this choice seems reasonable.

It has a three-man-crew: A commander (who also works as radio operator and gunner), a loader and a driver. 

The weight is 15.3t, the engine is a Mikulin M-17T with 500HP. The armor does not really differ from the BT-7 with 6-13mm on the hull and up to 16mm on the turret.

 

When looking into the list of premium vehicles (later more about why I consider the BT-42 as a premium) you'll notice that there are a lot of tier II and tier III as well as tier V and VI premiums but only five tier IV prems of which only one is being sold regularly. The Valentine II is not really considered a tank worth driving which leaves us with a need of more (competetive) vehicles here. People ask me about useful tier IV prems a lot and I can't really recommend them one (when the T-28 and the B2 are not in store) so I guess we have a possible market here that WG could use. A lot of players who are not really happy with playing high tiers anymore go down to lower tiers where they drive Hetzers and Marders and KV-220s or Pz I Cs and would probably buy a BT-42 for the credits, the crew and the fun (The tank has also a relatively large fan-base not only because it was more or less the only "real" Finnish tank but also because it played a relatively large role in Girls und Panzer: Der Film).

 

Nation

A Finnish tech tree would not make any sense because there were not really a lot of more or less domestic tank projects apart from the BT-42, infantry-carriers aside. 

Now there are three options for the placement of this tank as a premium into an already existing tech tree:

  1. USSR: The BT-42 was based on a Soviet tank and roughly half of the vehicle wasn't modified so it would be possible to put the tank in this tree. The historical problem here is, that the BT-42 exclusively fought against Soviet tanks so this would be a bit weird. Plus, the USSR already has three tier IV premium tanks (The T-28E, the A-32 and the Valentine II) out of only five tier IV premiums that are already in the game.
  2. Germany: To be honest, the tank did not have a lot of German engineering in it. The licensed shells alone are not a reason to put the BT-42 here. But I see some similarities to the Toldi and the Turan which were also squeezed into the German tree because these tanks closely operated with the German tanks on the eastern front. And even though the Germans and the Finns did not work together that well, it would be a possible and plausible option for WoT. Regarding the tier IV premium tanks, the Germans only have the Pz B2, which is sold relatively rarely. Another plus for the Germans is that their base color is relatively close to the grey which the Finns used on their tanks.
  3. UK: The outsider on this list but still a possible home for the BT. The guns that were arguably the core of and the reason for the BT-42s came from the UK. The British tech tree features the AC1 Sentinel as a Premium tank which is the last of the tier IV premiums. Another plus for the UK is the fact that the British tree features the least premium vehicles of all these nations. But when considering premiums, we also need to notice that the Sexton is one of only two premium SPGs currently in the game (with the other being the infamous french LeFH18B2) so when thinking about introducting the BT-42 as a SPG (later more) the UK may not be the nation of choice.

 

Gun characteristics

When placing the BT-42 on tier IV we immediately notice that it will regularly encounter T-34 tanks which it failed to destroy in real life. This problem is not really as complicated as it may seem because the gun which the BT-42 uses is already implemented in the game. The tier V SPG "Bishop" from the British tree already uses the Q.F. 4,5 inch howitzer Mark II and has no problems damaging a T-34. On this tank it does 450 damage with a HE-penetration of 28mm and takes about 12.5 sec to reload. Obviously when considering a down-tiering of this gun, the reload should be made longer, maybe to 15 or 16 seconds. I'd even propose a small buff to accuracy and a noticeable buff to dispersion values and an even longer reload close to, but under, 20 seconds. We'll talk about this more when we get to the tank class discussion.

Side note: When the BT-42 would be introduced in the British tree, the fact that the tank uses the researcheable Q.F. 4,5 inch from the tech tree wouldn't be a problem as the Finns named their guns 114 Psv.H/18.

As far as ammunition is concerned, I'd propose the choice between standard HEAT ammunition with around 50-60mm of penetration and the already implemented HE-shell with no option to shoot premium shells.

 

Tank class

This would be by far the hardest decision when implementing the BT-42. Basically, there are three options: Putting the BT-42 as a light tank, as a tank destroyer and as a SPG. In the following part, I try to analyse these options and their effect on gameplay.

Light Tank: A light tank would be the first guess because it is the same thing that WG did with the BT-7A and the KV-2: When encountering such a hybrid in the development process, simply take the class of the vehicle that is is based on. 

A LT BT-42 could be a tank with relatively high view range due to the large turret, but horrible camo values due to said turret. It would play somehow similar to the T49 or the Sheridan from the US techtree. It could also be easily compared to the BT-7A. The pros of this tank would be the very high alpha, similar to the Hetzer, the relatively good camo on the move and the 360° turret. The cons would be a very long reload, bad camo values and a somewhat sluggish behavior as far as mobility is concerned - especially on soft terrain.

The main argument against this solution is, that it would be too similar to the BT-7A, just a little more extreme (compared with the standard BT-7).

Tank Destroyer: The main argument for this solution is that this gun can only be matched up against other guns of this caliber. The MM matches tanks using the tanks classes, so a hypothetical match where team A had 10 light tanks and team B had 10 light tanks of which one is a BT-42, team B would most likely have an advantage (okay this point is very debatable, but you can see this very problem with the Valentine / Valentine II). When choosing this solution, you could also limit the turret traverse to about 240° to add another con in exchange for an additional accuracy and/or dispersion buff. This would make the BT-42 a relatively fast half-turreted derp-support-2nd line support TD. It would be relatively similar to the StuG III B but with worse armor and a larger hull (and therefore worse camo).

SPG: When I say "SPG", I first have to note that I am not talking about the typical redline-kemping-bush-sitting apocalypse from above. I'm rather talking about an arty-light-hybrid similar to the FV304, but even more like a light tank.

This may sound insanely overpowered but I think I had a really nice idea for a balanced and unique tank there. Let me explain:

The SPG-BT-42 I have in mind would play similar to the LT-BT-42 described above. You can support your team from the 2nd line, take some key points with your relatively good speed (compared to tier IV mediums, heavies and TDs) and have to be very careful with your reload. At the same time, you can activate the arty aiming mode to accurately deal damage over hills and a bit larger distances. 

To make this work it is important that this hybrid needs to have multiple disadvantages that makes it ill-suited for the role of SPG or light alone. I have a few ideas regarding this topic:

Disadvantages vs. light: The main disadvantage against every light the BT-42 encounters is that it can't use the sniper view. Players have to rely on the rather "inaccurate" arcade view which make shootouts over medium distances a lot harder. Another important thing to notice is that SPGs have worse camo values than lights while moving or shooting, regardless of base camo. So a SPG-BT-42 would be spotted earlier than a LT-BT-42 with the same base camo value. Another disadvantage when playing the tank as a light would be the "focus factor": When players see arty being spotted, they prefer to take it out as soon as possible. The BT-42 would be a tank that was to be focused a lot, limiting the effectiveness on the frontline a bit. Atop of this, the tank has the aforementioned downsides of rather bad mobility compared to the other lights, and a large size.

Disadvantages vs. SPG: We really don't want another LeFH in the game so we need to see how we could make the tank not too OP in it's "arty mode". The Bishop already gives us half of the solution: Limit the gun range. I think, when taking the good mobility and the lower tier into account, we can even limit the range 20-30m more. A second change would be obvious when regarding the light-role the BT would be in: The shooting arc needs to be flattened a lot. This increases the BTs capabilities as a light a bit and decreases the BTs capability as a pure arty a lot because it can't shoot behind a lot of hills from the own base.

This balancing process is similar to the Italian revolver-autoloader which is worse than a single-shot gun as far as DPM is concerned and also does not match autoloaders in their burst damage.

Generally speaking, a SPG-BT-42 would have relatively good accuracy (for a SPG) and very good dispersion values while moving and turning the turret so it can also fulfill the direct-combat role. The question of HP is a hard one, it should be somewhere between tier IV lights and tier IV arties. 

Side note: Another plus for the SPG-BT would be the crew-training aspect: the UK, Germany and the USSR have arty lines and players wished for arty crewtrainers before. Here we need to consider that the UK already has a premium arty (even though it's hardly sold) so other countries should be given this SPG into the tree for balance reasons.

I personally am in favor of the SPG option because it would add a vehicle to the game which is helpful for the team, unique and not overpowered or frustrating for enemy players. Also, with this option we have the problem #4 out of our way.

 

You will note that I did not use a lot of specific numbers in this text. Apart from alpha damage and maybe HE penetration, every single value is highly debatable and controversial, especially considering the different possible tank classes. For each concept there would be a whole new set of stats so I decided not to go into detail too much and keep this thread as slim as possible. The detailed balancing would be WGs job anyway.

 

Gallery

 

Thank you for reading this thread. I'd be happy if you share this text and tell me your opinion, especially on my unconventional idea of a light-SPG-hybrid. Maybe we can get a small lobby for the BT-42.

 

See you on the battlefield,

M5A1 / Liner

 

 

Ypu should shorten this to about  max 100 word and translate it to russian.



tumppi776 #5 Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:37 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 45292 battles
  • 2,404
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014
Just play the bt7art....

M5A1 #6 Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:48 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View Posttumppi776, on 07 February 2019 - 12:37 PM, said:

Just play the bt7art....

 

 I tried to point out how the BT-42 could make a difference to the BT-7A. So that you... you know... could actually enjoy both tanks?

Well, to go a bit more into detail: Important are two things: At first we have the higher tier which allows for a greater variety of maps more often (also see below). And the second thing is that I doubt that this BT-42 would play similar to the BT-7A, regardlesss if it was to be implemented as a light, arty or TD. The sluggishness would not allow for too aggressive maneuvers for example. Don't overestimate the BT chassis, the extra weight is considerably higher than on the -7A. 

 

 

View PostMeetriX, on 07 February 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:

Hmm...

So, any reason why it should be in the game?

 

  • More choice when it comes to tier IV premium tanks. Not only for the experienced players who play lowtiers a lot but also for people who are kind of new to the game and don't want to buy more expensive tier VI, VII or tier VIII tanks right away. There are a lot of tier III premiums in the game that would suit this purpose but unfortunately, tier IIIs see only Abbey, Himmelsdorf and Mines unless being in a lowtier match. Therefore, tier IV is a much more enjoyable tier for most players who don't want to play hightiers for whichever reason (as you can get on most of the maps).
  • Regarding on nation and tank class more choice when it comes to crew trainers, especially when considering the SPG variant. For example, there is only one Premium German light tank in the game which is higher than tier III and not a single british one.
  • It would be a nice tank for people collecting historical vehicles. I know some players who try to drive only historical vehicles and bought the Tiger 131 or the Firefly VC only because of it's history.
  • It would also be a nice sign of approval to the Finnish community. I bet the Finns here would like one of "their" vehicles in the game. I can't really see if this is really a point because I am not from Finland myself and don't know about the mentality.
  • It could be a relatively unique tank regarding its gameplay, depending on how WG implements the vehicle. Plus, in my opinion, more vehicles are always a good thing for WoT as long as they are not imbalanced or almost exact copies (like the type 58). It would add some extra variety to the game. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Dava_117 #7 Posted 07 February 2019 - 01:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20900 battles
  • 4,045
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Spoiler

 

A reason too not make it as an SPG is that it wouldn't be allowed to keep the HEAT shell.

 

IMO as LT may be fun. Give it 15 sec reload, bad shell velocity (300-400 m/s) and bas dispersion so it actually have to get close to be effective and you're golden.

A 350 alpha 50-60mm pen HEAT round and a 420-450 alpha 30-40 pen HE as ammo should be good (Hetzer or derp T40 level). 

Don't know if it would add much to the game, but I'm quite sure it would have its estimator.


Edited by Dava_117, 07 February 2019 - 01:34 PM.


M5A1 #8 Posted 07 February 2019 - 01:42 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View PostDava_117, on 07 February 2019 - 01:33 PM, said:

A reason too not make it as an SPG is that it wouldn't be allowed to keep the HEAT shell.

Hm, I did not see that as a problem because I don't play a lot of arty anymore. When I do, I play LeFH which has the option to use HEAT.

Edited the topic!


Edited by M5A1, 07 February 2019 - 01:44 PM.


Dava_117 #9 Posted 07 February 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20900 battles
  • 4,045
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostM5A1, on 07 February 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

Hm, I did not see that as a problem because I don't play a lot of arty anymore. When I do, I play LeFH which has the option to use HEAT.

Edited the topic!

 

LeFH is an old premium and, because premium can't be nerfed, survived both the arty nerfs unchanged. :)

M5A1 #10 Posted 07 February 2019 - 02:31 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View PostDava_117, on 07 February 2019 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

LeFH is an old premium and, because premium can't be nerfed, survived both the arty nerfs unchanged. :)

 

Mhm I see. In this case, HEAT would have to be changed to AP, which is as far as I am informed, already the plan for all standard ammunition shells. This would more or less (due to their penetration drop over time) emulate the problem with the fuses which the shell had :teethhappy:.

 

 

Bytheway @moderation: If you know a better place for this thread, please feel free to move it around as you like. 



seXikanac #11 Posted 07 February 2019 - 07:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12578 battles
  • 748
  • [-YU-] -YU-
  • Member since:
    09-27-2012

View PostM5A1, on 07 February 2019 - 11:46 AM, said:

Hello commanders,

recently I've begun to think about the BT-42 again. A tank that fascinated me from the moment on when I first saw it in Battlefield 42: Forgotten Hope.

I know that the BT-42 has been requested from tank enthusiasts around the world multiple times now and I think I figured out the reasons why it still isn't implemented in the game. In the following thread I aim to deliver an overview over the tank, the problems associated with it and possible solutions.

History
The problems with the BT-42 in the game

 

Some basic points

The BT-42 should ideally be of a higher tier than the BT-7A that it was influenced by and be of a lower tier than the T-34/76 it could not destroy. The only choice that fits these requirements is tier IV. When looking over to the soviet tanks of this tier, especially the T-28, this choice seems reasonable.

It has a three-man-crew: A commander (who also works as radio operator and gunner), a loader and a driver. 

The weight is 15.3t, the engine is a Mikulin M-17T with 500HP. The armor does not really differ from the BT-7 with 6-13mm on the hull and up to 16mm on the turret.

 

When looking into the list of premium vehicles (later more about why I consider the BT-42 as a premium) you'll notice that there are a lot of tier II and tier III as well as tier V and VI premiums but only five tier IV prems of which only one is being sold regularly. The Valentine II is not really considered a tank worth driving which leaves us with a need of more (competetive) vehicles here. People ask me about useful tier IV prems a lot and I can't really recommend them one (when the T-28 and the B2 are not in store) so I guess we have a possible market here that WG could use. A lot of players who are not really happy with playing high tiers anymore go down to lower tiers where they drive Hetzers and Marders and KV-220s or Pz I Cs and would probably buy a BT-42 for the credits, the crew and the fun (The tank has also a relatively large fan-base not only because it was more or less the only "real" Finnish tank but also because it played a relatively large role in Girls und Panzer: Der Film).

 

Nation

A Finnish tech tree would not make any sense because there were not really a lot of more or less domestic tank projects apart from the BT-42, infantry-carriers aside. 

Now there are three options for the placement of this tank as a premium into an already existing tech tree:

  1. USSR: The BT-42 was based on a Soviet tank and roughly half of the vehicle wasn't modified so it would be possible to put the tank in this tree. The historical problem here is, that the BT-42 exclusively fought against Soviet tanks so this would be a bit weird. Plus, the USSR already has three tier IV premium tanks (The T-28E, the A-32 and the Valentine II) out of only five tier IV premiums that are already in the game.
  2. Germany: To be honest, the tank did not have a lot of German engineering in it. The licensed shells alone are not a reason to put the BT-42 here. But I see some similarities to the Toldi and the Turan which were also squeezed into the German tree because these tanks closely operated with the German tanks on the eastern front. And even though the Germans and the Finns did not work together that well, it would be a possible and plausible option for WoT. Regarding the tier IV premium tanks, the Germans only have the Pz B2, which is sold relatively rarely. Another plus for the Germans is that their base color is relatively close to the grey which the Finns used on their tanks.
  3. UK: The outsider on this list but still a possible home for the BT. The guns that were arguably the core of and the reason for the BT-42s came from the UK. The British tech tree features the AC1 Sentinel as a Premium tank which is the last of the tier IV premiums. Another plus for the UK is the fact that the British tree features the least premium vehicles of all these nations. But when considering premiums, we also need to notice that the Sexton is one of only two premium SPGs currently in the game (with the other being the infamous french LeFH18B2) so when thinking about introducting the BT-42 as a SPG (later more) the UK may not be the nation of choice.

 

Gun characteristics

When placing the BT-42 on tier IV we immediately notice that it will regularly encounter T-34 tanks which it failed to destroy in real life. This problem is not really as complicated as it may seem because the gun which the BT-42 uses is already implemented in the game. The tier V SPG "Bishop" from the British tree already uses the Q.F. 4,5 inch howitzer Mark II and has no problems damaging a T-34. On this tank it does 450 damage with a HE-penetration of 28mm and takes about 12.5 sec to reload. Obviously when considering a down-tiering of this gun, the reload should be made longer, maybe to 15 or 16 seconds. I'd even propose a small buff to accuracy and a noticeable buff to dispersion values and an even longer reload close to, but under, 20 seconds. We'll talk about this more when we get to the tank class discussion.

Side note: When the BT-42 would be introduced in the British tree, the fact that the tank uses the researcheable Q.F. 4,5 inch from the tech tree wouldn't be a problem as the Finns named their guns 114 Psv.H/18.

As far as ammunition is concerned, I'd propose the choice between standard HEAT ammunition with around 50-60mm of penetration and the already implemented HE-shell with no option to shoot premium shells.

 

Tank class

This would be by far the hardest decision when implementing the BT-42. Basically, there are three options: Putting the BT-42 as a light tank, as a tank destroyer and as a SPG. In the following part, I try to analyse these options and their effect on gameplay.

Light Tank: A light tank would be the first guess because it is the same thing that WG did with the BT-7A and the KV-2: When encountering such a hybrid in the development process, simply take the class of the vehicle that is is based on. 

A LT BT-42 could be a tank with relatively high view range due to the large turret, but horrible camo values due to said turret. It would play somehow similar to the T49 or the Sheridan from the US techtree. It could also be easily compared to the BT-7A. The pros of this tank would be the very high alpha, similar to the Hetzer, the relatively good camo on the move and the 360° turret. The cons would be a very long reload, bad camo values and a somewhat sluggish behavior as far as mobility is concerned - especially on soft terrain.

The main argument against this solution is, that it would be too similar to the BT-7A, just a little more extreme (compared with the standard BT-7).

Tank Destroyer: The main argument for this solution is that this gun can only be matched up against other guns of this caliber. The MM matches tanks using the tanks classes, so a hypothetical match where team A had 10 light tanks and team B had 10 light tanks of which one is a BT-42, team B would most likely have an advantage (okay this point is very debatable, but you can see this very problem with the Valentine / Valentine II). When choosing this solution, you could also limit the turret traverse to about 240° to add another con in exchange for an additional accuracy and/or dispersion buff. This would make the BT-42 a relatively fast half-turreted derp-support-2nd line support TD. It would be relatively similar to the StuG III B but with worse armor and a larger hull (and therefore worse camo).

SPG: When I say "SPG", I first have to note that I am not talking about the typical redline-kemping-bush-sitting apocalypse from above. I'm rather talking about an arty-light-hybrid similar to the FV304, but even more like a light tank.

This may sound insanely overpowered but I think I had a really nice idea for a balanced and unique tank there. Let me explain:

The SPG-BT-42 I have in mind would play similar to the LT-BT-42 described above. You can support your team from the 2nd line, take some key points with your relatively good speed (compared to tier IV mediums, heavies and TDs) and have to be very careful with your reload. At the same time, you can activate the arty aiming mode to accurately deal damage over hills and a bit larger distances. 

To make this work it is important that this hybrid needs to have multiple disadvantages that makes it ill-suited for the role of SPG or light alone. I have a few ideas regarding this topic:

Disadvantages vs. light: The main disadvantage against every light the BT-42 encounters is that it can't use the sniper view. Players have to rely on the rather "inaccurate" arcade view which make shootouts over medium distances a lot harder. Another important thing to notice is that SPGs have worse camo values than lights while moving or shooting, regardless of base camo. So a SPG-BT-42 would be spotted earlier than a LT-BT-42 with the same base camo value. Another disadvantage when playing the tank as a light would be the "focus factor": When players see arty being spotted, they prefer to take it out as soon as possible. The BT-42 would be a tank that was to be focused a lot, limiting the effectiveness on the frontline a bit. Atop of this, the tank has the aforementioned downsides of rather bad mobility compared to the other lights, and a large size.

Disadvantages vs. SPG: We really don't want another LeFH in the game so we need to see how we could make the tank not too OP in it's "arty mode". The Bishop already gives us half of the solution: Limit the gun range. I think, when taking the good mobility and the lower tier into account, we can even limit the range 20-30m more. A second change would be obvious when regarding the light-role the BT would be in: The shooting arc needs to be flattened a lot. This increases the BTs capabilities as a light a bit and decreases the BTs capability as a pure arty a lot because it can't shoot behind a lot of hills from the own base.

This balancing process is similar to the Italian revolver-autoloader which is worse than a single-shot gun as far as DPM is concerned and also does not match autoloaders in their burst damage.

Generally speaking, a SPG-BT-42 would have relatively good accuracy (for a SPG) and very good dispersion values while moving and turning the turret so it can also fulfill the direct-combat role. The question of HP is a hard one, it should be somewhere between tier IV lights and tier IV arties. 

Side note: Another plus for the SPG-BT would be the crew-training aspect: the UK, Germany and the USSR have arty lines and players wished for arty crewtrainers before. Here we need to consider that the UK already has a premium arty (even though it's hardly sold) so other countries should be given this SPG into the tree for balance reasons.

EDIT: According to Dava_117, implementing the BT-42 as SPG would mean that it can't use HEAT. So that would be a downside for this variant as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

 

I personally am in favor of the SPG option because it would add a vehicle to the game which is helpful for the team, unique and not overpowered or frustrating for enemy players. Also, with this option we have the problem #4 out of our way.

 

You will note that I did not use a lot of specific numbers in this text. Apart from alpha damage and maybe HE penetration, every single value is highly debatable and controversial, especially considering the different possible tank classes. For each concept there would be a whole new set of stats so I decided not to go into detail too much and keep this thread as slim as possible. The detailed balancing would be WGs job anyway.

 

Gallery

 

Thank you for reading this thread. I'd be happy if you share this text and tell me your opinion, especially on my unconventional idea of a light-SPG-hybrid. Maybe we can get a small lobby for the BT-42.

 

See you on the battlefield,

M5A1 / Liner

 

First of all, what is continuation war? Are you referring to Finns (Suomi) siding with Nazis against USSR? We aren't all Finns :D Second, good work on exploring all data

M5A1 #12 Posted 07 February 2019 - 07:54 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View PostseXikanac, on 07 February 2019 - 07:29 PM, said:

 

First of all, what is continuation war? Are you referring to Finns (Suomi) siding with Nazis against USSR? We aren't all Finns :D Second, good work on exploring all data

 

Finland fought in two wars against the USSR. The winter war from 30th November 1939 until 13th March 1940. This is called Talvisota by the Finnish. The war ended with the USSR getting a part of karelia. Wikipedia.

The second one was the continuation war from '41 to '44 which was started by Finland to regain said part of karelia. This was the war fought alongside Nazi Germany. It is called "Jatkosota" by the finnish. Wikipedia.

 

Hope this helped :)



Captain_Kremen0 #13 Posted 08 February 2019 - 08:45 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37998 battles
  • 1,727
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostM5A1, on 07 February 2019 - 06:54 PM, said:

 

Finland fought in two wars against the USSR. The winter war from 30th November 1939 until 13th March 1940. This is called Talvisota by the Finnish. The war ended with the USSR getting a part of karelia. Wikipedia.

The second one was the continuation war from '41 to '44 which was started by Finland to regain said part of karelia. This was the war fought alongside Nazi Germany. It is called "Jatkosota" by the finnish. Wikipedia.

 

Hope this helped :)

Bet your not so good on the horses either



XxKuzkina_MatxX #14 Posted 08 February 2019 - 08:49 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53179 battles
  • 2,707
  • [_B-R_] _B-R_
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostCaptain_Kremen0, on 08 February 2019 - 09:45 AM, said:

Bet your not so good on the horses either

 

They were tough as nails and i bet they still are unlike other nations!

M5A1 #15 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:02 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View PostCaptain_Kremen0, on 08 February 2019 - 08:45 AM, said:

Bet your not so good on the horses either

 

I don't even know what you are trying to discuss here but I'm sure that it ain't the tank.

BR33K1_PAWAH #16 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:04 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4862 battles
  • 1,062
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018
The power of nerd is strong with this one.

M5A1 #17 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:06 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

:mellow:

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a bad thing... or a good one.



arthurwellsley #18 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:15 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 52684 battles
  • 3,389
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Nice work by the OP

 

1. I vote for light tank role much like the BT-7A. A premium SPG would be masively unpopular with at least half the player base. Although if it were a UK premium arty it would sell very well as a crew trainer because the Conqueror Gun Carriage is a very popular arty in tier X clan wars.

 

2. As to nation I orginally thought German as the Finns allied with the Germans for the Continuation war, and as the OP points out the grey colours of the two nations are quite similar. But actually I am leaning more to the UK. Please note OP the Sexton 1 premium arty is no longer sold. I am leaning to UK because (a) the gun in it is a UK gun, and (b) the game play is somewhat similar to the the cruisers at low tiers when they use derp guns. It is even possible (although not optimal) to mount the derp gun in the tier VI Cromwell. So the UK has tech tree tanks which are fast lights with inaccurate derp guns.

 

3. Balancing it around tier IV seems about right.



Drunkybaby #19 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:27 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9682 battles
  • 10
  • [RDEAD] RDEAD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2016
I would love for the BT-42 to be in a Scandinavian tech three, so that we could get the Norwegian NM-116 as well :D

M5A1 #20 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:38 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18979 battles
  • 3,544
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View PostDrunkybaby, on 08 February 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

I would love for the BT-42 to be in a Scandinavian tech three, so that we could get the Norwegian NM-116 as well :D

 

Unfortunately WG rejected the idea of multi-nation trees two years ago. Well, single vehicles can still be implemented in other techtrees, as the Toldi, Turan, the MTLS, Sentinel - and maybe the BT-42 show. If the NM-116 would not play too much like a Type 64, it could be a good option for strongholds as well as  an interesting choice in randoms.

 

Regarding the nation, I'd think that the option to place the BT as German tank is by far the most realistic, even though the cooperation of Germany and Finland did not work as well as with the other smaller powers on the eastern front.

WG has never placed a premium tank in a different nation than an ally of the original developer.







Also tagged with BT-42, proposal, detailed

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users