Did you find some source mentioning the origins? Wouldn’t make any sense in Soviet tree if they never had one.
Gaijin sometimes puts a vehicle in multiple trees that are associated with the vehicle. Most likely wont go to USSR tree (as I voted Finnish tree myself), but the i made the poll option available if people want it in the USSR tree.
2 Likes
I suppose they do sometimes, though in this case USSR has other good options for same BR to add: T-127 and T-50-2.
2 Likes
Uparmored T-50 sounds like a fun trolling vehicle +1
1 Like
Personally, I’d like to see it added to both the Soviet and Finnish tech trees. With the Soviet t-50 simply getting an add-on armour upgrade for the regular t-50 and the Finnish variant having the extra armour added on by default.
Yeah except theres never been proof of the Soviets mounting armor so why would they get it? So please do explain your logic of why they need a vehicle they never mounted armor on?
7 Likes
Easy logic, bro doesnt want to grind out another tech tree to play this vehicle!
1 Like
Not like it would take long since its like 2.7
1 Like
+1
This could be a great addition to flesh out the early Sweden/Finland tree tiers. Since the USSR one is 2.7 and this one is the same but with more armour, a BR of 3.0 is probably most appropriate. Would be challenging in an uptier, but still useable.
Edit: 2.7 is better.
4 Likes
Eh i mean we have armored T34’s at the same BR as the non armored. The T50’s gun is basically useless against most 3.7 and 4.0 which would essentially kill it. Cant see any reason it cant be 2.7 considering the 3.0 lineup is nonexistent.
1 Like
I tested in in the hangar Protection Analysis on a number of 4.0 tanks at around 500m, and without using APCR it looked able to penetrate and kill all the targets in 1-3 shots. But there were some (i.e., Churchill Mk. III, Pz. IV Ausf. H) which would certainly not be fun to come up against and which needed an almost dead-on shot into a very small weak spot. And it can’t frontally penetrate the Excelsior assault tank at all.
So with that kind of possible player experience in mind, it’s definitely preferable for this to be the same BR as the USSR T-50. I had another whiz through the hangar, and everything else at 1.7 should be able to kill it frontally at 500m, at least in the turret (or cupola). The Italians will be the worst off, as they don’t have a good HEAT or derp launcher below 2.0, but it’s killable if they keep prodding it enough in the head.
The T-50 is not difficult to deal with since it only has 37mm at the less angled areas of the mantlet. And the Niki variation doesn’t fix the mantlet weak spot, so it will still retain the very weak 37mm.
Oh yes. Huh, that’s surprising, I thought they had up-armoured the mantlet for some reason. Odd choice, but at least it means you can still do the wiggle-jiggle to try and avoid direct frontal shots.
Could’ve been to time consuming to try and cut armor to fit the mantlet while making room for thr sight to see out of? Most Finnish engineer record essentially cover a lot of topics like this with some “add on” armor just being BT chassis’ they destroyed and cut apart since the Fins hated the BT series.
Yeah, I heard the M17 consumes too much fuel for it to be viable for the Finns, theyd rather use the T-26
Yeah, its honestly pretty interesting to see the reasons behund small choices like this to me. Helps me see a better view of practically for these types of things
1 Like
Because it sounds like a good idea to me personally
Yes because Russia needs vehicles they never used nor need what a great idea. For future reference unless you have proof the soviets actually used the vehicle lets keep your fantasy wants out of discussion thank you.
I think I phrased myself wrong, what I meant to say was that the Soviet tech tree doesn’t get a new vehicle, instead the already existing t-50 is given a researchable upgrade for add-on armour, the Finnish tech tree however gets the armour pre-installed and counts as a seperate vehicle.
Again, there has never been evidence to suggest the Soviets had uparmored T-50’s so regardless of your phrasing, the fact that you suggest a fictional tank for Russia is insulting.
1 Like