Heliosiah

Member
  • Content count

    3,722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
medal medal

Heliosiah last won the day on October 14 2013

Heliosiah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,650 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Heliosiah

  • Rank
    PICKLES :D
  • Birthday April 2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Roswell, NM
  • Interests
    Simulators.
    Command.
    Tanks.
    War.

Recent Profile Visitors

55,632 profile views
  1. Knights of the Sea Preface: With the very recent announcement of Naval Battles in War Thunder has come a bout contention from both the RU and English speaking communities across the forums. We as users are as a whole very happy to learn of the soon-to-be introduced new branch of vehicle warfare to a game that we have loved for years, yet there has been as well as many people upset to hear of the lacking nature of large Capital Ships planned to be included. However as is the true nature of the internet there's more to be known here than can be gathered from basic emotional rhetoric on the attack from one side, and the avocation on the defensive of correctness. As was clarified in an original post from the administration themselves, this part of the game is in very early testing stages, as a team Gaijin is doing as much as they can, with our help and feedback we can help to define what will eventually become of work that has been in progress for several years. The purpose of this admission is to as a whole condense and organize prevalent and well thought out content suggestions, and desires, as they relate mainly to the more controversial aspect of this announcement, being Capital Ships, by the users and community into a linear format that is easy to understand, compound, and build upon; for the community themselves and for the team members of Gaijin. I will make several initial points very clear here; The initial stages of what is known as "Knights of the Sea" Naval Combat will not be compromised of Capital ships but of smaller ships such as the PT-109 and the Project 1124, that is a fact. The next point I will make is that a large portion of users as a whole want to see the introduction of large Capital Ships, which is why we are putting in our effort to define a theoretical archetype that will be compatible with War Thunder's meta and Dagor Engine. I will also like to point out one thing many people will over look; there are probably plenty of people who would be happy with and those that want to play with small fast ships, this is not an attempt to shadow them or ignore their likes or wants within the game, we're here as a whole community. I feel like a link to a post Gaijin made on the 3D engine last year might be relevant to post here: Dagor Engine 4.0 Define [ Capital Ship ] : a large warship such as a battleship or aircraft carrier. This topic is in direct relation to the following post: As of Tuesday, 8/16/2016, over 50 pages and 1,268 replies have been made in an ecstatic response to the announcement and clarifications made about Naval battles in War Thunder. Introduction: Some of the Key Points touched upon by the clarification I will post below, I will build upon this as content grows. This is not the order in which I will order these topics. I will start off with the easier to answer. How to play Mechanics Counting Kills Being Sank Winning Economy Imbalance in Nations Specialty 9. EDIT: Within the above branches are a few further sub-branches that have cropped up upon continually growing each chapter and individual ideas; up to the point that at a time it may prove appropriate to explicitly designate them within a main branch itself, or within more than one main branch. Two such sub-branches that now exist are the Carriers, and the Modules sub-branches. Crew was a sub-branch, but Chapter 2 itself has fleshed out to the point that crews justify its own main branch. This post has so far managed to compile a large majority of the most prevalent suggestions. For each "chapter", under it will be "branches" as each point has several directions to make. I will combine some of these, as there are A LOT of cross-references relevant to each. I'm sure the devs have tested many ideas themselves, many of which we might mention, this is not an attempt to patronize them in anyway. TIER I: PRE-CLOSED_BETA_TESTING Chapter 1 MECHANICS HOW TO PLAY Branch 1. In regards to boosting. NULL: It is by-far an overwhelming conclusion that this is not a desirable mechanic, whatsoever. Branch 2. In regards to planes and ships, and their vulnerabilities. - Sub-Branch 2. In regards to Carriers. OP Edit: Aircraft Spawn: Alter the locations, such as their distances, of spawn locations for aircraft. Whether they spawn on an airfield, or on a carrier, or spawn in the air. Change the distances in which they spawn in order to regulate how they can impact Naval Battles. This effects not only how aircraft target ships, but how they target other aircraft, or are attacked by aircraft. Ship AAA:There are ways to alter the efficiency of Ship Borne AAA, whether it being player-aimed, or AI sprite's just how base AAA is on in-game airfields. You can change the "skill" effectiveness, as if it were a parameter, without changing the velocity of the shells, the accuracy of the guns, or their rate of fire, essentially without damaging its historical accuracy or realism. Basically how good the AI is at actually using said AAA, in regards to self-defense against aircraft. Carriers: Player controlled carriers could direct formations of launched AI aircraft, either launched after battle start, or already air borne. AI controlled carriers could act like sprites and direct AI squadrons, instead of single aircraft, to target ships like AI aircraft behave towards players in other game modes. Carriers: A system could be installed which would incorporate the idea that the only players able to use aircraft in a battle are players that spawn a carrier, however instead of one or a few spawns, this player gets many aircraft spawns, and continues an assault of endurance. However this player can only launch carrier borne craft, and can only launch from said carrier despite conditions. Airfields: On maps with airfields, player launched aircraft from anything other than a carrier would not be limited to carrier borne craft, and have a limited number of spawns. Carriers: A lot of worry has been made about carriers and whether it would work to make them player controlled. Most people suggest the idea that they remain AI controlled. One way to incorporate these ships so that they are reliable upon the competency of players and not the quality of AI alone, would be to have them act like the artillery modification on tanks. Calling in a squadron strike instead of artillery. The lethality of such a strike can be easily modified, such as the accuracy of the squadron, the type of aircraft, the number, their torpedo/bomb load types and quantity. Carriers/Airfields: They could be vulnerable to strikes from not only bombers but strikes of ships, counting for tickets or game winning, much like how they are in game now. Screening: Would it not be possible to spawn large Capital ships with a flotilla of small AI screening ships, for the purpose of protecting the belt of the ship from torpedoes, and for providing additional AAA coverage. Risk Reward/Tickets/RP: Make the risk of not only the ship to the aircraft, but of the aircraft to the ship much heavier, depending on what is found (whether ships or aircraft are more vulnerable to the other), modify tickets lost or gained by either team, for either a sunk or damaged ship, or by a shot down aircraft. Their vehicle must be worth something not only to themselves but to the match. The tickets aren't the only thing worth here either, the players themselves are. Modifying the spawn rate, how soon someone can respawn, and rp required to spawn a vehicle. Meaning if a player didn't earn enough rp to spawn in a new vehicle, they're out of the battle, and also meaning that you can define a cycle of waves, based on time, in which players can spawn new vehicles. All of these are variables you can alter to adjust the rate at which a battle plays out. Aircraft: One suggestion has been made in regards to aircraft and ships, being that planes may be able to maintain radio contact with ships, many things could be done with this, such as aircraft that maintain "spotting" of enemy ships earn themselves more credit, earn ships that then fire on those ships more credit. You could modify this in a certain way, it would be possible to make these vehicle ping on the map, and you could alter for the length of time this shows on the map, which would effect the dynamics of a battle itself. Event specific: Meaning restrict what kinds of aircraft can be spawned, by specific aircraft, much like it is defined in a special event or in tank sim battles, Example being, take out the P-47N, but no the P-47M, etc. Through this you can alter the quality of aircraft against ships, ensuring battles are focused on by the ships themselves. EC: Incorporate naval battles like an Enduring Confrontation style event, in this case as long as carrier remain players could join in aircraft, with capped numbers. Edit 2: (for additions made after the original posting) Carriers/Control: One idea given was that which incorporated that of a player-controlled Carrier, able to maintain direct control of either their own Carrier unit while indirectly controlling aircraft, or their own aircraft unit and indirectly controlling their carrier, basically maintaining control of the orientation and traverse of the other unit or 'squad' of units simultaneously through use of numbered keys (the game could provide alert statuses for various situations, such as close proximity enemy targets approaching your Carrier unit while you are in control of your aircraft). An additional idea, which might prove fruitful would be player gained XP if allied aircraft utilize the Carrier for landing and rearming. Branch 3. In regards to Distances, and maps sizes and How to Play. OP Edit: Objective: How it plays, use Capital ships like objectives themselves, and treat them like airfields. Spawning: The spawn locations as mentioned, could be located at varying distances, separate from those spawn locations of ships. In example, much farther out. Ensuring that aircraft must come in contact with other aircraft, and ensuring enough time can be had for ships to fight themselves, what ever distance or time that is has to be found. Engagement: Many suggestions have been made in regards to how far ships can actually shoot, and the way in which battles could happen. For one, it has been pointed out that it is not impossible for a ship such as the Yamato to make rather tight turns. http://imgur.com/a/aN5Y8 User's have expressed concerns on the stress to the ship itself in this case, but others have pointed out that it would not be game breaking to ignore such stress to a viable extent, in example of relation to the way in which WEP is used on aircraft. The mechanics of ships themselves is another matter, but would it not be possible to incorporate a system or repair similar to tanks, a disabled gun turret able to be repaired? It has been of concern that ships cannot dodge shots, in some cases they may be able to, in others they might not, it has been made a concern that ships would get a lucky shot on another causing it to sink, an example given was Bismarck vs Hood, however many people might not find issue with this, as is it not already possible for a tank to single shot another, whether via crew or ammo shots? Maps: Lots of suggestions have been made in regards to the distances in which ships can shoot. Calculations regarding the range of ships, the speed at which they travel, how they would be able to shoot at each other as well as when they would converge: http://imgur.com/gallery/NOiGQ It could be possible to spawn ships just outside of their effective range, be able to shoot at each other within minutes, and converge in half an hour or less. Objective: A significant percentage of people have suggested the idea of moving away from kill based game play, and focus on manipulating the way in which battles are played by focusing on objective based game play. Ideas have incorporated ships vs ships, ships in conjunction with other vehicles such as landings, escorting fleets, destinations, the idea here is that there are goals which define a victory that does not include killing everyone on the enemy team, within each of these scenarios there are ideas that incorporate dynamics which earn people rp and lions, as well as take away tickets from the enemy team as the game progresses. Designing such matches in a way to incentivize completing the objective. However, it is maintained that ships can still be sank, victory could still be possible through this way; in other words, there are many ways in which to play and complete a battle. example: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/&do=findComment&comment=6384952 warning long spoiler Battle designs: Design maps and objectives to incorporate multiple kinds of vehicles, navy, tanks, aircraft, example: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/&do=findComment&comment=6389132 EC: Create one long Enduring Confrontation style event that could take place over x amount of time. hours, days. etc. Gun battles/ Time of battles EC: Worry has been shown about increasing the size of maps to make a better playing field for large ships. You could remedy this by incorporating ships in an EC Enduring Confrontation style event. Players joining and leaving as they please. Including Capital ships, smaller ships, AI vehicles, aircraft. So aside from objectives, battles could be played where the intention is entirely a slugfest between juggernauts. If someone joins in a ship, their vehicle could either sink, or it could be turned into an AI controlled vehicle. Objective: Other ideas incorporate modified version of modes already in game, such as simple ship based flag capture, such as is already the case in battles, capturing A, B, and C. Objective: Incorporate a rather large map with a centralized objective location, smaller ships focus on the center objective while Capital ships focus on taking out as many enemies as possible. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Zone Based: In this instance you are able to control, or incentivize the way a game plays rather effectively. Create zones similar to how they currently are in tank battles, such as capturing point A within a certain circle boundary. (for ships, these boundaries could be circular, but not necessarily, you could shape them in ways based on map design to control the direction of motion in a battle). Except in the case of ships paying specific attention to capital ships, create not one, but two cap zones, one inside of the other larger cap zone, these cap zones are shared by both teams. The objective is for a number of players to occupy these zones, by occupying these zones you accrue a score or tickets for your team, a pool of points. The more of your team in, the faster you accrue points. Now, the purpose of two zones, one inside of the other is like a tiered system of zones, the larger zone is for capital ships only, inside the smaller zone is the effective area of occupancy for smaller craft such as PT boats, outside of their respective areas they do not accrue points, meaning they are incentivized to stay in this area of combat and fight, however, they have the ability to leave and target larger capital ships, in the hopes of taking them out, (possibly capital ships accrue more points more quickly) meaning it is up to the player to gamble and decide whether to maintain an occupancy or target the enemy heavy weights, (this creates dynamic game play). In this manner you could set a score point cap to win the game, and through this you eliminate the problem of waiting hours for a capital ship to sink. If the issue of a PT boat attempting to sink or incapacitate a capital ship does not prove fruitful in testing, you could change this system into a tag-type, meaning that successful damage-causing torpedo strikes impede a capital ships ability to collect points for X amount of time, or when a capital ship uses repair or similar systems, they can't accrue points at that time, just as examples. In this system all vehicle players are engaged in the battle continuously, there is a clear definable objective, there is a clearly understood system of winning, players are able to play objectively and or play for the system of sinking enemy ships, and it engages large and small ships together fluidly. For clarification, you can adjust these zone sizes and speed of point gain, so that when enemy ships are lost and they aren't gaining as many points as the enemy the match doesn't simply run away. From a dev standpoint this system is very flexible. Link to visualization: http://imgur.com/a/ddIsr Call In: I thought I had put this in here already, it's probably within one of the other suggestions I made, but on it's own I think it deserves it's own point. As myself and several others have suggested, make capital ships a call-in type consumable, much like how large bombers are in arcade tank battles, earn enough of a score and a prompt will pop up in which you get the ability to pilot a capital ship. Spawn Speed: Don't think this is too much of an issue, it's been thought of by most people but I'll add it anyway. Basically in regards to worries about the speeds of ships, as well as their acceleration, and how long it would take them to traverse or gain speed, simply spawn fleets already in motion much like aircraft are spawned in motion when given air spawns. Here, I would just like to make two points: This is a reiteration of what has been posted once, but I will highlight it, that is that these ships were unique, meaning that unlike thousands of M4's made, not that many Yamato's were made, the presence of such ships was made in multiple engagements around the world, meaning that one ship was present in many battles. So if in an objective based battle, for example a Yamato isn't destroyed in 10 battles, yet battles are won and lost, would that really be a problem? Secondly: I would like to quote the main post by the administration: Chapter 2 COUNTING KILLS BEING SANK WINNING CREW Branch 1. In regards to kills, sinking, and winning. - Sub-branch 1. In regards to Modules. OP Edit: No Enemy Vehicles: On it's own, maintain the basic principle that all enemy vehicles completed destroyed results in a win for the other team. Winning/Tickets: As has been made example through the suggestions listed in Chapter 1-Branch 3 regarding "How to play", there are multiple suggestions in which the definition of a victory could be made without even having to sink an enemy ship, yet the ability to sink an enemy ship still remains possible, meaning both the Objective and the No Enemy Vehicles scenarios remain possible simultaneously, by similar way of the current in game ticket system. Cumulative/Modular: What counts as winning, aside from completely sinking ships or winning a specific objective. Suggestions have been made to make damage done to ships cumulative, and counting that through a score, or tickets. Possibly the installation of a system where damaged modules are recognized by the game, meaning that aside from completely sinking or ship, or taking out every single module, or a predefined set-of-modules, attach a system of points to these modules. Hit an enemy ship with enough force to equal gaining a point. Who ever is better able to cumulatively gain points obviously wins. Define Modules Part 1: If you could define all of the modules as accurate as possible with the Dagor Engine, such as 1: gun turrets, 2: barrels, 3: gun turret trunks, 4: ship range finding equipment, 5: boilers, 6: engines, 7: rudders, 8: ammo racks (which are located in multiple locations), 9: Commanders Bridge, 10: the size of a hole created by a torpedo, 11: the angle at which a ship is listing due to flood water accumulation. If you define what limits the capacity of a ship to commit to combat, you could theoretically design a system in which you can count the ship as "destroyed" or incapacitated even without being sank. If we compare this to the current in game meta, you can earn a kill on a bomber by shooting him and forcing him to crash land. Yet as an intact vehicle he can sit on the ground and still shoot his gunners up at aircraft. Define Modules Part 2: Define when a ship is "destroyed" by defining a set of modules like a tank, and then ranking them based on their importance. Not in order, but on quality of importance, such as giving each a ranking between 1-10. Meaning more than one can share the same rank. Then, when subsequent modules are destroyed, define when a ship is no longer fit for battle, in other words this ship is destroyed because most modules are no longer functioning it cannot combat the enemy. For example in game, a tank can be knocked out when all but 1 crew member is left. Model the effect of catastrophic fires, you can emulate the extinguishing of a fire, but if for example you only extinguish one fire at a time, yet a catastrophic fire is set to 9 out of 10 modules, the ship has been rendered incapacitated. You could still model the sinking of a ship if for example, a majority of these modules are still functioning, but subsequent flooding actually begins submerging the vehicle, effectively drowning it. Or by catastrophic detonation of the ammo or citadel of the ship. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Define: Similarities have been drawn between an actual "HP" system and current in game module and crew health mechanics. Meaning, that damage done to a module has a quantitative, definable variable, that relates to its level of damage. If you consider the hull, and hull armor of the ship itself as a module, or modules from the perspective of one side vs another, through damage accumulated through this module you could simulate in effect, the listing of the ship, or the loss of buoyancy of the ship. Which could be alleviated through the use of a repair mechanic. Counting Kills: So after accumulating the information seen in Chapter 1-Branch 3 and reiterating appropriate points in Chapter 2-Branch 1 it would seem simple to state that a kill is counted after the state of a "sank" or "incapacitated" ship has been defined. Meaning the issue will resolve itself if the previous issue is at first resolved. The issue of economy is a further later issue that is more easily worked around after the successful definition of a ship-kill. Branch 2. In regards to crew. OP Edit: Crew: Keep crew that way it is and simply model as many of them as is reasonable for the engine, connection, and player rigs. Crew: Turn crew into multiple bleeding-like-chains, each one-long-sprite that spans one-section of the ship, that connects various layers of the ship across long axis', (basically imagine a string that would traverse from bow to stern on the starboard half of the ship, on one layer of deck as an example) instead of turning it into multiple groups that would essentially act like a group of 30 tanks strapped together, the purpose of this exercise is to condense the total number count of sprites yet emulate large numbers of crew members able to move fluidly within a ship, their health being a pool of receivable damage out of a larger chunk, basically emulating the combined mass of all of those members of crew, as this number lowers you can essentially simulate the decreased efficiency of a high population of crew as their numbers become lower. When the total-pool of health is below a point consider the rest of the crew too insignificant, and consider it equal to a tank with 1 crew left, or in other words dead. Crew: Turn crew into multiple groups associated directly with specifically designated areas, acting like modules, such as a group acting in each gun turret, this crew is as such essentially a module of the gun turret, so on and so forth. In this manner you can more accurately define the characteristics of a specialized form of crew, as opposed to the complete fluidity imposed by a chain-like system. These crew within each group are connected to a certain extent. Instead of turning crew into long chains, turn them into globular module-like-sprites, they are in this case essentially modules with a different set of 'laws' applied to them, defining them as crew members. In this manner, the number of active crew can be directly proportional to their allocated receivable damage, meaning that if x amount of damage affects the crew, you can essentially guarantee that due to the nature of ship crews, a group of crew in a gun turret for example will almost indefinitely all be exposed to possible damage at some degree, based on the amount of calculated damage to this crew, you can then directly reduce the proportion of a represented number of crew. To put simply if a crew group of 30 men is allocated 300 dmgHP, and are dealt damage equal of 50, you can simulate that 5 crew have been incapacitated. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Chapter 3 SPECIALTY ECONOMY IMBALANCE IN NATIONS Branch 1. In regards to selectivity of ships. OP Edit: EC: If concern is the queue times, you could incorporate these battles in a style of EC. The issue of how many Yamato's or Iowa's could be committed to a match would not be as much of a concern. We already have battles where many Maus's could fight other Maus's. What's the issue of 10 Yamato's vs 10 Iowa's? Let it be: In regards to queue times, why not let multiple of these ships into a single battle. With the exception of carriers, multiple BB's in a battle seems to some slightly different in caliber as compared to multiple bombers in an air forces match. It seems that saying they are awkward battles might be true, but we're doubtful it would be much more awkward than a battle made from a small queue of 5 v 5 in RB air battles with lot's of bombers on both teams. If you get a battle with a lot of BB's this seems to be of little issue, and if you have one left on both teams half way through the game, then spawned player aircraft could come in and finish them off, just like they do in ground forces, and otherwise end the battle after 45 minutes like other games modes do. Victory going to who kept the most tickets. Unique vehicles: Players have tried simply pointing to the expletives of vehicles themselves, such as the Arado 234 (without a gun), Maus, R2Y2, Horten 229, as simple examples of special aircraft and their true natures within the game, arguing ships might not be so different. Meaning that they work fine in the game, as well as the fact that limiting these ships in battle is inconsistent with air and ground battles currently in use. Vulnerability: Players have drawn comparisons, pointing out tank destroyers and spaa, and how they have to adapt in battle, an unsupported TD's vulnerability to planes, an spaa's vulnerability to tanks. Being no more of an issue in naval battles than it is now for GF and AF. Edit 2: (for additions made after the original posting) Branch 2. In regards to economy. OP Edit Objective: Many suggestions have been made towards garnering lions and rp through the completion of specific objectives, accomplishments, damage, and assistance in a given battle. Basically as an aside from kill based earning, you gain through your merit in a battle. Earnings: Some have drawn comparisons through experience in other modes such as ground forces, the way credits are earned doesn't change, meaning that killing a Maus in a pz II doesn't mean you'd earn a million lions. So if a lone dive bomber got a kill on a big BB, it'd earn simply however much that kill was worth. In other words should a lone dive bomber be rewarded with that many lions for a single lucky strike? Surely. It would be no different than ammo racking a tank in ground forces with a single lucky strike. Simplify: The composition of a ship can be simplified into several broadened categories. Such as the engine, ammunition, etc. And if you don't want to ignore crew functions, base them through emulations around each of the defined categories. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Branch 3. In regards to Imbalance between the Nations. OP Edit: NULL: A large portion of people have stated that to deprive the game of a class of ships due to the lack of adequate abilities by one nation to be a moot argument. To ignore all of them simply because the USSR had an inadequate navy has been compared to the state of Japan and its inadequate army tanks. Japan has one of the greatest Navy's in the world and some the greatest aircraft up until their defeat through attrition of their pilots and funding. The USSR had great armored vehicles while Japan did not, Japan had great naval ships while the USSR, for the most part, did not. Time frame: It can be shown that in aircraft and in ground battles, battles between vehicles on varying scales of time already take place, to otherwise change this would be inconsistent with current game meta. Not only this, but quite a few prototype vehicles are already in the game, and have been made to fit where they otherwise perform on-par. Not so bad: It has been also been shown that the USSR has quite an adequate line of cruiser class ships. If at the very least, add ships including DD's, and Cruisers. None: One suggestion is to equate the USSR navy tree to the Japanese tank tree, that is not to include one at all, and if decided, add the tree at a later date. This would be clean. Premium: Add the USSR navy tech tree, but only add a premium line of these ships, so that you don't end up with a half full tree that stops at tier 3, leaving players without an end game ship. So at least they have some ships Cut off: Add the USSR navy tech tree up and until it can no longer compete in that tier, example, up until tier 3 or 4, with no top tier ships to match against other nations. So they at least have more than a few ships. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Postscript: I would just like to point out the nature of the structuring of the post, the chapters, branches, and individual bullet points. Many ideas are intuitive across many relevant points and have been condensed in a manner as seen fit. From when the original post was made I have expanded from 2 to 3 chapters, moving the contents of what is now simply chapter 3 from where they were before. However chapter 2 is now introduced under its own explicit content. The purpose of this was in part to reiterate points that might have been lost in other branches and points. As well as extract relevant information that on its own is applicable to specific topics of interest in order to express clarity of thought. The further indexing of specific topics as they become more plentiful is seen in the use of sub-branches. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIER II: POST_CLOSED_BETA_TESTING [no current information] Null As an example of a large ship, here is a post on the IJN Nagato: From here on, we can continue to make suggestions and give ideas. This is a fairly rough draft, it will be worked on over time.
  2. German Leopard 1 MBT Development and Industry Following German surrender in 1945 the Wehrmacht was dissolved, Germany was removed of her armament industry, its design teams were dispersed, and anything civilian that could support them; security of Germany as a whole rested solely in the four Allied Powers. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded on May 23rd 1949, and any military plans forbidden by Allied regulations, however the Americans eventually called for West German accession into NATO and rearmament, originally opposed by France, but after the European Defense Community failed in 1954 they accepted the accession, and following an amendment of the Basic Law in 1955, West Germany became a member of NATO. The Bundeswehr was officially established on the 200th birthday of Gerhard von Scharnhorst, 12 November 1955. As such as being succeeded into NATO and their own arms industry having been dismantled, their equipment had to be obtained from sources other than their own. A selection of vehicles from the era included either the American M47 (standardized in 1952), (which is the only Patton series tank that never saw Combat in U.S. service despite being used widely by NATO and SEATO countries) and eventually the upgraded M48 (introduced in 1953), or the British Centurion (introduced in 1945); economic and political considerations won the Patton series favourability, and the Bundeswehr received 1,120 M47’s, and following training of German crews in these new tanks; showing that they did not suit tactical applications of their army, the Germans saw an opportunity to rebuild their armament industry as they had no desire to buy the following M60 tanks, eventually coming to an agreement with the nations France and Italy to work in conjunction on producing a new Europanzer, agreeing for production to begin mid 1960’s. Several new trains of thought in armoured warfare had begun to become common thought, views shared by the French and Germans were beliefs that the power of modern ballistics and anti-tank weapons had outrun the effective defensive properties of armour. As such the most major specifications of the new vehicle were requested as such to being fast and highly mobile (which forwent armour in favour of a lighter vehicle), carrying a gun capable of defeating 150mm of armour at 30 degrees with a maximum effective range of 2,500m, a combat weight of 30 tonnes, and two machine guns, a maximum height of 2.20m (7 ft 3in/ a rather small vehicle), either a torsion bar or air-hydraulic suspension system, and a ground pressure of 0.85kg/sq cm. Two vehicles from each industrial group were ordered (First Generation). German; one consortia was Porsche constituting Team A submitting two designs in 1961: · “A-1” [723] · “A-2” [773] Ruhrstahl constituting Team B submitting the following designs 8 months later: · “B-1” [TI] · “B-2” [TII] Contenders: The other industrial group, The French Atelier de Construction d’Issy-les-Moulineaux achieved successful margins in their AMX-13 and focused all efforts into the one vehicle design, the AMX-30. Eventually technical and political differences began to emerge, ultimately leading the French to produce their own tank based on the AMX-30 and equipped with a French designed 105mm gun instead of the British semi-automatic L7 the Germans had opted to use, and the Italians later backed out of the Europanzer project and opted to buy the M60. Philosophy: Over all the armour only needed to be able to defeat conventional Kinetic Energy Projectiles up to 20mm in caliber. All four German designs used a Rheinmetall developed turret, and Daimler Benz 838 diesel engine (with reduced fire hazard proportional to gasoline), fire extinguisher system; as well all four gun carriages were initially armed with the Rheinmetall 90mm. The A models sported a torsion bar suspension system with 7 road wheels, while the B models used an air-hydraulic suspension system with 6 road wheels. Both A models had risen to a vehicle weight of 35ton, while the B models complied with weight specifications. Comparative trials occurred at the Bundeswehr Proving Group near Trier in January 1961, and the A models were judged to be superior in lines that they were based on more traditional concepts, were less expensive and better suited for speedy production. And during this time the Rheinmetall 90mm had been replaced by a 105mm Rheinmetall weapon, (of which two 105mm guns were tried, the Rheinmetall and British L7A1 which was later developed into the L7A3.) The A-2 model, now called the Porsche Standardpanzer, was ordered to a quantity of 26, (known as the 2nd Generation). As they were produced several improvements and modifications had been made to the line of vehicles. They were 100mm wider and had greater armour protection, a somewhat better suspension system and fire control system. The 600hp eight cylinder engine was replaced by an 830hp 10 cylinder motor and the transmission improved, however the engine and transmission were found not to be completely suitable, and wasn’t effective until better cooling systems and lubrication were developed, as well as replacing the coupling. The turret was redesigned to accommodate the 105mm L7 to be depressed at -9 degrees, which consequently altered the center of gravity of the vehicle; and was also replaced by the Vickers L7 designed in Britain (at the time the most advanced tank gun in existence). Trials: Testing of these prototypes began in Meppen 1961; over all multiple things were ascertained, the chassis needed improvement, the engine and air intake system needed to be modified, as well as changes to the steering gear and braking system, hatches, air cleaners, fighting compartment, heating, cooling, and aeration system (aeration system of which was especially important for the accommodation to guarantee the crew safe compartmentalization within the unit during 24 hour periods of time, as well as specified NBC or Nuclear, Biological and Chemical requirements). The B models were discontinued in 1962; During the latter half of 1962 1,500 L7A3 guns were ordered for those Panzers built and to-be mass produced, this weapon which had been specifically designed for use on the British Centurion and American M60 meant that this would largely aid in the standardization of ammunition within NATO. The L7A3 consisted of 28 grooves and a bore evacuator center tube. The high rate of fire, up to 10 rounds a minute; can be attributed to the semi automatic, horizontal sliding breech block which opens automatically after a round has been fired and then closes automatically after a round has been loaded. The accuracy of this weapon has been shown to put 99 out of 100 rounds into the turret of a tank at 1,000m, with a 98% hit rate at 2,000m. The type of Ammunition the Leopard Loaded: APDS HEATFS HESH/ HEP Smoke. Below the grooves of the bore rifled gun: The APDS is capable of long distance effective and accurate marks. The HEAT is capable of defeating the armour of any tank in service. And the HESH are multi-purpose hard/soft target destroyers. The way the ammunition stowage was situated within the tank was 13 rounds ready in the turret, 42 additional stored throughout the compartment. In 1962 testing of the new turrets began with engineering and running trials, and again many things were determined, the turret, the gun, the optical equipment were not fit for mass production, the gun mounting did not withstand stress while being driven high speed cross country, the recoil and recuperator mechanism showed considerable deviation in target patterns between the varying muzzle velocities of firing the three main types of ammunition, APDS, HEAT, and HESH. The machine gun was not effective for ranging as it was only effective up to 1,800m, and no current range finders were capable of accuracy at 2,500m and neither did the commanders telescope; a new optical range finder was developed incredibly quickly, this basic coincidence range finder replaced the machine gun but necessitated modifications to the turret in raising it. Sanctioned manufacture of 50 Pre-production tanks code tagged Model 814 (0-Series) began manufacture in early 1963 before the trials ended. Arduous tests were conducted in mud, sand, on steep slopes, ditch crossing, fording and submerged trials, all of which were highly successful if not impeccable. The behaviour of the tanks were tested in cold weather/ low temperatures in snow and ice and concluded satisfactory in 1962/1963. October 1962 the Standardpanzer competed in staged trials against the French AMX-30, focusing on such things as: 250km road test, Five-hour cross-country run to be completed with no breakdown in the shortest possible time. The Standardpanzer achieved an average cruising speed of 60.8km/hr in the road test while the AMX-30 achieved 50km/hr. The Standardpanzer performed at 24km/hr in the cross country. Again in 1963 the two prototypes competed starting on the 16th of September, testing as follows: 5 tanks each, 300km run, all tanks taking part. One French tank and one German tank broke down due to engine failure. The next trial was a two day performance test under simulated battle conditions which both were considered roughly equal. And engineering trials mirroring those conducted in 1962 were repeated, except the test was 100km instead of 250km, and it was ran half petrol and half diesel respectively, both again performed equally. On the 1st of October, the Standardpanzer was officially renamed to the Leopard, of which it would continue to be called until be constituted Leopard 1 to differentiate it from the Leopard 2. Despite being heavier, 40tons to 36 tons, the Leopard performed better in cross country, could move 10% quicker on roads, and had 18% greater acceleration than the French design. France was not prepared to accept conclusions that their tank had rated marginally inferior and their defense posture meant that they could not even begin to afford to buy tanks until 1965; they decided not to follow through with joint development on the Europanzer and instead decided to work solely on their AMX-30. By now Germany was set in stone, and was prepared to replace their aging M47’s with the new Leopards through the allocated defense budget in 1964. As France backed out Italy too looked at how they would replace their aging M47’s, and looked to the Leopard. 2 Pre-production Standardpanzer were tested for trials at Cape Teluda, and put through trials that determined the behaviour of the vehicle while driving and firing in high temperatures and rough terrain, which showed the optical equipment, gun and machine guns, the power train unit, the suspension and the cooling system were all capable of standing up in these high temperature conditions, and that the crew compartment ventilation systems were shown to be efficient in the dusty environment. The core component of the fire control system is TEM 1A or 2 A range-finder, with a x16 magnification serving the gunner as range finding and targeting using stereoscoping principles. The ability for this vehicle to fight at night is based on illumination, using a white search light or infrared to illuminate the target, the gunner can then proceed to engage. The engine and transmission of this vehicle are located in the rear. The engine; MTU MB 838 CaM 500, 10-cylinder 90°V-type supercharged diesel engine, 37.4 litres, multifuel engine capable of running either diesel F-54 or Jet fuel F-40. This liquid cooled motor utilized a dry sump system ensuring proper circulation even at various angles of inclination; this system uses additional pumps and a secondary reservoir for oil, as compared to a conventional wet sump system, which uses only the main sump, (US Oil Pan) below the engine and a single pump. Capable of 2,200rev/min putting out 830hp, A fuel capacity of 985 litres giving a range of some 600km. The transmission has four forward and two reverse speeds equipped with a hydraulic torque converter, electro-hydraulic gear changing and a bypass clutch, allowing the driver to change gear rapidly and easily even while moving over difficult terrain. Aiding in the speed and mobility of the Leopard is provided by two gear shift positions for forward travel; 'forward-cross-country' and 'forward.' In the 'forward-cross-country' position the torque converter is connected in the first three gears depending on the vehicles speed, this allows the driver to overcome small obstacles without having to shift so there is no risk of stalling the engine. In the 'forward' position the torque converter is connected only in the first gear, the clutch being operated when the other gears are shifted, this increases efficiency and saves in fuel. The vehicle is steered by a two-radii cross steering transmission, this together with the shift transmission, fan drive and summation gears, is installed in a common gear housing and actuated mechanically and hydraulically. The large steering radius is designed for high speeds on roads, and if the driver turns the steering handle beyond a pressure point of the large radius the small gear-dependent fixed radius is brought into action giving the vehicle tremendous maneuverability, especially on cross country terrain. The vehicle can turn almost entirely within its own length. The Leopard can be driven from two different positions, within the forward front position of the hull, as well as within a portion of the turret, usually utilized during fording. As the Leopard finally began whole production, more than 2,700 different firms and companies were utilized in coordination and involved in the production and assembly of parts. Each part is individually tested by separate firms, and then tested again in complete assembled form. The first Leopard to be completed left the assembly line on the 9th of September 1965; by the end of 1965 about 600 Leopards had been produced, with about 50 coming off of Krauss Maffei’s assembly line every month. April 1965 - 2 Pre-production Standardpanzers were tested at the Belgian Armoured Warfare School. December 1965 – February 1966 A series of cold weather and snow trials were conducted at Camp Shilo. January 1966 - 2 Pre-production Leopards were sent to Britain in exchange for 2 Cheiftains for comparative trials. October 1966 – For one year the Norwegian army conducted a series of trials in Trandum and Snoeheim. December 1967 – May 1968 The Dutch Army tested two Leopards and two Chieftains at Amersfoort Belgium ordered 334 in December 1967, Norway ordered 78 in November 1968, December 1968 the Netherlands ordered 415(increased to 468), 1969 Italy ordered 200. In 1974 Denmark equipped their armies with 120; 1976 Canada bought 114 1A3’s, and after comparative trials with the Leopard and the American M60A1 Australia ordered 90 1A3’s through 1977-1978. Meanwhile the Bundeswehr had increased their own demands from 1,500 to 2,187 in 1972, and 2,437 in 1974; of 4,561 orders 4,171 were produced. From 1965 to 1970 4 different batches were produced, the changes between these batches are almost considered negligible: 1st Batch: [400 tanks from 1965 to 1966] Square shaped infantry telephone box. Unprotected cylindrical shock absorbers, (the only batch mounting unprotected shock absorbers). 2nd Batch: [600 tanks from July 1966 to July 1967] Circular shaped infantry telephone box and protected shock absorbers. A ballistic ring added in the 9 to 3 o’clock position of the turret ring. The turret received a drain against rain water. 3rd Batch: [500 tanks from July 1967 to August 1968] New brake with ventilated disks. Externally: Lifting lugs. 4th Batch: [345 tanks from August 1968 to February 1970] No longer shows the vertical separation of the exhaust grill arrangement. The crew consists of 4 members, commander, driver, loader and gunner, the driver to the front and the other 3 in the turret. Two sets of 4 smoke dischargers would sit on either side of the turret. There are 14 periscopes, 8 for the commander, 3 for the driver, 2 for the loader, and 1 for the gunner. The hull of the Leopard is fabricated from welded steel plates while the turret is cast one piece. Special camouflage paint protects against detection by infra-red sighting devices at night, and protection against heat detection is provided by mixing the exhaust gases with air and so reducing their temperature. Leopard A1 – A2 – A3 Leopard 1A1: The first upgrades began from 1972 onwards; the upgrade A1 included gun stabilization system (WaSta), Thermal sleeve, side skirts, and on board fording equipment. Secondarily snow grousers stowed on the glacias plate. The weapon stabilization was the most important installation measure of this modification which improved the ability of the vehicle to perform a firing-stop reducing time between the stop and target engagement, concluded in 1974. The thermal sleeve increased hit probability by eliminating temperature variations on the barrel through weather conditions. The side skirts aid in protection against hollow charges. It is difficult if not impossible to distinguish these vehicles apart visually externally. 1A1’s retrofitted with spaced armour to the turret have become Leopard 1A1A1; of which this modification was not made to any 1A2. 9/10/16 Dev Blog. Leopard 1A2: 5th batch cast turret. The first four batches concluded. The 5th batch followed in April 1972. This batch consisted 2 different parts, of which the first with 232 vehicles has been delivered with a cast turret, receiving the designation A2 too. All of the upgraded features on the A1 were incorporated into the A2 from the start. The main measure of the A2 was the thickened armour of the cast turret. Longer 5 metre towing ropes were added, and a new (BiV) image intensification device for the driver was added. Newer smaller air filters for the engine were fitted. The turret is heavier; however it is still difficult to distinguish the A2 with that of the completely upgraded A1. Leopard 1A3: 5th batch welded turret. Blohm and Voss developed a new turret design; approximately two-thirds of the 5th batch were delivered with cast turrets, succeeded by 110 vehicles with welded turrets incorporating spaced armour as 1A3 in 1973. Both periscopes of the driver were replaced by a single one with tilt and traverse features. Crew: 4 Weight: Leopard 1: 40 tonnes Leopard 1A1A1 and later: 42 tonnes. Length: 9.54m Width: 3.37m Height: 2.61m Speed: 65km/h Range: 600km Armour: Hull Front: 70mm Side upper: 35mm Side lower: 25mm Top 10mm Rear: 25mm Floor: 15mm Turret Front: 52mm Mantlet: 60mm Sides: 60mm Rear: 60mm Notable Vehicles of the Era: . The information provided includes specifications of vehicles up to 1A3; as models will probably not supersede this. Notable vehicles: Centurion
  3. [Part One Link]   Panzer 4 F2 can be found here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/139390-panzerkampfwagen-iv-ausf-f2-questions-information-gameplay/   -------------------------   CHASSIS: 82651 - 84400   Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G     Manufacturer: Krupp-Gruson, Vomag, Nibelungewerke   Crew: 5 Weight: 23.5 Tons Length: 6.62m Width: 2.84m Height: 2.68m Engine: Maybach HL120TRM Gearbox: 6 Forward, 1 Reverse Speed: 40km/h Range: 210km Radio: FuG5   Armament: one 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 one 7.92 MG34 Traverse: 360º Electric Elevation: -8º +20º Sight: TZF5f Ammunition: 87 Pzgr, Spgr + Nebel 2,400 Patr SmK   Armour:    Gun Mantlet: 50/0 º   Turret (mm/angle) ·         Front: 50/11º ·         Side: 30/26º ·         Rear: 30/10º ·         Top: 10/83º Superstructure ·         Front: 50 or 50+30/10º ·         Side: 30/0º ·         Rear: 20/12º ·         Top: 12/85º Hull ·         Front: 50 or 50+30/12º ·         Side: 30/0º ·         Rear: 20/9 ·         Top: 10/*   1,750 of this variant were order in issue out of 10 total orders, around 70 of these eventually were finished in prototypes for the Bubble Bee and Grizzly Bear, 1,275 of these received the L/43, and the remaining received the L/48 after March 1943. Roughly half of these Ausf G's received additional armour protection, and in addition to that track links were often attached to the fronts of tanks as even more additional protection, this evolution was fueled, even through the increased difficulty of driving, by the fact that newer Allied guns, such as the British 6 pounder, could still penetrate their 50mm hull. Vision ports on the drivers side and side of the turrets were eliminated, and a new muzzle break was used. Smoke discharges were moved onto the side of the turret, eventually schurzen were added, as the drivers periscope was eliminated and the cupola was remodeled to be thicker and have a single hatch, many tanks were even fitted with winter tracks before winter even began, as it was imperative that they be fully prepared for winter.   -------------------------   CHASSIS: 84401 - 91500   Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. H     Manufacturer: Krupp-Gruson, Vomag, Nibelungewerke   Crew: 5 Weight: 25 Tons Length: 7.02m Width: 2.88m Height: 2.68m Engine: Maybach HL120TRM Gearbox: 6 Forward, 1 Reverse Speed: 38km/h Range: 210km Radio: FuG5   Armament: one 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 one 7.92 MG34 Traverse: 360º Electric Elevation: -8º +20º Sight: TZF5f/1 Ammunition: 87 Pzgr, Spgr + Nebel 2,400 Patr SmK   Armour:    Gun Mantlet: 50/0 º   Turret (mm/angle) ·         Front: 50/11º ·         Side: 30/26º ·         Rear: 30/10º ·         Top: 10/83º Superstructure ·         Front: 50 or 50+30/10º ·         Side: 30/0º ·         Rear: 20/12º ·         Top: 12/85º Hull ·         Front: 50 or 50+30/12º ·         Side: 30/0º ·         Rear: 20/9º ·         Top: 10/*   Nearly 4,000 Panzer IV Ausf. H chassis's were produced, with nearly 200 eventually being diverted for Stug IV's and Brummbars. Through 1937 to the end of the war the Panzer IV suspension remained ultimately unaltered. The greatest change from the Ausf G to the H was the replacement of the transmission with the SSG77. The frontal armour evovled into 50mm basic to 30mm additional to 80mm basic, to 80mm basic interlocked. Of course the view ports on the side of the turret remained eliminated, having been made useless with the addition of schurzen that was added around the turret and to the sides of the hull. Among other modifications were replacement of the muzzle break with that of a double chambered one, the addition of external air filters, all steel return rollers, a new style idler wheel, and cupola mount for an MG.     Collection Index