Tanks/Vehicles T95E1 Medium Tank

[Galen503 547]

I also have near every tank in the game :) 
Yes, WoT exists long time, with nonsense tanks, and so what, I said before I was playing since 2012 and I dont like it anymore. 
And if You want game balanced You'll need more tanks, cuz what we have now in germany is not balanced well. 
Yes, tanks are fine, but Soviet and US tanks just destroy them. 
Dont get me wrong, but its up to you if you stop play this game or not, there be some players on your place. 
And paper tanks can also help with getting new players, dont you think? 
And now think about it, will Gaijin cry for one player or will be happy from 100 new? 
Yes its all about new cash potential, not what they promissed. But enough, cuz it'll start flame war wich I dont mean. 
Sorry if I offended you in any way :)

Your fine as I said I respect what you are saying its just a fundamental difference in what we see as the games selling points. 

[Captain_Puppies 37]

ALL PROTOTYPES SHOULD BE IN THE GAME. IF THEY CAN ADD A R2Y2 THAT 2 VARIANTS WERE NEVER BUILT AT ALL AND ONE VARIANT THAT WAS PROP DRIVEN AND NEVER HAD JET ENGINES THEN THEY CAN ADD LEGITIMATE PROTOTYPE TANKS FOR  EVERY COUNTRY. IF THEY CAN ADD PROTOTYPE PLANES THEN THEY CAN DD PROTOTYPE TANKS.

I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CAN NOT WANT MORE TANKS THAT GIVE THE GAME MORE DIVERSITY AND MORE FUN GAMEPLAY.

[ronan0 40]

ALL PROTOTYPES SHOULD BE IN THE GAME. IF THEY CAN ADD A R2Y2 THAT 2 VARIANTS WERE NEVER BUILT AT ALL AND ONE VARIANT THAT WAS PROP DRIVEN AND NEVER HAD JET ENGINES THEN THEY CAN ADD LEGITIMATE PROTOTYPE TANKS FOR EVERY COUNTRY. IF THEY CAN ADD PROTOTYPE PLANES THEN THEY CAN DD PROTOTYPE TANKS.
I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CAN NOT WANT MORE TANKS THAT GIVE THE GAME MORE DIVERSITY AND MORE FUN GAMEPLAY.

because people want to be and fight historical vehicles maybe, and not have sweet dream engineer's tank and plane? Also stronk caps lock, you discover it, congrats, no you can turn it off, the same way you turn it on if you don't know

[SuperTechmarine 1,575]

ALL PROTOTYPES SHOULD BE IN THE GAME. IF THEY CAN ADD A R2Y2 THAT 2 VARIANTS WERE NEVER BUILT AT ALL AND ONE VARIANT THAT WAS PROP DRIVEN AND NEVER HAD JET ENGINES THEN THEY CAN ADD LEGITIMATE PROTOTYPE TANKS FOR  EVERY COUNTRY. IF THEY CAN ADD PROTOTYPE PLANES THEN THEY CAN DD PROTOTYPE TANKS.

I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CAN NOT WANT MORE TANKS THAT GIVE THE GAME MORE DIVERSITY AND MORE FUN GAMEPLAY.

 

CAPS-LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR STUPID WoT Quisling COOL

Edited January 23, 2015 by SuperTechmarine

[swedeonthemoose 12,809]

because people want to be and fight historical vehicles maybe, and not have sweet dream engineer's tank and plane? Also stronk caps lock, you discover it, congrats, no you can turn it off, the same way you turn it on if you don't know

tbh this could easily be sorted with historical events or protos not being usable in rb and sb

[Galen503 547]

I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CAN NOT WANT MORE TANKS THAT GIVE THE GAME MORE DIVERSITY AND MORE FUN GAMEPLAY.

Because the game was advertised as focusing on accuracy. The devs said themselves there are already games that satisfy the need for tank and plane fantasy worlds. No the game should not change its stated vision to please WoT flunkies that are jumping ship for apparently all the wrong reasons. You quit WoT to play this game for accuracy not diversity. Sorry but that is a fact.

 

But lets all be fair. Steelwings was respectful in his recommendation as many of the times the OPs for these sorts of tanks are and now the WoTlings are hijacking this thread also with the intention to turn this into a argument about the fundamental values of this game and how they should change. Once again this tank is not that ill conceived of a suggestion and in a year or two it might make sense. As of today we don't really need this tank even though the M103 is pretty awful and the HEAT rounds don't help at all. I think it might be something worth revisiting when all of the other projects announced by the devs have at least been started and the bugs in the M103s armor have been worked out. Interesting research and an interesting suggestion. Thank you for your time and effort here. 

 

For the others who are just turning this into a questions of what the game should be please take your we need Prototypes suggestion and start your own threads. Its not fair to drag the OP of this thread into your world of tanks II schemes. 

[SteelWings55 752]

 

Bump :salute:

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

So much armament options O_o

[SteelWings55 752]

So much armament options O_o

 

Notice the one with the T123E6 120mm . 1070m/s , 122mm of armor at 60deg at 2k yards , sounds familiar ? :Ds

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

Notice the one with the T123E6 120mm . 1070m/s , 122mm of armor at 60deg at 2k yards , sounds familiar ? :Ds

 

There can only be one..

 

 (T95E6)

 

[SteelWings55 752]

Ze Bump.

[mistomaxo 446]

this siliceous core armor looks like something special, may be tricky to model, and even trickier to shoot thru. it is also straying dangerously near to composite armor, which i thought was forbidden

 

was the siliceous core only for the front hull? only for the upper glacis? or for the turret too? this thing looks like an astounding tripe threat of strong armor, strong gun, and mobility. may be a little too much

[SteelWings55 752]

this siliceous core armor looks like something special, may be tricky to model, and even trickier to shoot thru. it is also straying dangerously near to composite armor, which i thought was forbidden

 

was the siliceous core only for the front hull? only for the upper glacis? or for the turret too? this thing looks like an astounding tripe threat of strong armor, strong gun, and mobility. may be a little too much

 

The whole tank had the silica embedded cast steel armor , and while its characteristics against AP type projectiles didnt differ much from cast steel only , its big advantage was that it offered the same protection and was lighter , and actually resisted HEAT type shells better .

 

The upper front glacis is 265mm effective ( 95mm @ 65deg from vertical ) , roof and floor vary from 51 ( driver compartment ) to 19mm of thickness and 25-13mm around the engine . The sides are 102mm around the driver compartment and it degrades to 32mm around the engine , and back .

 

Turret front is 178mm thick , sides are 78mm thick , rear is supposedly 78mm too ( cant confirm atm , still digging for data ) .

 

Gun wise it could go thru 127mm of armor @ 60deg out to 2000 yards with APFSDS rounds . ( 90mm hyper-velocity gun )

 

As of agility , 56km/h top speed with a 11HP/Ton ratio , 11.3 psi ground pressure , maximum incline is 60 degrees , which for a 38 ton tank isnt bad ;)

 

Only problem we might encounter is the engine configuration...

Edited February 4, 2015 by SteelWings55

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

bump

[SteelWings55 752]

Bump.

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

Gaijjin make me happy and add this tank.

[SteelWings55 752]

Bump.

[hellfish6 32]

No, only because the fewer the prototypes the better. Plus, with the M48 and M60 theoretically in the pipeline, we get the same-tier tanks that were actually picked and in service. 

[VoenkomVolk 30]

Bump, because if we're judging by the aircraft trees, two medium tank lines per nation would be pretty keen - and possible, given the well-tested prototypes produced by all nations. Varietas delectat!

...That aside, this vehicle would even compete well against the T-64, if only in its later variants. The earlier ones are a match for the T-62A, and far more reasonable from a gameplay standpoint.

[SteelWings55 752]

Bump, because if we're judging by the aircraft trees, two medium tank lines per nation would be pretty keen - and possible, given the well-tested prototypes produced by all nations. Varietas delectat!

...That aside, this vehicle would even compete well against the T-64, if only in its later variants. The earlier ones are a match for the T-62A, and far more reasonable from a gameplay standpoint.

 

Well i didnt find the exact penetration numbers for less then 2000 yards but , as you said , could be a good matchup once the T62 , Leo and M60 arrive ...

 

And even tho it is a prototype , the data for it was really straight forward to find .... for the gun im still looking around but ..

Edited March 16, 2015 by SteelWings55

[Phaethon666 102]

I could see this being added in the future if more and more counterparts are added to other nations.  Judging by what Gaijin has done so far though, I would expect at least 2 or 3 more Patton variations before that happens.  I do very much like this tank, and it would easily become an endgame mini branch for the USA because of the many variations of the T-95 medium that were prototyped.

[SteelWings55 752]

 

Ze Bump.

[SteelWings55 752]

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2015 by SteelWings55

[Redneck1 1,882]

Gib gib gib gib.

 

The tears will be flooding the servers!

 

Will we get to chose what gun to use or will we get all gun variations as own vehicles?

[SteelWings55 752]

Gib gib gib gib.

 

The tears will be flooding the servers!

 

Will we get to chose what gun to use or will we get all gun variations as own vehicles?

 

Well , the topic stands for the T95E1 , which had the T208 smoothbore 90mm . E6 had the lightened M58 from the M103 but was never built , E3/4/5 had different variations of the 105mm , while the E5 had the L7 105mm ... and so on .

 

 

But i think this 90mm will be more than enough :salute: