How is something made after WWII a WWII vehicle?
How is a WWII vehicle a Cold War vehicle, epsecially when it was just a prototype and was made by a nation that didn’t exist after WWII.
Glad we agree that Maus isn’t WW2.
Prototype in WW2 means that it’s not production. Maus was never made during WW2.
I did NOT say that. Do not put words into my mouth again.
It was. It was created during WWII, and never left the prototype stage. How could it be a cold war tank?
Its prototype was partially created, but it was never completed, thus never made, especially as a production vehicle.
The T-54 started in WW2 as a prototype as well, and it succeeded to go into production.
That doesn’t mean that the Maus is a Cold War tank. It was a WWII prototype, like many otherv ehicles.
The strongest counter to early HEAT-FS is to shoot from 1 kilometer. But we almost have brawls only.
The strongest counter to early HEATFS is heavy tanks like Maus, IS-4, etc.
As for the Centurion, Mk 1 and Mk 2 are post-war, Mk 3 and up are Cold War.
Prototypes were made, none complete though if I remember correctly. The one in Kubinka was put together later, but I may be wrong.
It’s development ends before the end of WW2, therefore it’s a WW2 tank.
You’re trolling, I swear.
Who knows, the 1947 T-54 could be from april :)
- *February
- Still doesn’t make it a WW2 tank.
Just because something can penetrate other something doesn’t mean it will be a fair matchup and that those two should share the same BR.
2 Likes
Ikv 103 can not only pen the T-54, but also deals the same amount of post pen damage as a Leopard 1 or AMX-30 would. It would one shot early MBTs easier than WW2 tanks, due to crew and ammo layout.
It has 16 degrees of gun depression, is pretty small and not slow, it would make for a good gremlin/ambush tank.
It won’t be meta, but it will definitely be playable. Centurion AVRE is not meta at 7.0 and doesn’t have to be.
In my opinion Ikv 103 would be better at killing T-54s than the Pbv 501 (Swedish BMP-1), T32E1, M48, Marder A1- or even the German BMP-1 (the ATGM is better, but limited in ammo). Perhaps 7.7 sounds more reasonable for you, I would separate WW2 and Cold War more, thus the 8.0 BR.
@Panter2005
M431 HEATFS:
Maus would’ve been in production around 1947 as well.
Tiger 2s would be facing M48s.
And yes, T-54 prototypes were made during WW2, this is known.
Prototypes =/= production.
Centurion prototypes were also WW2, just like Maus and T-54.
So according to your post T-44-100 is WW2 but T-54 isn’t. lol Backwards thinking right there.
Now show me that T32E1 can do better.
I don’t care about what would be, but about what was.
There’s a Polish saying: If grandma had a moustache, she would be a grandpa.
T-54 went into production, so you count from when it entered service. Maus didn’t so you count when the development ended.
T-44 is almost WW2, co close that you can count it being WW2. The only reason it didn’t enter service in WW2 were delays, it’s development started in 1943.
T-44-100 is post-war, but not Cold War.
T-54 is Cold War, apart from the first prototypes.
Whether T-54 is post-war or Cold War doesn’t really matter, since it was widely used in Cold War and was the best Warsaw Pact tank for quite some time.
However, all of these technicalities aside, saying Maus is a Cold War tank is a blatant lie.
1 Like
@Panter2005
Well, if you don’t like pure realism there are custom battles to go play your historical reenactments.
The rest of your post is just double standards for non-German vehicles.
You even claim that T-54/Maus being cold war is a lie. Of course that or your post is hypocrisy.
Either way your post has zero ideological consistency.
Because the Maus isn’t a Cold War tank. It is a WWII prototype. They also said that
^^^
The Maus wasn’t produced or built outside WWII, so there is no way it can be considered a Cold War tank. The nation that built it (Nazi Germany) didn’t even exist once the Cold War began.
No compression will be needed. All the aircraft will remain at the same distance apart, with the exception of a gap between postwar prop and jet aircraft that may need to be filled with less competitive/slower jets to bridge the gap.
This is a completely valid point. Unfortunately, the advancement of jet/rocket propelled aircraft is a huge jump in technology that complicates BR matching even more than HEATFS fighting WW2 tanks. I feel that there would need to be a new mechanic to balance these latewar projects in both air and ground (Maus) if we wanted to have a proper era split.
Depending on community feedback, perhaps ground could recieve a proper pre vs post 1945 era split, meanwhile air will be a split between propeller and jet technologies?
Of course Cold War props operating in “WW2” era ground battles and WW2 jets operating in “Cold War” era ground battles would be a bit ahistorical, but at least the gameplay will remain somewhat consistent and immersive to the respective time period.
Prop/jet split would just lead to early jets being unplayable unless proper precautions are made to restrict them from facing higher BR planes. The Me-262s and He-162s are quite close performance wise to the best propeller aircraft.
2 Likes
So would you be in more favor of a proper era split for air as well then? If late WW2 props and jets can coexist somewhat naturally, then there shouldn’t be any issue keeping them at their current places and placing a border between them any anything built in 1946 or beyond.
I checked the latest posts regarding aircraft and the never ending WW 2 / Cold War discussion together with views what a historical MM contains and what not.
If we have a common understanding that wt offers actually just pure fictional battles and tries to balance aircraft via BRs and the MM together with average pilot skills it is no wonder that this discussion is repeating itself in infinite loops.
From a holistic pov you need to distinguish between 3 options:
- Semi-historical MM: Nations which actually fought each other.
- Historical MM: As #1 + aircraft which could have actually fought each other
- Real Historical MM: Same as #2 but considering real battle scenarios
This means (btw an era ends with certain dates like WW 2 in 09.1945):
-
As wt is just a vehicle based shooter and offers little to zero connection to realistic combat scenarios option #3 is a no go - nobody would enjoy to fight with 2 Me 262s vs 16 P-51 D-20s, the whole game set up foresees the same numbers of players on both teams.
-
Options #1 & #2 would kick out non-WW 2 nations like Sweden and Israel and would require to adjust the MM 2 to have Italy on both teams (>1943) and Finland with a switch in 1944. No fights of JP vs USSR aircraft before August 1945 - etc.
-
On top of that basically the majority of non-German prop aircraft would get kicked out; i learned that even the F4U-4b is a non WW 2 aircraft. And, ofc, the BRs are irrelevant, so late war US/USSR stuff like Yak-3, La-7 or P-51 D-30 has to fight 5.7 Bf 109s or Ta 152s or Me 262s.
It is imho obvious that the player base in total would have serious issues with all 3 options - therefore wt has zero intentions to follow any recommendations to follow this path.
1 Like