Jump to content


RO2004 Light Tank

UK Light tank WG disaster

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

arthurwellsley #1 Posted 13 August 2019 - 11:25 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54054 battles
  • 4,016
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Credit to the Tank Encycolopedia their work not mine = http://www.tanks-enc...004-light-tank/

 

If only WG developers had used Bovington Tank Museum this is what the tier X UK light tank should have been. The details all come from the museum archive, even the sales brochure!

"The RO2000 series of vehicles was a late Cold War attempt by the Royal Ordnance PLC to standardize the vehicle fleet of the British Army and for export to Middle Eastern countries. The central idea of the RO2000 was a common platform encompassing the engine, transmission, chassis and suspension, with just the rear combat module varying between vehicles. The vehicles were meant to be easy to manufacture, mechanically simple and cheap both due to their small size and due to parts commonality.

Of the four RO2000 vehicles, the most potent was the RO2004 light tank, armed with an adaptation of the still-potent L7 105 mm gun made famous by the Centurion."

 

"The Royal Ordnance RO2004 light tank was to be built on the RO2000 universal lightweight chassis and come fitted with a version the famous L7 105 mm gun firing standard NATO ammunition. While its basic armor is unknown, it was to be upgradeable with a new ‘dynamic armor’ that was in development. The 105 mm gun was to be a low recoil version on the L7 with a new distinct pepper pot-style muzzle break called the Improved Weapon System (IWS) which had been developed in 1989 by Royal Ordnance.

The new gun was conventionally rifled and made from Electroslag Refined Steel (ESR) with a fume extractor, thermal sleeve horizontal sliding breech mechanism, and distinctive pepper pot muzzle brake that reduced recoil forces by 25 percent. Royal Ordnance also offered an automatic muzzle reference system (MRS) that could be fitted to the gun to greatly improve the accuracy of the weapon system. RO also developed. alongside the IWS, a new 105 mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) round that they claimed to have a penetration of 540 mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) at a range of 2,000 meters.

A high rate of fire was expected due to the use of a bustle-mounted autoloader coupled with a state of the art gun control and computerized Fire Control System (FCS). Passive Thermal Imaging (TI) and image intensifiers came as optional extras. The Royal Ordnance dynamic armor (not to be confused with the later Electrical Armor of the same name) was, in essence, a mix of a conventional laminated plate with Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) built into it, providing protection against kinetic and shaped charge attacks. On top of this would also be more conventional ERA blocks as a preliminary line of defense.

The crew of three consisted of the commander, gunner, and driver. The layout was somewhat atypical with the driver front left while the commander and gunner were situated adjacent to each other with the gunner in the normal loader’s location by UK standards. Vision was provided by a panoramic sight for the commander as well as 7 episcopes and an individual laser sighting system for the gunner. The driver had full day-night low light thermal vision (LLTV).

Power was to be provided by a Perkins TV8-640, 320 hp 8-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine coupled through a T320 automatic 6-speed epicyclic gearbox. The top speed was estimated at 55 km/h (34 mph).

The suspension consisted of transverse torsion bars, 5 per side. Each was connected to a pair of roadwheels, leading to a total of five pairs and 10 wheels per side. Two return rollers per side were also present. Later proposals by Royal Ordnance included hydraulic adjustable suspension."

 

More historic than the Manticore, and a better tank.

 

Scrap the Setter, LHMTV, GSOR, and Manticore. They are an unmitigated disaster.

Go back to the drawing board.

Send the developers to Bovington Tank Museum and leave them there for at least a week.

Create a new line from tier I to tier X.

Include the Scorpion, Scimitar  and the RO2004


Edited by arthurwellsley, 13 August 2019 - 11:44 AM.


Col_Potter #2 Posted 13 August 2019 - 11:31 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35215 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011

I think this would be a much better vehicle than what they glued together, but they decided against this vehicle because of ERA most likely. Or just too new...

 

No ERA for us :-(

 

 



shikaka9 #3 Posted 13 August 2019 - 11:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 69357 battles
  • 737
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
I just started to like Setter 

arthurwellsley #4 Posted 13 August 2019 - 11:53 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54054 battles
  • 4,016
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postshikaka9, on 13 August 2019 - 10:51 AM, said:

I just started to like Setter 

 

Best nickname = the "upSetter"



TheDrownedApe #5 Posted 13 August 2019 - 11:57 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 48655 battles
  • 6,233
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

Whilst and many others appreciate your time to post this Arthur, I can't help but think it's all a waste of time. Do you really believe that WG don't or didn't know of this tank prior to their design of the new Brit fail light tanks. Having done some work with them, and their Brit ex-tankie employee, I know they are thorough. The reasons for their epic fail on this line are unknown but then they don't think it is an epic fail otherwise they would have buffed them.

 

The line is what it is and no doubt it will be left to rot for a couple of years before they "review the stats" and buff them accordingly. It's just a shame they chose this route (we will never know why) and ensured many players never bother playing them.



arthurwellsley #6 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:11 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54054 battles
  • 4,016
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostTheDrownedApe, on 13 August 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

Whilst and many others appreciate your time to post this Arthur, I can't help but think it's all a waste of time. Do you really believe that WG don't or didn't know of this tank prior to their design of the new Brit fail light tanks. Having done some work with them, and their Brit ex-tankie employee, I know they are thorough. The reasons for their epic fail on this line are unknown but then they don't think it is an epic fail otherwise they would have buffed them.

 

The line is what it is and no doubt it will be left to rot for a couple of years before they "review the stats" and buff them accordingly. It's just a shame they chose this route (we will never know why) and ensured many players never bother playing them.

 

I had assumed that WG like many organisations have a mix of humans, some of whom are better than average, some of whom are worse. I had further assumed that the developer team that did the UK Light tank line was lead or organised by someone less than average, so that the combined effort of the team was a disaster.

 

For an organisation as large as WG they should be able to move the current team to other tasks, re-constitute a new team and start from scratch.

The only issue with that is that WG need to admit their error with the current iteration of UK light tanks.

The fact that the UK built 4,000 odd FV101 and it's no where in the tree is bemusing.

 

Maybe it's because I recently read =

This book was kindly recommended to me by Bulldog_Drummond, thanks for the recommendation BD.

link/source = https://www.watersto...d/9781473613805


Edited by arthurwellsley, 13 August 2019 - 12:13 PM.


Zoggo_ #7 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:37 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31345 battles
  • 447
  • [ZOGGO] ZOGGO
  • Member since:
    05-11-2013

Interesting post but let's be honest WG are never gonna scrap a whole line. All we can really hope for is they actually buff them.

Why the hell they went for these made up / blueprint tanks when they could have had real historical tanks like the Scorpion and Scimitar is unbelievably daft.



TankkiPoju #8 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22971 battles
  • 7,037
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
This might pop up as tier 8 premium tank next year...

eldrak #9 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50751 battles
  • 1,318
  • [GR-W] GR-W
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
It is much too new with serious development starting in the 90s.

Balc0ra #10 Posted 13 August 2019 - 01:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 71481 battles
  • 19,963
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

I suspect it's not something they want as it's a late 80's tank. WG usually doesn't like to go that high vs their focus era. As the current tanks are mostly from the 60's. And I'm sure they knew about it. Tho this looks like a better option indeed. And the gun is no hinder "smooth bore etc" as the L7 is already in the game, even if this is a later low recoil variant.

 

 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #11 Posted 13 August 2019 - 01:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,580
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

This hostage situation is getting hilarious!

 

I can't exactly get my mind around the idea of 4 tanks in a video game causing mature and supposedly intelligent guys like you to get all hot and bothered. 4 tanks in a game with more than 500 mind you.

 

If that's the best angle of attack you can muster after reading the book than i don't want to imagine how it was before.

 

All that aside, they're still new and eventually if they are too weak they'll be buffed so just don't play them for now. Is that too complicated? Is the game lacking good lights to play in every tier?

 

Arthur, listen to the voice at the back of your head telling you: "it doesn't work that way".

 

The tank in Ed's article is too modern for WOT but as i enjoy reading this guy's articles, it's as good a preface as any. Changing tanks at this point is a remote possibility especially when you ask for a replacement from the 80s.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 13 August 2019 - 01:13 PM.


tajj7 #12 Posted 13 August 2019 - 01:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 13 August 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

they're still new and eventually if they are too weak they'll be buffed so just don't play them for now. 

 

Bit of a pointless comment, as they are 'new' there is no reason they should be in such a state they are in now, its just pure incompetence and terrible game design by WG.

 

By your logic every new tank could be terrible.

 

Zero excuses for WG here, they have just wasted everyone's time, plus have clearly shown they don't give a monkey's about the communities feedback either. So defending them just makes you look silly. 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #13 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,580
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 13 August 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Bit of a pointless comment, as they are 'new' there is no reason they should be in such a state they are in now, its just pure incompetence and terrible game design by WG.

 

On the contrary, i find more realistic and to the point than all the whining and whinging i've been witnessing ever since these 4 tanks hit the live server.

 

View Posttajj7, on 13 August 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

By your logic every new tank could be terrible.

 

Yes!

 

It's a very possible thing if you haven't noticed already.

 

View Posttajj7, on 13 August 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Zero excuses for WG here, they have just wasted everyone's time, plus have clearly shown they don't give a monkey's about the communities feedback either. So defending them just makes you look silly. 

 

If someone wants to waste time/money/XP on these in their current state then i believe they're the ones being silly or even stupid. I don't see how you interpreted my post as defending WG but try to read it again. Maybe that'll help!



tajj7 #14 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 13 August 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

 

On the contrary, i find more realistic and to the point than all the whining and whinging i've been witnessing ever since these 4 tanks hit the live server.

 

 

Yes!

 

It's a very possible thing if you haven't noticed already.

 

 

If someone wants to waste time/money/XP on these in their current state then i believe they're the ones being silly or even stupid. I don't see how you interpreted my post as defending WG but try to read it again. Maybe that'll help!

 

Yes it's possible and it would be stupid, all that work and hype and advertising for a new line, that is then terrible and pointless, with zero excuses as to why it is that way, hence your comment was stupid. Reading it again doesn't change that. 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #15 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:16 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,580
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 13 August 2019 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yes it's possible and it would be stupid, all that work and hype and advertising for a new line, that is then terrible and pointless, with zero excuses as to why it is that way, hence your comment was stupid. Reading it again doesn't change that. 

 

No it wasn't, just a realistic view of WG's decision making. Now don't let that get in your way of whining about the big bad WG.



tajj7 #16 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 13 August 2019 - 01:16 PM, said:

 

No it wasn't, just a realistic view of WG's decision making. Now don't let that get in your way of whining about the big bad WG.

 

Yeh it was. It was a dumb decision to release the tanks in this state and your 'excuse' for them is just as dumb. If all new content was this bad, the game would basically be dead by now. 

 

Got to laugh that legitimate and warranted criticism of WG is 'whining' according to you, 'shill' is an oft used comment thrown out on these forums but you are doing a good job of fitting the bill. 


Edited by tajj7, 13 August 2019 - 02:22 PM.


SuNo_TeSLa #17 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45497 battles
  • 419
  • [SWEPH] SWEPH
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Expected to completely hate the setter, but it's not terrible, just not very good if facing good players ^^

XxKuzkina_MatxX #18 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,580
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 13 August 2019 - 05:20 PM, said:

...

 

And what job exactly are you doing? The forums' general inspector?

 

You don't like it let it be, i don't like what you write either. Keep it up and the results are pretty much certain.



8126Jakobsson #19 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77162 battles
  • 4,763
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostSuNo_TeSLa, on 13 August 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

Expected to completely hate the setter, but it's not terrible, just not very good if facing good players ^^


Yeah I didn't mind playing it and I actually kinda like the tier 8. So far the line has not lived up to its reputation. 



tajj7 #20 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 13 August 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

 

And what job exactly are you doing? The forums' general inspector?

 

You don't like it let it be, i don't like what you write either. Keep it up and the results are pretty much certain.

 

No one is doing any job here, don't really get your point and have no idea what 'results' you are talking about. If you don't like it, put me on ignore then, i just find it funny you make a silly comment calling Arthur 'hot and bothered' (plus basically called him stupid) because he is correctly criticising this light tank line and is suggesting an alternative, but then don't like it when people challenge you. 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users