Ugly as sin, probably under-gunned (the 6 Pounder), rumoured to be Tiers 5 or 6.
And Premium, of course.
And mine the day it comes out! Finally, I get to drive me some British.
Ugly as sin, probably under-gunned (the 6 Pounder), rumoured to be Tiers 5 or 6.
And Premium, of course.
And mine the day it comes out! Finally, I get to drive me some British.
I don't want another repeat of the churchill... that tank is mean as fuck when it gets put up against a bunch of 4s.
Well, sounds like it will have the exact same gun, speedy but low damage, low penetration.Originally Posted by Grarr Dexx
Probably less armor, maybe a hint more speed perhaps.
Churchill is what, Tier IV? I'd guess this coul saddle in in Tier IV or V pretty easily then. Probably play very similar to the Churchill tbqh.
OK Wargaming, get your story strait. That is NOT a Black Prince. THIS is a Black Prince
Note the 17pdr gun, the same that was famously used on the Firefly. It had a shit engine, old fashioned design (Churchill based hull) but boy could the gun tear a hole in shit
THAT is a monstrosity that should never be spoken of again and buried under a crossroads at midnight. They made one when trying to up-gun the Matilda. It was a freaking disaster of a vehicle. The horror, the horror
Last edited by Th3GoodSon; July 11 2012 at 09:08:37 PM.
Matilda.....speedy.....Well, sounds like it will have the exact same gun, speedy but low damage, low penetration.
Probably less armor, maybe a hint more speed perhaps.
Churchill is what, Tier IV? I'd guess this coul saddle in in Tier IV or V pretty easily then. Probably play very similar to the Churchill tbqh.
wut?
The Matilda was an 'Infantry' tank design. i.e. designed to move at the same speed as infantry for support.
also, any design upgrade would be seriously limited by the size of the turret ring which on British tanks designs was pitifully small (until they got a clue and realised a few things) meaning fitting a larger gun was out of the question on the original tank.
so no lets not have that horrible monstrosity, lets have the Proper Black Prince design with that lovely lovely 17 Pounder gun
Sadly this Matilda was a real prototype. Seems it was abandoned because it was unstable, to high, too freaking slow and just shitMatilda.....speedy.....Well, sounds like it will have the exact same gun, speedy but low damage, low penetration.
Probably less armor, maybe a hint more speed perhaps.
Churchill is what, Tier IV? I'd guess this coul saddle in in Tier IV or V pretty easily then. Probably play very similar to the Churchill tbqh.
wut?
The Matilda was an 'Infantry' tank design. i.e. designed to move at the same speed as infantry for support.
also, any design upgrade would be seriously limited by the size of the turret ring which on British tanks designs was pitifully small (until they got a clue and realised a few things) meaning fitting a larger gun was out of the question on the original tank.
so no lets not have that horrible monstrosity, lets have the Proper Black Prince design with that lovely lovely 17 Pounder gun
Can someone explain the whole idea of bolting and riveting armor on British tanks? Was it a stop-gap measure? If so, why was it used on so many different varying chassis? Was it thought of as superior from a manufacturing standpoint? I don't understand...
Now, it's generally accepted that bolted/riveted armor is a bad idea since when hit by an explosive, of any kind, the rivets/bolts will come flying off and become shrapnel flaying your crew alive. Not to mention those bits that fly away from your tank and kill any infantry that happen to be nearby.
Here are some WG images of the Black Prince:
Riveting early war was easier and cheaper to do with existing British production facilities; it was not a superior technique, they jet couldn't weld high quality metal on a large enough scale to produce tanks fast enough, where as riveting was well understood and strait forward. As the war went on, large scale castings (note that the Sherman moved from riveting to large castings as the war progressed) and welding (note late war turrets) where used predominantly
So yes, it came down to manufacturing. Any tank is better then no tank and riveting was easier to get rolling as a production process until casting and welding facilities could be set up (and appropriate skilled workers trained)
Doesn't matter how shit it is it's the first British tank and I'm buying it.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Appart from the Churchill, Valentine and Matilda. And the Tetrackt
The first British flagged tank then
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
what a piece of junk
So after calling bullshit on it ever being made, now I find there was one production model of this tank. And no info on what was done with it.
Ideas, links, info, anyone?
Also, is it just me, or should this thing be the same era as everyone else's tier 4s, and yet is going to be tier 5 because of balance. And british tanks were supposedly shit according to so many "experts". Same as the cromwell. Explain that bit to me, anyone?
The above post is probably derp, and you might want to ignore it.
Not looking forward to Brit tanks at all. In fact, I plan not to buy even one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks