Tanks/Vehicles T32 heavy tank should be remodelled to its final hull layout (T32E1)

[MillyTealy 4,141]

The T32 currently in the game was a prototype, an unfinished variant that wasn't ever even meant to go to combat. The final variant, T32E1, is what would have had a chance at being introduced to active service, if the programme wasn't cancelled as a whole.

The T32E1 was largely identical except for the front hull armour. The frontal plate was made of a single rolled plate, welded in place, with the hull machinegun omitted.

Since the hull machine gun isn't even functional in WT, and since T32E1 was close to an actual real combat vehicle instead of a prototype, the T32 in WT should be reconfigured to that layout. It would fit the game better both thematically (as T32E1 was closer to being a "real tank"), as well as in gameplay (it would remove T32s biggest frontal weakspot and make it's front hull overall slightly stronger, which would bring it a bit closer in the line with IS-3 and other early-postwar heavy tanks.

Edited January 5, 2017 by blakeob
title fix

[CokeSpray 7,274]

Open for discussion.  :salute:

[JEI2 5,766]

I would like to see this as a different variant or modification.

[Redneck1 1,882]

 

one more stepping stone to grind then. Wonder why hte m version was added first, like usre we got is4 first then IS4M  or M48 to counter T-54 then only the m47... or was it the other way around?

[Guest]

I need it gone. Let this thing only play with the ones with 8.0 battle rating. Naturally, with its partner the IS-3 as well.

[MillyTealy 4,141]

I would like to see this as a different variant or modification.

I was thinking about this as well. Maybe they could add T32 early as a premium, with the old turret, too. It would be basically the M26E1 turret and gun with current T32's hull. Then keep proper T32E1 in the main tree. Edited May 22, 2015 by TealMillan

[Tzalafim 695]

very good idea too. I support adding more t-32 variants to the game.

[Samikatz 427]

If this is the closest point the tank ever was to reaching production I don't see why not, with prototypes I like to see them close to intended production as possible

[MillyTealy 4,141]

Come on guys, lets push this to Further Discussion so it gets Submitted to Development.

[mistomaxo 446]

this version you suggest could become the standard tech tree version, and the current one, as a prototype version, could become a premium vehicle, so its model does not go to waste

[kev2go 5,112]

yes i agree this is the way it should be with any vehicle that wasnt sent into actual production. If gajin cant find a production tank to fill a certain gap, then they should always aim for the closest prototype to the intended production model if is at all possible, which it is in this case a possibility.

 

t32 protoype for premium and current t32 remodelled as t32e1. I support this.

[Querulous1 3,276]

Yes

 

BTW further discussion is not nearer implementation than here.Read definitions.

[Retry 7,363]

Voted no because I'd rather see this in conjunction with the current T32 as opposed to replacing it entirely.

[Thorthemigthy 347]

If anything if some models of tanks like this one had different hull layouts it should be a module. 

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

Excellent idea +1

[abocks 72]

Would definitely help the t32 out +1

[Maki3006 2,690]

I agree with JEI2, I would like to see it as a modification.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Springfield3006

[Whelmy 1,970]

It should be noted in those plans the front hull is 5 inches and the lower front plate is 4 inches. This is the thickness reported in British/Canadian archives for the T32E1.

 

Hunnicutt has the lower front plate as 3.75 inches for both models of T32.

[arczer25 5,202]

It should be noted in those plans the front hull is 5 inches and the lower front plate is 4 inches. This is the thickness reported in British/Canadian archives for the T32E1.

 

Hunnicutt has the lower front plate as 3.75 inches for both models of T32.

in Hunnicutt also lower plate is at 59 degree (not all but most) not 46 degree in war thunder... also on t32 pictures lower plate is more than 46 degree...

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:151299]

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by arczer25

[Desolator7 267]

Remove one of the only frontal weakpoints it has when fighting it in Tiger IIs? Sorry but no this tank as it stands in 7.0 BR would be too good without it.

[ACE_OF_ACES 863]

The T32 currently in the game was a prototype, an unfinished variant that wasn't ever even meant to go to combat. The final variant, T32E1, is what would have had a chance at being introduced to active service, if the programme wasn't cancelled as a whole.

The T32E1 was largely identical except for the front hull armour. The frontal plate was made of a single rolled plate, welded in place, with the hull machinegun omitted.

Since the hull machine gun isn't even functional in WT, and since T32E1 was close to an actual real combat vehicle instead of a prototype, the T32 in WT should be reconfigured to that layout. It would fit the game better both thematically (as T32E1 was closer to being a "real tank"), as well as in gameplay (it would remove T32s biggest frontal weakspot and make it's front hull overall slightly stronger, which would bring it a bit closer in the line with IS-3 and other early-postwar heavy tanks.

Agreed 100%

On that note, any info on the reload times for this version?

[abocks 72]

Agreed 100%

On that note, any info on the reload times for this version?

I imagine it would be the same seeing as it has the same gun.

[Col_Hans_Landa15 2]

Can the devs look at this? This is my favorite tank but is currently almost unplayable with such a massive weakness that isn't even historically accurate. There were some great ideas given.

[LoneAxer 528]

This makes sense, its stupid to have t32 paper tank when this upgrade is available

[Warlord1981NL 2,235]

They could add it, I dont see why it should be changed into it