Tanks/Vehicles [GF] USSR T-44-100

[Tchar 952]

Yesterday I could've sweared that I already read this problem about the turret ring on the forum a few months ago... Tried to find it and searched on the internet but couldn't find anything so I thought that I mixed up with another vehicle. Now that you mention that this is the one, I'm not sure that we should have this tank in game.

Source

 

EDIT:

1945 was considered a variant of equipment of the T-44A new gun D-10T 100 mm caliber.

New modification of T-44-100 differed only superficially longer barrel guns. The prototype has been tested in the summer of 1945 and has shown very low results. If the design of the tank special claims were filed, then the installation of D-10T standard tower had greater problems. When fired tank shaken strongly that beat out the exact tip and turret ring formed backlash. Also failed to properly balance the instrument, which excluded the operation of such a machine in the line units.

In the autumn of 1944 on the tests came out an improved version, equipped with an instrument LB-1, anti-aircraft machine gun DSK 12.7 mm and a skirt thickness of 8 mm, made according to the type of German tanks. On the whole, the impression of an improved T-44-100 was more positive, but the military did not suit the presence of the muzzle brake. Such a large dislike for "naboldashniku" explains supposedly so much he unmasks the tank and reduces the power of the shot.

Source

[HyJetV 3,063]

Itd suit being a T-IV premium prototype, like the SMK a tier below

[xoonZG 141]

Kinda off topic, but what is a splash board?

[ValkyrieLitewing 1,659]

Move T-44 to 6.3 and put this at 6.7. I absolutely want this tank

[HyJetV 3,063]

It would fill the jump between the T-44 at 6.7 and the T54 (1947) at 8.0

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Kinda off topic, but what is a splash board?

 

Okay, so:

 

When you look at the photo above, on the upper plate, about in the middle (travelling horizontally), there is that bar. That bar that sticks up is a splash plate, and some of these prototypes had them, others did not. 

 

Basically what it does(From my understanding), is when the tank goes through water/mud/whatever, it keeps the flow of the material from sliding right up the glacis plate and into the drivers hatch. Instead, it slows the flow and ideally it keeps the water from sliding up the plate and into the crew compartment as easily. 

[kevQC 2,814]

For the love of god look at the following words and remember them carefully:

 

STOP . SUGGESTING . PROTOTYPES . AND. CAPTURED. VEHICLES.

 

It will just make the game crappier than it already is.

 

Thank you.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

It will just make the game crappier than it already is.

 

Having them here and there to fill gaps and add flavor, they're fine.

 

Start dumping them everywhere willynilly and it'll ruin the game.

 

 

It's like salt.

[ValkyrieLitewing 1,659]

Having them here and there to fill gaps and add flavor, they're fine.

 

Start dumping them everywhere willynilly and it'll ruin the game.

 

 

It's like salt.

I absolutely agree. I think as fillers to fill in gaps and balance I have no problem with them.

[HyJetV 3,063]

For the love of god look at the following words and remember them carefully:

 

STOP . SUGGESTING . PROTOTYPES . AND. CAPTURED. VEHICLES.

 

It will just make the game crappier than it already is.

 

Thank you.

 

If their is nothing to fill a gap that was in service, and the only way to fill it is for a proto, then yes, its fine to suggest / have them added.

 

as said above, adding them willy nilly will ruin the game, using them as gap fillers / balance fixers is fine. It wont hurt

[CrusaderXx 3,871]

Would bring a nice aspect to the whole KT 105 thing, I'd say yes, if the BR is right.... So NO!(jk)

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Would bring a nice aspect to the whole KT 105 thing, I'd say yes, if the BR is right.... So NO!(jk)

 

Almost missed the "jk" at the end lol.

[Cariocecus 2,435]

T-44 100 maybe, T-44 122 no...they never successfully installed the 122 on the T-44 too much weight it smashed the turret ring.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

T-44 100 maybe, T-44 122 no...they never successfully installed the 122 on the T-44 too much weight it smashed the turret ring.

 

I know it was unsucessful, but do you have a source that says that?

 

Not trying to say you're wrong, just trying to figure out where the info is coming from and if the source has any other info I could use for other vehicles...?

[kevQC 2,814]

If their is nothing to fill a gap that was in service, and the only way to fill it is for a proto, then yes, its fine to suggest / have them added.

 

as said above, adding them willy nilly will ruin the game, using them as gap fillers / balance fixers is fine. It wont hurt

I must say that you make sense here, but in the present case, not only is it completely unneeded, but the tank was a complete failure so I really don't see the point.

[kevQC 2,814]

For the love of god look at the following words and remember them carefully:

 

STOP . SUGGESTING . PROTOTYPES . AND. CAPTURED. VEHICLES.

 

It will just make the game crappier than it already is.

 

Thank you.

And sorry about that post but it just really frustrates me that things like the Japanese captured B-17 was added because someone actually suggested it on the forum.

[Markenzwieback 782]

And sorry about that post but it just really frustrates me that things like the Japanese captured B-17 was added because someone actually suggested it on the forum.

But that is something different imo. Captured =/= prototype. So let us have a clear cut there. I am against all captured vehicles for premium ENTIRELY. Prototypes to fill in gaps are something different.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Markenzwieback

[kevQC 2,814]

But that is something different imo. Captured =/= prototype. So let us have a clear cut there. I am against all captured vehicles for premium ENTIRELY. Prototypes to fill in gaps are something different.

For me it depends, I'm still all against paper vehicles and prototypes that didn't even work like this T-44-100.

[Cariocecus 2,435]

I know it was unsucessful, but do you have a source that says that?

 

Not trying to say you're wrong, just trying to figure out where the info is coming from and if the source has any other info I could use for other vehicles...?

It isn't the first time the T-44 122 is brought up, i suggest you look at previous threads about this vehicle.

[Armoredbeercan 2,808]

giB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

It isn't the first time the T-44 122 is brought up, i suggest you look at previous threads about this vehicle.

 

So, you refuse to provide a source and instead tell me to waste my time hunting for threads that may or may not still exist...?

[Warlord1981NL 2,235]

For the love of god look at the following words and remember them carefully:

 

STOP . SUGGESTING . PROTOTYPES . AND. CAPTURED. VEHICLES.

 

It will just make the game crappier than it already is.

 

Thank you.

 

No. They are fun and I for one want them.

 

Keep the suggestions going for prototype and captured vehicles!

 

Awesome!

[HyJetV 3,063]

As mentioned, there is a huge gap from 6.7 to 8.0 on the medium tank line for the Russians.  This would sit there happily between the two BRs, as their is not many other tanks that can fill that gap.

 

 

 

Plz dont start a flame war between each other, dont want this topic locked :c

 

Also the T-44-122 was a joke, i wasnt serious about making a suggestion on that, keep on topic about the -100 plox

Edited January 14, 2015 by HeartBreak1

[kevQC 2,814]

No. They are fun and I for one want them.

 

Keep the suggestions going for prototype and captured vehicles!

 

Awesome!

Please elaborate on how having 3 nations with P-47Ds is fun.

 

EDIT: I get it, you only play arcade, I understand that it might be interesting for you to have the same planes in multiple nations, but for a lot of us, it completely breaks immersion and balance.

Edited January 14, 2015 by kevQC

[Cariocecus 2,435]

So, you refuse to provide a source and instead tell me to waste my time hunting for threads that may or may not still exist...?

Your problem, i am not your nanny.