Only Kronshtadt 's hull survived the war reasonably intact being 10% complete in 1945
and with ships you cannot say production vehicle because usually ships are made as individual vessels except for class based ones.
so no its not a ‘production’ vessel.
again, we havent seen its production nor have there been reports. if you have em share em.
AND never serviced
definitely never serviced
But theres something like a Kronstadt class battlecruiser .) This one was not an individual vessel, It was a planned leadship of her own class. Project 69 … a never finished prototype.
Oh please, cut the BS. The F-16AJ is NOT the YF-16
The vertical stabiliser is wrong, the nose is wrong, lights at the side of the intake are wrong. Anyone else fancy a game of spot the difference?
If anything, it’s a copy and paste of the F-16A with the ADF’s radar, which still does not exist.
There is no “the” YF-16, there are many YF-16s, including the variant that is WT’s F-16AJ.
Show me a picture of the variant
Ironically, the infamous Tiger II 105 has a much bigger relative percentage of real parts, by virtue of the fact that most of it is the Tiger II serial production components. The main issue with it is that Gaijin modeled the turret in a way that makes zero sense and is not physically possible. But if they had designed it correctly, it would have been an exact Kronstadt equivalent: the underlying platform is real, it being equipped with armament is speculative because it was on the cards but didn’t happen.
yk, considering the leo 1 turret can fit a 120, a tiger II turret should be able to fit a 105
Not the original turret, it’s too cramped, which is one of the issues with Gaijin’s design.
ur right tbh, what with the b17 gunners literally rear ending the pilot or whatever
Honestly, having the “laid down” Requirement for ships is nice as it opens up for Lexington Battlecruiser , Amagi-battlecruiser, G3-class battlecruiser and H39 for the naval tree.
The battlecruisers would make for a nice Washington Naval treaty themed update.
As far as im concerned the “laid down” requirement doesn’t really work for Tiger 2, but can probably be suitable for some vehicles close to completion.
Yes, it’s not an issue limited to the 105 or the Panther II by any means. There are plenty of wonky errors. I suppose what makes it look a bit worse in this case is that Gaijin ventured into a speculative design with these tanks (most players think it was a one time thing, it wasn’t, but that’s a whole other story) and they did a very poor pastiche. Had the original design been more concretely adherent to reality, it’s possible the vehicles would still be with us.
A good “what if” is one that leans on reality as much as possible. Because those models were done poorly, this has kind of poisoned the well for the possibility of seeing a few, grounded, speculative designs in WT where there are gaps to fill. That’s a shame.
EDIT:
As a definition, it obviously does not. Ships and tanks don’t follow similar processes IRL. I made that example to show that sometimes, debates that center around semantics can be quite silly or misleading. I’ll give you an example: a while ago on a Facebook group dedicated to WT discussions, people were very amused by the fact that the other tank game has a Tiger-Maus in its roster.
Now, obviously Wargaming has a reputation, some of the stuff in there is downright outlandish, but here is the funny thing. If you were to decide that blueprint tanks are fine so long as they’re not crazy unworkable ideas, or the countries in question were actually capable to industrially manufacture and operate the machines, the Tiger-Maus is nowhere near as outlandish as people think. The whole pitch of the project was standardisation, to re-use as much from Panthers and Tiger IIs as humanly possible rather than go with a completely bespoke build that would be enormously more inefficient.
Because Hitler was utterly insane, of course, he went with the most impractical option, so that is the prototype that was built. And therefore, in game, we have the “Maus”, or rather the Maus hull paired with an early variant Maus turret that the Soviets mated to the hull when they captured the relevant bits. And since I doubt that the IRL vehicle, in all its absurdity, could actually move on its own power for the duration of a regular Ground RB match without something exploding, to my own personal interpretation having the Maus in WT is “worse” in terms of realism than having the Tiger-Maus. While it was not built, all its components existed, and it was far more viable and less ambitious/insane than the Maus as a design.
And that’s without getting into WT’s E-100, which is even worse.
There is, in principle, nothing especially outlandish about an upgunned Tiger II, no more than a T-44-122. Most of its components actually existed and functioned as an assembled machine. So if you were to put an incomplete and experimental design in game, like say, the Kronstadt… or the E-100… then it’s arguably one of the least fantastical you could go with, because most of the vehicle already exists as a unit.
But this is for “a” Tiger 105, not for the Tiger 105 that we have in game, which is impossible. Because Gaijin didn’t produce a good design.
I suppose the punchline is… not all paper tanks are born equal.
They should overhaul it according to historic blueprint designs. But stay true to the Original Vehicle they removed as much as possible. It is also about looks, I personally do not want the overhaul to turn out completely new and diffrent from what was removed.
The whole issue regarding the Tiger 105 and Panther II is blown significantly out of proportion. These tanks, while not able to be completed, were necessary to be added for Germany to have a fighting chance at top tier. At the time. That reason now no longer is present and have been removed, with other non-historic vehicles to follow suit. Chinese PT-76 being one example, R2Y2s being targeted for removal pending vehicle replacement.
To steer back, my impression of what the community finds acceptable is thus:
-At least a prototype.
-Had a functional weapon system/had existing provisions to mount weapons i.e. specific AIM-9 rails or cannon able to fire such round.
-Exists in the configuration the respective country used it or tested.
I don’t have an educated opinion about ships but I typically think that metric is currently acceptable. As much as possible I do not want vehicles added where its construction is “up to interpretation”.
Agreed.
I would still rather they returned, perhaps with a few changes to make them less physically broken and a BR adjustment or whatever. There’s something I think of as the “Korean War” gap, tanks during that period were still designed with WW2 doctrine in mind, so they look like super-WW2 tanks. But only USSR and USA, understandably, have enough vehicles to fill that gap (and the Maus, admittedly). I would like to see that era fleshed out a bit more, and not just in the German tree.
I will also readily admit I’m biased - they look cool, and I’m a completionist for that tech tree, and I see them almost every day at 6.7, so I definitely want them myself 😂😂
That said, I actually think minors would benefit from this policy a lot more than majors like Germany, where if there is a gap to fill, it’s usually not a crucial or urgent one. I would much rather see a grounded, reasonable take on an Italian P43 rather than yet another Sherman.
Yes, although some vehicles like the 2S38 break these criteria. In any case, we have Gaijin’s own words saying that requirements are laxer in naval, so that’s also a consideration to keep in mind.
We shouldn’t go crazy, I agree. Though I don’t think doing so in moderation would break the game. At the end of the day, consider how much of the tanks we already have in game is up to interpretation… none of my Panthers ever blow up their transmissions, my Jagdtigers are mysteriously fast for their weight, and my Tiger IIs have godlike turret rotation speed. Then consider all the things Gaijin alters as a matter of course: access to ammo types, reload times… all of these soft balancing tools would be in play for “blueprints” too, so that you would ensure that there is no powercreeping.
Because of course one of the issues with paper vehicles is that no vehicle simply translates from paper to steel, just like that. As they go through R&D (sometimes rushed R&D, like in the German case), they for example gain weight, so the engine is stressed more, so the plan to upgun them is scrapped and the in-service gun the previous model was using is kept, or… whatever.
The development process can be extremely torturous. That’s why it’s almost impossible to summarise in one line what’s wrong with the E-100 in game. The development history of that thing is a complete mess.
Real history tanks are built on compromises, a paper vehicle doesn’t have those limitations. That can be a problem.
That can be partially prevented thanks to the soft balancing tools Gaijin uses, since ammo selection and reload times (not to mention BR of course) are a major component of how a vehicle performs.
But like you, I still have my reservations. If a what if is to be done, it needs to be done well.
My own, subjective and completely personal list of requirements for blueprints is as follows:
They fill a BR gap. If a real historical vehicle exists, it should always get absolute and complete priority. If there is no BR gap, there’s no need for a blueprint at all.
The design is real (i.e. it was not cooked up by Gaijin wholesale or in part, like the bad Tiger 105 turret). The design is not an agglomeration of semi-fictional sources and fictional extrapolations, or an amalgamation of different designs (Panther II). If real engineers penned the design, ideally from the same bureaus that also produced designs that were actually built as well, then it’s fine.
The design is not a flight of fancy, something that never spread in ANY military because it didn’t work outside of paper. So, nothing whacky, just plausible blueprints.
The country designing it was capable of manufacturing it, and the parts like the gun, or the armour technology, or the engine etc (either all or at least most of them) already existed/were built in some form. Was there an actual engine that could be used? Was there a gun in use elsewhere, either in armour or artillery, that could be employed? Etc etc.
If it meets all four criteria, then as far as I’m concerned, yeah put it in the game. The more the merrier, within reasonable limits.
A 120 with a breech designed to take up not much more space than the 105, while the 105 germany used in WWII had a breech more than twice as big as the long 8.8 (which already made the breech much more compact when compared to the original 8.8 (in comparrison to overall shell dimensions that is)
It is funny how you lay down the “working parts”, “function seperately”, “widely used parts” and all those criterias and all I could think of is the Obj 906.
With a non working engine, Not fully developed hull, non working gun and placeholder (shaped) turret. Yet it is allowed to exist in the game because apparently it was “tested” by the soviet army.
Although all tests say it impressed and was superiour in every way to the PT 76 and BMP 1 it was still never produced. And none of its supposed working tech was used in the following vehicles. The Stab in the BMP 1 is an older model, the Gun never replaced the older 85mm guns and information on any of the suggested guns is sparse at best. In fact when compared to any russian vehicle in service its stats are absolutelky off the charts. Night vision and early thermal imaging testing? sth Russia would not have until years later.
Also a fully stabilised autoloader which could reload a gun twice as fast as any human at the time? And all while being able to replenish the mechanism without leaving the tank in a massively small space? (less than an AMX-13 with a bigger gun and faster as well)
Honestly every info on the tank reads like fan fiction and it gets more and more absurd each time…
A few of the Soviet Objects (not all obviously) are the premier example of where the “it was built” criterion can actually lead you astray, and away from realism.
Yes, they were built. So you know how they would physically look like. But that doesn’t mean that what you have in game is an actual representation of the machine below the skin.
Even ignoring the vehicles whose testing results you’d need a security clearance to actually know about, you have all these vehicles that were rejected for the most myriad things, from the trivial “not sufficiently competitive compared to this other design” to “oh, it turns out this has a crew-killing flaw”. But because the Soviets would build everything once, even the dumbest design, we can have it in game… or something that looks like it, anyway.
Now show any image of the 105 aside from a single sketch. OR the panther turret with the 88
wtf is your point… The damn thing is a model in kubinka.
My point is about the fucking inside and technology in it. learn to read before posting one sentence answeres
And your picture still only shows the incomplete hull and turret in shape as far as i am concerned, as there is not a single obj 906 in existance which has a full hull and fully operational turret
