Lets talk about the state of Germany

Machinery of War Discussion
572

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.

1 Like
573

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.

image
image1024×550 114 KB

image

1 Like
574

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”.

2 Likes
575

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

576

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)

577

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…

2 Likes
578

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.

579

Now show any image of the 105 aside from a single sketch. OR the panther turret with the 88
image

2 Likes
580

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

581

Even if these vehicles came back, they will not fill any gaps. They are 6.7, 6.7, and 6.3. This is all currently occupied with vehicles that can perform on par or better than them. I agree that they “look” fantastic. But as of current I don’t think they need to or will come back.

Frankly, minors need Gaijin to add the myriad of vehicles that still fit the metric. You can ask someone from any dedicated thread about their respective nation and they will be more than happy to show you what can still be added following Gaijin’s current metric. There is also the issue that not all gaps will be filled and it will be more trouble than it’s worth to try to accomplish that.

I don’t have a major concern about powercreep. Ultimately, my opinion about exclusion of blueprint vehicles is a matter of preference in regards to this game. If the game changes course and adds them? So be it, I won’t be leaving over something trivial as long as it’s decently communicated.

2 Likes
582

whats the point of reading something that has no reference to it… this is another one, again the russians claims that they built 2 prototypes and the hull in both seem to be full made… this is miles aways form an sketch, which is everything there is form the tiger 105 not even mention the panther 2’s turret
image

583

When did I mention any of the Tiger IIs or Panthers?
Are you perhabs confused? In no way did I ever make any comments on the Tiger II 105 or Panther II. I only ever commented on a suggested principle of “working parts and technology assorted in a logical and working manner”

And russia claims they build 6 prototypes of the last series and at least 6 prior to that.
Yet the one in Kubinka shares almost nothing with the last 6 yet is said to be one of them.

So I do not know what you are on about. You are talking rubbish as far as I am concerned

584

same could be said about you, prototypes quite often arent made all equally, specially if you try to made a hull form a completely new material, this hapens all of the times, so there is a quite valid argument behind the russian claims, that being sade even if the kubinka mode for whatever reason is a reproduction, doesnt automatically means that those prototypes never existe, as they are quite ofthen scraped afther the proyect ends…

there isnt really a logical way to fit an 105 in a tiger 2 turret without redisigning it, even less with a 4 man turret as it has in game…

586

I think the Panther II kind of does:

immagine

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do fine without, and many more tech trees have needs and priorities that are actually urgent, whereas this is more along the lines of “it would be nice”.

It’s probably accentuated by my personal perception, I really like all Panthers (and do quite well in them) except the F. It might well be my limit, but I don’t really enjoy it, and that’s at 6.0. It’s in my 6.3 lineup but I almost never use it there, and I’d never even remotely consider using it at 6.7 and above.

For the Tiger II 105, yes, as it is, it doesn’t really fill a gap. That’s why I mentioned BR changes along with design changes. There are plenty of Soviet and American heavies at and around 7.0 and 7.3, and it’d be nice to have an equivalent in other tech trees too (more or less what I was saying when talking about the “Korean War” BR: tanks that were built after 1945, but with the lessons of WW2 in mind, and which understandably only a few countries actually were in a position to design and build).

But again, not saying this is a need or anything. Just something I’d like to see!

No argument there. That’s why the top of my list of requirements was “if a real vehicle exists, it always gets precedence”. And Gaijin’s leaving out tons of vehicles from minor trees and even subtrees (cough cough Hungary).

But you’ll still have gaps, it’s almost inevitable. The P43 example I cited doesn’t really have a domestic Italian alternative/equivalent that was actually built. I’d prefer that to transplanted American vehicles.

I think there’s room for that eventually. Once the race for present day is over, and once the missing vehicles from the past are finally added to their tech trees, you could be in a position to look at what’s missing and say, ok, let’s see if the next content drop can be fleshed out with a good speculative design or two.

587

Looks like the mother of all TT gaps. The Panther II at 6.7 is badly needed. Especially since the Leopard I got nerfed to 8.0 and now has trouble facing stabilized tanks with thermals.

5 Likes
588

Yes, we need all original 3 more than ever.

2 Likes
589

Let’s not exaggerate, other trees have it way worse, and we have no shortage of tanks to bring… although 7.3 is a little empty after the (much needed) decompression.

Leo1 should imho always have been 7.7. It was ridiculous at 7.3, I say it as a German main. It contributed to the above average uptiering rates of 6.7 too because everyone was at that lineup.

Since 8.0 is basically the old 7.7, its BR is fine, and will get even better once the next set of BRs are decompressed.

590

Why did puma ifv gets a nerf this update? They added ammo filler…

2 Likes
591

Leo 1 is fine at 8.0, compare it to the T-54 1951. Issue is the lack of tanks either side.

Leo protos would be good for below 8.0 and the 1A1 would be nice for 8.3, as it’s stabilised.

2 Likes
592

Absolutely. Should have been 7.7 ages ago, and 8.0 is basically the new 7.7 after the decompression. It was laughable at 7.3.

Yes. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Not all countries, not even major countries, have an uninterrupted production of AFVs, and obviously Germany has a big gap in between the end of the war, and the Leopard. Even its prototypes.

This is obviously true of other tech trees as well. Building tanks wasn’t exactly Italy’s priority in the late 1940s.

I don’t know enough about the prototypes that competed for the final design selection. I know a lot more about German WW2 AFVs than I do postwar. But would they really be suitable at lower BRs? Because just going by what I expect the development process could have been like, I suspect that they would share the same overall traits as the final design, no? Emphasis on mobility, virtually zero armour, low reload times, lolpen ability. If you have a “worse Leopard” it could maybe go to 7.7, but really, that doesn’t sound like the sort of vehicle that should routinely meet end WW2 stuff to me. It inevitably powercreeps them.

The real design gap is between 1945 and 1955. Soviet, American (and to a degree Swedish, see the Krankvagn) tanks were still being designed with WW2 lessons in mind. T-400-100, the early T-54, all the late American heavies etc. I’d like to see a couple equivalents for Germany (and a few other tech trees), even if they are speculative (Ho Ri is a good example).

Like I said, I realise this isn’t a priority whatsoever, I realise it’s subjective, I realise many players are against the idea. It’s just my personal preference. :)

1 Like