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, 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
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.
I dont remember its original armor, i don’t think it had that much armor but i could be wrong. Id need to dig though changlog stuff about it which would take a while.
27.6.1941 “Red Army deemed it necessary to increase the armour”:
-50 mm front
-50 mm turret
-30 mm roof
“14.5 tons weight” - No mention if this is calculated or rough estimate.
30mm roof is heavy tank levels. It might not have been that big weight increase, if it only included fighting compartment roof.
15.9.1941 “GABTU KA requests that 5000 T-50 tanks be produced in 1942, with increased 55 mm front, rear, and side armour, and a planetary transmission.”"
The second one must have been multiple tons weighs increase, despite the vehicle’s small size. Even with new advanced gearbox and 350hp engine mentioned in other request, it would have likely been less mobile. Ground pressure and steering remained the same. The suspension, tracks and engine cooling had only reached satisfactory levels by mid 1941. This was during the time when KV-1 was getting unnecessarily heavy armor additions and different up-armoring plans for T-34 were also tested.
Because the Soviets didn’t make the Niki nor did they have it. They had basic T50’s. Your suggestion is to give Russia a vehicle they have no ties to. It makes no sense and that fact you dont understand that baffles me. I’m just going to block you because you’re not smart enough to figure out why you’re ideas wont work nor why anyone is agreeing with you.
