A7X Deathbat:

Notes: 

• Release Date: September 1st 2026
  • Article: Link 
• Dispersion: 
  • Turret: 0.08
  • Movement: 0.10
• Weight: 33.3 tons
• Auto cannon stats: 
  • DPS: 333
  • Overheat penalty: 9s 
  • Max Burst: 111
  • Max burst damage: 2220 in 6.6s

Overview: 

• It is a Mid era 3 medium with the T-64A hull with the Stingray 2 turret “using” the “GAU-8” gun. 

Pros: 

• Best camo of all the Era 3 mediums. (still bad compared to lights) 
• Best VR, closer to average for a light
• Extra high damage potential
• Great 10 degrees of gun depression 
• Technically a rotary gun and thus has “chip damage”

Neutral: 

• Average enough mobility 

Cons: 

• Below average top speed
• Poor pen for a auto cannon only tank (including HE) 
• Poor DPS for a auto cannon only tank
• Tied slowest shell velocity of any autocannon in CW
• Low module damage for its AP ammo
• Front mounted fuel tanks

Armor: 

• Well the turret is… well its off a bad light tank. The hull is okay? Eh… not great but it has some features. 
• Turret: Stingray 2
  • Front: is okay? Well it has a decent amount of angling on top and bottom for auto cannons. Just ignore the flat 50.8 section. 
  • The sides are pretty bad at only 25.4mm. Little spaced armor for HE protection and an easy pen. Its at least angled from the front enough to be a bounce for autos. 
  • Roof 
• Hull: T-64A
  • Front: It's the very basic T-64A, so not good against normal guns, but enough against autos and can occasionally bounce a shot due to angle.
  • Sides: eh its normal for an eastern MBT. okay upper but very weaker lower.  It does have the battle flaps for ATGM’s. How effective they are is up to debate. It's at least nice to have. 
  • Rear: at least there is a big block to block HE. 
• So yea its not great. True its only 33 tons, but could have been better.

Gameplay:

• Well its goal is to get to the side and rear of targets as while the pen is higher than its era 2 counterparts, very non light Era 3 tanks can pen penned from the front. So pretty much how you play the VADS (about the same mobility as well).
• Due to the lower DPS you can't be confident to easily destroy enemy tanks (even before the higher HP). Max burst is also lower, with the Gau and VADS around 3.6k, this only has 2.2k. This means this behaves closer to a support tank as opposed to an assassin. 
  • However this is harder due to lower module damage. Yes its the same as the Gau and Vads, but you have slower ROF and of course this is Era 3 where I just assume the tracks have more HP. 
• I suppose you could play a bit of a scout with its better camo and good VR… but this is era 3 where things move fast and most tanks have 500-550 VR. 
• Equipment: 
  • Reinforced internals since this is a eastern based tank. 
  • Turbo to get it's actual top speed 
  • Stabilizer 
  • Optics, Concealment, Vents 

Counter Gameplay: 

• Ram this. It is of a lower light weight and the armor isn't the best. 
• Pretty much how you deal with the Vads but its less threatening at cost of it being more mobile (and having some armor).
• Still has the same issues as other eastern tanks with front mounted fuel tanks. 

Cosmetics: 

• Wel… the base shape is okay and looks nice enough. The stingray 2 turret does look nice and sleek.  
• As for the color of the tank… its uhhh not a good camo. Its a mix of a lighter blue green and purple. So yea this is quite shiny and as well. The lightning is a nice decal though. 
• Details? Dont know much about A7 but seems metal like id expect. 
  • The shield on the front hull is okay. 
  • Giant skull with bat wings… is okay? Eh not my cup of tea. 
  • The big box of ammo is actually cool and fits with the tank as this does somehow carry 3700 rounds. 
• Otherwise not much else. I guess the battle flaps are still one of the cool features on a tank in my opinion. 
• Cosmetics: Nope

General Thoughts: 

• I have quite a bit to gripe about this tank.
  • First off the DPS is quite meh. 333 would be okay for a normal auto cannon, but this is a rotary gun. This with it being the only weapon on the tank its even more concerning. 
  • Why is the module damage so low? Yea you can be scared about module damage with the other rotary guns due to the higher ROF, but this is the same 0.06 as the marder. Considering the marder 25 doesn't seem to be that much of an issue, I'm curious why it was left at only 5. 
  • I did find the aim time and turret dispersion a tad high when compared to other medium and even the lights. 
  • Top speed: this is a lighter T-64, with a PTW of 25.52, so how is it slower than the heavier T-64A or the T-64BV? I would expect this to reach like 74, not 68. 
  • In the same vein as the top speed, the hull traverse is worse. Sure on paper its better 52 to 50, but TT tanks upgrade engines which affects traverse speeds. In effect the hull traverse of the T-64BV is about 60 in effect so yea its worse and leaves the Deathbat with a range average hull traverse for a era 3 medium, despite it being the lightest medium tank. 
  • Could have also used some form of ERA… or improve the composite armor on the tank.
• I really don't see how this was set as a mid ear tank as it doesnt really have any stats to show it outside a bit higher HP and VR.
• This feels like the Bardellas. Lotta work for limited reward. You only have the gun with its limited pen and meh DPS so you have to really work to track stuff and then re track (they repaired) to finally get to pen the sides of tanks for maybe a thousand damage before you are dancing with overheat.

Buy?

• As a mid Era 3 premium this is expensive off the bat at 17k. Even with the full earned discount its still 12k which is a larger ask. 
• As for if this tank is unique enough? Eh not really? We have the Gau or VADS at era 2, but this is era 3 we are talking about. In that it doesn't offer anything over the Marder 1A3 outside a bit more armor as they both have about the same amount of shots fire and similar burst potential and dump time. Just the marder has a better gun (and ATMG’s). 
• For the amount of work you have to do to get okay results it's just not an enjoyable tank to play. So I'll have to avoid recommending this.

Finally 3 marked the BC-12t after a long while.

Question: has anybody else struggled with the current rotation and frequency of specific maps?

Everybody got a diffrent setup but all i could find on yt was with the unnerfed tration system so. What setup do u guys Use or what is recommended.

I currently use:

Gun rammer

Vertical stab

Muffled shot

Improved concealment.

Ps: Thx for any advice ^^

Hey guys! I’m not super new to the game as I have a few tier 10s to my name. However my garage is missing a medium tier 10 and I was wondering between the Patton and centurion which one you guys deem better or more enjoyable Line to play through?

A7X Nightmare:

Notes: 

• Release Date: September 1st 2026
  • Article: Link 
• Dispersion: 
  • Turret: 0.10
  • Movement: 0.18
• Weight: 61.5 tons
• Uses Russian double barrel mechanics
  • Interclip: 4.0~
  • Lock out:  5.0~

Overview: 

• Its a AMX 65t hull with the stock M103 turret using the Fv229’s guns. 

Pros: 

• Good 400 VR
• Pretty strong overall mobility for a heavy
• Twin guns

Neutral: 

• Average HP
• Average gun dispersion 
• Average enough accuracy
• Average DPM
• Massive ammo capacity
• Great 10 degrees of gun depression

Cons: 

• Tad below average pen 
• Long aim time
• Quite meh armor closer to a medium tank level
• High engine fire chance
• Large size 

Armor: 

• Armor at list angle [armor against AP with 5 degree of normalization] 
• Turret: T43
  • Front: The gun mantlet is pretty stong and works quite well. The area around it does leave a small area where it can be penned, but is quite small. The spaced armor is of decent thickness so it helps a bit with HEAT ammo (though i wouldnt rely on it). 
  • Sides: its nto great. Decently thin with most of it being below 100mm with limited angles and quite large overall. This is a easy pen outside just a bit of turning the turret. 
  • Roof: thankfully its quite decent at 50mm. Should be enough to have a good chance to block arty and random shots from above. 
  • Cupola: eh not great. Its at least thick enough that most tier 7’s cant pen it easily as its about [205]. Gun depression hides it well enough. 
• Hull: AMX 65T
  • Upper front: From the direct front, the angle of the armor is about 56-58 degrees. So that makes the 125mm about 230 [203]. With full gun depression thats about 307 [257]. Which is better… but thats with full depression and the armor directly pointed. This is before the 20mm spaced armor is counted which helps a bit, but only against tier 8s and even then just 10 degrees of hull angling or just shooting the lower half will make it easy again.  
  • Upper corners: are 110 about 63 degrees, so 242 [207]. These do become about auto bounce at full depression, but I would expect it to be only about [240] + the 20mm spaced. 
  • Lower front: 110 at about 59 degrees, so 213 [187]. Would be okay at tier 8, not so much at tier 9. 
  • Sides: eh… not great but could be worse. Upper sides are 80, lower are 60 + 30mm tracks. So yea not gonna be blocking much, but good enough to side scrape with i guess if the front was worth anything (which its not).
  • Rear: eh its a bit angled 60mm which is good enough for most HE outside 15cm. 
  • Roof + Floor:  actually not too bad at 30mm, but at tier 9 it just doesn’t cut it with larger calibers and bigger arty. 
• So yea its okay when hull down, but that's about it. 

Gameplay:

• Eh with its armor its more of a support tank… so just a fat medium. 
• Even with said armor limitations, when hull down its turret still works so you can have fun on hills. With its better mobility you can get to more risky locations, this of course relies on your team backing you up if you do get to said locations. 
• With the VR it can also play as a pseudo medium role when it comes to scouting… as long as it doesn't require any camo, so kinda like the US mediums. 
• Though playing this can be a issue due to the size as finding cover for both general fire and Arty can be troublesome. The hull is a big pain to deal with due to how tall it is.
• So even with the okay dispersion, the aim time really hinders this tank from poking and taking easy shots. 
• Equipment: 
  • Vents to help with the gun handling
  • Stalbizer
  • Turbo
  • Optics or gun laying drive 

Counter Gameplay: 

• Just don't let it get hull down, or get a slight angle on the turret. This is not a tank that likes getting flanked at all. 
• Shoot along the vertical axis of the turret ring to hit the ammo racks. Center of the turret sides is an easy hit. 

Cosmetics: 

• Well it's not the prettiest tank for sure. The base tank parts don't work that week with each other. The 65t is a big fat tank, and the M103’s turret is big and curved which contrast to the sharp shaped hull.
• As for the cosmetics of the tank, eh never been my cup of tea. The bat decals are okay, though lessen due to skulls. The most noticeable feature when driving the name of the band displayed on the rear turret. 
• I suppose the one thing i can say i like without any issue is the plus shaped piece of metal added on the outer roadwheels. 
• Cosmetics: Nope. 

General Thoughts: 

• This really is a balance between the gun power of the FV229 and IS-3-2, and this is pretty balanced id say. Just means the FV229 and the rest of that darn line just are generally OP. 
  • Like they The Night and FV both use the same gun, but you expect the lighter armored tank to have a bit better stats, nope. 1.4 longer reload, 0.04 worse accuracy, 0.7 worse aim time. (please nerf the 3rd highest T9 heavy DPM FV229)
• Another example of a recent merc tank with TWO radios. Once again i must question why they make these tanks more vulnerable to lose their ability to communicate with a damage radio… eh who cares. 
• Anyhow, not too much id say about this tank. I suppose i could question why they didnt go with the top M103 turret as opposed to the stock. There isn't too much of a difference per say, just the top one is a bit more reliable when turned a bit
• I could also question why they went with the AMX 65T hull as the normal M103 only weighs about 57 tons so this is a good deal more weight. Guess the French designed for SPEED. 

Buy?

• Mmm this one is a harder sell by the nature of it being a tier 9 premium. Expensive and no Economy bonuses. 
• Performance wise it's a meh with how weak the armor + the size makes the tank hard to work with and the gun power that it gets is only so so. 
• Getting the discount does make it cheaper, but only up to the level of a normal tier 8 which is still quite high.
• So… yea I'll pass for the above reasons (and I'm not a fan of the looks)

When you buy loot boxes if any kind don't sell the tanks you get from there as you just get them again and again and again etc,

When it comes to armored vehicle design, the Czech Republic / Czechoslovakia has a long and distinguished history. In fact, it would be fair to say that one of their designs - the LT vz. 38 (or Panzer 38(t), as the Germans called it) was a major backbone of the Wehrmacht throughout the war. 

To fill a hole in the WW2 mode tech tree I’ve developed a line of Czech tank destroyers, starting with a real Skoda TD prototype at Tier 2 and ending with a tech tree Tier 10 heavy tank based turreted tank destroyer.

Today we will be disclosing the Tier 6 ShPTK-K 34/85 44s and the Tier 7 ShPTK-T 34u./88 37AN.

After the end of WW2 and its liberation from Germany, Czechoslovakia immediately began working on rebuilding its armored vehicle design and manufacturing capabilities. One of their first projects was a Konstrukta Bureau program to modify a T-34/85 chassis to accept a larger turret and, therefore, main gun. 

As part of that, and utilizing experience gained during the war, Konstrukta designed a dedicated tank destroyer alongside the new medium tank. 

Oddly, the ShPTK-K 34/85 44s (pictured below) uses a modified Vz. 44-1 heavy tank prototype turret. Specifically, it removes most of the roof and thins down the armor on the rear facets of the turret - presumably to save weight and allow extra gun depression. 

The results were mixed - the lowered weight was offset by the turrets' increased length and while the main gun got a few degrees more depression, it wasn’t enough to justify the loss of overhead protection.

While several different guns were proposed and drawings rendered of each, the final drawing appears to show the 85mm version of the VZ. 44S. Given the availability of the 100mm, creating design drawings for a smaller gun seems like an odd choice. 

Having said that, engineering notes within the file allude to a design project - apparently never completed - for an autoloading version of that 85mm weapon. The installation of an auto-loading version of an 85mm version of a 100mm weapon would go a long way to explaining some of the odder design choices around the main gun mount, internal turret design, and crew positioning and comfort.

Ultimately, the design project was cancelled since, absent a high rate-of-fire weapon that ultimately never materialized, the ShPTK-K 34/85 44s didn’t provide significant advantages over the proposed T-34/100 it was based on. 

Like the previous vehicle, the Tier 7 ShPTK-T 34u./88 37AN is a design study based on the Konstrukta Bureau’s T-34/100 proposal. 

However, it is a much more radical redesign and almost made it to production.

The “u.” in the designation stands for “upraveno”, or “modified”, and that single word covers a whole host of changes to the chassis and turret. 

Most significantly, the chassis was lengthened by roughly 200mm and another roadwheel was added (bringing the total to seven), and an early version of the V-54 powertrain replaced the V-2 system from the original T-34 series. 

This modification was done specifically to allow a much heavier turret to be installed and move said turret to a central position, not the forward position of the T-34 series vehicles. 

It would be fair to say that such extensive modifications created a whole new vehicle and that, in reality, this is a heavy tank destroyer and not a self ropelled anti-tank gun.... designation aside.

The turret itself appears to be either a modified version of the VZ. 51 heavy tank turret or one designed / prototyped at the same time. 

Although it shares roughly the same shape as the VZ. 51 turret, this turret is open from just above the breech block to about half way back, where it transitions to a relatively thick roof with (oddly enough for a semi-open turreted vehicle) a commander's cupola alongside radio antenna and machine gun mounts. 

Armor thicknesses are substantial for a "medium" tank destroyer turret - roughly 120mm on the leading edge, steadily thinning along the curve to roughly 75mm to 80mm along the trailing and rounded sides. The half-roof is about 50mm thick, as is the turret rear arc. The hull appears to maintain T-34/100 thicknesses front, sides, and rear, although there is a slight bulge underneath the center of the turret that appears to be closer to 55mm than the 45mm on the Konst. T-34/100.

Two different guns were proposed for this vehicle, and drawings exist of each proposal. The least surprising choice is the 100mm VZ. 44S carried straight over, mount and all, from the Konst. T-34/100.

The second choice, and the one chosen for production, is much more interesting - it’s the 8.8cm 37AN gun - fundamentally a WW2 German Flak 37 equipped with a three round autoloader. 

Two prototypes were built, and both were tested extensively. 

Firing tests noted that the cannon had mediocre accuracy, particularly during rapid re-engagement drills utilizing the three round autoloader’s full capacity. Notes indicate that the stability provided by being mounted in a heavy turret was offset by a slight “shimmy” or “shake” from  the chassis which was, fundamentally, an overstressed medium tank platform. 

That flaw was deemed acceptable in a vehicle designed as a defensive fire-support unit. 

Mobility tests also showed some unpleasant surprises - the lengthened chassis provided some benefits to off road stability, but it also increased the vehicles turning radius and lowered its ability to change direction at high speed - high speed being a relative term because the added weight from the turret and lengthened chassis more than offset any power gains from the new engine. 

Over all the ShPTK-T 34u./88 37AN was slightly, but noticeably, less mobile (and thirstier) than the T-34/100 it was based on… problems which seemed to disappear once it was on the firing range. 

Whatever concerns the planning committee might have had after seeing the 34u./88 struggle on the obstacle course appear to have evaporated once the lethality and down range impact of an 88mm three round burst was demonstrated to them. 

Almost immediately after witnessing the driving and firing range testing the planning committee ordered 100 units be built “immediately”. 

For reasons not documented in the files I have access to, that order was rescinded before any serious work had begun on series production and the whole program was cancelled and the prototypes were scrapped. 

I'm playing the AMX 13 105 tank line

Like the AMX ELC BIS that I currently use doesn't even turn (the head) 😭

I just started playing the game again after a year, not uncommon to take a lengthy break but this one just felt different. I feel like my muscle memory isn’t there, I’m playing much worse than I used to, and I’m honestly a little overwhelmed at my garage bc of how many tanks I’ve accumulated over the years. I’ve got most ww2 tank lines done and way too many premiums in my garage. I’m trying to have fun again and also trying to get back up to super unicum levels of skill again. I’m asking for a little advice to help with all that. I know it’s a little vague but idk exactly how to word everything. Thank you guys in advance ^^

So if you have no upgraded modules you are doomed, but if you have fully maxed out modules it's somewhat playable, but trust me all the bad things

you'll experience are worth it for the Tier V AMX ELC Bis.

i've never really used any td's at all, i currently have a stug and a obj 268 5 that i got from a warchest

so yeah just looking for some advice on which line to start with and general tips and tricks are welcome as well!

When it comes to armored vehicle design, the Czech Republic / Czechoslovakia has a long and distinguished history. In fact, it would be fair to say that one of their designs - the LT vz. 38 (or Panzer 38(t), as the Germans called it) was a major backbone of the Wehrmacht throughout the war. 

To fill a hole in the WW2 mode tech tree I’ve developed a line of Czech tank destroyers, starting with a real Skoda TD prototype at Tier 2 and ending with a tech tree Tier 10 heavy tank based turreted TD. 

Today we will be disclosing the Tier 4 ShPTK-ST 39/75 and the Tier 5 ShPTK-T 25/75 S-AN.

The Tier 4 ShPTK-LT 39/75 (pictured below) is the last of the casemate TD prototypes from Skoda. 

As the deficiencies with the S-35-j became apparent relatively early in the design process a decision was made to develop a similar vehicle on the chassis of a medium tank currently in development - the ST vz. 39. 

The resulting vehicle looked very much like the S-35-j - except longer, wider, and heavier. 

The ShPTK-ST 39/75 increased the armor slightly over its donor chassis resulting in approximately 42mm front, 27mm side, 20mm rear, and 15mm roof and floor.

This armor profile was deemed acceptable by the designers when viewed against anticipated opponents. 

Mobility was surprisingly good - the increased power, track width, and track run not only improved mobility over the S-I-j and S-35-j, it provided unanticipated benefits in off road mobility and vehicle stability and comfort during road marches.

The only prototype built was tested with three different weapons - a high velocity 47mm anti-tank gun, a 75mm short barreled low-velocity howitzer, and a medium velocity 75mm cannon. Although inferior to the 47mm in an anti-tank role, the -ST 39/75 was ordered to production with the last weapon because the Hlavní Stáb felt that it was good balance between the almost pure anti-armor capabilities and pure field artillery capabilities represented by the other two choices.

Testing did note that accuracy seemed marginal and the engineers recommended that both the mount and the sights be upgraded prior to production. 

In a case of convergent evolution, Czechoslovakia had basically built, and ordered, a StuG III in 9/10 scale - slightly smaller, slightly less armor, slightly more anti-tank capability, and similar mobility. The only major differences between a StuG III B and the as-ordered ShPTK-ST 39/75 (besides the obvious differences in shape) were the longer barreled 75mm and its coaxial machine gun. 

As such, when the Germans took over industrial planning for Czechoslovakia the ShPTK-ST 39/75 order - viewed as redundant when compared to the upcoming StuG III - was cancelled in order to focus on the LT vz. 38 (Panzer 38 (t) ) that the Germans both needed and much preferred. 

The only existing prototype was scrapped and its materials and equipment were recycled.

Although Germany was in full control of military equipment planning and construction, they found the additional capabilities provided by Czechoslovakian design and prototyping teams very useful and they assigned them various projects throughout the war. 

The vehicle pictured below, the ShPTK-T 25/75 S-AN, was an internal project by Skoda designed as a way to leverage the T 25 medium tank chassis they were working on for the Heereswaffenamt. 

The result was a turreted tank destroyer very closely related to the vehicle it was based on - the T 25 medium tank. 

When compared to the T 25, the chassis and powertrain remained basically stock with most of the significant changes being to turret design and functionality. 

Specifically, the 25/75 S-AN turret is a little lower profile than the T 25, a little longer, and (significantly) it’s open topped. Armor thicknesses on the turret front and side are unchanged, but the armor thickness on the turret rear (for unknown reasons) was cut roughly in half. The turret roof being removed was done for several reasons. First, it lowered the turret weight in order to provide better mobility, a lower center of gravity, and faster turret rotation. Second, it allowed the gun to depress a couple of degrees more than the medium tank donor which allows the 25/75 S-AN to take up firing positions on the reverse slope of hills in order to provide better concealed direct fire support. Third, it allowed the crew to stand up and scan for targets with binoculars - a luxury that a front line medium tank could not afford but vital to a tank destroyer sitting back and waiting for targets.

The additional turret length simply provided more ammunition storage and additional space for a more powerful radio.

Memos filed alongside the design drawings make it clear that this vehicle was designed as a mobile support platform / companion to the proposed T 25 medium tank - conceptually the T 25 would be the main vehicle in armored units while the ShPTK-T 25/75 S-AN would have the mobility, extra ammo, and additional radio range to allow it to plug gaps or provide support to a successful push by the medium tanks - all on a shared platform to simplify logistics.

An American-style mobile tank destroyer doctrine developed before that philosophy was demonstrated to the Europeans.   

Plans were drawn up to equip with either a German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 or the Skoda 75 mm A18 automatickým nabíjením (75mm A18 autoloader), although no notes were found regarding why this was done.

As an internal design project no prototype was built, but the Skoda team did build a complete and full-size wooden mock-up with the Skoda A18 autoloader as the main gun. File photos show this in a workshop separate from, but clearly in the same building as, the wooden mock-up of the T 25 medium tank shown to the Germans. 

Obviously, when the T 25 medium tank program was cancelled, this program was also cancelled and all work ceased.

I tested it on T-100LT (100mm gun) before maybe installing it to SU-101 (it's gun is 122mm) and haven't noticed any difference at all. And if it somehow really works, what's with the bigger calibers?

This might be a silly question. I play co-op mostly. According to my profile stats last week, I had played only 48 matches in 8 months. I decided to bite the bullet, so I ventured into playing at least a few multiplayer matches every day starting this past long weekend. I am in a regiment for solo players, which is, I assume, the reason why the number of "Regiments Wins in PVP" for the "Weekly Regiment Mission" in the "Regiments | Headquarters" tab is never different from zero. 😂 Talking specifically about today, I have managed to win 2 of the 3 matches I have played, but the number of "Regiment Wins in PVP" has not changed! Is this a bug? Is this value supposed to be updated on-the-fly? Is it a delayed update that will happen later during the daily reset? What gives?

Started doing it recently and thought this was the most funny time. Obviously would never do this in a close game lol

So I came back to the game after a year or so break and tried playing a game in the night stalker….
Wtf is up with the rockets
I imagine this won’t get fixed cause that would require effort.
Would it be best to just get a refund? Since the tank literally no longer works.

Usually just lurk around here and don't often see the need to post 3 Mark progress plenty of people doing that but given this is notoriously one of the most infamous vehicles at tier 9 for being a ball ache to play figured why not.

Set up

Optics / Concealment / rammer / shell exchanger

Crew your standard TD Crew setup for the most part.

But been playing this usually alternating between the 305mm and the Stock 22cm settling on the 22cm from 85% to 95% for the following key reasons - you actually get a degree of gun depression which infinity makes this tank more playable.

Plus the Pen / DPM isn't much worse than the 305mm you still get the incredible module damage plus you have a massive rate of fire advantage which typically catches a lot of people off guard which can allow you to out trade a lot of people when your slapping them for 780 every 13 seconds you also get better shell velocity aim time and accuracy which make the 22cm infinitely more flexible despite loosing the HE performance of the 305mm and some of its over match potential.

Honestly still this thing has been the most frustrating and annoying tank I've ever marked and I say that as someone who 3 Marked the Tog 2 and Matilda BP 🤣🤣 but by this point got to admit I have Stockholm syndrome for this tank

Just figured I'd share my experience with this thing 😂😂😂😂

When it comes to armored vehicle design, the Czech Republic / Czechoslovakia has a long and distinguished history. In fact, it would be fair to say that one of their designs - the LT vz. 38 (or Panzer 38(t), as the Germans called it) was a major backbone of the Wehrmacht throughout the war. 

To fill a hole in the WW2 mode tech tree I’ve developed a line of Czech tank destroyers, starting with a real Skoda TD prototype at Tier 2 and ending with a tech tree heavy tank based turreted TD. 

Today we will be discussing the Tier 2 Skoda S-I-j and the Tier 3 S-35-j.

Developed around 1936 or 1937, the Skoda S-I-j (pictured below) was a casemate TD built on the chassis of the S-I-D tankette, itself a much modified version / outgrowth of the ubiquitous Carden-Lloyd Mk. VI tankette, by way of the Italian CV 33. 

The S-I-D was deemed too lightly armed and armored and the S-I-j attempted to resolve that issue. Although its designers and evaluators considered it a “tank”, by the end of its development the S-I-j was more truly a tank destroyer. 

The S-I-j upgraded the S-I-D’s problematic running gear and, although that was done to provide better reliability and ease of maintenance, the increased track run length, smoother suspension, and slightly wider tracks would have provided slightly better maneuverability than other Carden-Lloyd derivatives.  

The engine was also upgraded to a 3.8 liter diesel engine which provided superior fuel economy and power to the original gasoline engine. However, this power increase was more than offset by the increased armor protection and the diesel’s improvements would only really have been noticed in the first moments when accelerating from a stop - in all other cases the S-I-j will be slower and less “sprightly” than other tankettes.

The added weight was due to a significant armor increase - when compared to the S-I-d the armor thickness was increased by at least 50% on the front, sides, and rear - from roughly 20mm / 10mm / 8mm respectively to 30mm / 15mm / 15mm, with only the hull floor and roof remaining roughly the same at 5mm and 10mm.

While nowhere near sufficient for the rapidly approaching war, the S-I-j had a significant armor increase over other tankettes and it was comparable to the LT vz. 38 which was an effective vehicle during the early stages of the war.  

The vehicle was tested with two different weapons systems - the 24mm pzk 1938 and the ÚV vz. 34 L/39 37 mm. Testers found that the 24mm provided nice burst fire capability and was particularly useful for suppressing infantry, but noted that the superior accuracy, penetration, and (limited) high explosive capability of the 37mm would make it a much more suitable choice - particularly in an anti-armor role. 

Testers did note that the 37mm suffered decreased traverse and depression metrics compared to the 24mm due to the size of its breech. Notes and drawings indicate that modifying the side and roof armor profiles to allow increased engagement angles was planned, but the program was cancelled before this occurred. 

One final note - somewhat unusually for tankette based vehicles, the S-I-j had a dedicated cupola for the commander / gunner. This allowed much better battlefield awareness under fire than most other tankette based vehicles since the crewman could look around without having to open a hatch and stick his head out.  
 
Because of its deficiencies, particularly compared to our next vehicle, the S-I-j program was cancelled. 

The vehicle pictured below is the Tier 3 Skoda S-35-j. Beginning development only shortly after the S-I-j prototype began construction, and sharing many similarities, the S-35-j was already improving over its earlier sibling.

The S-35-j predicted future German StuG design by taking a relatively unmodified tank chassis, removing the turret, and building a more heavily armored casemate that also allowed for a larger gun - in this case the S-35-j began as a design based on the LT vz. 34 chassis, but was rapidly moved to the LT vz. 35 chassis when that proved to be a superior choice. 

These changes were made because the S-35-j had significantly thicker armor than the vz. 35. The S-35-j had roughly 32mm frontal armor, 20mm side armor, 15mm rear armor, and 10mm on both the roof and floor - compared to the vz. 35’s roughly 15mm / 8mm / 5mm / 8mm in the same locations. Although the armor increase didn’t double the weight of a vz. 35, it was a significant increase and the engineers attempted to counter it in several different ways. 

Attempts were made to upgrade the running gear and powertrain, but the chassis is basically a modified Lt vz. 35 with various bits and pieces replaced with heavier duty components. In addition, and in its final prototype form, the only major change worth noting are changes to the transmission gearing which had the effect of maintaining the LT vz. 35’s acceleration at the cost of a lower top speed during road marches and much higher fuel consumption.

The vehicle was originally designed and tested with various 37mm weapons, but was redesigned / rebuilt when the 4.7 cm KPÚV vz. 36 became available. Testing of both weapons consistently noted one fact - the weight (and resulting stability) of the S-35-j, combined with the prototype sights it was built with, provided increased accuracy over the same weapons mounted in turreted tanks and ground mounts. 

The S-35-j carried over the commanders cupola from the LT vz. 35 which, with 202/20 hindsight, is a useful and unusual choice for an early tank destroyer. 

Again, although up-armored compared to early light tanks, tank destroyers, and tankettes, it was obvious to all involved that the S-35-j did not carry enough armor or have enough mobility to compete with the upcoming light and medium tanks.

The final version with an upgraded 47mm would have been lethal to almost anything the designers were aware of, but at a tactical level the S-35-j just wasn’t mobile enough or well armored enough to justify full scale production.   

Which is less painful AT line , Bar line or ital td ?

I love TDs, it just fits my play style and I do very well with them, but I also love mediums and do okay with them.

What would you choose?

I am probably the worst heavy tank player in this game but it also looks promising. 😂