No, the V2 and V3 are fake vehicles, V1 was a real partial prototype.
(MB-326K VS R2Y2, There is no reason R2Y2 can keep 8.0 - #97 by Cloudzy26160)
Although from some discussions I have had since I believe it was planed to be armed with either a bomb or torpedo, no cannons.
You misunderstand the case of the Coelian. The guns (341 Gerät) were built in metal. They don’t qualify for the vehicle because they were not unique to it (they were mounted on ships as AA guns) and since the Panther chassis is also not unique, there is a lack of a unique component.
For the record I still think that’s bullshit, we’re talking about a chassis in mass production and guns built in metal, it’s an incomplete prototype no worse than the Ho 229 or the Yak 141 or the Pancake. But regardless of that, just wanted to clarify this point.
Ultimately Gaijin will decide on a case by case basis, as they always do.
Nope. It never got to prototype stage. It’s a mock up
Apparently, Gaijin has a Lego expert. Pantera II or E-100 are examples. According to the intern, E-100 had a design using the Maus tower, and the Maus tower already existed, so E-100 would use the Maus tower even knowing that the two existing Maus towers were already mounted on their chassis.
The gun got to the prototype stage. It was built in metal by Rheinmetall-Borsig. The fact that it was intended to share this gun with the Kriegsmarine does not turn the metal into paper. If the Coelian was being considered from scratch today, it would be added without a second thought as a Panther D variant: mass produced hull + gun that was actually built would be more than enough.
Let us compare a recently added vehicle, the Ki-93, to the Flakpanzer 341.
Platform: extant. The Panther D chassis was in mass production, and a single prototype of the Ki-93 was built and flown (for 20 minutes before crashing on the runway).
Power supply: extant. For the Coelian, the HL230 was in mass production. I’m not sure if the Mitsubishi 214 used on the Ki-93 was in mass production but it was certainly available in metal.
Armament: neither the Ki-93 nor the Coelian ever received their intended armament. The intended armament was built in both cases. Four Gerat 341 were built, and two Ho-402 were built.
Knowledge gap: for both vehicles we have one aspect of their performance that cannot be certainly known and has to be modelled with a degree of fantasy. We have no way of knowing what exact specs the turret of the Coelian would have been, if it had been built in metal. We also have no way of knowing the detailed flight characteristics of the Ki-93 since it only flew for 20 minutes and the single prototype was then bombed into smithereens. However, WT is fine with making up these performance characteristics, and we have countless such examples in game.
The two vehicles are treated differently mostly because of PR and marketing. The three removed German vehicles (of which the other two are much worse) are by now the symbol of "Gaijin doing things differently than the other tank game) while nobody cares if the Ki-93 or the Pancake or the Horten are in the game.
That is even dumber considering that the V1 Maus turret was not intended as the turret that would actually go to the Maus either, let alone the E-100. You can justify it with the Maus itself because it was physically assembled this way, but for the E-100, either model how it could have plausibly been completed or not at all.
The E-100 we have in the game is basically a WoT-grade Frankenstein, and yet you can obtain it if you compete in the right tournaments and win, but the Flakpanzer? God forbid!
Now let’s add another vehicle to this comparison I call the TigerPanther. It’s a Panther hull, Tiger turret and I just made it up.
The platform exists, so does the powerplant. All of it is mass produced and well documented. It’s a better addition than both of your examples if we follow the same comparison.
Only issue is that no prototype was made, I just made it up. But now what if I put a wooden mockup of the Tiger turret onto another standard Panther hull? Does that make it real?
No, because the vehicle I have now is not a prototype, it’s a partial mockup put on a standard Panther hull that has nothing to do with my “development” in the first place.
Of course this is an unrealistic example, but it shows what the suggestion rules try to prevent, which is unrealized ideas that never went past the idea/mockup phases.
The minimum for a vehicle to be considered is that it needs at least some progress in prototyping. This doesn’t mean using existing parts, it means having newly developed and functional parts made for the project. For the Flakpanzer 341 for example a functional turret, even if never armed or mounted to a hull, would count.
Available information is entirely separate. There is fully complete vehicles that have too little information to be added, like it was recently said about the Komatsu 105mm GSR. In the same way there is very well documented vehicles that simply were never even partially built, so they disqualify for a different reason.
Suggestions, since their purpose is to collect information, only limit by progress and not information, which is why vehicles that seem poorly documented can be allowed. But the progress of the project is still a hard criteria that can be enforced here.
You are (presumably) not a German engineer that ever worked on either project, and that is a meaningful difference.
If all intent is the same and is invalid, then anything that never mounted its weapons needs to be removed. Goodbye Ki-93, Yak 141, and Pancake.
Seriously man, that analogy is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I can make up a Ki-93 with a 105 L7 and it’s not the same as the Ki-93 with the 57mm, because one is an invention made by me in the year of our lord 2026, like your TigerPanther, and the other was a goal of Japanese engineers that was never realised. The Flakpanzer was not made up in the year of our lord 2026, it was a real project that was cancelled. And you know this perfectly well.
Yep, you’re right there. I just wanted to make an example and couldn’t think of any specific one so I made it up. That said “existing design + other existing thing” is very common when looking at unrealized ideas, so the concept stands.
This is just to say that there is a difference between paper projects, mockups, partial and complete prototypes and so on. This game draws the line at partial prototypes, others might handle it differently.
But the point stands, nothing was built for the Flakpanzer 341. It’d maybe* be a prototype if you could prove the hull was specifically built as a Flakpanzer prototype hull and not just a Panther that briefly mounted the partial mockup.
*Genuinely unsure what counts in that case
The suggestion rule does not overlap 100% with how Gaijin handles its own additions, you can find statements by Smin to that effect too. The rules simply exist to regulate user suggestions.
Like you yourself point out later, stuff like the O-I or the GSR are technically suggestible, but cannot be implemented. The other way around also happens, with Gaijin “breaking their own rules” and adding ahistorical things, one example of which can be found below in this post.
But in any case, let’s go with the actual suggestion rule: at least one major component unique to the vehicle needs to have existed.
For the Flakpanzer the result is that you have to lawyer about whether the guns, which were built in metal, qualify as unique. You can say no, because they were also meant for ships. You can say yes, because no other ground vehicle was ever intended to mount them (and in point of fact such guns are indeed absent from the German ground TT).
There is no escaping the fact that the final decision for or against is always going to be arbitrary, because if Gaijin wanted to add a vehicle based only on an existing gun, they would, and most of the community would not bat an eye.
Time for an example of Gaijin breaking their own rules.
The Tiger II Sla should then be removed from the game, you realise. The Sla engine was developed for the Jagdtiger, and was only ever installed on the Jagdtiger. The idea to fit it into a Tiger II was pitched late in development but installation could not be carried out without a rework of the engine deck, which never happened.
Just like the Gerät 341 were never mounted on a Panther and a turret to mate them was never built, the Sla engine was never mounted on a Tiger II and the engine deck to mate them was never built.
Hilariously, just like the Flakpanzer with the Gerät 341, the Tiger II Sla cannot claim that a major component unique to it was built, because even in the most generous interpretation, it would share the engine with the Jagdtiger! Just like the Gerät would be shared with the Kriegsmarine!
There is no component unique to the Sla, built for the Sla. It is a Tiger II in every respect bar the engine, which was not primarily meant for it, developed for it, or ever installed.
Yet one is among the most popular mid tier premiums in the game and the other is unobtainium.
Yep, Gaijin tend to be slightly more lenient with considerations (that’s how we got full on fictional vehicles even like Gaijins interpretations of the Panther II or Ho-Ri), but also tend to prefer more popular vehicles which are usually more the complete ones.
The baseline for what is considered an exception and what isn’t is still generally drawn under partially built prototypes like the Yak-141. I think they probably still might require more than suggestion rules though, for example in theory suggestions allow single components like an ejection seat while in-game most incomplete vehicles still got some form of mobility/flight testing.
But also as players suggestions are how we interact with game additions, these might not 100% be Gaijins internal rules, but they are the rules for us as players.
Honestly if they were developed for the Flakpanzer 341 and ships at the same time I’d personally agree with you. It’s a bit of a grey area because it’s technically not vehicle specific since it’s intended for multiple vehicles, but also still vehicle specific if it was developed with the specific vehicle as intended use.
But even here the Kawasaki AH-2 was denied as suggestions because the components were made for both UH-X and AH-X projects at the same time and shared between them.
So it doesn’t look great for it, but you’d have my support.
(I also still think the Ostwind 2 is a sketchy replacement at best)
They break their rules a lot. F-16AJ is probably a great example for one they even said they don’t have active plans to remove.
And here’s the reason it’s not removed.
Yes, that’s my basic point. That the actual explanation for what makes and doesn’t make the cut is just “business decision”.
The three removed German vehicles, like the Ho Ri, got a lot of negative attention for being fake to various degrees, and since “real vehicles only” is important to the game’s USP, they were removed to protect it. Other fake vehicles do not garner the same negative attention, or if they do, there are other factors making them net positive for the company (like being a premium that sells well).
It’s why I don’t actually enjoy the “addition rules” discussions, Gaijin has unilateral control over the game and it’s in their interest to have a free hand. So the “rules” they follow will always be vague enough to let them do what they want.
(“No top tier premium” being another fantastic example of this).
I ultimately believe the vehicles should return (with big remodels for the other two) for a non vehicle related reason, that is to say player parity. I have both Ho Ris and that gives me a massive advantage over someone grinding those BRs now and having no access to a vehicle with armour and APHE.
Not to mention, if you play that BR range, you can barely go a couple matches without seeing multiples of the removed vehicles. They are too fake for you to play with, but not too fake for you to play against, which again is the sort of insanity that only ever results from corporate thinking instead of being passionate autists who care for internal consistency.
Yeah. Even trying to stay historical it’s much more beneficial to accuracy to be transparent about what these vehicles are and what they aren’t than to outright remove them. They could write about the real historical background, what liberties Gaijin took to add them and why they did it at the time, and I am convinced they would cause less historical misconception even being normally available than they do now after the removal.
But sadly admitting mistakes will never sell as well as pretending there weren’t any.
🤨 you’re one to talk from what I’m reading that all u lol and you do realize my point is that prototypes are more of a stretch realistically than in service vehicles with testing technology/equipment and so in service vehicles should have some leeway that was the point that in service vehicles should also be capable of getting testing technology/equipment even if it didn’t use them in service as some of them have proof technical compatibility and provisions for said things
The point I’m making is that in the case of the E-100, the situation was quite different. The turret was built, but nothing indicated that the E-100 would receive it. The E-100 project had its own turret, and the turrets that the MAUS had were already being used in completed projects. Unless whoever suggested this meant to imply that the Germans would prefer to build another MAUS turret to use on the E-100 instead of building the original turret, but that’s pure speculation. It would have made more sense to have put the original tower and I’m sure it would have been removed from the game nowadays if it wasn’t so valuable unlike Panther II.
Was the e100 turret even built because I can’t find any info that it was only “blue prints”. also what’s your point they should make the e100 unattainable?
For the average player, it’s already unobtanium.
True
Basically is. There’s none for sale and it basically never comes back
And not even a third maus tower was built for the E-100 to use.
Fair enough I guess. But if nothing else at least all three are physically possible, unlike the hotly-debated Panther II, KT105, Ho-Ri Production, etc.