Hi, my name is Tim and I’m doing academic research on the potential of digital games like War Thunder and World of Tanks in education. So I’d like to invite you to take a short quiz about tanks!
There are 10 questions to test your knowledge - anonymously, just for fun and research. 😊
Link: https://forms.gle/RtEXTqdZ8iEkNsfRA
Need slight clarification on 2 of your questions if that’s alright.
First. For the how many prototype’s for the maus. Wasn’t there no prototypes made. But the turret and hull were both constructed and could probably be put together?
Second. For the assign a tank category question, are we going by irl or wt clarification? (M18 being a TD vs light)
Ill also edit this later if you don’t want people seeing these lol
WT is really good with it’s preservation of history and portrayal of vehicles. The old WT wiki had history and development sections of the vehicles (link: War Thunder Wiki )
It has pretty much all the vehicles seen ingame up to the Eurofighter, after which the wiki migrated to a new variation which forgoes the history portion. Warthunder also has incredibly accurate modelling, as they require actual military documentation on vehicles for them to be added, changed, buffed, nerfed, etc.
About the first question.
For the Maus there were several hulls and turrets under construction. Only 2 hulls were actually complete with one mounting a dummy weight for testing and the other having a fully functional turret. The one fully functional prototype that did have a working turret was wrecked at the end of the war to prevent it falling undamaged in Soviet hands. After the war the hull that had a dummy weight had the working turret mounted on it and that’s what currently survives in Kubinka and is also what the one in War Thunder is modeled on despite it being completely burnt out inside and nonfunctional.
Tell you maybe out of war thunder player nationalism, but if you want anything to do with actual historical accuracy or learning about history, WoT is the worst place to go. It is closer to a fantasy RPG than a historical simulation. (And before angry critics come screaming, yes I have played it, in fact, more than 300hours before I discovered WT.)
I often hear criticizing WoT for its historical inaccuracies, and you’re not wrong. However, from an educational perspective, historical accuracy isn’t the most crucial factor. Other elements, such as accessibility for beginners, engagement levels, and attention span, play a significant role in determining a game’s educational value.
Imho you waste your time.
WT has nothing to do with reality, only the size and the skin of vehicles look somehow accurate. Everything else is subjective whilst wt tries to create the illusion that they would be accurately modelled.
History: The BR policy of gaijin and the way how vehicles are implemented (like mouse aim, 3rd party view,etc.) prevent anything near to historical accuracy or realism.
I completely agree. However, if it weren’t for WoT, I wouldn’t have developed an interest in this topic or started playing War Thunder. At the very least, it served as a gateway into this subject, which is precisely the point I’m trying to make.
I mean if you look closer at wt:
The game is optimized to please kids with access to credit cards hungry for a plain vehicle based shooter.
Every adult trying to play wt seriously is forced to find his own niches with the least compromises regarding the countless bugs and flaws of this game.
Regarding history:
Most conflicts / wars were actually asymmetric exchanges decided by numerical and/or technical advantages. The setup of wt with equally strong teams, “fantasy” nations & equipment and the BR policy which tries to flatten technological advantages prevents any serious attempt to refer to historical backgrounds.
Have a good one!