another heavy for me to sealclub in a challenger or centurion lets gooo
It’s not what I expected.
Frankly I feel like lots of players who have already been through grinding US are going to find this to be yet another bumpstop for new players in lower BRs, unless its foldered.
I hope it does get foldered.
It’s a neat prototype of its day and age, but nothing I’m particularly wowed by. More of a historical precedent on why we designed the Sherman the way we did, and then followed through with the M26. Not a particularly outstanding variant to take against a Tiger 2.
1 Like
The German long 88 I would say is on par with the 100mm, higher velicity and pen but lower angle and filler performance. This is a trade off, and the long 88 is one of my favourite guns.
1 Like
I agree it should get foldered, it isn’t different enough from existing vehicles in game, to have it’s own spot in tech tree.
1 Like
It’s been years since my last research on the T1/M6 heavy series. The 90mm gun is barely heavier than the 76mm, any sources about them removing the stabilizer? One thing that i’ve noticed is that the gun barrel is modeled incorrectly, also the model doesn’t represent the early T1E1 mounting the 90mm nor the late production M6A2 with the 90mm…
This is how the gun should be modelled:
IMO, they should rename it to M6A2 (90 mm) they could also reuse the m6a2e1 volumetric hull armor (which seems to have the correct late production values for the hull front armor) albeit with some changes, like correcting the hull cheeks thickness (should be 101.6 mm). The turret if modeled as volumetric armor with the late production thickness would offer decent protection vs the Tiger I.
2 Likes
T25 pilot no.1 started testing with a stabilizer on the 90 mm cannon beggining in late 1944, when the first prototype of the T1E1 (90) came around in early-mid 1943.
As well as this, the stabilizer that was tested for T25 pilot no.1, if I remember right, was specifically larger to match the larger size of the 90 mm cannon to the 76 mm.
It’s difficult to say but it’s completely probable that none of the 90 mm T1s had a stabilizer. And if they did, it wouldn’t be as effective as the normal 76 mm stabilizer due to not being scaled up in size.
2 Likes
It’s true that the American tree is demanding vehicles!! Always more, always more balances.
Tech tree probably
According to the original forum suggestion on the M6A2 (90), the hull front should be 127mm, the sides should be 76.2mm (plus the 25.4mm side skirts), 50.8mm at the rear, and 25.4mm on the roof and floor. The turret should be between 101.6mm and 152.4mm at the front, 101.6mm along the sides and rear, and the turret roof should be either 25.4mm or vary between 34.925mm and 41.275mm. Needless to say, this would be a massive buff over the current standard armor profile.
You can see the rest of the original post here:
3 Likes
The armor needs to match the late war values, upper hull was roughly 100mm not 80mm, and the lower hull was 127mm, not 100mm.
Please everyone who is saying the same, blow up the forum when the dev server starts if the armor is still not the late war values.
1 Like
My problem isn’t inherently that it uses one set of values rather than others.
My problem comes from the fact that every single M6 uses the same armor values. even the M6A2E1 only has slightly different hull front armor values, mostly just because of the 50.4 mm plate (which is also ahistorical, at most it would’ve been 38.1 mm with the current inclination), but everywhere else it is the same as the other M6/T1 tanks.
Why can’t we just have just one of these tanks that fully utilizes the late armor specifications? And it’s not like these specifications are even that strong.
1 Like
Because Gaijin goes out of its way to give the US to least effective variant they can. The M4/T26 we have is based off a picture showing the T26 turret will fit the M4 hull. The actual development vehicle was an M4A3 HVSS hull. We should have a better variant but we don’t get that one.
6 Likes