Status Report: British Q and A Part 3
the third and last (for now) Q&A of the British nationality is now ready.
I and the lads honestly didn’t expect this much feedback on the British Q&A and to give it a full closure, “OhSlowpoke” will be answering in the comment section the last questions you may have lingering around.
Thanks to everyone who participated.
Answers variously by Ogopogo, Okinoshima, OhSlowpoke, Shapeshifter, Ed.Francis Listy, and Vollketten
Hi guys, thanks for the questions, there is some repetition in the questions and we have either lumped some together as they came in or just referred back to an earlier answer if it’s a repeat. Hopefully, we got to almost everyone but if we missed you sorry. The response we got for a Q and A was HUGE, thank you, everyone, but there is so much we’ll have to break the answers into 2 parts. Take note WG of the size of the demand for UK lines.
Just as an FYI though, none of us are not privy to internal decisions or balancing issues by Wargaming so Cannot answer questions about those.
Q10: THATTRAFFICCONE: Are there any more branches, whether they’re full branches or mini branches, that could possibly be added to the tech tree?
Q: THEGRIPPINCHANNEL: Can we expect more branches coming? Would it be possible?
A: The UK could easily build a Light Line (or two) at least one more Medium and Heavy branches, and perhaps 2 more TD branches, if WG is interested in doing so.
Q24: FASTESTCLASSIC: Do you think WG will return the good turret armor of tanks like the Caernarvon or Centurion 7/1 at some point? The HD models really screwed them over, and now, they rarely seem to bounce anything, which completely kills the point of their limited speed and gun performance.
A: *This is the armour for Centurion 7. 6” thick mantlet
Q20: XAVIER: Is there anything WG could put as a Tier X TD that doesn’t have the 183mm? It would be nice if the Tier X TDs would have the same playstyle as the lines that lead up to them. One having good armor, the other having good mobility, both being DPM vehicles, not alpha.
Q25: FASTESTCLASSIC: What will happen to the ever-infamous FV4005 II? It’s probably the least comfortable tier 10 TD to play (if not the least comfortable tier 10 altogether), and doesn’t really have any advantages over the FV215b183.
Q26: APOLLOF117: Can we do something with the FV4005 stage II? its feels like an unarmored 215b 183 without anything else, same reload, little better acc thats all…. stage 1 maybe?:3
A: *There is surprisingly few productions guns for the British in the 120 to 183mm calibre range. Given WG’s preference for increasing calibres with tiers for reasons of alpha, this posed and poses difficulty at times in finding suitable vehicles. That being said, if WG ever does decide to replace the tank (we truly have no indication they will or won’t), there are options. We have found information for around half a dozen tier 10 TD candidates. As far as the FV4005 stage 1 is concerned (an autoloading 183mm for those who are wondering), it’s doubtful it will ever see use in game for obvious reasons.
As a side note for the FV215b, it should be able to fire over the rear of the vehicle but cannot in game.
Q30: ICELANDIC_BANANA: Are you considering the Cavelier for a premium tank? It could be a viable tier 5 premium medium
A: We already have the Liberty engine and A.27L suspension as modules for the Cromwell so at the moment the Cavalier would just be a stock Cromwell with a weak gun. There are lots and lots of Cromwell shaped objects which could be brought into game yet such as A.28, A.31, A.32 and A.35. While a Cavalier premium is obviously possible and very cheap for WG, I doubt we’ll see the Cavalier.
Q31: FUNNY FARMER: Why was the Valentine II selected as Russian premium tank? Many versions were exported to Russia, e.g. the Valentine IX with it’s 6pdr gun. The gun on the Valentine II has so low pen that it forced WG to give the vehicle +0MM which is probably not considered good for the gameplay.
A:The Valentine II (with the 45mm gun) was a Russian modification, whereas the others were entirely British designs.
Q33: ELLIOTT HALL: Would it ever be possible to see the FV4005 stage I in the game?
A: The FV4005 Stage 1 was more of a trial vehicle, to begin with. It had no turret armor, nor an effective gun shield. It would be an awful tank to play and wouldn’t be particularly unique or interesting in game beyond its one niche. One would doubt that WG would implement it, given their recent statements on massive (170mm+) calibre guns.
Q34: ELLIOTT HALL: Is the FV215b heavy tanks being replaced by the T95/chieftain tier X? (chieftain turret with T95 hull)
Q35: DARKDUKE: where is my tier 8 british light tank
A: Logically a tier 8 light tank(s) will come when a new light tank line comes
Q36: DA_ZOHAN: Considering that the Shot Kal (Israeli modified Centurion’s with 105mm M68/L7 Main Cannon with HESH as main ammo) devastated T54/5/62’s in real combat, why is the Centurion weaker in game than the T54/62A/140/430?
A: Centurions fired APDS ammo that is significantly more powerful than represented in game for in-game reasons. HESH wasn’t the primary ammo in the middle eastern conflicts as far as I know. It is a very powerful munition in real life versus conventional types of armour which is not yet reflected in game. There’s a lot of factors in tank combat and warfare outside of which tank is ‘stronger’ or ‘weaker’ on paper which are not reflected in game.
Q.40 DEANO: *what ever happened with the English 120mm armed tank destroyer design blueprint that was found (a few years back now) that was i think being mentioned as a potential fv4005 replacement you know because that thing is just totally out of place in that line.
A: You are probably referring to some designs from Project Prodigal involving 120mm autoloaded guns, but they vehicles are unlikely to appear any time soon.
When talking about British tank development, the Comet is usually considered to be a considerable step up in build quality compared to the Cromwell, but no specifics are mentioned. What made the Comet so much better?
A: The Comet has a larger turret ring capable of mounting the 77mm gun. A lot of the teething problems with the Cromwell had been resolved by the time of the Comet which was truly an excellent all round design.
- Have you found any reports of the British testing post-war US tanks? Did they recommend purchasing and/or modifying vehicles?
- Did the British receive any M8 HMCs? Did they modify them? Could they be added to the game in the British Tech tree?
- Were there any SPG/TD designs planned based on any Cruiser tanks? Could they be added?
- Did the British receive M4 Sherman tanks with HVSS?
- Did any plans exist to upgun/modify/ or convert the M3 Lee/Grant (SPG/TD/AA). Could they be added to the game?
- Would the Staghound fit into the game as possible a tier 3/4 LT?
1: Yes, there are numerous post-war test reports for US armour and even during WW2 there was plenty of discussion over the use of US vehicle with or without British specific modifications
2: Don’t know. Maybe tested or evaluated, but not known to have been operated – would love to be proved wrong on this.It’s hard to prove a negative.
3: There was, for example, the Crusader 17Lbr AT, but that was only created to force the War office to take the A.30. It was a case of either accept the A.30 or this is what we’ll be forced to give you. It’s capable of being put into game but it’s basically just a stripped hull with a 17pdr and gun shield plopped on top.There was also the suggestion of a Crusader Gun Carrier with a 17 pounder gun, however, the lack of room made it impossible to load and the idea was scrapped.
4: The Canadians and The British did receive some Shermans fitted with HVSS yes.
5: There are some M3 modifications which could make it ranging from a turretless version just using the hull gun to a turretless multi-cannon affair (less likely), or an up armoured version for Australia. There’s obviously the cast hull variant which is possible too.
6: Staghound is an armoured car, one of many really nice armoured cars from the UK but at the time being WoT won’t be including armoured cars.
Q51: ccamfield72:Is there any chance of some emblems based off of British division and regimental insignia? There are some really cool symbols there. *I* would pay money for them…
A: That would be a decision for WG not us. There’s also a huge number of historical slogans and names and flags which could be added which we’d pay money for. Personally, I fancy this Australian one for a Centurion
Why the Matilda 2 even has the Little John? 122 pen at tier 4 is OP as freaks… Even some tier 6 tanks are cake to pen and do not get started why it has prem-rounds(?)… The tank has good armour too, the only trade-off might be that it is slow…
A: The Littlejohn device was trialled on some tracked vehicles including the M22 Locust, the Tetrarch and the Valentine but not as far as I know on the Matilda. Even without it the 2 pounder isn’t too bad anyway. We don;t work for WG so can’t answer why it’s available on the in-game vehicle but probably to do with ‘balance’.
Q53: ladydreamsicle:*Also, why doesn’t the Churchill I have the 3.7-in howitzer as an option? It would certainly make a fun alternative for the 75mm HV and would also make it more deadly against potential flankers.
A: The whole CS (Close Support) issue is dysfunctional in game. The 3.7” howitzer in game at the moment is a made up gun by WG. They took three real guns (the 15 pdr Tank mortar, the 3.7” mountain howitzer and the Ordnance QF 95mm) and combined them into a fantasy piece thanks mainly to the confusion over the gun being mounted on tanks ranging from tier I to IX. So no matter where you balance it the gun would be either horribly over-, or hideously under-powered. The guns would be better represented, and likely better balanced, by simply splitting it into the three guns mentioned above, each of which has ammunition and other characteristics to make them interesting in game.
As to why the Churchill; MK.I doesn’t carry it, well at a guess it was because the Churchill MK.I had the 3” howitzer for close support work, and the 95mm saw use first on the MK.V.
Q54:vepsilon: When are you going to stop pumping out Chieftain-esque prems (Chieftain/T95, T95/Chieftain) and release the actual tank that everyone wants? Can you stop trying to milk everyone for all their money, or get them to try to play shitty clan wars that only top clans can actually succeed at, and instead just do something the community wants for once? That’d be great
A: We have no control over vehicle introduction. The vehicle themselves were based around a real idea, but the current in-game version is not representative of what it should be as the hull would be a much earlier Chieftain hull.
- Will we see the light tanks and the 2nd heavy line for Chieftain with Super conqueror (Turret founded by Listy and spaced armor) in the 1. one?
- Will we see 3rd TD line?
From photo: T53E1 is american tank. Comres 75 is maybe too modern and project Prodigal will have poor gun handling and few ammo (120 gun L11A7 and autoloader for 36 shells)
- what about Tog I, Tog II (not Tog II* (star) ), Tog II R and Chruchill AVRE 165 (gun is L9 )
- What about Centurion AVRE? (165mm gun L9A1)
- Can we see tanks like: FV429, FV4201, A37 Super Excelsior, A38 Valliant, A20E2, Independent A1E1, AT 1, AT 13, AT 14, Crusader AT, Ram AT, FV303, FV205, Jagdchieftain and Prodigal 3 or FV217 in the game?
- See the first Q&A regarding the Conqueror (not ‘Super’) and earlier answers for light line
- As far as any of us know, a long long time away, although more lines are possible it’ll not be for a long time. COMRES 75 is just a testbed for a different project, and having no crew up by the gun is something I believe WG has been trying to avoid.
- Churchill AVRE may just be too difficult to balance but time will tell. TOG wise there’s more than can be done with them if WG decides to take that route.
- See above re Churchill AVRE – also there would be the added difficulty of balancing between two different tier vehicles.
- FV429. FV201, A37, A38 etc all answered previously. A20, A1E1 etc. probably form the start of a separate line yet to come. Crusader AT already answered. AT-1/13/14 are all doable. More work is being done looking into the AT series development as there is potential for more vehicles there. RAM AT, FV303, FV205 not at this time probably. We will have to wait until WG wants to develop a new TD line or two. Prodigals are a maybe depending on the mechanics possible for the Swedish S-tank being introduced eventually, ‘JagdChieftain’ uses composite armour, so it is unlikely that it will be introduced.
- Can we see more heavy tanks? IV – A20E2, V – Valliant, VI – Super Excelsior, III – A1E1 Independent, IV – Tog I, V – Tog II (not Tog II bovington or Tog II star) VI – Tog II R, VII – Churchill AVRE 165 (165mm L9 gun), VIII – FV429 (cleft turret with 20 pdr, american 105 or L7 gun), IX – FV4201 (chieftain prototype) and X – Chieftain?
- can we see TDs like Crusader AT, Ram AT, FV303, FV205, Jagdchieftain, Prodigal 3 or FV217
- Light tanks like III – Harry Hopkins, IV – Tetrarch CS (76mm howitzer or 2pdr gun with little john adapter)
V – AVR (FV101 Scorpion),VI – FV301 (A46), VII – FV4401 Prodigal (17pdr gun with 4-5 shot autoloader, VII – Scorpion with 90mm gun, VIII – Vickers 24t (22 hp/t, 20pdr gun, wide tracks so good terrain resistance)
- Top tier medium tanks from vickers? (IX – Vickers Mk. 1 Vijanyanta, X – Vickers MBT)
- Absolutely. There‘s potential for more TOG and more heavies. Anything AVRE is a different story, as balance would be a little more difficult. The cleft turret Chieftain lacks data. Chieftan question parts already answered
- See the previous question
- Already answered previously for Tetrarch, Harry Hopkins. Prodigal maybe, but depends on if more information turns up for suitable vehicles. Scorpion is definitely possible but there is debate over the date of the gun being outside WoT 1970 timeline (yes we know before you point out this is a purely arbitrary date already ignored for tank x y and z). Though it also is a question if the gun was considered and designed before then, just mounted after.
- More of the post war Vickers designs have been found, more than the ones you mentioned. Ed Francis has done sterling work with those.
Q60: BONESAW1O1: *
- design wise what are the main distinctions between the Centurion action X and the FV 4202, additionally is there any information in regards to 120mm guns that were tested on the FV 4202
- How historical is the 4.7′ howitzer option on the Bishop SPG
3.In an old WG article on British TDs I saw mention of the AT 1 assault tank, in particular reference that It had a turret, but no details were provided beyond that. Is there any other information available on this vehicle
- What is the purpose of the ridge/fin on top of the FV4004 Conway’s turret
- *Apart from both the Centurion Action X and FV4202 having a mantletless turret design we are unfamiliar with any connections and what 120mm tested on the FV4202?
- Not at all. WG made it up
- AT-1 is definitely turreted (360 degrees). 45 tons. 75mm or 95mm gun.
4.The ridge is repeated on the Chieftain too. Some say it has a role with deep wading snorkels but likely as not it’s a roof strengthening bar
Q61: CGC LOVE: Is there any balancing plan about churchill gun carrier?
A: I hate to sound like a broken record, and I really wish we had a better answer, but balancing is an internal WG decision. As far as the tank is concerned, however, it could use some historical fixing. The armour model is slightly wrong compared to the Churchill model it is based off of. Another intermediate gun, in the form of the 17 pounder could be added to it, while the 3.7 and 32 pounder both underperform compared to historical figures. There are a range of ways WG could decide to improve beyond that (because let’s be honest, it is a terrible vehicle), ranging from dropping it a tier to buffing characteristics, but that simply is not our call to make.
Q62: JONATHAN ARMSTRONG:Okay, some actual questions:
1– Will we see the historical 3.7-inch howitzer added to the Cruiser Mk. I?
2– Could we see the Crusader being split into multiple vehicles? A Crusader I or II at tier IV, with or without side-skirts. The Crusader III at tier V, current, perhaps with added side-skirts (its armour got nerfed when it went into HD) which could be a nice compromise. Perhaps an early Crusader I or II with the auxiliary turret and side-skirts as a premium tier IV, it would require a crew of 5 making it a good potential crew trainer.
3– One more question on the Crusader, could we see the OQF 75mm added to its gun selection? The 75mm could be used in 6-Pdr mountings, and the Staghound mounted a Crusader turret armed with the 75mm showing that it’s practically possible.
4– Another, final, question on the Crusader (I love that tank). Could we see it moved to an actual tier V scout, or a tier VI light (with standard MM), mounting the meteor engine? Some sources say it was able to move at speeds over 64 km/h.
5– Speaking of splitting up vehicles, could we see the same for the Valentine? Perhaps a Valentine I at tier III, whilst the armour might be thick it’s riddled with weakspots (we also have the Valentine AT at tier III), with 2-Pdr and 3.1-inch howitzer gun selections. With the Valentine VIII-X at tier IV, with 6-pdr and 3.1-inch howitzer gun selections. With the Valentine XI and a Valentine III as potential premiums, the former with a 75mm gun and 210hp engine, the latter with a 2-Pdr and a crew of 4 (making it a better crew trainer).
6– Could we see more vehicles mounting the 2-Pdr X-B? The Crusader, Churchill, Tetrarch (if added), come to mind. In the case of the Churchill it would make the stock grind easier, and possibly allow players the choice of keeping the stock turret (as it’s better armoured).
7– Will we see other Commonwealth vehicles added in the future? AC III “Thunderbolt”, AC IV (the actual AC IV not the experimental), the Ram I, Ram II Late (the US tech tree premium is the early version), and the Grizzly.
8– Will we be seeing variants of the Cromwell such as the Cavalier, Centaur, Vauxhall Cromwell, and the A28 “Heavy Cromwell”?
- Likely a balance issue preventing it. It might be a different story if the guns were properly separated (as mentioned above)
- Those side skirts aren’t going to make any difference in game terms, they were just thin sheet steel for the purpose of keeping down dust and sand. Otherwise, it would be interesting, but unlikely.
- Perhaps but ultimately an internal WG decision.
- Crusader fitted with Meteor engine is very real. The project produced a dangerously fast tank probably as lethal to the crew as to the enemy. It’s probably not different enough to be a premium but could be a top engine instead, it would be a shame not to make use of the project somehow though.
- *Ultimately an internal WG decision.
- While the vehicles could mount it, the littlejohn adaptor was chiefly used on vehicles unable to mount a higher performance gun such as the 6 pounder or 75mm. Without meaning to be repetitive, it is ultimately an internal WG decision.
- Hopefully. WG already wasted two perfectly nice production Australian tanks as premiums instead of using odd projects etc. as premiums instead, but a commonwealth line of mediums for the UK line is still doable merging after or with the Centurion. Would be nice to have some Canadian and Australian representation on researchable tanks. Adding the Ram to the US tree was always a silly decision.
- The alternative heavy Cromwell shaped objects have been covered.
Q63: BAILEYHUN: Will there be a arve variants off the British vehicles because I would love to see them in world of tanks going around in a Churchill with the spigot 240mm mortar for tier 10 tank due to the calibre of gun
A: AVRE variants using very large calibre mortars are a headache for balance and may not fit in the current gameplay without a new class of vehicle to fit their characteristics. The other part is the 240mm spigot mortar had a deceptively small charge than what you might think it’s calibre suggests.
Q64: ZOMBIETROPA: A couple of questions:
1) What caused the 17pdr’s terrible accuracy when using the Sabot rounds, have heard that it was the muzzle brake that was at fault, but clarification would be nice.
2) ZOMBIETROPA:Did the 6pdr gun really have sabot ammunition towards the end of the war?
3) ZOMBIETROPA:How reliable was the Cromwell, compared both to those British Cruisers that preceded it, and the American Sherman?
4) ZOMBIETROPA:What was the reasoning behind the 183mm gun and the FV4005 prototype?
- The story of the 17pdr accuracy or lack of it is skewed by testing involving faulty ammo, a worn out gun and not a little bit of self-interest on the part of the testers (in the US). It was certainly plenty accurate enough for real life as many German tank crews can testify.
- Yep. Sabot ammunition was built for the 6 pounder, and issued later in the war. Penetration is mentioned up above. APCR ammo was used as well! All in all there was no fewer than 7 major ammo variants issued for the 6 Pounder throughout the war, with several minor sub-variations of each type. (minor changes in design, minor changes in types of propellant, driving bands and various other variations).
- The Cromwell was considerably more reliable than the previous cruisers, Covenanter Cavalier and Crusader were all marred by reliability issues. A comparison versus Shermans are harder due to the US ability to field more workshops, parts and repair teams allowing a faster turn around.
- Because concerned over Soviet armour developments some British tank designers decided to skip a step and go straight for the massive destruction option. 183mm HESH will wreck anything it hits. Anything. And in that regard it’s not such a bad idea. Plus not long afterwards people started to consider nuclear ammunition for tanks, so big guns were kind of the ‘thing’ for a while before it was realised that smaller guns were just as capable. (Ogopogo: I have a scan of a newspaper clipping talking about hovertanks armed with nuclear missiles)
Q65:GU-7: In the game the Conqueror has the MKII chassis, yet it has the wrong armor specifications, will this be corrected, and if so… How?
Evidence to back it up: The Caernarvon has the MKI chassis, which is proven by the amount of viewports that is on the drivers hatch, as the MKII has one driver view port, and is equipped with more armor in the frontal regions.
A: The Mk.2 was uparmoured by means of an additional plate over the top front part of the hull. Is that’s what you are referring to?
Q66: THEMOSTCOMFORTABLETANKER: Yuri Pasholok made a livejournal post a few years back with an interesting British trailer tank concept . Beyond the image on the post and his little blurb, the only other bit I know is that Pasholok got it from Fletcher. Would there have been any information that’s popped up on it from more recent archive diving that could be shared?
A: That picture is of a model that arrived at the Bovington Tank Museum with a batch of documents by Giffard Le Quesne Martel, a well known British officer who was influential in British tank development. Details of the design and Martel’s connection are unclear at this time. He did experiment with a light armoured vehicle that he built himself with four tracks, but it differs substantially from the above design. Listy talks about Martel, and some of his designs, in his forthcoming book Age of Invention.
Q: Mark Bevis: I do have a question. The British 3pdr 47mm gun. Have you come across any real-world data on it’s ammo and armour penetration. (Not WoT stats) For the 47mmL40 as mounted in the Independent and Meium II, all I have come across is:
3pdr APHE, c1926, about 25mm/1000m/90*
3pdr AP-T, c1937, perhaps 45mm at 100m?
And were there different 47mm 3pdr guns? Some with short barrels for export, similar to the 37mmL21 SA18 snub-nosed gun?
A: This is probably the hardest question we’ve had. There are three 47mm guns for the UK in this pre WW2 period; ‘short export’, short (L/40) 3 pounder and long (L/50) 3 pounder. The L/40 3 pdr comes from the L/50 version but afaik the L/50 was never mounted on a tank. As for real life penetration of armour performance we don’t have any at the moment sorry.