Review of the French tanks – Part 1 : tiers X

Because of various technical problems, as well as some incoming holidays, the next article (so, about the tier IX tanks) will most likely not be posted before July 28th or July 29th. Thanks for understanding, and bonne lecture !

Click here to see the part 0 – Introduction

This post deals with the following tanks :

  • AMX 50 B
  • Batignolles-Châtillon 25t
  • AMX 30 B
  • AMX 50 Foch (155)
  • Batignolles-Châtillon 155 58

Note : giving many times the same hypertext link from one source for a tank will be avoided, even if it’s used several times. So, keep them open while reading !

AMX 50 B

1) Top speed

As we can see here, here and here (photographs from Châtellerault archives by AutoChenille) on a notice from 1959 about the AMX 50 B, the top speed is 51 km/h. However, it’s intended with an engine of 850 hp, and it was planned to equip the tank with an engine of 1.200 hp, which would have theoretically allowed to reach a top speed of 65 km/h (see here, here and here). However, this engine was never developed. So, if you’re a purist, there is a nerf of the vehicle’s top speed, from 65 km/h to 51 km/h. If you however are more tolerant, there are then no changes.

2) Weight

Whether on the plan from 1953, or on the instructions from 1959, or on different sites previously given, we can see that the weight of the AMX 50 B is 57,8 tonnes. So the weight should then be decreased from 62,2 tonnes to 57,8 tonnes.

Note : this implies a nerf of the ramming ability, but a buff of the acceleration.

3) Hull’s armour

According to the plan from 1953, the front armour is 80 mm thick (nominal thickness) maximum and 30 mm thick minimum, equivalent to 200 mm of effective armour thanks to the angle. The rear and the sides are 30 mm thick (nominal thickness). According to the notice from 1959,  there is frontally an armour thickness of 60 mm at the tip with a 64° angle, equivalent to 190 mm of effective armour, and 30 mm for the rear and sides (with an angle of 50 ° to the rear).

If the informations for the side and rear armour are matching, here is however a problem about the frontal armor. Indeed, in view of the plan from 1953, the maximum frontal armour thickness is located at the tip. But on the plan, it says 80 mm, and in the notice, it says 60 mm. A simple trigonometric calculation tells us that 60 mm at 64° is equivalent to 137 mm of effective armour, while 80 mm at 64° is equivalent to 182 mm of effective armour. However, the notice informs us about 190 mm of effective armour, and the plan mentions an effective armour of 200 mm. The data “80 mm” seems more plausible than the “60 mm” one. In the end, the hull’s armour should be nerfed from 170/30/30 (mm) to 80/30/30 (mm).

4) Turret’s armour

The manual from 1959 gives an armour thickness of 85 mm with an angle of 55° as well as 40 mm for side and rear. However, again (see Hull’s armour), the information from the frontal armour of the turret seems to be wrong because it gives an effective armour thickness of 148 mm, not really close from 190-200 mm. Here is a notice for the AMX 50 100 and this is a zoom on the armour values. As we can see, the frontal armour of the AMX 50 100 has an effective thickness of 200 mm, exactly what we want. However, a recent modelling (which seems realistic) of this turret on the Somua SM by WG gives this. Since the AMX 50 100 and the AMX 50 B have a quite similar mass (53,7 t against 57,8 t) and an almost identical hull armour, it seems acceptable to give their turrets these very same armour values (and armour’s spread). So, the turret’s armour should be buffed from 100/50/30 (mm) to 200/40/40 (mm). A little detail though, the name of the turret would be more correct if would be “TOB-120” or “AMX 50 Type D”.

5) Engine

Although it’s a tier X, it could be interesting to propose the “Maybach HL 295” engine, which appears on every data sources. It’s also possible to add the engine “Saurer” 1000 hp engine, although it was abandoned in 1952 because it was considered unreliable compared to the German Maybach engine. Then, it’s again a question of purism (see Top speed) about the 1.200 hp engine that never really existed. If you’re a purist, then it’s possible to remove the “Maybach HL 295 F” and to nerf the engine’s power from 1.200 to 1.000. If you however are more tolerant, there are then no changes.

6) Armament

First, something about the name of this gun. “120 mm SA 46” is never mentioned in the archives of Châtellerault. At best (name found by Dante66680 and his comrades), this gun is called “120 mm D.1203”. Now, there are two “versions” of this gun : without a muzzle brake (on the AMX AC mle. 46, the AMX AC mle. 48 and the AMX 65T for example), and with a muzzle brake (on the various AMX 50 120 and on the l’AMX 50 Foch). To differentiate the two versions in the game, the gun of the AMX-50 B could be renamed “120 mm D.1203F” (“F” for “Frein de bouche” (TN : Muzzle brake)).

Then, this gun is a copy from Le Havre’s workshops of the US 120mm M58 gun, with which it shares the same shells (known to the French as “obus de rupture mle. 1950” and “obus à charge creuse mle. 1950”. However, as we can see from this table, this gun can penetrate with the “standard” ammunition (APCBC-T) 221 mm (914 m, 30° ), 196 mm (1829 m, 30° ), 124 mm (914 m, 60° ) and 114 mm (1829 m, 60° ), which is roughly equal to (possible error of 2% maximum) 272 mm (100 m, 0° ). So the standard shell’s penetration should be buffed from 257 mm to [266-278] mm. In addition, the “premium” shell should be HEAT and not APCR. According to the table, the shell penetrates 330 mm (30° ) and 191 mm (60°), which is equivalent to 380 mm (0° ). Because of the general nerf imposed to the recent HEAT shells by WG (of about 40 mm), penetration of HEAT rounds becomes 340 mm. There is therefore a buff of the premium shell’s penetration (which becomes a HEAT shell) from 325 mm to 340 mm.

Moreover, as it can be seen in the notice from 1959 or in the plan from 1953, the AMX 50 B has a ammo capacity of 46 rounds, and not 56 rounds. So we have a nerf of the number of rounds, from 56 to 46. In addition, as it can be seen on the plan from 1953 and in the notice from 1959, the vertical elevation is -8 ° / + 14 °. There should then be a buff of the vertical angles, from -8°/+12° to -8°/+14°.

Finally, the biggest problem comes from its clip. Indeed, here the concept in real life. As we can see, it normally has… 19 shells ! This would mean in game 7600 damage… so we have several options :

  • Either we’re completely purist and the AMX 50 B is given a 19 rounds drum. However, this doesn’t seem acceptable at all for balance (completly useless for 2-3 minutes, then invulnerable in 1 VS 1 until all the 19 rounds are shot).
  • We can also be tolerant by considering a half-drum model (9 shells/drum) or a third-drum model (6 rounds /drum). Nevertheless, with such a setup, the vehicle may be very powerful, if not even too powerful for tier X.
  • Either we take an alternative solution : to forget the drum on that tank and instead to install a quick semi-automatic reloading system, which would imitate more or less the drum. Therefore, the tank would have a DPM greater than the average of the its (3000 HP/min, so 8 seconds to reload) but would then lose its drum. This solution would make it remain at tier X.
  • Other ?

7) Radio

It’s just a detail, but the “SCR 528F” radio would be more appropriate than the “SCR 619” radio

8) Name

One more detail but there are two versions of the AMX 50 B : with an oscillating turret, and with a “classic” turret. To avoid confusion if the classic version is added, it would be convenient to rename the AMX 50 B to “AMX 50 TOB” ( “TO” for “Tourelle Oscillante” (TN : oscillating turret)).


About the drum, according to Teckyota, the 3rd option would be the best mixture between gameplay and history. If we take that choice and that we keep the “Maybach HL 295F” engine (and therefore the top of 65 km/h), the various changes seem to compensate enough to keep the AMX 50 B as tier X .

Batignolles-Châtillon 25t

1) Crew

A notice of Batignolles-Châtillon 25t : here and here (photographs from the Châtellerault’s archives by AutoChenille) indicates there are 4 crew members (a driver, a commander, and two gunners/loaders). The char-franç website confirms the number of crew member. There is then a change in the crew setup : [commander (radio operator) + gunner + driver + loader] or [commander + gunner + driver + loader (radio operator)], not knowing who has the role of radio operator (definitely not the driver nor the gunner, at least).
2) Hull’s armour
The notice (which remains the main source, since there’s nothing better) indicates a frontal armour ranging from 30 mm minimum to 50 mm maximum, with 25 mm of side armour and and 20 mm of rear armour. Some websites claim a 80 mm frontal armor but this value isn’t confirmed. The hull’s armour should then be nerfed, from 60/40/30 (mm) to 50/25/20 (mm).

3) Engine
The notice indicates a “modern 3M.27.1.01” engine developing 500 hp. The Truck & Tanks Special Edition No. 13 magazine specifies that it’s a SOFAM engine. The  “Hispano-Suiza HS110” engine should then be removed, and the “SOFAM 3M.27.1.01” engine added. In other words, that means an engine power’s nerf, from 720 hp to 500 hp.
Note : the power-to-weight ratio is then nerfed from 29,4 ch/t to 19,6 ch/t, an important nerf.

4) Armament
The notice and the char-franç website indicates a 90 mm gun with a V0 ranging from 930 m/s to 1000 m/s. The magazine Truck & Tanks Special Edition No. 13 specifies that it was planned at the beginning of the project, in 1948, to equip it with the “75 mm SA 50” gun (page 6). There is therefore the removal of the “105 mm mle.57 (D.1504)” gun, as well as the “100 mm SA 47.”

In addition, although the “90 mm F3” gun has a good initial shell speed between 930 m/s and 1000 m/s (950 m/s, to be accurate), it’s a gun from 1962-1963, while the B-C 25t is from 1948-1957 (start and end dates of its project). There is thus the removal of the “90 mm F3” gun.

Then, still according to the TnT HS n°13 magazine, the “75 mm SA 50” gun can be added. However, this gun requires some changes about its penetration values.
First, as this table shows, the POT mle. 51 (type APC) shell penetrates 130 mm at 1000 m. Furthermore, firing tests in Mailly (which is a military base) indicate 110 mm penetrated at 1500 m. Compared with penetration values of the German 7,5 cm  KwK 42 gun (here), on which the CN-75-50 is based, it can be concluded thanks to a cross-multiplication that the shell’s penetration is 156 mm (possible mistake of 3%) at 100 m at 0°. As a result, the standard shell’s penetration can be buffed from 144 mm to 156 mm.
Then, the table gives a penetration of 200 mm at 1000 m for the PCOT mle. 51 (APCBC) shell. Tests in Mailly indicate 170 mm of penetration at 1500 m. By a similar method, it can be concluded that the shell’s penetration is (possible error of about 2%) 240 mm at 100 m at 0°. This gives the premium shell’s penetration buff, from 202 mm to 240 mm.

Then, about the 90 mm gun with a V0 between 930 m/s and 1000 m/s, the only candidate which Teckyota knows is the “90mm DCA 45” gun, with a V0 of 1000 m/s. Indeed, if one measures the barrel length’s on this plan, one notices that it measures about 5.8 meters. Yet, the 90 mm DCA 45 measuring 5.85 meters, the length mentionned before also seems to fit. Moreover, it has no problem with the dates. So  the “90 mm DCA 45” gun should be added.

About this gun, it penetrates with its APCBC ammunition (unknown name) 150 mm at 1000 m at 0° (source here). If this penetration value is compared with the one from the German 8,8 cm KwK 43 gun (here) which are quite similar, we can conclude thanks to a cross-multiplication that the penetration of this shell is 205 mm (unknown error). There is therefore a nerf of the standard shell’s penetration, from 212 mm to 205 mm.

In addition, the manual indicates, for the 90 mm gun, an ammunition stock of 52 rounds. So the maximum round capacity should be buffed from 30 to 52.

Finally, regarding the drum : as it can be seen on a photograph of the turret from above, there is no reload hatch on the top, which means that the turret is based on the model of the first AMX 50, and not on the AMX 13’s one. In that case, the drum consists of 6 rounds (detailed explanations will be given next week (TN : in the next article, at least) with the AMX-50 120). So no changes here.

After the changes, we can note that the Batignolles-Châtillon 25T looks similar, on paper, to the Batignolles-Châtillon 25t AP that WG tries to implant in the game. However, according to Teckyota, such nerfs about the armour, mobility and the armement make it so that the Batignolles-Châtillon 25t should be downgraded from tier X to tier VIII. Located for example between the AMX 13 75 and the AMX30, it could be a very good transition. As for the Batignolles-Châtillon AP 25t, it has no reason to live since its exterior design is a fake.

AMX 30 B

1) Engine

As it can be particularly seen on and Wikipedia.en, the AMX 30 B’s engine delivers 680 hp. The engine which delivers 720 hp is the HS-110-2, which equips the AMX 30 B2, which is too recent to fit into WoT. There is therefore an engine power’s nerf about the “Hispano-Suiza HS-110” engine, from 720 hp to 680 hp.

2) Armament
First, as chars-franç and indicate, the number of carried shells is 47 (19 in the turret + 28 in the hull). The ammo rack should then be nerfed, with the maximum amount of round changing from 50 rounds to 47 rounds.

Then, according to, Wikipedia.en and, and this table, the OCC 105-F1 (HEAT) shell penetrates 400 mm at 0°. As the table proves, it’s the best penetration of all 100-105 mm guns of the time. But in the game, it has the worst penetration of all modern medium tanks having a 100-105mm gun (320 mm against 330 mm for the T-62A, the Object 430, the Object 140, the Leopard 1, the M60, the M48 Patton, the Centurion Action X and the STB-1).

From another angle, the T-62A, Object 430 and Object 140 have had their HEAT shell’s penetration nerfed by 50 mm (they decreased from 380 mm (IRL) to 330 mm (IG)) ; Leopard 1 tanks, M60 Patton, M48 Patton, Centurion Action X and STB-1 saw their HEAT shell’s penetration nerfed by 20 mm (they decreased from 350 mm (IRL) to 330 mm (IG)).

If the French gun is given a nerf by 50 mm (like by Russian vehicles), it reaches a penetration of 350 mm.
This implies a buff of the premium shell’s penetration, from 320 mm to 350 mm.

Moreover, it would be more logical if the standard shell, which is a completly made-up shell to alleviate the problem of kinetic energy penetrator (APFSDS), from the AMX 30 B penetrates better than its competitors. This implies a penetration buff of the standard shell, from 260 mm to 268 mm.

3) Radio
Just a detail, but the name of the best radio from the AMX 30 B is “TR-VP 113” and not “TRVP-13-A”.

The slight mobility nerf being compensated by a slight firepower buff, the AMX 30 B can stay at tier X.

AMX 50 Foch (155)

The discussion here may be very short since there is, to our knowledge, absolutely no evidence about the existence of such a project. Therefore, since WoT remains a game with a historical basis, the AMX 50 Foch (155) should then be removed from the tree.

Batignolles-Châtillon 155 58

1) Weight

According to chars-franç, the vehicle’s weight is 34,3 tonnes. So its weight should be decreased from 35 tonnes vehicle to 34,3 tonnes.
Note : this implies a nerf of the ram ability, but a buff to its acceleration.

2) Crew
According to char-franç, there are 6 crew members. This implies a change about the number of crew members to the (speculative) following setup : [commander + radio operator + driver + gunner + 2 loaders].

3) Engine
As this instruction from Hispano-Suiza indicate, the HS-110 engine is largely ulterior to the Batignolles-Châtillon 155 mle. 58. As such, it’s not possible that it could have equipped this vehicle. This then implies the removal of “Hispano-Suiza HS-110” engine.

This is speculation without evidence, but in regards of the project’s date and the shape of the vehicle, it is likely that this vehicle would equipped with the same engine as the Batignolles-Châtillon 25t : the “SOFAM 3M.27.1.01”. So the “SOFAM 3M.27.1.01” should then be added, and the engine power nerfed from 720 hp to 500 hp.

4) Armament
Although no irrefutable evidence is currently known, this photograph (taken at Châtellerault’s archives by AutoChenille) from inside the turret of the model of Batignolles-Châtillon 155 mle. 58 makes Teckyota thinks that there is no drum loader.

Therefore, the 4 rounds drum loader on the B-C 155 58 should then be deleted, and that the tank should have instead a classic semi-automatic loading system with a reload time of about 24 seconds (which would retain his current DPM).

Although the tank undergoes a significant mobility nerf, the Batignolles-Châtillon 155 mle. 58 remains in tier X. If necessary, its softs stats (accuracy, aim time, ground resistance, etc…) could be slightly buffed, in order to compensate the mobility nerf.

Quote of the week : “One tank lost, 10 found back” (Un char de perdu, 10 de retrouvés)

32 thoughts on “Review of the French tanks – Part 1 : tiers X

    1. I honestly do not have any candidate to replace the Batignoles-Châtillon 25T but do you think this is a real problem?
      As far as I am concerned, there is always the AMX 30 B as the french tier X medium tank whereas there isn’t any french tier VIII medium tank (except premium). With these changes, there would be a french tier VIII medium tanks that would allow a complete french medium line (WG lacks a regular tier VIII in order to make it now that both candidates : AMX CDC and M4A1 Revalorisé are premium…).
      Moreover, polls say that the tier VIII is far more played than the tier X in FFA.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s a problem because BatChat is unique, it is used as T10 scout, it’s important part of the game. Simply “removing” it (aka downtiering) is a bad idea without having replacement with similar playstyle.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. This is a good point.
          I may be wrong but isn’t the Skoda T50/51 capable of the same thing now? It is nearly as mobile, it has a clip and his firing accuracy is far better on the move.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. It doesn’t have the clip potential, Batchat can kill a lot of T10 mediums in one clip, it’s less mobile, compared to batchat it has almost non existant camo rating… Batchat is an assasin style of tank while TVP is a mid-range support.
            Main problem is competitive gameplay – CW’s, SH’s, WGL. Batchat is effectively used as a scout and in small groups as mobile firepower, for flanking manouvers or to quickly kill small group of tanks. There isn’t really a replacement of this and I’d hurt competitive gameplay, aswell as random where you’d just lose that kind of playstyle (at T10 anyway).

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Thanks for this enriching answer. If I may, I have two other questions :
              I know that the Waffentrager E-100 was not as popular as the Batignolles-Châtillon 25T is but don’t you think that moving the Batignolles-Châtillon 25T from tier X to tier VIII would have the same impact as when the Waffentrager E-100 was replaced by the Grille 15 (which has a totally different gameplay than the Waffentrager E-100)?
              There are also a lot of competition at tier VIII (CW’s, SH’s, TB’s, WGL). Don’t you think that the “new” Batignolles-Châtillon 25T would be a good tank for this kind of competition?

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Well, it’s just my opinion and I’m not a field commander or WGL player, but:
                WT E100 was a very unique, very powerful but also very limited tank. It had one role, to put out a lot of DMG out quickly. Having it on a team was a big liability, because of the long reload, weak turret and bad mobility which meant if you had to flex around. In WGL, it was only used on small maps with lots of corner fighting, where it didn’t have to travel a lot and it never got into a vision game. Ofcourse it was usable, but you needed clear idea of what you are going to do, that’s why you never saw it in Strongholds, rarely in CW’s and in WGL only 1 was really ever used in battle, and not using it was completely fine.
                Batchat on the other hand is used every time, and as a scout it has no proper replacement, and getting vision is key, not an option like having that burst DMG of a WT. And unlike WT it has use on almost any map, even the ones not based on vision, because of the autoloader.

                Re: tier 8 competitive play – depends on how powerful it’d be, but generally you don’t see many autoloaders used in T8, various reasons – faster pace of battles doesn’t allow for that many reloads, IS-3 is THE meta which causes various problems for autoloaders (not being able to pen all your shots because it’s armor is bullshit, it’s fast which even multiplies aforementioned problem and adds few more), fewer tanks meaning anything without armor or not having gun in the fight reloading the clip is a weakness enemy can exploit…
                Hard to predict really, it might or might not be used, even if it was I’d be 1-2 per team max I’d guess and easily dropable for non autoloader tanks.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. As for the WTF E100, removing it was better for everyone. It was indeed a different and original gameplay, but sadly completely unbalanceable. It was both completely OP and complete crap at the same time.

                But the Batchat…if you rework it to its more historical specs and put it in tier8, it just becomes a bigger, fatter, slower AMX 13 90.
                I don’t know who in their right mind would use it in competitive play over the AMX.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. “I don’t know who in their right mind would use it in competitive play over the AMX.”
                  Well it’d imagine with stats proposed above it’d be balanced by other parameters, such as more HP, bearable gun handling, possibly better clip reload/faster interclip reload (delay between shells).

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. So, a scout that can’t scout, has little gun depression/elevation, a gun not reliable enough to frontally punch through IS3s, and not enough armor to take any hits?

                    No, hybrids don’t work.
                    Either you’re a medium that has enough armor to bounce (Russian mediums, E50, etc…), or you compensate with speed and camo.

                    AMX 13 90s are used because they’re tiny, well camo’d and can deliver a good punch when needed. Make them bigger, without the camo on the move bonus for a light tank, and it becomes worthless.
                    You might as well just use an AMX 50 100. More alpha, more pen, more burst, more armor, more HP, just as much speed and mobility.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Gun is reliable enough to pen IS-3 frontally, or do you think in CW’s anyone is gonna shoot AP?😀
                      But 13 90 is not really used anyway, hard to justify autoloaders in IS-3 meta. Especially if your clip potential is lower than IS-3’s HP pool.

                      Liked by 1 person

          1. Exactly, might and could. You never know with WG. Even if they would come, add “it’s done when it’s done” and we might be without replacement for a long time.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. “Moreover, it would be more logical if the standard shell, which is a completly made-up shell to alleviate the problem of kinetic energy penetrator (APFSDS), from the AMX 30 B penetrates better than its competitors. This implies a penetration buff of the standard shell, from 260 mm to 268 mm.”

    No, really, it is not logical. You can’t assume that the AP penetrates better just because the HEAT does, especially if no such shell ever existed..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You misunderstood the sentence.
      According to the table that was given, the APFSDS round from the 105 mm mle. F1 can penetrate 540 mm of armor at 2 km whereas the APFSDS round from the 105 mm L7A1/A2/A3 can penetrate 470 mm of armor at 2 km!
      This is why I think the standard shell from the 105 mm mle. F1 should in game have at least the same penetration as the standard shell from the 105 mm L7A1/A2/A3 which is 268 mm.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Do you have any figures for the projectile weight and muzzle velocities for the CN-105-F1? If they are comparable to the L7A1, I can’t imagine their performance would be that different using full-bore AP or APDS as in WoT. I imagine the figures you are citing from have the F1 using more modern ammo, because as far as I have been able to see, the F1 was actually slightly weaker than the L7. The HEAT was a bit better because of the unique design, but honestly not worth the complexity.

        In addition, if we go by muzzle energies, D-54 outperforms both by a substantial margin using AP/APDS

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “I imagine the figures you are citing from have the F1 using more modern ammo, because as far as I have been able to see, the F1 was actually slightly weaker than the L7”
          In fact, L7 rounds are more modern than the F1 ones…

          Figures I took come from this site : According to this table, the OFL-105-F2 (made in 1982) round penetrates more than the DM33 (made in 1984) round (540 mm against 470 mm at the same range). Nevertheless, these rounds were used in the late 1980’s so it is a bit too recent.

          If we look back in the early 1980’s, rounds that are interesting us are the french OFL-105-F1 (made in 1978) and the german DM23 (made in 1978 too). According to this website :, the french round penetrates 420 mm of armor at 2 km whereas the german one penetrates 310 mm of armor at the same range.

          As a conclusion, the CN-105-F1 is slightly a better gun than the L7 in term of penetration.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. 105 F1 was longer than L7, so even with the same ammunition F1 would have a better performance than L7 because of the better muzzle speed. That’s why with the same ammunition the rh120 L/55 has better performances.

            And the D-54 was so good, they ditched it to install the smoothbore 115mm.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “However, a recent modelling (which seems realistic) of this turret on the Somua SM by WG gives this. Since the AMX 50 100 and the AMX 50 B have a quite similar mass (53,7 t against 57,8 t) and an almost identical hull armour, it seems acceptable to give their turrets these very same armour values (and armour’s spread). So, the turret’s armour should be buffed from 100/50/30 (mm) to 200/40/40 (mm). A little detail though, the name of the turret would be more correct if would be “TOB-120” or “AMX 50 Type D”.

    From what I know, WG uses an equipment which measures the thickness of steel. The Chieftain has one of these. The hull armor of the AMX 50 100 is 90mm while the 50b can reach to extremely thick areas. Not to mention that the AMX 50B is larger, If your turret armor proposal is a guess then I would rather trust WG

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I would be interested to see how this equipment work and especially to see the value it gives on the AMX 50 B hull because the AMX 50 B has definitely not 170 mm thickness as it has in the game.
      I confirm, the turret proposal is for the moment a guess and I don’t have any strong evidence on it.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. No offense, but what kind of article is this. Some guys ideas of how to make WoT more realistic? It’s WG policy that “balance” takes priority before historical facts.
    Also the suggestions brought forward are more the half-arsed.
    Pieces like this or the arty whining give this otherwise respectable blog a bad name.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Don’t be that guy:/

      No one hear wrote this. This is translated from the forums and it’s interesting to see. Although, I’m skeptical of some of his sources. WG can a lot of times indeed balance and be historical at the same time but it depends on WG’s committment.

      Arty is controversial and arty whining is indeed legitimate most of the times. However, what should be done about arty is highly debatable.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. WG moves in mysterious ways.

        The amount of arty whining and hate is ridiculous. Most of the arty are utter crap and can’t hit a barn while it’s parked inside. I’d rather see all premium rounds gone and have people pummel each other to death with HE then remove arty and have skill button (“2”) remain in the game.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I apologize for being a shame for the WOT community, I apologize for giving to this respectable blog a bad name and I apologize for trying to give some new idea that allow the game to have both historicity and “balance”.

      By the way, thanks for not confusing “realism” and “historicity”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. No no no, you got it all wrong. Or at least partially. I’ll try to clarify:
        The problem I see here is mostly cosmetics.
        If one doesn’t read the part 0 (which I didn’t), it’s more then unclear what the point of the article is. Especially in a series there should be some linkage to previous installments and also somewhat more of an introduction for each part. Some rambling about issues is not why anyone reads the article.
        Also I kind of miss suggestions on how to handle removal or moving of tanks. Maybe this becomes apparent after the whole series. And WG likes their fantasy tanks so they can have a full tree. Additionally one could theorize what the tanks should be like after the new sandbox tank role system is implemented in live.
        Further, while I respect your effort and read the whole thing, I don’t really see a point in it. The power creep with each new tree/nation changed WoT almost completely. A global re-balance is necessary. Sorry.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s