tanks/vehicles Vickers Mk.7/2 (1985)

[kev2go 5,112]

I  vote yes since challenger 2 is too powerful right now but UK absolutely needs a second top tier mbt now that everyone else will have one by the time of update 1.81

[magazine2 7,957]

We need this so bad, I hope it's not premium.

[Milocat 4,857]

Sounds like a great addition to the British tank tree!  +1.

[*TheBumblr 57]

Britain really needs this ; been calling for its implementation since leo 2A4 and type 90 were introduced. Pls gaijin.

[*TheBumblr 57]

I found some documents that could help with this post. Not entirely sure though.

 

The first 3 are from the same document ;  A report made by Forecast International

 

The Last image is from a different source ;

'A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware (Routledge Revivals)' written by Christopher Chant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd also like to add this translated Russian website:

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmainbattletanks.czweb.org%2FTanky%2Fvickmk7.htm&edit-text=&act=url 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by *White_Knight515

[RSanders 714]

Would absolutely love to have this tank in game. Next to the Challenger 1 Mk.3, fantastic line up.

[barto667 407]

If the vickers carries the L11A5, then it uses ammunition in two parts and therefore would be vulnerable to any shot in the chassis or used a different type of storage?

[SuperProtoMan 78]

Yes,it will be competitive but not OP at its tier, and would be aa good counterpart for the Chally Mk. 2

[_SKELATOWOR_ 75]

should come after warrior to expand that line in the tech tree

[gaelan@psn 1,951]

Yes please in the main tree , sorely needed

[kamikazi21358 998]

I’m going to get hate for this, but:

 

Lets say hypenthetically Gaijin actually adds bigger more realistic maps in RB/SB for rank 5-6 (for APFSDS/2-5km range ATGMs with 120-125mm stabilized guns and 5km laser rangefinders, all on MBTs with 700-1500HP engines), since that is an issue relating to this.

 

I think Gaijin should use higher estimates for the UFP armor and stuff, as currently they are using the lowest possible estimates for the Challanger currently.  This way, then they can add the Challenger Mk.3.  With the Challenger 3 with better UFP estimates and L26 Jerhico, I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be a great tank.

 

I want them to add the Challenger Mk.3 first and see if it will work, which I confidently think the Challenger Mk.3 will work if not maybe be OP if made like this, (if used correctly), and only if it doesn’t work add the Vickers in the main tree.  Only barely one was ever made, so if the Challenger Mk.3 works, I would rather see it as an event vehicle or something.  The Challenger Mk.3 along with the Challenger Mk.2 would make great top tier tanks, with the Challenger Mk.1 being the potential backup I would imagine.

[*TheBumblr 57]

3 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I’m going to get hate for this, but:

 

Lets say hypenthetically Gaijin actually adds bigger more realistic maps in RB/SB for rank 5-6 (for APFSDS/2-5km range ATGMs with 120-125mm stabilized guns and 5km laser rangefinders, all on MBTs with 700-1500HP engines), since that is an issue relating to this.

 

I think Gaijin should use higher estimates for the UFP armor and stuff, as currently they are using the lowest possible estimates for the Challanger currently.  This way, then they can add the Challenger Mk.3.  With the Challenger 3 with better UFP estimates and L26 Jerhico, I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be a great tank.

 

I want them to add the Challenger Mk.3 first and see if it will work, which I confidently think the Challenger Mk.3 will work if not maybe be OP if made like this, (if used correctly), and only if it doesn’t work add the Vickers in the main tree.  Only barely one was ever made, so if the Challenger Mk.3 works, I would rather see it as an event vehicle or something.  The Challenger Mk.3 along with the Challenger Mk.2 would make great top tier tanks, with the Challenger Mk.1 being the potential backup I would imagine.

I guess that's a fair view.

 

But even in your hypothetical why would you want more of the same tank? its a very dull addition ,in my opinion, to just add the another variant of an already existing vehicle. I cant imagine the LFP values to change so it'll still get one shot out of position and the others are faster.

 

No hate here ; just a civilised response.

[gaelan@psn 1,951]

5 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I’m going to get hate for this, but:

 

Lets say hypenthetically Gaijin actually adds bigger more realistic maps in RB/SB for rank 5-6 (for APFSDS/2-5km range ATGMs with 120-125mm stabilized guns and 5km laser rangefinders, all on MBTs with 700-1500HP engines), since that is an issue relating to this.

 

I think Gaijin should use higher estimates for the UFP armor and stuff, as currently they are using the lowest possible estimates for the Challanger currently.  This way, then they can add the Challenger Mk.3.  With the Challenger 3 with better UFP estimates and L26 Jerhico, I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be a great tank.

 

I want them to add the Challenger Mk.3 first and see if it will work, which I confidently think the Challenger Mk.3 will work if not maybe be OP if made like this, (if used correctly), and only if it doesn’t work add the Vickers in the main tree.  Only barely one was ever made, so if the Challenger Mk.3 works, I would rather see it as an event vehicle or something.  The Challenger Mk.3 along with the Challenger Mk.2 would make great top tier tanks, with the Challenger Mk.1 being the potential backup I would imagine.

They need to get the Challenger mk 2 right first mk 3 would just be another mess, UK is in need of fast brawlers like the Vickers anyway 

[Battered_Walrus 995]

i mean sure if it gets access to other guns via different packages, otherwise it's just a faster chally rather boring at that point

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 16/10/2018 at 15:13, *White_Knight515 said:

I guess that's a fair view.

 

But even in your hypothetical why would you want more of the same tank? its a very dull addition ,in my opinion, to just add the another variant of an already existing vehicle. I cant imagine the LFP values to change so it'll still get one shot out of position and the others are faster.

 

No hate here ; just a civilised response.

I expressed my opinion on the internet and I actually got a civilized response, this is new!

 

The reason I want the Challenger Mk.3 to be used first is frankly because it was used, the Vickers is a prototype tank, and I guess if like a few were made and stuff, I would be reluctantly ok with it - but this is like a single ever made kind of vehicle.  I am personally just against single made protovehicles in the main tree whenever possible, only if it is apsolutely in dire need and there is no other option.  Here, there is another option, the Mk.3 Challenger.  The tank has some minor improvements, but is admittedly mostly the same vehicle, although, the ERA on the lower plate will make it practically immune to CE frontally except to the most powerful missiles?

 

If this is added to the main tree, what will happen: we’ll just have another tank at top tier in Simulator Battles and Realistic Battles running around with 5-6 on the team, which only ever one was made.  I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be enough, and the Challenger Mk.2 with improved armor values from another source (like mentioned, they are using the apsolute weakest estimates), along with L26 Jehrico ammunition at a later date, yes it would still have the lower plate weakness but this thing would be nearly impenetrable otherwise, with a long accurate gun at all ranges (historically the rifled gun was very accurate at long ranges, as you may know the Challenger 1 was credited with the longest confirmed tank kill in history), which on more realistic and larger maps (seriously, these 2km by 2km maps for rank 5+ tanks can’t last forever, right?), this tank would probably be excellent.

 

If they add the Mk.3, and prove that it is effective, then I think the Vickers can be an event vehicle or something, so we see them not spamming the map.  IF I am wrong, and everything I said is done, and it still for some reason it still can’t compete even when used to it’s advantages, then maybe...

 

This is all just my opinion though.

 

On 16/10/2018 at 17:29, *gaelan said:

They need to get the Challenger mk 2 right first mk 3 would just be another mess

Technically, it is right.  We’re entering the era where these vehicles are classified, so you have multiple sources saying multiple things.  Also kind of why I hope they don’t go full post-war or at least anytime soon: Challenger 1 is extremely bad, but the Challenger 2 is infinitely worse.

But I think they should use a different source, many of them say basically the current Mk.2 is missing a lot of UFP armor, like 300 plate not in game kind of armor.  I really don’t want them to change composite armor values just for balance, they should be as realistic as possible, but in this case there are multiple workable sources that could be used.

[*TheBumblr 57]

On 19/10/2018 at 16:49, kamikazi21358 said:

 

The reason I want the Challenger Mk.3 to be used first is frankly because it was used, the Vickers is a prototype tank, and I guess if like a few were made and stuff, I would be reluctantly ok with it - but this is like a single ever made kind of vehicle.  I am personally just against single made protovehicles in the main tree whenever possible, only if it is apsolutely in dire need and there is no other option.  Here, there is another option, the Mk.3 Challenger. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how many prototypes were made but i have a reasonable amount of confidence it was more than 1. There are photos of variants with differing turrets and such but honestly i dont know enough to say anymore.

But still, those are just your own preferences regarding prototype tanks; i cant really change that. But i feel with the amount of prototypes/non-existent/never used tanks already in-game, we've gone past the point of not adding them, so they may as well be treated as any other tank. Even if Gaijin agreed with you, we'll eventually run out of actual tanks so i mean why not add them now? Also its worth noting in this case, Britain only developed 2 more different MBTs after CR1: This and the CR2. So if we didnt have these protoypes Britian would stop with the CR 1 mk3.


I feel the 7/2  should be added soon because Britain IS in dire need of a different play style tank. All of 4 T6 british MBTs are just hull down snipers (3 of which are just variants of the same sluggish tank). Britian just STRUGGLES to do much outside of this slower, limited play style. Adding another hull down tank will do little to alter this. I'm not saying the CR1 Mk.3 should not be added ; honestly any MBT addition is appreciated. But i don't think it should come BEFORE the vickers, granted that is a more logical progression from the CR 1 mk2. It would be a dream come true if both were added simultaneously but one can only dream.

 

 

On 19/10/2018 at 16:49, kamikazi21358 said:

 The tank has some minor improvements, but is admittedly mostly the same vehicle, although, the ERA on the lower plate will make it practically immune to CE frontally except to the most powerful missiles?

 

 

Im sorry but 80mm RHA + ERA would not stop 500-900mm CE penetration through the LFP. Could you elaborate on that?

 

On 19/10/2018 at 16:49, kamikazi21358 said:

 

If this is added to the main tree, what will happen: we’ll just have another tank at top tier in Simulator Battles and Realistic Battles running around with 5-6 on the team, which only ever one was made.  I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be enough, and the Challenger Mk.2 with improved armor values from another source (like mentioned, they are using the apsolute weakest estimates), along with L26 Jehrico ammunition at a later date, yes it would still have the lower plate weakness but this thing would be nearly impenetrable otherwise, with a long accurate gun at all ranges (historically the rifled gun was very accurate at long ranges, as you may know the Challenger 1 was credited with the longest confirmed tank kill in history), which on more realistic and larger maps (seriously, these 2km by 2km maps for rank 5+ tanks can’t last forever, right?), this tank would probably be excellent.

 

A fixed challenger Mk 2 along with mk 3 using L26 would be great and it'd drastically improve survivability and performance, no doubt. But that'd still leave the issue of mobility - something the other nations are practically drowning in. The mk 2 and 3 would still be met with flanks and it's not as if the guy in his Warrior could help you out. Having a Vickers would at least bring that much needed flanking playstyle to britian and the challengers can then be protected at the flanks. I don't think spam would be an issue with the number of abroomz and such running about ; you hardly see any British tanks anyway because of the painful progression to T6.

 

 

On 19/10/2018 at 16:49, kamikazi21358 said:

 

If they add the Mk.3, and prove that it is effective, then I think the Vickers can be an event vehicle or something, so we see them not spamming the map.  IF I am wrong, and everything I said is done, and it still for some reason it still can’t compete even when used to it’s advantages, then maybe..

I very strongly disagree that the 7/2 should be an event vehicle. I feel as if it's justified in being a regular tech tree tank. If anything, it's younger brother the mk 4 could be an event vehicle but that is REALLY stretching it and id still very much hate it. I'd probably JUST about except the mk 4 as premium ONLY if the mk 7/2 was a regular tech tree tank.

Edited October 21, 2018 by *White_Knight515

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

18 minutes ago, *White_Knight515 said:

I very strongly disagree that the 7/2 should be an event vehicle. I feel as if it's justified in being a regular tech tree tank. If anything, it's younger brother the mk 4 could be an event vehicle but that is REALLY stretching it and id still very much hate it. I'd probably JUST about except the mk 4 as premium ONLY if the mk 7/2 was a regular tech tree tank.

Yeah, if you really want a high tier premium/event tank I would rather go for the Vickers MBT Mk 2 than either the Mk 4 or MK 7/2.

[Mr_Pokemon26295 358]

I think the chally mk4 with l26 and the addon armour package would be better addition than the mk3 tbh as a 10.0 course yea vickers would fit inbetween challenger 1 and 2 whenever we reach there or add all the vickers on the conqueror line or through a vickersline spilt from the normal medium tank line

[kamikazi21358 998]

21 hours ago, *White_Knight515 said:

 

I'm not sure how many prototypes were made but i have a reasonable amount of confidence it was more than 1. There are photos of variants with differing turrets and such but honestly i dont know enough to say anymore.

But still, those are just your own preferences regarding prototype tanks; i cant really change that. But i feel with the amount of prototypes/non-existent/never used tanks already in-game, we've gone past the point of not adding them, so they may as well be treated as any other tank. Even if Gaijin agreed with you, we'll eventually run out of actual tanks so i mean why not add them now? Also its worth noting in this case, Britain only developed 2 more different MBTs after CR1: This and the CR2. So if we didnt have these protoypes Britian would stop with the CR 1 mk3.

The OC says itself ‘1 prototype was made’.

 

A few of the ‘non-existent’ vehicles like the Panther II, Tiger 105, and the R2Y2 have their sights on them, they said within the last year that if they find replacements for them, they will remove them from the game.  I hope this is done.

 

 

I am against prototypes in the main tree *whenever possible*, -this is my opinion-, but this opinion was forged in a game called ‘World of Tanks’, and my opinion I don’t think will ever change.

 

21 hours ago, *White_Knight515 said:

Im sorry but 80mm RHA + ERA would not stop 500-900mm CE penetration through the LFP. Could you elaborate on that?

Not much stops a 900mm CE ATGM, but against say 100-115mm HEAT shells it will.  Although the point of the Challenger really is sacrifice lower plate armor for ungodly UFP and turret armor for that era, which hopefully a new source will be used to strengthen such sections.

[*TheBumblr 57]

15 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

The OC says itself ‘1 prototype was made’.

 

A few of the ‘non-existent’ vehicles like the Panther II, Tiger 105, and the R2Y2 have their sights on them, they said within the last year that if they find replacements for them, they will remove them from the game.  I hope this is done.

 

 

I am against prototypes in the main tree *whenever possible*, -this is my opinion-, but this opinion was forged in a game called ‘World of Tanks’, and my opinion I don’t think will ever change.

Read OC again. Just before 2nd photograph OP mentions vickers mk 7/1 and then the Mk 7/2. So techinally 2 prototypes were made.

 

I know this wont mean much to you because as i already said i can't change your opinion. But consider that WT and WoT are different games with much differing combat and i assume criteria for new tank implentations. 

15 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

 

Not much stops a 900mm CE ATGM, but against say 100-115mm HEAT shells it will.  Although the point of the Challenger really is sacrifice lower plate armor for ungodly UFP and turret armor for that era, which hopefully a new source will be used to strengthen such sections.

HEAT shells of those calibres still have roughly 300-500 CE penetration. 80 RHA + ERA would just about stop 200-280 CE if i was to estimate , so you really wouldnt stopping anything at this tier. Not to mention most people are firing  kinetic rounds at this tier so LFP is still a major  weakness. Until UFP is fixed the CR1 will remain awful.

Edited October 22, 2018 by *White_Knight515

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

On 21/10/2018 at 23:33, kamikazi21358 said:

I am against prototypes in the main tree *whenever possible*, -this is my opinion-, but this opinion was forged in a game called ‘World of Tanks’, and my opinion I don’t think will ever change.

Because WoT just makes vehicles up and uses things that were never built for the vast majority of its "prototypes". It's a complete fantasy game.

 

WT is very different. With rare exceptions, prototypes were ones that actually existed, functioned, and can be modeled based on data.

[*TheBumblr 57]

https://en.valka.cz/topic/view/197085/Vickers-Mk-7

 

Another not very reliable source but its the only mentions hull length so gives some idea of armor. 

[pieve 3,578]

On 02/11/2018 at 22:20, *White_Knight515 said:

https://en.valka.cz/topic/view/197085/Vickers-Mk-7

 

Another not very reliable source but its the only mentions hull length so gives some idea of armor.  

Chassis of the Vickers Mk.7 / 2 is Leopard 2A4 chassis are the same measurement

[*TheBumblr 57]

7 minutes ago, pieve said:

Chassis of the Vickers Mk.7 / 2 is Leopard 2A4 chassis are the same measurement

Yes i realise that now. My mistake.

 

But there are still some other useful measurements like overall height and width and such ; can't hurt to mention those.

[pieve 3,578]

On 04/11/2018 at 13:23, *White_Knight515 said:

Yes i realise that now. My mistake.

 

But there are still some other useful measurements like overall height and width and such ; can't hurt to mention those. 

There are few details