War Thunder Q&A (BVV_d), 10 January, 2016:

 

Quote

Q:

Здравствуйте.

Сразу несколько вопросов.

Возможно ли введение в 1,67 в ветку тяжелых танков США Т30 и особенно Т34 в составе пакетов? ( особенно интересует наличие опытных каморных снарядов для 120мм орудия, для 155мм они были - я создавал пост с документами )

Возможно ли введение танка ИС7 так же в виде пакета?  Ибо такого монстра хотели бы иметь многие, да и пакетная техника весьма хорошо ценится.

Будете ли вы исправлять некотоые несуразницы насчет заброневого воздействия крупнокалиберных снарядов?

Пример - на полигоне Т29 каморником Т13 уничтожает   КТХ в щечку башни с подрывом БК либо баков, аналогично с пантерой D.

Но в бою я такого не встречаю, приходится бить порой по 2, а иногда и 3 раза в башню КТХ - очень неприятно заниматься подобным.

180гр. тротила с лихвой должно хватать для гарантированного уничтожения техники через лоб.

Планируется ли введение немецких ЗСУ с МГ131 и МГ151/15?

МГ151/20 не интересны в виду ужасной баллистики. А миненгешоссы применялись и на обчных Flak 30 & Flak 38.

 

A:

Про пакетные танки и тп мы обычно объявляем уже в девблогах. Но их в премы не планировали, Т34 скорее всего будет в ветке.

Еще немецких ЗСУ пока не планировалось, и так нация с одной из самых богатых линеек ЗСУ.

ИС-7 как линейный или премиумный танк не планируется. Возможно как акционный.

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BravoBigBooms said:

War Thunder Q&A (BVV_d), 10 January, 2016:

 

 

Can I get a translation?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mercedes4321 said:

Can I get a translation?

 

Something about releasing T34 (absolute) & T30 (possibility) as regular heavy tank at the same time at the same patch.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BravoBigBooms said:

 

Something about releasing T34 (absolute) & T30 (possibility) as regular heavy tank at the same time at the same patch.

I have the feeling it would bring rage it would be nice to get those and a fix for most of the US tree that would be a great Christmas present. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire rate of 155 mm T7 is actually 3 RPM (20 secs) instead of 2 RPM (30 secs)

 

Only if its gun is facing forward or upward.

 

To make it sound,

2.0 RPM / 30 secs fresh crew

2.5 RPM / 24 secs expert crew

3.0 RPM / 20 secs ace crew

 

Taken into consideration, it will be a high tier tank.

 

Maybe even higher than ISU-152 (6.3) if it has access to shaped charges with tremendous firepower over ISU-152's HEAT.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR-471D was around at least 9 years prior to the IS-2M project. The vehicles (Mod. 1943 included) actually had that round, so please don't try to use it as a crutch for a what-if addition to the T30. What-if ammo is annoying on the T-34, STB-1, and it'll be annoying on the T30. Please no more wonder ammo in the game, stick to historical loadouts. 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Choogleblitz said:

BR-471D was around at least 9 years prior to the IS-2M project. The vehicles (Mod. 1943 included) actually had that round, so please don't try to use it as a crutch for a what-if addition to the T30. What-if ammo is annoying on the T-34, STB-1, and it'll be annoying on the T30. Please no more wonder ammo in the game, stick to historical loadouts. 

Test bed tank firing test ammo, no standard historical loadouts would exist, if the gun could fire it chances are they did at one point or another.

 

The Big picture (1953) Aberdeen video showing them firing APFSDS is a perfect example. They started work on the 155mm T58 tank in 1951, so dollars to dounts they were probably firing it's ammo during development out of the T30's.

 

What it will come down to is balance, and where they want to shove the tank in the lineup.

 

Edited by Whelmy
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Whelmy said:

Test bed tank firing test ammo, no standard historical loadouts would exist, if the gun could fire it chances are they did at one point or another.

 

The Big picture (1953) Aberdeen video showing them firing APFSDS is a perfect example. They started work on the 155mm T58 tank in 1951, so dollars to dounts they were probably firing it's ammo during development out of the T30's.

 

What it will come down to is balance, and where they want to shove the tank in the lineup.

 

 

Wasn't the T58 intended to replace the T30 in terms of "if" it went into service?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

Wasn't the T58 intended to replace the T30 in terms of "if" it went into service?

If the T30 had of been in service no doubt, but as it stood with the war ending they cancelled it's need so it was only used as a test bed.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Whelmy said:

It's an option HE had for many guns when they knew they would be going up against fortifications.

 

Alright, so it will still use P.D. fuze for direct tank combat?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is strictly an ammo suggestion but I'm sure everyone is going to want to know the answer to this question, since the T29 is a perineum tank if the T30 is added is going to be as well.  

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the Q&A (in Russian) above:

 

Both are not planned as premium tank.

 

Both (T30 & T34).

 

 

T30 might come in a single patch along with T34 if its ammunition arrays have been found.

Edited by BravoBigBooms
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US 152mm Navy HC (high capacity high explosive) had option to use base fuse or nose fuse.

on base fuse they gain some armor piercing qualities.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16_cutaway_pic.jpg

 

127mm AAC or in other words Anti aircraft common named as:
with installed MT (mechanical timer), or VT proximity fuse as AAC

with PT (point detonating fuse) as HC.

 

round had similar setup and in base fuse configuration

 

 


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12_cutaway_pic.jpg
 

 

and archived penetration of 38mm 10000yards

 

standard special common (APCBC) archived:

51mm 11000yards

 

don't know about T30 155mm T7 HE round fuses but it would be funny to have similar thing, Long tom 155mm M1 only have nose fuse HE

Edited by arczer25
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something interesting about the T30. It seems that after evaluation of the 155mm T7 gun, it was more or less concluded that ordinary kinetic energy ammo wasnt sufficient to combat enemy heavy tanks thus HEP and HEAT rounds were to be developed for anti tank use.

Had the war continued and the T30 fielded, its standard ammo load would be HE,HEAT and HEP. 

As the Chieftain explains:

Defeat of Heavy Tanks. Neither of the two guns under consideration can be expected to defeat the front plate of the Mark VI (Tiger Royal) or Josef Stalin 3 at any reasonable range irrespective of the directness of angle of attack. The 3-inch (plus) hull side of the Mark VI inclined at only 25 degrees is overmatched by both projectiles (Standard) and should be vulnerable throughout a fairly wide choice of angle and range of attack. The hull side (upper) of Josef Stalin 3 is 90mm inclined at 45 degrees and is therefore considerably less vulnerable to the two guns in question respecting both angle of attack and range. Hull sides (Lower) are of the order of 3 inches placed vertically on both Mark VI and Josef Stalin 3, hence these particular areas present no problem to either gun. The turret front and sides of the Mark VI turret are about 7.5 and 3.5 inches basis respectively. Thus either gun can expect to defeat the turret side even at fairly long range; however, it is estimated that only at ranges of the order of 1,000 yards or less can the main armament of Heavy Tanks T29 and T30 consistently defeat the turret front of Mark VI. The 200mm turret front of Josef Stalin 3 is well rounded and presents a very difficult target for either gun. The turret sides, if 200mm basis (or equivalent thickness), would be equally as difficult to defeat as the turret front. If the turret sides are an actual thickness of 200mm and are inclined at what appears to be about 45 degrees with an overall rounded effect then the task of penetrating is not likely of attainment by either gun under consideration irrespective of range or angle of attack. Most of the target plates just discussed can be defeated by an efficient 155mm plastic charge shell irrespective of range or angle of impact; similarly, most of them can (theoretically) be defeated by a 155mm HEAT or simple shaped charge round. If the adverse effect of spin can be overcome then 105mm caliber would be sufficient to defeat the most heavily armored known vehicle. The 105mm gun firing plastic charge and/or unimproved HEAT would be notable less effective on the heavier plates.

 

Summary

                a) all around performance of the 155m Gun, T7, in Heavy Tank T30 with respect to terminal effect appears to be generally superior to that of the 105mm Gun, T5E2 on Heavy Tank, T29; however, this superiority is, for the most part, restricted to high explosive shell effectiveness and to a potential advantage whose realization is continegnt upon employment of shaped charge and plastic charge principle in shells not currently available. There is essentially no notable difference in penetrating ability for the two guns firing HVAP ammunition at ranges of 2,000 yards. The 155mm gun possesses an advantage in muzzle energy with the standard AP round in the ratio of almost 8-5; however, since energy density is a better penetration criterion than total energy in most cases the apparent superiority of the larger projectile tends to be reduced. There is, however, a distinct advantage inherent in the projectile with larger diameter. In order to defeat very hard, thick plates at great obliquities, it has been found that a projectile with diameter which matches or overmatches plate thickness is nearly always required.

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/How_Suitable_T29_Pt2/

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already read that.

 

Basing from the assumption that the T30 was still in development after T58 project was started, it would be armed with HEAT & HEP available from the T58.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.