Hello all,

 

With the recent announcement of the Challenger 2 and the venture into unknown performance, based on the Challenger 2 dev blog Gaijin are now using estimates based on minimum protection values and approximations. I'm curious now as to whether the original denial of the Vickers Mk.7/2 due to lack of information can now be relaxed, and if not, what are the criteria for suggesting new vehicles as there should be even less information on the Challenger 2 in comparison to the Vickers.

 

mk7_4.png

 

I hope I'm not being stupid and looking at this whole situation in the wrong way, but from my understanding pretty much everything is free game now so long as there are rough estimates for performance.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Baron_Tiberius said:

There are several rough estimates around for the CR2, and comparisons to other tanks. Whatever your opinion on those it is something.

 

meanwhile the vickers, I've never seen anything.

 

 

Neither tank is documented enough to be added to the game IMO, but seeing as Gaijin added the Challenger 2, they've obviously changed their mind on the required amount of sources etc. and are willing to use calculations and rough estimates for vehicle implementation.

 

If we know the rough estimations for chobham protection of the same time period, copy and paste the hull from the 2a4 it's not outside the realm of possibility, the model is the biggest issue.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd only prefer tanks in game if we can accurately model them. There's not enough on the Vickers (yet!) to do so.

 

But with the Challenger 2, Gaijin has made it abundantly clear that WT has no interest in accuracy any more and is going the same way that AW and WoT did of just making up values.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumping

 



 

unknown.png
mk7_009.jpg

valiant1.png

 

2.jpg
img_58.jpg
mk7_4.png
9OoEWVk.jpg
vickers_mk7_l2.jpg

 

Likely limits of composite armor. Would have a main gunsight weakened zone like Leo 2 as well
unknown.png

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since no new information has been brought to light on the Vickers 7/2, no it still does not remain possible. 

 

The comparison between CR 2 and Vickers 7/2 does not really come close.

 

CR 2 is a production tank, with various books and other publications, countless videos and media references as well as a regular attendant at most of Bovingtons shows where you can quite literally walk right up and all around this tank.

 

Compare this to a failed private venture by Vickers on a largely undocumented, unpublished and quite simply un photographed tank, the two dont even come close.

 

As we said before, should more info be brought to light on the Vickers 7/2, then we can assess the situation. However currently, there is not even enough to suitable model the tank, let alone introduce it.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Since no new information has been brought to light on the Vickers 7/2, no it still does not remain possible. 

 

The comparison between CR 2 and Vickers 7/2 does not really come close.

 

CR 2 is a production tank, with various books and other publications, countless videos and media references as well as a regular attendant at most of Bovingtons shows where you can quite literally walk right up and all around this tank.

 

Compare this to a failed private venture by Vickers on a largely undocumented, unpublished and quite simply un photographed tank, the two dont even come close.

 

As we said before, should more info be brought to light on the Vickers 7/2, then we can assess the situation. However currently, there is not even enough to suitable model the tank, let alone introduce it.

 

 

So what you're saying is that not knowing anything about the armour makeup or ammunition capability means it is still acceptable to model a tank, then. Given thats what you're doing for the Challenger 2.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the crew sit and spacing 

How much ammo does it have 

Where is the ammo stored considering the Leo 2 hull was built for single piece ammo 

Whats the Weight that was added by the turret 

Whats the general layout of the composite protection around the turret sides (picture of a turret before composite add ons help and they are available for the CR2 FYI)

Whats the gun depression and and elevation 

Is that the L11 in that picture or the GIAT or Rheinmetall gun considering all 3 were intended to be able to fit to order

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Where does the crew sit and spacing 

Considering the universal turret looks visually similar to the Challenger 2, I'd imagine in similar areas. No way to tell for sure though.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

How much ammo does it have 

Depends on the gun being used. No way to tell for sure though.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Where is the ammo stored considering the Leo 2 hull was built for single piece ammo 

No way to tell for sure.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Whats the Weight that was added by the turret 

If we can work out the weight of the composite armour, and use the similarity of the Challenger 2 turret, we can work out a rough estimate (including the gun being selected) but there's no way to know for sure.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Whats the general layout of the composite protection around the turret sides (picture of a turret before composite add ons help and they are available for the CR2 FYI)

Absolutely no way to tell for sure.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Whats the gun depression and and elevation 

One can assume -10 and +20 which is pretty typical for British tanks, but there's no way to be sure.

6 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Is that the L11 in that picture or the GIAT or Rheinmetall gun considering all 3 were intended to be able to fit to order

 

Looks like an L11, but realistically any of the 3 could be added if it were to be added to the game.

 

 

 

Yeah, I get your point with your line of questioning. My original post was to probe to see how much into the realm of unknown Gaijin are now willing to delve, and I'm actually surprised that it's quite a lot. Not so much that a tank that practically never existed out of hidden paper could be implemented, but things seem to be more relaxed in terms of requirements of implementation now.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2019 at 05:02, Baron_Tiberius said:

There are several rough estimates around for the CR2, and comparisons to other tanks. Whatever your opinion on those it is something.

 

meanwhile the vickers, I've never seen anything.

 

I think it has more to do with the interest in the two tanks.

 

CR2 is sole the main battle tank of the UK. It has been in combat and featured in media, starred at various movies and countless video games.

 

On the other hand, the Vickers Mk.7 has only been featured in 2 video games (Wargame - Red Dragon and AW). No one cared about it before it has been discovered as a potential "meta" tank for Warthunder.

 

We are probably among the first to seek a serious estimation on it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

No one cared about it before it has been discovered as a potential "meta" tank for Warthunder.

 

We are probably among the first to seek a serious estimation on it.

 

Highly incorrect. The Mk7 has been of interest inthe tank enthusist community for long before War Thunder even existed.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

Highly incorrect. The Mk7 has been of interest inthe tank enthusist community for long before War Thunder even existed.

I disagree. Although it wasn't literally "no one cared" before WT, it had barely 1/10 the popularity of Challenger 1 or 2.

When people posted this tank on Reddit, a number of Warthunder/Tankp0rn sub redditors haven't even known of its existence.

 

For serious tank enthusiasts... maybe, someone has kitbashed a model of it and displayed at a local hobby shop about 10 years ago. But a serious estimation of its armor performance? I can't seem to find any. Even the question about whether its hull had Leo 2A4 armor, Chobham armor and had armor removed remain debatable.

Edited by Loongsheep
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pushing hard for the Mk 7/2 in other games 8 years ago where it got considerable backing from the playerbase, it wasnt selected due to a couple of reasons by the dev team of that game however (1 of them being it hard to balance how many heavy tanks the british were spamming into the field as it was compared to other nations). We made a big list of possible capabilities for them using very fair estimations based of challenger and leopard 2 capability, as the game itself didnt go that extreme into detail on the vehicles in it, it was a much easier 1 to do. Along side the VFM-5 and my personal meme vehicle I managed to get into a game, the vickers MK11 viper, which caused a whole storm of rage :lol2:

 

So no, this isnt the first time imo, sure the war thunder community wanting it seems popular, but it isnt the only gaming community that went for it, nor the first.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2019 at 05:37, Smin1080p said:

CR 2 is a production tank, with various books and other publications, countless videos and media references as well as a regular attendant at most of Bovingtons shows where you can quite literally walk right up and all around this tank.

 

Can we use books as a valid source from now on?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 11:25, TheCheshireCat said:

Hello all,

 

With the recent announcement of the Challenger 2 and the venture into unknown performance, based on the Challenger 2 dev blog Gaijin are now using estimates based on minimum protection values and approximations. I'm curious now as to whether the original denial of the Vickers Mk.7/2 due to lack of information can now be relaxed, and if not, what are the criteria for suggesting new vehicles as there should be even less information on the Challenger 2 in comparison to the Vickers.

 

mk7_4.png

 

I hope I'm not being stupid and looking at this whole situation in the wrong way, but from my understanding pretty much everything is free game now so long as there are rough estimates for performance.

One of the problems is the major lack of visual references (like schematics, or 3 view profiles, etc). The challengers for instance have plenty of documented pictures from within the factories for the hull and turret constructions, but we have bugger all for the Vickers MBT universal turrets (for either the mk4 or Mk7s). 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they can copy the 3d model from armored warfare...

 

also on this thread theres a drawing of the mk7.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2019 at 21:00, *RAazzy91 said:

Where does the crew sit and spacing 

Normal positions where crew normally seat. Driver in normal Leopard 2 position. Commander under commanders hatch, gunner in front of him and loader under loaders hatch

Quote

How much ammo does it have 

44 Rounds capacity for single-piece 120 mm, 38 rounds of two-piece 120 mm.

Quote

Where is the ammo stored considering the Leo 2 hull was built for single piece ammo 

 Not enough info as of yet. You can be guaranteed 27 will be stored in the ammo rack next to the driver. I don't think there is enough space to store 120mm single piece rounds horizontally in the Turret bustle. The most likely storage for the 17 remaining rounds is vertically on the left side of the Turret basket like the Ariete. I would say it is more difficult to have the precise locations of the 2 piece ammo.

Quote

Whats the Weight that was added by the turret 

Combat weight is 56.6 t

Quote

Whats the general layout of the composite protection around the turret sides (picture of a turret before composite add ons help and they are available for the CR2 FYI)

Probably similar to its cousins of Composite Chieftain prototypes and Challengers. I've already marked out the the likely weld lines for which seperate the composite block and turret citadel.

Quote

Whats the gun depression and and elevation 

-10 to +20 degrees

 

Vickers_Mk_7.jpg

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2019 at 23:30, RoflSeal said:

Normal positions where crew normally seat. Driver in normal Leopard 2 position. Commander under commanders hatch, gunner in front of him and loader under loaders hatch

44 Rounds capacity for single-piece 120 mm, 38 rounds of two-piece 120 mm.

 Not enough info as of yet. You can be guaranteed 27 will be stored in the ammo rack next to the driver. I don't think there is enough space to store 120mm single piece rounds horizontally in the Turret bustle. The most likely storage for the 17 remaining rounds is vertically on the left side of the Turret basket like the Ariete. I would say it is more difficult to have the precise locations of the 2 piece ammo.

Combat weight is 56.6 t

Probably similar to its cousins of Composite Chieftain prototypes and Challengers. I've already marked out the the likely weld lines for which seperate the composite block and turret citadel.

-10 to +20 degrees

 

Vickers_Mk_7.jpg

 

These figures are relevant, but largely not enough to implement the tank. 

 

On 18/02/2019 at 14:58, barto667 said:

Can we use books as a valid source from now on?

 

Books have always been an acceptable source. Thats not to say everything from a book will be accepted and acted apon, but we certainly do take them into account and allow them for bug reports.

 

Sadly in the case of the Vickers 7/2, I dont think it even has a dedicated book (I may be wrong, if I am please do send me a link as id love to add it to my collection), but we are continuing our hunt for info on this tank. 

 

On 17/02/2019 at 20:18, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

So what you're saying is that not knowing anything about the armour makeup or ammunition capability means it is still acceptable to model a tank, then. Given thats what you're doing for the Challenger 2.

 

Not at all. 

 

Generally this info can at least be estimated or is presented in some publications as its largely based on the Challenger 1. Not to mention there are far more sources on CR 2 than the Vickers 7/2, 

 

But as I have said above, we have not given up hope on this tank, simply that the search goes on for enough info :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Generally this info can at least be estimated or is presented in some publications as its largely based on the Challenger 1. Not to mention there are far more sources on CR 2 than the Vickers 7/2, 

 

 

Given the Challenger 2 armour makeup and ammunition are completely classified, I'd be very interested which publications gave you its detailed armour layout and ammunition performances. As would MI5, I guess...

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2019 at 00:04, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

Given the Challenger 2 armour makeup and ammunition are completely classified, I'd be very interested which publications gave you its detailed armour layout and ammunition performances. As would MI5, I guess...

Thing is that we have internal pictures for the chally 2 interms of hull layout and we have in-production turrets with the spacing clearly being shown where the armour goes, and given that there are challenger 2's on display for measurement we can see the ammount of room given within the out layers of the turret.

Though the Vickers mk7/2's turret eventually became the Chally 2's turret we do not know what the layout for the Vickers is at all, whether it's completely different or even identical.......

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Battered_Walrus said:

Thing is that we have internal pictures for the chally 2 interms of hull layout and we have in-production turrets with the spacing clearly being shown where the armour goes, and given that there are challenger 2's on display for measurement we can see the ammount of room given within the out layers of the turret.

 

That isn't what I said in my post though. I asked for their source on armour and ammo performance. Both are classified.

 

Thus far despite everyone asking, Gaijin refuses to even say what their source is, hence the prevailing believe that they're just making it up. "Eyeballing it" based on LOS or not, no source is no source. Afterall, look at the differences between the Leo 2's A and D packages. I'm intrigued to see what estimate they're using to help us gauge exactly what stuff they do still need on the 7/2. If internal layout and armour location is all they need to then just make up values, then that changes what we could possibly locate in archives, y'know?

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

That isn't what I said in my post though. I asked for their source on armour and ammo performance. Both are classified.

 

Thus far despite everyone asking, Gaijin refuses to even say what their source is, hence the prevailing believe that they're just making it up. "Eyeballing it" based on LOS or not, no source is no source. Afterall, look at the differences between the Leo 2's A and D packages. I'm intrigued to see what estimate they're using to help us gauge exactly what stuff they do still need on the 7/2. If internal layout and armour location is all they need to then just make up values, then that changes what we could possibly locate in archives, y'know?

long and short of it, if you want it ingame someone is gonna need to gather everything and anything that isn't bolted down by the official secrets act and/or private vickers documents, unfortunately i have neither the time nor the capital to go after that info

Edited by Battered_Walrus
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.