I won’t look at 2-3 vehicles being a victory in a pool of mediocrity, that’s a disgrace and pathetic excuse of a win.
It’s clear the devs have no interest in Finland outside of seeing how much money they can get people to pay for their unique equipment
I can agree with that. I’m still livid about the Zsu-57-2M not being added alongside literally any of the other unique vehicles.
I genuinely wish this game was just a single upfront payment if it ment not having to deal with events and cool stuff being premium.
Also wasn’t there a Zsu-57-2 with an additional machine gun in the turret? I saw on source mention it but nothing else.
Definitely a good thing for become premium. Only one, and not their original vehicle.
Though the tree lacks a solid 3.0 bridge filler for the Finnish line which this would’ve filled given the 3.0 lineup is pretty mediocre
I don’t know. I agree that it’s a unique vehicle and that affords it a different status. But it’s also the only vehicle that fills the gap early in the Finnish tech tree. I’m kind of torn, to be honest.
Probably not the ONLY vehicle; the domestic Finnish T-28E, ISU-152V, and BAF C w/95hp engine come to mind, although these are all sub-3.0 material.
The T-28E could kind of work. But I’d still like to have something more 3.0 worthy. And I also really wanna play the T-50 Nikki without paying for it.
I second this
Pretty much every Finnish captured vehicle was modified to some degree before putting them back into service. The Finnish T-34 for example should look like this, with new headlights, stowage, and Finnish AP as well as HEAT shells. That’s without mentioning the various more significantly modified T-34s that were in service as well
EDIT: Didn’t notice when I posted, that’s Niki in the background :D
is that a real tank if so that should be added its so goofy looking
There’s a couple of minor T-26 variants. They had to make due with whatever was captured, so you end up with lots of conversions and Frankenstein tanks.
There is an up-armored one example that could be added at 1.3 in the tree.
Some flame tanks were converted into conventional tanks. The turret placement differs from the regular T-26, and I believe they feature a 4th crewmen.
T-26 with an early BT-5 turret, distinguished by the shape of bustle compared to early T-26’s.
The problem here is that none of these are radical enough of an improvement over a regular T-26 to really fill out the sub-tree in any meaningful way.
Yes, these are all nice and I’d love to see them since the Finnish T-26E is a premium, but I was trying to think of non-copy paste options that could fill the gap between the T-28 and T-34. I also realized that the existing BA-11 we have now is 1.3, so even with the 95hp engine I don’t see the BAF C being any higher than 1.7, which rules out that option.
I guess we could maybe justify the Pz.IV at 3.3 by removing the turret schurzen and APCR but even then I know there are many who think the long barreled Panzer IVs should be going up in BR, which I do also agree with.
If anything, the Pz.IV could go up since the Finns made an APDS round in the 50s for the German 75 mm. It was meant to extend their Stugs’ viability, but it should theoretically be compatible with the Pz.IV J, which also served into the 60s. There’s currently not sufficient data to add this round tho, and I’m somewhat against adding CW ammunition to this BR range. The 37 mm APDS is odd enough as is.
The Finnish T-28E is really the only other hope to patch up the gap. If it did turn out to have access to some later ammunition types, then I could see it maybe getting pushed up to 2.7, but having something at 2.3 would still be a significant improvement.
Forgot about this, would definitely prefer it alongside the (domestic?) AP rounds developed for use with Soviet 76mm gun equipped with muzzle brakes, T-34 included.
Unfortunately you are right, even ISU-152V cannot be added as the 20mm proposal was in tandem with one to reduce the height of the tank by half, which of course was never carried out.
Supposedly there were plans to equip the T-28 (and KV-1) with a muzzle brake for use of Finnish made AP ammunition, something that was tested on other Soviet 76mm guns already. Of course, muzzle brakes are to reduce recoil, so if these ammunitions really do exist, they can possibly be added to an ingame T-28 without worry of malfunction. I don’t have permission to view them, but there are apparently some documents here: Finnish 76 mm tank guns, ammunition and muzzle brakes - Axis History Forum.
If the above is true, then I would wager that a Finnish-uparmored T-28E with a domestic armor-piercing round at 2.7 is the next best thing we have to fill this gap.
If the Finnish T-28E isn’t sufficient there are always the Norwegian Panzer III Ausf. H and N. Not Finnish, I know, but Gaijin has started filling gaps with Danish and Norwegian vehicles already
ehhh…
The main reason why people found the Finnish sub-tree underwhelming on release was because of the low-effort copy+paste. I fear adding Norwegian Pz.III’s into the gaps is just retreading the same issue.
Granted, many of their Pz.III’s are hybrid tanks instead of 1:1 copy+paste. I could see one becoming a premium, but I’m on the fence for actually putting any others in the tree.
Yes and no, conciddering that Germany itself often made Hybrit tanks of parts that were still around. However i doubt we would see such for the German tree.
still waiting for my panzer I with Panzer III turret or Panzer 1 with 75 long barrel any day now XD
That too, tho i meant Pz III Ausf.J with older style Idler and sprocket wheel and such.
