This suggestion is kinda old, and im repeating what i have in my notes, so im ngl its very likely i just either made that up or fever dreamed it
In theory i think so, but there are no reports of the issue so we would never know, also its different optics
One of the best secondary sources, Domestic Armoured Vehicles XX-Century 1945-1965 claims it had -3 degrees of depression. Which sources do you have that claims more?
1 Like
tank anc, dimensions estimations and an estimate by a kubinka worker.
a misleading thing could be the little piece of metal on the hull, that blocked some depression, but it was removable and didnt limit the mechanical depression limits
also, the turret was almost identical to the t55 which had -5 degrees o’ depression, and the gun had identical dimensions to the D-10T on the T-55 (which is another weird thing since a large advantage of the M-63 being derived from the D-10T is that it could fire HEAT-FS shells, gaijin seems to be against giving it that)
2 Likes
So i found my notes, and under “fast reverse” i had and i quote:
“since the transmission was lost with time i dont know, though it was light and moved forward fast so maybe fast reverse(?)”
Needless to say not my highest quality suggestion, though my high quality ones keep getting rejected since i dont have first hand sources ):
1 Like
Estimates aren’t sources.
2 Likes
I didnt say they are, but so are second hand sources, and the number simply doesnt exist unless kubinka runs it alongside a ruler, all we have left are what workers estimate and math
2 Likes
Update: its -3 and -5, specifically for the war thunder variant -3
i mixed up a little since there were 2-3 varints:
Proto (early)
Proto (late, in war thunder)
Wood mockup (based on proto)
as you can see proto late had -3, and early had a theoretical limit of -5
this is the early proto, as you can see very different turret design (maybe i will suggest it as a second variant)
1 Like
if anyone knows transmissions, this is a photo i found of the wooden mockup with the transmission, so if you can recognize that could help
1 Like
This looks like it’s just a mock-up. The tracks are the main giveaway.
1 Like
it was mixed, they did a lot of weird things and the sources i found say that it seems thay mixed things up
1 Like
To put it simply, the hull of the original proto was taken for the late proto, and was replaced with a wooden hull making the mockup, the turret on the wooden hull was from the early proto
The tracks are not a giveaway, they are, if not identical, then near identical to that of the surviving prototype.
The issue with the photos of this variant is the scale of the things in the background and angle of the shots. Which makes it look tiny in some photos.
However, nothing in the literature calls it a mockup. On the contrary, it’s literally listed as “prototype” in D.A.V. XX-Century 1946-1965.
Sources are of course vague on the subject, hence why it’s hard to find a direct answer. But it seems many sources point to a prototype built in 1951-52 that looked like this. With the second prototype (with cast turret) built in 1953 after resolving issues with the first. Though its possible they only built a new turret and plopped it on top of the original hull. Again, little is directly stated.
It seems this vehicle has somehow gotten the same reputation the T58 had a few years ago, being dismissed as being a mockup due to lack of information.
2 Likes
The longer i dig the more contradicting information i find on it, kind of annoying and from what i find it is largely due to WOT
For example the wood mockup thing i mentioned earlier was completely fake, and in fact there was an early and late protos alongside a wooden mockup, which had no turret, only hull (from what i can vaguely gather)
Also about the book, do you own it or is it online accessible?
Interesting. I’m glad to stand corrected.
Having more than one iteration of the vehicle be built in steel is certainly good from a potential game content perspective, and I’d be all for it being added.
if it will itll be a premium, and im not sure im fully against that, it might be ok
Which sources do you use? You need to evaluate each source. Obviously a bad source can still contain correct information. But you need to weigh them against eachother given how likely each are to be true. And if a less reputable source contradicts another, it should essentially be discarded.
The ones in your original post are honestly pretty shit, outside of The Chieftains Hatch episode with Nicholas Moran. Tank Encyclopedia does have good articles, but it’s very much from article to article.
The book can be found in pdf here
2 Likes
yea i really rushed to get this out and originally i was extremly suprised it passed source checking
And about general sources that is the thing, it is very hard to find sources about any Object as the soviet union and modern russia dont have a DTIC or NTRL i can go through for first hand sources, so it is a lot of weird secondaries here and there i try to average out, and one conversation i managed to have with a Kubinka worker that was in the documentation part, which suprisngly didnt yield much
And thank you for the book (: