fwD13

Knight of the Sea
  • Content count

    632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

314 Good

About fwD13

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,334 profile views
  1. Compared to most paper tanks the Lowe has far more information about than others did and he never said that you did. As for the unknown, unverified, or untrue as far as I know and can say yes there are some unknowns, as of right now there are no unverified's, or untruths all info used and used as poor for when I comment is valid and credible. If you go back and look he's been warned many times for things, yes saying "Almost everything you say is wrong." is not only insulting and was intended to start a flame war but nonsensical which is against 1.1.26. This isn't the first time he's done this and that post I bumped for 2015 from him shows there something odd about this posts now. So your saying I can't reply to peoples posts because I'm bumping my topic even though I'm posting logical and relative feedback ok.
  2. This is wrong I just added the gun info to the main page but let explain why what you said is wrong. The Lowe might not fit at 7.3 but 7.0 yes. The Lowe may not have good mobility but mobility(even thought we do know way it is yet) isn't really that important as other traits, the Lowe's hull while being worse than the Tiger II's is not a disadvantage when angled properly its still combat effective at 7.0. The Lowe's main gun is only sightly worse than the L/68 at lest in pen and is still as good as the 88mm(not in accuracy and has a 5-10mm pen difference) and its still combat effective though at 7.0. The Lowe's front turret only has to be better than 185mm to be better than the Tiger II's and I think for a fact we can say the front turret(all parts combined) are at least greater then 200mm so still combat effective at 7.0 and if replace the KT 105 at 7.0 with the Lowe the E75 will come next in the line at 7.3. The Lowe is better than the IS-6 a 7.0, the T29 a 6.7, the KT (H) at 6.7, has some advantages over the KT 105, and I can be said that the Lowe is better the IS-6, T29(depends on the Lowe's turret but the Lowe right now is at least on par with it ), the Tiger II (H) so there really isn't any evidence to support that the Lowe shouldn't come after the KT (H) but there is evidence to support that it shouldn't come after the KT. Statistically if the Lowe and Tiger II (P) were to face off the only advantage the Tiger II (P) would have is it's have armour and speed, it would have to get a shoot at the unangled hull or the side of the Lowe to kill the Lowe the Lowe would just put one round through the turret and kill the Tiger II P. All that's in bold is a fact and is based off of the sources I provided, mobility isn't anything without other features to back it up. That's why the Lowe is a good tank it's main weakness mobility is one if can afford to have.
  3. If 7.0 is a concern here this is what we could do suggest the 0.5 BR and have the line go like this 6.3 KT (P), 6.5 KT (H), 6.7 Lowe 105, 7.0 E-75, and 7.3 Maus. There problem solved.
  4. I made a rather broad statement, of not all unknowns can be found but many of them can be found. I never claimed to have advanced knowledge of tanks but my knowledge of tanks is not bad, I'm more in the middle. My main area of is expertise WW2 tanks. Ground clearance 500mm were not that bind in to the tanks mobility and mobility is not as an important feature as other ones that we could be missing. Math can find most of what were missing it's not irrelevant.
  5. 1.1.1. Insult any forum members or forum staff. 1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas. 1.1.26. Abusing the "Report Post" feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages I've read through is topic 4 or 5 times now and last time I counted 75 yes's 32 no's I believe now its 80 yes's to 34 no's I'll have to recount. I understand several people in this very thread disagree with adding the Lowe but we just don't exclude vehicles because people disagree with them. "but anyways premium vehicles have much more lenient requirements of implementation. In fact premium vehicles from the start have been reserved for blueprint, prototype, limited production, and captured vehicles. Also with 53 people already saying they would buy the Lowe, $2,120 worth already sold prerelease Gaijin doesn't have any reason to not add the Lowe as a premium. Also the majority here favors the Lowe being adding in the main tree and as a premium and if as a compromise the Lowe was added as a premium instead of a main tree tank then I'm fine with that and I think the other people who what it in the main tree would be to." Everything here is a fact expect this "I think the other people who what it in the main tree would be to." so try disapproving it can't be added right now as a premium. Also I don't speak for the crowd but after reading this topic 4 to 5 times I think I'm sure what the general atmosphere is. 1.1.1. Insult any forum members or forum staff. 1.1.26. Abusing the "Report Post" feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages As I said I manually counted those anyone can and again 1.1.26. Abusing the "Report Post" feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages
  6. Says you but you'll disagree with almost anything I'll say, but anyways premium vehicles have much more lenient requirements of implementation. In fact premium vehicles from the start have been reserved for blueprint, prototype, limited production, and captured vehicles. Also with 53 people already saying they would buy the Lowe, $2,120 worth already sold prerelease Gaijin doesn't have any reason to not add the Lowe as a premium. Also the majority here favors the Lowe being adding in the main tree and as a premium and if as a compromise the Lowe was added as a premium instead of a main tree tank then I'm fine with that and I think the other people who what it in the main tree would be to. Also even with out knowing the Lowe's mobility its still better than the IS-6.
  7. I think with out a doubt we could say right now the Lowe could be added as a premium. The real thing everyone seems to be arguing about it's place in the main tree, so I think that can a least be established.
  8. But I didn't I only was talking about the concept . A concept is perfectly ok in the forums and it was a valid comparison. Also I fixed it so now it's states I only ment the concept.
  9. With regards to this each nation has a model in all there tank and planes share common traits for Germany its firepower, armor, face hardened armor, and quality steel with some exceptions. We know the quality types of steel use by the Germans and know which steel was during a time period. I forget which book this came from but if I remember correctly nearly all German tanks had the face hardened armor process. The point is with the thing we can estimate and the German model, the Lowe won't be much different than it would of been in real life. Also in terms of the mantlet math will be one of the solving factors in that.
  10. There is a clear difference between theoretical characteristics and factual characteristics. Theoretically socialism(strictly the concept not anything political or economical) looks good on paper but in reality it's a fact it doesn't work because there are far to many unknowns(not predictable, estimable, or we could provide facts about). This not the case in the Lowe we have many sources from some of the most credible people in the field, with fixed historically correct values and mathematically calculable values for the unknowns. The Lowe's unknowns can be found and will not be theoretical characteristics but estimated characteristics based off of factual characteristics and those estimated characteristics will fit into the margin of error which is no different then the real value. Yes the Lowe has poor power to weight ratio no one ever claimed it didn't. No the armor would have been the same, so some how through the manufacturing process the Lowe lost armor. If the weight of the tank was a concern the Lowe wouldn't of been 90 tons in the first place, remember its classified as a super heavy tank .
  11. If the tank is good more people buy it, The IS-6 is a bad tank(it might as well be called the IS-2 mod. 1946) and I believe its fact that the Lowe would sell better. Hell we I suggested replacing the Sal.16 with the Lowe 52 people said they'd buy it, that's $2,120 in confirmed sales already. Also even if it's not a event tank to you logic if only a few people have them and there not really present in every battle then its the same thing. Problem is the Lowe 105 doesn't fit the event tank model, the Lowe 15 maybe. I've read though this topic 4 or 5 times now and the majority of support is for the Lowe to be in the main tree or a premium, the minority(like a few people say event tank) but agree that it would have to be buy-able during the event like the Christmas ones were to be fair to people who work, have school, or don't have the time to dedicate. So I'm pretty sure it will be in the main tree or a premium. Agreed.
  12. This has been one my points for a while, using mathematical calculations we can find out this stuff and as you said " make a fully operational tank that actually operates exactly how it is classed, and how it would be expected to.)". The Lowe has more than info available to make those calculations possible as well.
  13. Ok then by this logic we add the Lowe as a premium right now since only a few thousand will have out of millions.
  14. Last time I checked there were more than double the amount of yes to no's so yeah and you have to be joking right, implementation would be no problem there are far more vehicles with less information that have been added. Explain what data?
  15. No I'm saying the Lowe 105 would be a tier V in the main tree and the Lowe 15 would be a tier IV premium, I have to double check but I believe the 15cm L/40 is worse than the 105mm KwK L/70.
  16. I have to agree with @Vrox11Z on this one I think the Lowe 105 23Apr42 belongs in the main tree and the Lowe 15 11May42 would be a good premium line. Both would be good premiums however more work was done in production of the Lowe 105 and there were more variants. The Lowe 15 11May42 was the only model meant to solely accommodate the 15cm L/40 so its a better candidate for a premium.
  17. Cannot exactly be determined yes I agree but approximated or estimated yes, which will get us close enough to the real value. Remember exact values are still consistent averages, there is still a margin of error and if the value can be approximated or estimated to with the margin of error its considered to be an exact value. I'm glad we could agree, the Lowe could be as slow as the T95 but without a good gun and armor the tank is nothing.
  18. Your aware that Gaijin removed the Yer-2 M-105 TAT-BT and Yer-2 M-105R TAT-BT in update 1.37 after the Yer spamming problem right? So they will remove Vehicles its not off the table. Agreed.
  19. Agreed the addition of both makes sense the Lowe 105 after the Tiger II (H) and then the E75, since the Lowe 105 is better than the Tiger II (H) and the E75 is better than the Lowe.
  20. How so, the Lowe might not fit at 7.3 but 7.0 yes. The Lowe may not have good mobility but mobility isn't really that important as other traits, the Lowe's hull while being worse than the Tiger II's is not a disadvantage when angled properly its still combat effective at 7.0. The Lowe's main gun is only sightly wore than the L/68 at lest in pen and is still as good as the 88mm(not in accuracy though) and its still combat effective though at 7.0. The Lowe's front turret only has to be better than 185mm to be better than the Tiger II's and I think for a fact we can say the front turret(all parts combined) are at least greater then 200mm so still combat effective at 7.0 and if replace the KT 105 at 7.0 with the Lowe the E75 will come next in the line at 7.3. The Lowe is better than the IS-6 a 7.0, the T29 a 6.7, the KT (H) at 6.7, and has some advantages over the KT 105, so there really isn't any evidence to support that the Lowe shouldn't come after the KT (H) but there is evidence to support that it shouldn't come after the KT 105.
  21. I have been and am talking about the Lowe the 4th design, the 23Apr42 below and the one I'm taking about is one the 2 that has the most information one it.
  22. 35km/h not 23km/h your confusing the VK70.01(schwere) and the Lowe(schwere) first off something doesn't have to be tested to gain accurate information, testing dose is fine toon the margin of error and provide mirror preciseness. approximations and projections are most always close to the real value. It's up to the Dev's to determine the exact pen however there's enough information present to suggest the pen will be close but not the same as the KwK 43.
  23. Also in comparison to the IS-6 which has great mobility you could say the IS-6 is a bad tank as well with terrible pen 207mm max a 10m, bad hull armor 120mm, and a thick turret with no gun depression at 7.0 yet the Lowe only suffers in mobility and hull armor which to me make the Lowe better. Speed isn't help if your a big tank that has trouble penning things and has a hard time blocking shells.
  24. @KorEEnium posted this information 10.5cm KwK L/70 was supposed to have 160mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. 8.8cm KwK 43 has 165mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. 10.5cm KwK L/68 has 200mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. I meant top speed and it's a difference of 2 not 10. The mantlet thickness is up for the Dev's to decide and with the info provided about the L/70 is similar in pen the the KwK 43 which would make better than the guns I listed in terms of pen(I never said it was more accurate) The Maus is slow but that doesn't mean the Maus is bad.
  25. I think your underestimating the Lowe, so I'm going to compare it to 4 tanks to show why 6.7-7.3 is about right. When you compare the Lowe to the Tiger II (H), Tiger II 10.5cm, IS-6, and T29 you find the Lowe to be quite combat capable. The Lowe's 105mm KwK L/70 is on par with the 88mm KwK 43's pen with the damage of the the KT 105's L/68, the L/70 is Superior to the German KwK 43, US T5E1 and E2(accept for the APCR shell), and ever Russian 122mm except the T-10M's. The has similar top speed to the T29, but is not as good as the KT's or IS-6. The Lowes hull is better than the T29's and similar in effectiveness to the IS-6 but is not better then the KT. The Lowes turret if it turns out being thick will be similar to the T29 and IS-6 and be better than the KT's. So it possible it can fit at the 6.7-7.3 BR.
  26. No we can't exactly say but we estimate and get pretty close to the real number of thickness. Also when you get down to to it this is something the Dev's will work this out and there's been other tanks and planes added with far less information and as long as the tank/plane is balanced whats the problem. So answers these question for me, if something is balanced is there any other problem than it's historicalness that people find problem with, is the Lowe more or less of a fantasy than the KT 105, does this tank have more information than other paper tanks that were added, is there enough information provided to add the tank to the game, and lastly is there enough historical information present to provide a middle ground in between those who want everything to be at the max historical requirement and those who only want minimal historical requirement. The point of these question is to prove the point that this is a game and the are a set historical requirement for adding vehicles and once that's met than any other historical information added helps your case but any other historical information someone argues that you don't have is just arguing history because if the vehicle meets the historical requirement and is balanced(which the Dev's take care of) than the other historical isn't need. For example I agree that the KT 105 should be replaced and agree with the historical inconsistencies however the KT 105 is balanced so I also agree it's fine where it is now, so at the end of the day were arguing history not balance.
  27. There only 2 weeks between the changes and their all documented, don't you think if the hull was significantly altered they would of documented that. Also the only 2 version of the we have today are these 2 below, don't you there would a been a third version if there were changes made. In 2 weeks they changed the engine, added 4 shells and the purposed mounting of the 15cm L/40, and same dimension changes that would barley alter the look of the tank. For example lets same we have a picture of a led pencil with a cylinder shape and set specifications and 2 weeks later I document changes I made such as changing the led to graphite and made it wider and taller but didn't show you a picture and know you claim it's shaped like a rectangle. How could the look/shape change if the changes were made off of an existing design and were made in a short amount of time and were so minor.
  28. No so far I don't have a source that directly states the gun mantlet's thickness other than the exterior measurement, however its enough to compare to other tanks with similar mantlet's to get accurate information.When said the Lowe and T29 were similar in aspect I meant thickness wise and the fact the both hull-down tanks not their mantlet's are exactly the same.
  29. The differences between the 2 are in bold below over the souse of 2 weeks mirror changes where made and documented so the 9th of April 1942 drawing would still be accurate, it would just accommodate the changes made in the 23th of April 1942 improvement. Löwe Schwerer specifications(23April42): Total length 11670mm Chassis length 7450mm Total width 3830(4030) mm Total height 3085mm Firing height 2495mm Track width 900(1000) mm Wheel base 2930(3030) mm Track contact 4960mm Ground pressure 1(0.9) kg/cm2 Ground clearance 500mm Total weight, battle ready 90 tons Armament 10.5 cm L/70 with 80 rounds or 15cm L/40 and 1 x 7.92 mm MG34 with 2000 rounds Elevation -8, +38 Armor: Hull front 120mm Hull side 80/100mm Hull deck 40mm Turret front 120 mm(without gun mantel) Turret top 40mm Crew and Performance: 5 (driver, commander, gunner, loader, radio operator) Speed 35 kp/h Engine 800hp Maybach HL 230 Transmission 12 EV 170 Steering L600C Suspension: Torsion bar Status: Paper project VK 70.01 Schwerer specifications(09pril42): Total length 11640mm Chassis length 7450mm Total width 330mm Total height 2960mm Firing height 2470mm Track width 800mm Wheel base 2830mm Track contact 4880mm Ground pressure 1.17 kg/cm2 Ground clearance 480mm Total weight, battle ready 90 tons Armament 10.5 cm L/70 with 76 rounds and 1 x 7.92 mm MG34 with 2000 rounds Elevation -8, +38 Armor: Hull front 120mm Hull side 80/100mm Hull deck Turret front 120 mm(without gun mantel) Turret top 40mm Crew and Performance: 5 (driver, commander, gunner, loader, radio operator) Speed 23 kp/h Engine 800/3000 Transmission 12 EV 170 Steering L600C Suspension: Torsion bar Status: Paper project
  30. I agree I think its time and I think there's more than enough info on the Lowe and support for it.
  31. Your lack of Knowledge of what I meant shows, the Lowe and T29 mantlet are similar. The T29 has 203mm straight front turret armor with a thick straight mantel, the Lowe has 120mm angled front turret armor with an thick angled mantel as seen in the pictures below(the last Lowe is not the one I'm suggest but shows a good view of a similar Lowe mantel design). So the mantels are similar in the fact there both build around the 105mm gun and are think, So its fair to say based off the blueprints of the Lowe and the T29's mantel that the Lowes front turret with 120mm angled front turret armor with an thick angled mantel could be together 275mm thick or 300mm as someone else estimated. This is an estimated guess though not a fact.
  32. I think it's funny how you keep making claims without proof, by your logic the T29 turret would have bad armor. I've stated my estimate of 275mm is based of the blueprints itself and based of the similar T29 turret.
  33. Here's the problem with your statement, yes the hull is worse but the turret is estimated to be thicker than the Tiger II (H)'s turrent around (275mm-300mm). The 105 KwK L/70 has around the same pen as the 88mm but has the same deadlyness of the L/68 so the Lowe is similar to the T29 but better than it in some ways so the Lowe fits the 6.7-7.3 BR range and could replace the Tiger II 105. But again this is why I said the answer to this question is an opinion right now there no proof that supports one side over the other, there's support for both so yes and no are not answers to this question.
  34. That's your opinion not a fact. Just like my statement is an opinion that's why I said "I believe it could". So "I don't think so" would be a better statement in response to his question.
  35. I took the time to update the information for this tank and I would like to make some clarifications. There were 6 designs for the Löwe, This suggestion is for the Schwerer(23April42). The Schwerer features the 10.5 cm L/70 which is similar to the current 10.5 cm L/68 in the game, a massive gun mantlet that is really thick and that covers a lot of the turret face and when combined with the steeply angled turret front leads to an armour effectiveness similar to the T29 or T32, which offers the hull down position to be very effective in this tank. Why this tank: By all means I'm not suggesting this tank over the E-75 I think we need both and Löwe Schwerer fits in better at a BR of 7.3 and that leaves the 7.7 spot to the E-75 which fits that spot well. When it comes to late tier heavy's for WW2 tanks these are the last 2 for Germany so we need both and for those of you who say we still have the 15cm E-100 we do but that's a 8.0 we need a 7.3 and 7.7. Also the tank will not be based solely off of what I found Gaijin has amour experts for this kind of stuff I even messaged one to help me prove the 10.5 cm L/70 was real which he helped me prove so the tank will be as historical correct as can be. History: The VK70.01 project started on November 1st, 1941, when specifications were given for a tank of 70 tons, with 140 mm (5.5 in) thick frontal armor and 100 mm (3.94 in) thick side armor. A 1000hp Diamler-Benz Schnellbootsmotor from an E-boat would propel the tank up to 43.6 km/h (27.1 mph). The crew layout was standard for German tanks; Driver and Radio Operator in the hull, Gunner, Loader, and Commander in the turret. Krupp, which had lost out on the Panther program, was ordered on December 17th, 1941 to develop this new tank, not exceeding 90 tons. On January 21st, 1942, Krupp revealed their design, armed with a 10,5cm KwK L/70 cannon. At this point, the engine was changed to Maybach’s new 800hp HL 230. In February 1942 Wa.Pruef.6 ordered two tanks (one with a turret, one with a test weight) of 72 tons to be built and for series production to begin as soon as possible. These tanks were to be 72 tons as the railcars used for the Tiger could carry this amount of weight. They would share the Tiger’s drive train and armor layout as well (100mm at the front, 80mm at the sides). In April 1942 the VK70.01 name was dropped and the tank was simple called “Panzerkampfwagen Löwe”. If the dev's don't think this tank is needed in the main tree then at least add it as a tier IV premium with a 6.7-7.0 BR. The development of super heavy tank started as early as 1941, when Krupp started the studies of super heavy Soviet tanks. In November of 1941, it was specified that the new heavy tank was to have 140mm front and 100mm thick side armor. The vehicle was to be operated by 5 men crew – 3 in the turret and 2 in the hull. This new panzer was to have maximum speed of some 44km/h being powered by 1000hp Daimler-Benz marine engine used in Schnellboot (torpedo boat). The main armament was to be mounted in the turret. The weight was to be up 90 tons In late 1942, this project was cancelled in favor of the development of the Maus. During the development of Tiger II , designers planned to build redesigned version of Löwe (as suggested by Oberst Fichtner), which would be armed with 88mm KwK L/71 gun and its frontal armor protection would be 140mm (as planned before). Redesigned Löwe would be able to travel at maximum speed of 35km/h and it would weight 90 tons. It was to be powered by Maybach HL 230 P 30, 12-cylinder engine producing 800hp. Löwe would be 7.74 meters long (with the gun), 3.83 meters wide and 3.08 meters high. Löwe would be operated by the crew of five. It was planned that Löwe would eventually replace Tiger II.From February to May of 1942, six different designs were considered, all based on the requirements for Löwe. On March 5/6th of 1942, order for heavier tank was placed and project Löwe was stopped in July of 1942. Löwe how it may have appeared in service in 1945 Löwe Schwerer specifications(23April42): Total length 11670mm Chassis length 7450mm Total width 3830(4030) mm Total height 3085mm Firing height 2495mm Track width 900(1000) mm Wheel base 2930(3030) mm Track contact 4960mm Ground pressure 1(0.9) kg/cm2 Ground clearance 500mm Total weight, battle ready 90 tons Armament 10.5 cm L/70 with 80 rounds or 15cm L/ 40 and 1 x 7.92 mm MG34 with 2000 rounds Elevation -8, +38 Armor: Hull front 120mm Hull side 80/100mm Hull deck 40mm Turret front 120 mm(without gun mantel) Turret top 40mm Crew and Performance: 5 (driver, commander, gunner, loader, radio operator) Speed 35 kp/h Engine 800hp Maybach HL 230 Transmission 12 EV 170 Steering L600C Suspension: Torsion bar Status: Paper project The 105mm KwK L/70 Thanks to @KorEEnium for this information 10.5cm KwK L/70 was supposed to have 160mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. 8.8cm KwK 43 has 165mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. 10.5cm KwK L/68 has 200mm of penetration at 1000m at 30 degree angle. Links and Soureces: Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary Doyle: Panzer Tracts No.20-1: Paper Panzers Special Panzer Variants : Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger and Hilary Doyle Encyclopedia of German tanks of WW2 by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/German_what-if_armour.php http://henk.fox3000.com/maus.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vii-lowe.htm http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VII%20LOWE.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VII_L%C3%B6we