Tanks/Vehicles Object 685 Amphibious Light Tank

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Probably would be similar to the T-64. So 8-9 RPM.

eh, wasn't too far off... Would have imagined a 19 round autoloader would have been a bit faster though... 

 

 

Does that factor in the time the gun travel from  elevation/depression to in-line with the loader, and then back to elevation? or is that all extra tacked on, making the reload+aim time closer to 10s?

[WulfPack 1,693]

eh, wasn't too far off... Would have imagined a 19 round autoloader would have been a bit faster though... 

 

 

Does that factor in the time the gun travel from  elevation/depression to in-line with the loader, and then back to elevation? or is that all extra tacked on, making the reload+aim time closer to 10s?

I imagine, they went with the autoloader, not for speed, but for weight.

That would depend on the elevation rate.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I imagine, they went with the autoloader, not for speed, but for weight.

That would depend on the elevation rate.

 

Huh, would have imagined a 19 round autoloader might weigh more than 60 kilo. Last I heard, it was because USSR set some very strict limits on size, and they could cram an autoloader into a smaller and less humane space than an actual person.

 

 

And, I'd imagine the elevation rate is irrelevant if you fire the gun in-line with the loading mechanism, rather than at XX degrees of elevation

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,790]

So a End T-4, Begin T5 7.0/7.3

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

PT-76 (6.0) -> PT-85 (7.3) / PT-90 (7.3) -> Object 685 (8.0) for my money.

[blockhaj 3,560]

I dont get it why people want this thing to be at a lower br than 8.0. It has a 100mm autoloader. It will oneshot leopards like they where made out of risepaper. Its a light tank. Its survivability is its mobility.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,790]

I dont get it why people want this thing to be at a lower br than 8.0. It has a 100mm autoloader. It will oneshot leopards like they where made out of risepaper. Its a light tank. Its survivability is its mobility.

 

i'm not sure, but an amphibious tank is slowed by the propulsion system, so his mobility are reduced. but ok if you prefer: 7.3/7.7, i can't imagine it at only 8.0.

 

this thing be used against M-46

Edited May 2, 2016 by Cpt_Bel_V

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

It will oneshot leopards like they where made out of risepaper.

Anything with an explosive filter will kill it.

[ganJ 2,692]

NO... another floating scrap...
They can fix PT-76 BR to 6.3 or like T92 6.7 zero fun when sherman is killed with heatfs
AND really??  Amphibious & prototype??  :facepalm:

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,790]

NO... another floating scrap...
They can fix PT-76 BR to 6.3 or like T92 6.7 zero fun when sherman is killed with heatfs
AND really??  Amphibious & prototype??  :facepalm:

 

Why not amphibious? it's sound fun, but it can't work on these maps,... Tunisia we can't turn around the town,... and others maps don't have a real possibilty.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

NO... another floating scrap...
They can fix PT-76 BR to 6.3 or like T92 6.7 zero fun when sherman is killed with heatfs
AND really??  Amphibious & prototype??  :facepalm:

It's a rather good candidate for an 8.0 Soviet light tank, I don't think anyone is looking for it to actually fight a large amount of WW II vehicles. And what is the exact issue with it being amphibious.

[ganJ 2,692]

It's a rather good candidate for an 8.0 Soviet light tank, I don't think anyone is looking for it to actually fight a large amount of WW II vehicles. And what is the exact issue with it being amphibious.

Maybe in future, for now I would rather see, LMS removed, BR compression removed for Tier -4-5 units, separation of post war vehicles and 50s jets and of course floating.... but something different... like naval forces ? ;)
Then they can focus on "funny stuff" like this tank ;) 
SO like 2 years from now? 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Maybe in future, for now I would rather see, LMS removed, BR compression removed for Tier -4-5 units, separation of post war vehicles and 50s jets and of course floating.... but something different... like naval forces ? ;)
Then they can focus on "funny stuff" like this tank ;) 
SO like 2 years from now? 

Well the guys who work on mechanics and the way that vehicles are spread are different from the people who actually make vehicles, BR compression is currently held because Gaijin feel that they don't have enough high tier vehicles to get rid of the compression (this vehicle would help fix that), and the naval forces development team is different from the ground forces development team. I don't see any reason for why it should take forever to add this vehicle.

[ganJ 2,692]

BR compression is currently held because Gaijin feel that they don't have enough high tier vehicles to get rid of the compression 

Leo, M47, M60, M103, Jah70, T-54s, T-10, SU-100, Chieftain, Centurion mk10, Conqueror, Conway, AND they can/will add M48,, T-62 and probably a lot more coming. 
and on tier 5 USSR don't have problem with number of vehicles,
GER have problems because they have gap that is practically impossible to fill without foreign vehicles.

Personally, I prefer first Caernarvon Mk. I because Brits have 2.0 gap in BR in heavy line:


https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/290456-fv221-caernarvon-mk-i/

Edited May 2, 2016 by ganJ87

[WulfPack 1,693]

i'm not sure, but an amphibious tank is slowed by the propulsion system, so his mobility are reduced. but ok if you prefer: 7.3/7.7, i can't imagine it at only 8.0.

 

this thing be used against M-46

Slowed? It would be one of the fastest tanks in the game.

[WulfPack 1,693]

Leo, M47, M60, M103, Jah70, T-54s, T-10, SU-100, Chieftain, Centurion mk10, Conqueror, Conway, AND they can/will add M48,, T-62 and probably a lot more coming. 
and on tier 5 USSR don't have problem with number of vehicles,
GER have problems because they have gap that is practically impossible to fill without foreign vehicles.

Personally, I prefer first Caernarvon Mk. I because Brits have 2.0 gap in BR in heavy line:


https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/290456-fv221-caernarvon-mk-i/

Su-100? Do you mean the Su-122-54?

[WulfPack 1,693]

The 2B-06-2 multifuel diesel engine.

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by WulfPack

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

So, forgive me wulfpack it's a bit tangential, but we should put the PT-76M between this and the PT though I think... would make for better flow of the tree to have a step in between.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

So, forgive me wulfpack it's a bit tangential, but we should put the PT-76M between this and the PT though I think... would make for better flow of the tree to have a step in between.

Well I imagine that a few tanks can be between the PT-76 and the Object 685. The PT-76M and another vehicle like the Object 906 (Sometimes referred to as the PT-85) being some of them.

[WulfPack 1,693]

So, forgive me wulfpack it's a bit tangential, but we should put the PT-76M between this and the PT though I think... would make for better flow of the tree to have a step in between.

At 6.0-6.3? Sure.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

At 6.0-6.3? Sure.

I think the biggest difference was a bump to 300 HP and slightly better water mobility thanks to a bigger engine. 

 

Should be about 4 hp per ton more, or so?

[WulfPack 1,693]

I think the biggest difference was a bump to 300 HP and slightly better water mobility thanks to a bigger engine. 

 

Should be about 4 hp per ton more, or so?

Resulting in higher acceleration? I like the stabilized gun.

[The_Doctor_084 1,583]

I'm for 8.0 at the highest MAYBE 7.7 at the lowest, I do think that the PT-76 should be 6.7 because it can go up or down either way honestly the thing that makes it so annoying is a HEAT-FS slinging tank at 5.7 if they did it for armor then please by all means lower the br of the Leopard so it fights WW2 vehicles.  as has been mentioned current soft date is the 1970s (how far into the 1970s is unknown and as others have said it's really is down to technologies), and while I do remember them saying no to laser range finders, I also remember them saying no to the German Kv-2, the 229, and the E series....so when they say no think of it more as "No, for now."  Part of the reason for no to composite armor is that it is mostly classified still.  What I gathered online about the composites used on the T-64, Leo 1A3 and T-72 is that it more than doubled the effective thickness of the armor, but that was the extent of what it said.  Heck they could easily add the prototype Abrams tanks (XM-1) because it was welded Steele not composite, but before we go jumping up to the next vehicle let's get some other 1970 vehicles (or near there) first.  Currently we stand at one (the Falcon)

[Iron_physik 3,485]

I like this idea

+1

 

but only at a BR of 8.0

everything lower it would be to powerfull this this gun.

[WulfPack 1,693]

I'm for 8.0 at the highest MAYBE 7.7 at the lowest, I do think that the PT-76 should be 6.7 because it can go up or down either way honestly the thing that makes it so annoying is a HEAT-FS slinging tank at 5.7 if they did it for armor then please by all means lower the br of the Leopard so it fights WW2 vehicles.  as has been mentioned current soft date is the 1970s (how far into the 1970s is unknown and as others have said it's really is down to technologies), and while I do remember them saying no to laser range finders, I also remember them saying no to the German Kv-2, the 229, and the E series....so when they say no think of it more as "No, for now."  Part of the reason for no to composite armor is that it is mostly classified still.  What I gathered online about the composites used on the T-64, Leo 1A3 and T-72 is that it more than doubled the effective thickness of the armor, but that was the extent of what it said.  Heck they could easily add the prototype Abrams tanks (XM-1) because it was welded Steele not composite, but before we go jumping up to the next vehicle let's get some other 1970 vehicles (or near there) first.  Currently we stand at one (the Falcon)

The Flak Panzer Gepard has a laser range finder and it has already been confirmed. This Light Tank does not have composite armor.

Edited May 6, 2016 by WulfPack