Honestly, I’ve never had a problem with Soviet tanks in Enlisted; what I can’t stand is people who can’t distinguish between WWII-era Soviet tanks and Cold War-era ones—insisting on mounting Cold War main battle tank guns onto WWII experimental prototypes and then claiming they are WWII Soviet tanks. That idea is more repulsive than the crap in a toilet; they’d be better off playing World of Tanks, where those heavily modified Cold War “super-tanks” would cater to their unrealistic demands and fantasies.
2 Likes
If I remenber well they can also add the IS-3 is a prototype tank made in march of 1945 also called object 703 search It on google as IS-3 Object 703 or a dumb tank with 2 canons will appear
C’mon man, are you still sticking strictly to historical accuracy?
Not long ago they handed the US a BR‑5 heavy tank. Why shouldn’t the USSR fight for proper treatment too?
The main gun of the T‑44‑100 belongs to the D‑10 family.
Its D‑10T gun was already in production back in 1944 during World War II.
Mass‑production only started in 1947, that is all.
Besides, the 85 mm shells have rather poor penetration. What is the T‑44‑85 supposed to use to engage the King Tiger head‑on in the Battle of Berlin?
Yes.
Because it’s a WW2 game.
Any “balance” should only be achieved with items that were fielded/used in WW2.
Another BS prototype.
Big mistake.
Not to be repeated.
2 Likes
Did you know that the BR-412D shell for the 100mm main gun was manufactured in 1953?
1 Like
That’s true.
Right now, being able to deal with the King Tiger with B‑shells is already enough, and that is basically all Soviet players ask for. Greater firepower would only become necessary against the Maus or E‑100, which is not something we need to focus on for now.
By comparison, I think we should push for the T13 APHE shell to be added for the M26A1E1.
If you’re getting hung up on baseless issues, I find your attitude completely unreasonable. The M6 heavy tank appeared because it was developed in 1944—the same year as the T-44-85—whereas the T-44 didn’t receive its 100mm rifled gun until 1947, well after WWII ended and the Cold War (and the AK-47 era) had begun. So, what exactly is this “political correctness” you’re talking about? You can’t accept the historical fact that masses of T-34/85s captured Berlin, yet you insist on making an issue out of the Tiger II—as if the Tiger II were the mascot of the German tech tree. Why should the Soviet tech tree be superior in every single aspect? That’s an absurd demand that would ruin game balance. In short: the T-44-85 is fine, but the T-44-100 is a no-go. If you want to play Cold War-era vehicles, go back to War Thunder—but don’t bring such stupid suggestions to Enlisted.
2 Likes
I think you should double‑check your sources.
You made a careless mistake. This information is easy to look up online, and failing to verify it can make you look bad.
Trials to fit the 100 mm D‑10 gun onto the T‑44 took place in late 1944‑early 1945. Chronologically, it could have seen service in WWII.
What’s more, the Soviets already built the rounded‑turret T‑54 prototype, the T‑54 obr.1945, before the end of the war.
If we label the T‑44‑100 as a 1947 vehicle, how do we justify the T‑54‑1947 in War Thunder?
Even without the T‑44‑100, we still have the IS‑6 and Object 252. Yet neither matches the T‑44‑100 for balance and overall design.
How many tanks in‑game can penetrate the King Tiger’s frontal hull anyway?
Balance adjustments are normal for games.
Look at Japan’s tech tree; it already has plenty of vehicles you will not find in other WWII titles
Alright then.
If you insist that the T‑44‑100 originated in 1947, I might as well submit a suggestion for the “February 1945 variant of the T‑54”.
The T‑54 prototype was completed and rolled off the production line exactly in February 1945.
Frankly, you are really stubborn.
不撞南墙不回头.
I will cite sources from Wikipedia.
Worst‑case scenario, I will switch my suggestion from the T‑44‑100 over to the T‑54‑1945 prototype. Photographic evidence exists for it anyway.
What have the Soviet Union ever done to you?
You never raise objections when other nations get experimental vehicles and prototypes that never saw combat.
But whenever Soviet hardware comes up, you immediately jump in to argue.
What did the Soviet Union do to you? Did you get caught up when we fought against the reactionaries back then?
Oh right, also don’t repost every single thing you say here onto domestic forums.
You are Chinese yourself, yet you refer to other people as “Chinese” while we are within the domestic community. Are you looking down on us? Or do you see yourself as an outsider?
2 Likes
Modern technology is way too advanced—it even lets a security guard with zero education spew shit in English on the internet. But anyway, back to the point: can any little Wehraboo explain why the VG1-5 shows up in Moscow
3 Likes
It’s quite amusing to see you getting agitated like this.
I would not recommend showing foreign community members how you fail to get the upper hand here, get frustrated, then go over to domestic online spaces to repeat the exact same arguments, only to get ruthlessly torn apart by random local netizens.
You are not a welcome participant here.
Let me state it again. The T‑44‑100 dates back to late 1944.
The US already has the M26A1E1 as an event vehicle.
The Soviet Union deserves to get the T‑44‑100 as a TT‑style event vehicle too, considering the IS‑2 is already placed at 6.0 BR.
Actually, the early‑variant T‑44 could fit at BR4. Its hull and turret front both have weak points penetrable by 88 mm and 75 mm guns head‑on.
The T‑44 could be a rare niche tank at BR4, similar to the MP‑41R. Much like how the US M26 can only damage the turret when fighting the King Tiger. Conversely, King Tiger and Panther can only penetrate the T‑44’s 120 mm turret front.
This would make for reasonable balance. If it is released as an event‑only vehicle, its high rarity would keep it from upsetting the match meta.
I provided you with Wikipedia sources covering the history from the T‑44 to the T‑54, yet you do not even bother reading them, right?
Dare you push those same arguments towards the other participating players, not just me?
If you insist on this line of discussion, stop derailing this thread. Go make your own separate post instead.
Let me restate this once more.
The T‑44‑100 was developed from late 1944 into early 1945.
Its program was short‑lived because the first T‑54‑1945 prototype was finished in February 1945, backed by photographs and documented records.
You keep harping on about history and production dates. What about Japan’s Hori? Are there any physical prototypes, or only written descriptions?
How many machine‑guns added to the game were extremely rare historically?
You nitpick over everything, yet I only ever see you intervene in threads discussing Soviet weapons and vehicles.
It looks like you are here just to derail the conversation. You ought to take a break; do not get so worked up that you risk a stroke.
I am not as bad as you claim. I only know I should love my homeland. Stop throwing tantrums in this thread.
To this day, I still cannot forget that while other nations received brand‑new planes, tanks and artillery, the Soviet side got nothing but a Chinese rifle at BR1.
Huh? Are you talking about me?
Should I buy you some test papers and workbooks myself? It seems you spend too much time playing and too little time doing homework.
2 Likes
Don’t bark around like a wild dog anymore. Since you believe that the T-44-100 was not manufactured during World War II, please provide evidence
What are you looking at? Your nonsensical arguing? It’s pointless. As people get older, they enjoy drinking tea and cultivating their minds, instead of acting like you underage kids, arguing heatedly over trivial matters every day. How childish! The T-44/85 is a tank from the late World War II era, while the T-44-100 is a Cold War tank because it uses the main gun of the T-54. So stop arguing with me. I know more about China’s military development history than you do. You haven’t even handled an Type 81 or Type 97 rifle, yet you’re talking to me about Cold War weapons? You’re incredibly ignorant.
2 Likes
Instead of arguing here, I think you should back suggestions like I do: add side‑skirt track armour for the Panzer IV, move the Bf 110‑G2 back to BR3, implement faster dynamic reloading for semi‑automatic weapons, and buff captured KV and T‑34 vehicles for Germany at BR3.
Quit fixating on the T‑44‑100. What has the T‑44‑100 ever done to you
Tf is going on up in here?
