This tech tree is very flawed and would not fit in the game as of now. I will only cover Polish vehicles, because I’m not as familiar with Czechoslovakian ones:
I have no idea what S P wz. 29 is supposed to be. It’s just the wz. 29 armored car, except with the words “Armored Car” (in Polish “Samochód Pancerny”) abbreviated as S P, and for some reason it’s separate from “wz. 29 Ursus”, which is just the same thing.
Both wz. 29 and wz. 34 are too weak to be added to the game. If you look at any other 1.0 BR armored car it’s much faster, has better armor and a better gun. Maybe they would fit if War Thunder added ranks 0.0 or -1.0, or rearranged the current ranks and added older vehicles. But right now, no, it wouldn’t work.
The same applies also for the Vickers Mark E, and the TKD. Both of these vehicles use similar guns that were already weak in the 1930s, and could only penetrate up to 25 mm. This is bad news for these vehicles, as they have nothing else to compensate for this: average or below average mobility in comparison to other 1.0 vehicles and thin armor. The Vickers with two machine guns would be even worse obviously, so I won’t get into more detail as to why that one is too weak. I will mention though, that you got the machine guns wrong. Polish Vickers tanks used the wz. 25 Hotchkiss machine guns at first, and later the wz. 30 machine guns. At some points they were also armed with the 37 mm Puteaux cannon, or the 13,2 mm wz. 30 machine gun in one of the turrets, though that’s still too weak for the game considering the vehicle as a whole.
SPA 25C with the wz. 14 machine gun is just too weak. It’s only a single 8 mm machine gun from WW1 on a truck. In comparison, the Soviet Gaz-AAA has at least 4 machine guns, which is good enough, but this is just too little.
The 10TP is too weak for BR 2.0. The vehicle is comparable to the BT-5 or BT-7, so it would make sense to put it at 1.3 at most.
14TP (which was in reality actually called 12TP and 14TP was a name fabricated by a historian when the real one was unknown), was never built. Not only was it never built, we don’t even know what it was supposed to look like. In 1939 the tank was still in the design stage and the design itself was likely never finished. So there’s no way to add something like this unless you fabricate most of the vehicle, but then can you even call it that?
PZInż. 160 is fake. There is not a single mention of such vehicle in the archives. Supposedly, the story about it comes from Edward Habich, who was contacted by researcher Janusz Magnuski after the war, but there is zero proof for any of the claims. This is the same source that also resulted in a fake story about the “Habich medium tank”. The “photo” is also just a drawing made by Magnuski based on a photo of a PZInż. 152 tractor.
As far as I am aware, the T-34-85M2 did not get a new, more powerful engine. It still had the same one, just with the minor modifications from the T-34-85M1 standard. (Also, what’s the deal with the: “Armor: can withstand 7.62mm”? That’s like saying a bear can withstand a mosquito bite, it’s technically correct but it’s a large understatement. I guess it was just copied from the others above, but the point stands.)
I don’t see a point in “T-34-85 Rudy”. It’s just a T-34-85 with a name painted on it from a popular tv series. It doesn’t make much sense to include it as a separate vehicle in my opinion.
The T-54 you included was not called ZET-1. ZET-1 was an unrelated Soviet development. It is unknown if the Polish experimental anti ATGM protection got its own name.
The only source about the HM-45 (which is an OBRUM bulletin) doesn’t say anything about a 800 hp engine.
What you posted as “PT-94” was actually the “Goryl”, or as it was later renamed “Anders” MBT, which was never built. There was only a small-scale mockup that can be seen in the photo, which was edited to show how it could look like when built. There was never a prototype of the Goryl, it stayed on paper.
PL-01 was just a mockup on the CV90 chassis, not even a prototype.
I’m too lazy to read everything, but judging by the fact that there are at least a few problems, there might be more mistakes. It’s clear that this suggestion requires much more research.
I see, I didn’t know about event vehicles as I’m pretty new to the game. Can the event vehicles be weaker than 1.0 ones? In any case I don’t think they should be part of the tree as they are significantly weaker when compared to 1.0 vehicles from other trees.
I also still think the Vickers with 13,2 mm Hotchkiss is a bit too weak. Arrangement-wise it would be similar to the M2A2, but the M2A2 is significantly faster, and has slightly better armor. Maybe we could take a 7TP instead (and there does exist one photo of a 7TP with a 13,2 mm Hotchkiss), as it would have comparable, or in some areas even a slightly better armor, though it would still essentially be a much slower M2A2. But I guess it would still be usable enough.
I don’t see a clear message why there is a problem with these low-level armored vehicles and even tankettes like the TKD… information about the M2 was collected from various user forums, maybe that’s why this irregularity crept in (I’ve already changed it) as for the armor, should I paste a link to the documentation of the Russian T-34? is it clear enough that they don’t differ in this aspect. As for the “rudy”, if we have the Leopard Panzerbattalion or Christian II or even the IS “Месть за брата героя” in the game, I don’t see any obstacles to adding it, especially since its decal is in the game. as for the HM-45, information can be found, you just have to spend some time.
Oh, also I believe the experimental screens themselves were not called S-2. S-2 was the factory name assigned to T-54A tanks built in Łabędy. It’s just that the text from which the information comes from mentions the screens soon after.
Sorry about the T-34 armor remark, that was very nitpicky of me. And as for the “Rudy” I was unaware there were similar vehicles like that, so if it’s fine then I’m sorry.
As for the low level vehicles, I think they are problematic since some of them are much weaker than typical vehicles of Rank 1. I think they would be great if War Thunder added a lower Rank with more interwar vehicles though, but I’m just not sure how well they would work right now.
And for the HM-45, yes there is probably more info, but you would have to look in the archives. So far there has only been a single publication which talks about it, it comes directly from OBRUM, but unfortunately it doesn’t go much into the details. (Some of the information about the gun is also known from a publication at the WAT academy, but it also isn’t very detailed, maybe there’s more information in the WAT archives.)
Yes. Event vehicles can be weaker than 1.0 vehicles. I would prefer to see the Vickers with 13mm instead of 7 TP. You already have prototype 7TP and the production one, 9TP as well( yes I know that is not it’s actual name). It’s closest way in which you can still have it game. It was modified enough to a point I think it should be represented. Besides we already have Finnish Vickers 6ton in game.
Well it would be nice to have a Vickers. The thing with the Finnish one is that it has a much better armament though. Maybe they could add the Vickers with the L/55 wz. 35 40 mm gun? The gun itself, and the mantlet were built. The turret wasn’t built though, but we do have things like the E-100 or Ho-Ri.
It wasn’t Bumar. Test site in Sulejówek gave them the Produkt S-2 name. What interests me is that the existence of S-2 should indicate that there was Produkt S-1 at some point as well
It says they were tested in Sulejówek, but it also says that S-2 was the name given in the factory, and they were built in Łabędy as far as I am aware.
Some news: GDLS representatives revealed to the Army Recognition portal that the shipment is alread on water and will arrive in Poland within a few weeks. In addition, the tanks will be delivered earlier than the known schedule (still in 2024), according to which the first vehicles were to reach Poland at the beginning of 2025.
The name comes from an article in the Polish magazine “Wojsko i Technika Historia 2/2018”, however it does not seem to refer to the anti-ATGM screens. In the article it is written that “S-2” was a factory name given to the T-54A tanks, which started production in 1957. In 1957-1958 the tanks were tested in Sulejówek, and as a result it was decided to implement some minor modernizations. The Polish modernizations included: an electric fuel gauge, bonus fuel tanks on the fenders, adapting the tank for fording water, protection against napalm, and screans against HEAT ammunition, as well as some other things. However, the text does not refer to the screens with any special name. To me it seems that the name for these screens is either unknown, or they didn’t have any special name since they were only experimental and were not put to service.
As for ZET-1, it was the name of a Soviet system, which included folding mesh screens attached to the tank’s barrel, similar in appearance to an umbrella. It was not related to the Polish experiments in any way. The Polish screens are only called ZET-1 because someone on the internet must have made a mistake, and since there was no other known name for them people started repeating that.
Since there is no definitive way of referring to the Polish system, I think you should rename it to something like: “T-54A with HEAT protection”.
