Tanks/Vehicles PT-76 Amphibious Light Tank

[Brogan1 1,512]

One thing that irks me about this game is that there is very little diversity of vehicle classes, especially at the late tiers. The American tank tree is a step in the right direction, with the light tank line extending to tier IV. So, I found a soviet tank that could fit in maybe at tier IV: the PT-76 amphibious light tank.

This tank was used as a reconnaissance tank for the Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies. It was lightly armored but descently armed, and it had a very low silhouette. The armament for the 1951 variant consisted of a D-56T 76.2mm rifled tank gun (no bore evaluator, long multi-slotted muzzle brake, no fume extractor). It's armor was only 20mm thick at its thickest point, although it should be noted that it has phenomenal sloping on the upper and lower glacis plate, and it has a tiny turret.

In short, this could be like a Russian counterpart to the M41 Walker Bulldog, giving a little more diversity to the higher tier battles.

[leroyonly 4,310]

even though this has been previously suggested, open for discussion

[Kempston 342]

doesn't that also double as an APC?

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

Other alternatives that would fit other than this:

 

BMD-1 [cold war]

 

BMD-2

 

BMD-3 [1990]

 

Zhalo S [20something]

 

However I support the PT76.

 

BMDs are all airborne tanks btw.

[Brogan1 1,512]

doesn't that also double as an APC?

No, you are thinking of the BMP series which came later, or a variant of this that was developed outside the timeline.

Other alternatives that would fit other than this:

BMD-1 [cold war]

BMD-2

BMD-3 [1990]

Zhalo S [20something]

You do realize that all of those are outside of the timeline, right? Even if gaijin decided to extend the timeline to 1960, they'd still be outside the timeline.
I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I don't understand what your point is. Yes those serve the same role.
That's like bringing up the M1A1 Abrams when someone suggests a US medium or heavy tank that would be within the timeline. Edited January 8, 2015 by Brogan1

[_Katyusha_ 1,828]

Looks vaguely related to the BMP and the 1950's BTR-50 design.

[Galen503 547]

No to the guy suggesting AFVs. 

 

Completely Yes to the PT 76. The PT 76 is a tank through and through and if memory serves me correct even fought against M48s during the Vietnam Conflict. Also they were used during the Tet offensive to attack a special forces base with Montagnard indigenous forces at Lang Vei. I agree that the Walker Bulldog has no in game adversary at the moment and it needs one. I would want this tank and the M41 both at TV and a 6.7 BR so as not to interfere with the authenticity of TIII games being WWII tanks. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by galen503

[Davix32 533]

Isn't this thing supposed to be amphibious? Gee! That opens a new (if completely useless) channel of attack in the Poland Map!

[mr905 1,342]

Possible variants:

[spoiler]

• PT-76 (Ob'yekt 740, 1951) - An
  original PT-76 armed with the D-56T 76.2 mm rifled tank gun (no bore
  evaluator, long multi-slotted muzzle brake, no fume extractor). It was produced
  between 1951 and 1957
• PT-76B (Ob'yekt 740B, 1959) - PT-76
  armed with the D-56TS 76.2 mm rifled tank gun (double-baffle muzzle brake,
  cartridge ejector, fume extractor and STP-2P 'Zarya' 2-axis stabilization
  system), the PAZ (protivo-atomnaya zashchita) NBC protection system, an
  automatic fire extinguishing system, improved TShK-2-66 sight, a
  filtration-ventilation system, improved observation devices, improved electric
  equipment, a new V-6B 6-cylinder 4-stroke in line water-cooled diesel engine
  developing 263 hp (196 kW) at 1800 rpm and additional internal
  fuel tanks for which the shape of the armour had to be slightly changed. These
  additional internal fuel tanks increased the fuel capacity from 250 l to 400 l.
  The new engine is the same as that used in one bank of that fitted to the T-54.
  With the new engine and additional fuel tanks, the range of the vehicle has been
  increased to 480 km on the road, (590 km with external fuel tanks) and
  120 km on the water. The 76.2 mm D-56TS rifled tank gun can fire a new
  undercaliber AP projectile piercing up to 75 mm at 60° from 2,000 meters.
  One such round has been added to a PT-76B typical ammunition load and so it can
  now carry 41 rounds. It was produced between 1959–1967.
• ASU-85 - airborne assault gun that uses components of the PT-76.
•  ZSU-23-4 - self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.

 

[/spoiler]

Edited February 18, 2015 by mr905

[Tank50us 266]

Isn't this thing supposed to be amphibious? Gee! That opens a new (if completely useless) channel of attack in the Poland Map!

 

Who says that has to be the only map with water on it?

 

Just imagine if they added an "Arnhem" map (Market Garden), or another map set in the pacific where the water is deep enough to drown in if you're not careful.

 

Having an AAT does open up a number of tactical opportunities, and it's not like the Soviets would be the only ones to use them either. The US had a few designs that saw action during WW2, and I'm not just talking about the DD Tanks.

 

[Brogan1 1,512]

Isn't this thing supposed to be amphibious? Gee! That opens a new (if completely useless) channel of attack in the Poland Map!

I wouldn't speak so soon.
Keep in mind that the T-40 light amphibious tank is already on the Russian release tree, so amphibious tanks are well on the way to being implemented. The usefulness of the ability on the maps we have will not be a relevant question until after their implementation. Edited March 16, 2015 by Brogan1

[iouaname 28]

I'm still pretty pissed that the StuH, StuG IV, and T-40 (Amphibious) were listed on the initial ground forces release tree, and yet still have not been added. :c

[Brogan1 1,512]

I'm still pretty pissed that the StuH, StuG IV, and T-40 (Amphibious) were listed on the initial ground forces release tree, and yet still have not been added. :c

Maybe because they are not ready yet. Especially in the case of the T-40 because they would have to program entirely new mechanics for amphibious tanks. They can't just pull this stuff out of their a**es, you know.

[mr905 1,342]

Maybe because they are not ready yet. Especially in the case of the T-40 because they would have to program entirely new mechanics for amphibious tanks. They can't just pull this stuff out of their a**es, you know.

I'm sure they will find a pre-production model without ampibious capabilities. Haven't you heard the rumours, that they will introduce early production pt76  first without amphibious capablity?

Edited March 29, 2015 by mr905

[Brogan1 1,512]

I'm sure they will find a pre-production model without ampibious capabilities. Haven't you heard the rumours, that they will introduce early production pt76  first without amphibious capablity?

Yeah. And that makes sense. However they also did not deny plans to add later models. Amphibious mechanics are probably gonna be a b*tch to program. I don't blame them.

[mr905 1,342]

Yeah. And that makes sense. However they also did not deny plans to add later models. Amphibious mechanics are probably gonna be a b*tch to program. I don't blame them.

I don't know. If they would use same physics as for floatplanes?

[Brogan1 1,512]

I don't know. If they would use same physics as for floatplanes?

It'd probably be a good starting point. But it'd get more complicated with the way many such vehicles move through the water, using a propeller/rudder system, so most would draw more from programming for ships, which are a long ways off themselves.

[mr905 1,342]

It'd probably be a good starting point. But it'd get more complicated with the way many such vehicles move through the water, using a propeller/rudder system, so most would draw more from programming for ships, which are a long ways off themselves.

they could kill two birds with one stone about this matter. let's wait for ships :salute:

[Deathbringer007 118]

they could kill two birds with one stone about this matter. let's wait for ships :salute:

I'm pretty upset they haven't added T-40 when was in the release tree I hop they add in the next update *taps foot impatiently*

Edited April 20, 2015 by Deathbringer007

[I_MIKE_I 7,651]

+1 from me, your suggestion sounds reasonable.

 

Also, with the latest models having relatively thin armor (leaving aside overrated WW2 Tanks from Germany) (compared to the penetration of the gun) it might be an effective flanker.