Jump to content


AT 8 Before The AT 7 On Tech Tree... Logic?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:23 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 33479 battles
  • 6,840
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Hi guys,

 

Just a quick inquiry out of interest and obviously it's no big deal but I'm just looking at the new offering of that British "assault" bunker buster TD line and it seems rather bizarre that the AT 8 is encountered before the AT 7 when if we were to go by numerical logic, it should be the 7 first, then the 8?

 

Also, when I first started playing this game, I simply loved the look of these British ironclads but tell me how they play, have they still got that giant bucket cupola rendering their entire point of playstyle useless and what sort of damage returns can be achieved with them? Has anyone ever had a truly epic battle with one of these great big turtles? 



ZlatanArKung #2 Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:26 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,779
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostTungstenHitman, on 03 May 2020 - 10:23 PM, said:

Hi guys,

 

Just a quick inquiry out of interest and obviously it's no big deal but I'm just looking at the new offering of that British "assault" bunker buster TD line and it seems rather bizarre that the AT 8 is encountered before the AT 7 when if we were to go by numerical logic, it should be the 7 first, then the 8?

 

Also, when I first started playing this game, I simply loved the look of these British ironclads but tell me how they play, have they still got that giant bucket cupola rendering their entire point of playstyle useless and what sort of damage returns can be achieved with them? Has anyone ever had a truly epic battle with one of these great big turtles? 

WG removed all weakspots on them some time ago. 

Meaning the AT-8 is now incredibly strong, bounce everything at T6 reliably  (even most tanks premium shells, not the Hellcat/Jackson thoug).

The AT-7 is strong around the right corners (can bounce 230 pen from correct corner from time to time.



qpranger #3 Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38889 battles
  • 6,442
  • [HAMMY] HAMMY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

WOT and logic?

Yeah, sure.



barison1 #4 Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:30 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 47199 battles
  • 3,005
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012
well we have IS8(t10) and then IS7 :hiding:

Bulldog_Drummond #5 Posted 04 May 2020 - 01:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

The AT8 is now surprisingly effective

As to why WG put it below the AT7 that is a mystery but no doubt the result of extensive research in the Nuffield design archives

The entire line is a tribute to the astonishing stupidity of British tank designers to whom it never seems to have occurred that it was all very well putting 250mm armour on a tank but that the effect would be ruined and the tank easily killed by adding a huge and unarmoured cupola.

If only the British in those days had been able to draw on the never-failing skills of Stalinist era Soviet tank designers


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 04 May 2020 - 01:21 AM.


FataL_ShadowZ #6 Posted 04 May 2020 - 01:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15231 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    01-19-2018
AT8 I didn't really like from what I recall. The AT7 however I did like (even with its offset gun), it worked well which quite surprised me.

The_Naa #7 Posted 04 May 2020 - 01:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 11587 battles
  • 2,308
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

I've never played the At line of tanks, got the Turtle this weekend it has been rather nice, as I enjoy playing slow turretless TD's. Might give a go with the AT's at some point as I now have crewtamrainer.

 

My friend however has the AT-8 with the 10* round autoloader and says its a fun tank. Just put put put your way over there and then go pew pew pew many times. :teethhappy:

*might have been 10 dont remember correctly. 



LethalWalou #8 Posted 04 May 2020 - 03:03 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 35446 battles
  • 3,232
  • [OISPA] OISPA
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012

View PostThe_Naa, on 04 May 2020 - 12:41 AM, said:

 

My friend however has the AT-8 AT-7 with the 10* round autoloader and says its a fun tank. 

 

You mean this OP thing :D ?

https://www.twitch.t...e=all&sort=time



fwhaatpiraat #9 Posted 04 May 2020 - 08:26 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 63442 battles
  • 2,639
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
Voyager 1 got launched after Voyager 2 :)

threecoos #10 Posted 04 May 2020 - 09:10 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 34153 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    10-06-2012

View PostTungstenHitman, on 03 May 2020 - 09:23 PM, said:

Hi guys,

 

Just a quick inquiry out of interest and obviously it's no big deal but I'm just looking at the new offering of that British "assault" bunker buster TD line and it seems rather bizarre that the AT 8 is encountered before the AT 7 when if we were to go by numerical logic, it should be the 7 first, then the 8?

 

Also, when I first started playing this game, I simply loved the look of these British ironclads but tell me how they play, have they still got that giant bucket cupola rendering their entire point of playstyle useless and what sort of damage returns can be achieved with them? Has anyone ever had a truly epic battle with one of these great big turtles? 


Personally, I really enjoy playing the "AT" line, it suits my playstyle (slow moving, heavily armoured and high ROF), my AT8 has over 2,600 battles and a further 4,000 battles in the rest of that line.

 

With a good crew, the AT8 can catch a lot of people out, even more so than before with the HP boost it received - now 900 HP.

 

Arty does love you though, a nice slow moving target...….so I run with spall liners on all that line....but that's just me.

 

Give the line a try (anybody), you may learn to like them ;)



spuriousmonkey #11 Posted 04 May 2020 - 12:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 47018 battles
  • 3,461
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
AT8 gameplay is nice and simple. Very relaxing. Just press W and keep shooting. Look at the minimap carefully because it takes a long time to return to base to de-cap. 

Ricox #12 Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:11 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 826 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 04 May 2020 - 12:19 AM, said:

The AT8 is now surprisingly effective

As to why WG put it below the AT7 that is a mystery but no doubt the result of extensive research in the Nuffield design archives

The entire line is a tribute to the astonishing stupidity of British tank designers to whom it never seems to have occurred that it was all very well putting 250mm armour on a tank but that the effect would be ruined and the tank easily killed by adding a huge and unarmoured cupola.

If only the British in those days had been able to draw on the never-failing skills of Stalinist era Soviet tank designers

 

As long as no one was physically in the cupola at the time of penetration, it wouldn't actually matter with AP shells. Not to mention that real life tank combat at the time occurred at distances so large that aiming for the cupola would be virtually impossible, especially for a tank destroyer generally designated for longer range support. It must have served a useful purpose for it to be there and could have actually been smart thanks to removing a potential weakspot in the center area of the front armor where most shells would land.


Edited by Ricox, 04 May 2020 - 02:11 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #13 Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostRicox, on 04 May 2020 - 01:11 PM, said:

 

As long as no one was physically in the cupola at the time of penetration, it wouldn't actually matter with AP shells. Not to mention that real life tank combat at the time occurred at distances so large that aiming for the cupola would be virtually impossible, especially for a tank destroyer generally designated for longer range support. It must have served a useful purpose for it to be there and could have actually been smart thanks to removing a potential weakspot in the center area of the front armor where most shells would land.

 

I guess that sarcasm doesn't travel well on the internet ;)

Of course turrets were not weakspots.  That's tank combat as it really was in WoT



Orkbert #14 Posted 04 May 2020 - 03:29 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 29991 battles
  • 2,529
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

View PostTungstenHitman, on 03 May 2020 - 10:23 PM, said:

Hi guys,

 

Just a quick inquiry out of interest and obviously it's no big deal but I'm just looking at the new offering of that British "assault" bunker buster TD line and it seems rather bizarre that the AT 8 is encountered before the AT 7 when if we were to go by numerical logic, it should be the 7 first, then the 8?

 

Also, when I first started playing this game, I simply loved the look of these British ironclads but tell me how they play, have they still got that giant bucket cupola rendering their entire point of playstyle useless and what sort of damage returns can be achieved with them? Has anyone ever had a truly epic battle with one of these great big turtles? 

 

Well, according to the short info text the design of the AT8 was completed two weeks before the design of the AT7, so technically AT8 is the earlier version even though it looks stupid in the tech tree and the whole design thing is iffy: the design for the AT2 is also only shortly before the AT8 (and probably they also did AT3 to six within those weeks as well), so in spring 1943 there some British tank designers seemingly went crazy.

 

As for epic battles here's when I aced my AT8:

 

http://wotreplays.eu/site/5215615#ruinberg-orkbert-at_8



Bulldog_Drummond #15 Posted 04 May 2020 - 03:43 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostOrkbert, on 04 May 2020 - 02:29 PM, said:

 

Well, according to the short info text the design of the AT8 was completed two weeks before the design of the AT7, so technically AT8 is the earlier version even though it looks stupid in the tech tree and the whole design thing is iffy: the design for the AT2 is also only shortly before the AT8 (and probably they also did AT3 to six within those weeks as well), so in spring 1943 there some British tank designers seemingly went crazy.

 

As for epic battles here's when I aced my AT8:

 

http://wotreplays.eu/site/5215615#ruinberg-orkbert-at_8

 

According to Wiki there were 14 versions of the heavy AT, which finally emerged as the Tortoise, which appears only to have been used for target practice.

I dare say that the project kept the Nuffield conglomerate usefully occupied during WW2

I doubt that any of them could have dealt with a shot from an 88 mm flak or AT gun, so maybe it is as well that none ever made it into battle


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 04 May 2020 - 03:45 PM.


Boris_Kiril99 #16 Posted 04 May 2020 - 04:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 29925 battles
  • 49
  • [BGFRC] BGFRC
  • Member since:
    09-04-2014
The way I see it is that irl the design bureaus sometimes go overboard with some characteristics and that results in some requirements not being met. Usually non-combat related things - production complexity, time and cost. And often times it's due to logistics - the accurate example given above being the IS-7 which supposedly had better armor than the T-10 (IS-8), but was considered too heavy at 50+ tons for most bridges in order to be practical. Either way the the next vehicle model ends up being more modest (and practical in real life), ergo at a lower tier in-game. (At least thats why I think it is)

Bulldog_Drummond #17 Posted 04 May 2020 - 08:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostBoris_Kiril99, on 04 May 2020 - 03:16 PM, said:

The way I see it is that irl the design bureaus sometimes go overboard with some characteristics and that results in some requirements not being met. Usually non-combat related things - production complexity, time and cost. And often times it's due to logistics - the accurate example given above being the IS-7 which supposedly had better armor than the T-10 (IS-8), but was considered too heavy at 50+ tons for most bridges in order to be practical. Either way the the next vehicle model ends up being more modest (and practical in real life), ergo at a lower tier in-game. (At least thats why I think it is)

 

There's some of that, and there's also some of trying to meet design specifications set by a committee of idiots.

Many early war tanks were pretty much useless as their turret rings were too small, a combination of economy and the perceived need to ship them around on railways

The British Valiant (aka the worst tank in the world) was designed and built by a firm whose previous experience had been in building railway carriages

The Ferdinand, having failed in Russia, was shipped off to Italy, where it was near useless as the bridges and roads were too weak



ZlatanArKung #18 Posted 04 May 2020 - 08:26 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,779
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 04 May 2020 - 08:22 PM, said:

 

There's some of that, and there's also some of trying to meet design specifications set by a committee of idiots.

Many early war tanks were pretty much useless as their turret rings were too small, a combination of economy and the perceived need to ship them around on railways

The British Valiant (aka the worst tank in the world) was designed and built by a firm whose previous experience had been in building railway carriages

The Ferdinand, having failed in Russia, was shipped off to Italy, where it was near useless as the bridges and roads were too weak

And here I thought the TOG was the worst tank in the world.

 

It was un-modern even before the design team had came up with a concept. 



Bulldog_Drummond #19 Posted 04 May 2020 - 08:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 04 May 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

And here I thought the TOG was the worst tank in the world.

 

It was un-modern even before the design team had came up with a concept. 

 

The TOG was pretty terrible too, but at least it could move and was probably unparalleled in trench crossing ability

Which would no doubt have been very handy had there been trenches in WW2



Kartoshkaya #20 Posted 04 May 2020 - 08:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29547 battles
  • 998
  • [MORFA] MORFA
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
Fits perfectly, it's british, they do everything in the wrong way. Drive the wrong way, use the wrong currency when they were part of european union, make wrong decisions like brexit, no wonder they name their tanks in the wrong order. Hell they even have an arty driving the wrong way.

Edited by Kartoshkaya, 04 May 2020 - 08:40 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users