Jump to content


HMH M51

Camo

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Stargate-Fox #1 Posted 11 February 2020 - 09:58 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 40505 battles
  • 1
  • [G1ORY]
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016
How about WOT making camo an option on the French VIII HMH M51.

Haukkis #2 Posted 11 February 2020 - 10:35 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 36760 battles
  • 3,764
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015
I wish they could... 

R35T NO MORE #3 Posted 11 February 2020 - 11:01 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16331 battles
  • 23,514
  • [BNKR-]
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013
I love it the way it is tbh, it's accurate. Options are always nice to have though. 

My WoT tank reviews

If you enjoy them please do share/sub. Thanks. 


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #4 Posted 11 February 2020 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

It already has the only paint it ever wore in the IDF and even later when it served in Chile, Israeli desert sand grey

 

now if they offer the Chilean version with the awesome camo Chile applied to them in the 1970s, I’d buy that reskin in a heartbeat.

 

the french camos are so ugly, why would anyone want to ruin the desert sand grey look, it’s the cooolest


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #5 Posted 11 February 2020 - 11:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

The only thing that needs to be done to the M51 has nothing to do with paint.

 

the computer model itself needs to be cleaned up,

 

the mantlet has incorrect shape in profile it looked more like a triangle than a half circle,

 

the gun is too short, which is hilarious because WG likes putting ridiculously long guns on things that didn’t even exist, and this one existed with a ridiculously long gun and they made it about 4 feet shorter than it should be,

 

also the muzzle brake is more than twice as big as it should be which gives it the feel of those Christmas toy tanks with the plungers on the end of the gun

 

but the biggest glaring issue with the tank is the hideous rubber track, the Israelis couldn’t use the rubber in the desert for a couple of reasons, it didn’t have enough traction in sand and it got so hot in the desert that it bonded to gravel roads and sand which destroyed roads and clumped up the track pads with debri.  The tracks already exist in the game on the TT M4A3E8 so it’s just a matter of cut and paste.

 

I have a theory as to why WG used the black rubber tracks, the outdoor tank museum at Latrum has all the M51s with metal tracks painted black, perhaps to protect them from rust?  IDK but all the images clearly show metal track links not rubber.

 

the other thing that the M51 need is a small buff to it’s gun handling (quicker aim time) and it had tons of gun depression so t needs another couple of degrees to take advantage of the only armor it has which is on the mantlet.

 

 


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #6 Posted 11 February 2020 - 11:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015
And some stowage would really make it pop, plus the jerry cans on M51 were painted red for water (?) and black for fuel if memory serves me right, also missing are the black encased serial numbers found on the front lower hull, rear hull, and on the mantlet of all this tanks

  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #7 Posted 11 February 2020 - 11:41 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015
BTW, the chilean M51s kept the sand grey but when repainted they got a really nice jungle green or a bronze green with yellow strips and black highlights, they looked mean as heck

  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


LordWilliam71 #8 Posted 12 February 2020 - 12:26 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16376 battles
  • 695
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    01-20-2015
Just get the  M41 Revalorise? Isn't it basically the same but with better mobility?

C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #9 Posted 12 February 2020 - 01:14 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

View PostLordWilliam71, on 12 February 2020 - 12:26 AM, said:

Just get the  M41 Revalorise? Isn't it basically the same but with better mobility?

The Rev was a Prototype, it wasn’t better at anything compared to the production model.  

 

The Rev retained the old WW2 radial which didn’t do well at low end torque even in it’s heyday, once it got to speed it was fast but sluggish getting there.  There is a reason the US Army standardized the Ford V8 models (GAA M4A3E8) tanks right after WW2, nobody liked the radial.  So the radial was initially used on 75mm gunned shermans which weighed 29 tons, by the time the bigger more heavily armored T23 turret was added with the 76mm gun, the tank weighed almost 34 tons.  

 

The Rev with the 105mm and the turret bustle counterweight to balance the long gun weighed almost 39 tons so the old narrow tracks and the radial engine were being pushed to their absolute limit.  To solve the weight gain issue, the israelis added the HVSS suspension to improve flotation on production models but that addition increased the weight to 42 tons which by then the original production models of M51 with the radial were severely underpowered especially taking off and climbing.

 

they immediately started searching for a suitable engine around the world and settled on the turbocharged cummins diesel, now the tank was very powerful had plenty of torque and could get to maximum speed quickly and climb hills with ease.  The only issue they had with the engine was not really engine related, the air filters that they came with were mot suitable for extreme dusty conditions but once they got the air filter thing ironed out the tank was a beast! 

 

The Rev should not be quicker or have better handling than the M51, the reason it does is that WG just looks at the horse power numbers without understanding low end torque which is way more important for heavy machines.  So they see more horses and they think it’s a better engine:teethhappy:

 

 


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #10 Posted 12 February 2020 - 01:19 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

The Rev should be sluggish compared to the M51 and it’s traverse resistance numbers should be much much worse especially on soft ground.  Gun handling and turret rotation should be identical but the manueverability, climbing speed, and turning would be vastly inferior to the M51

 

if the prototype was so good why did the Israelis modify it until they ended up with the cummins powered HVSS tank we all know as the M51?  


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


Albapfalzd3 #11 Posted 12 February 2020 - 02:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25104 battles
  • 3,201
  • Member since:
    04-07-2017

View PostCORSAIR_CRAZY, on 11 February 2020 - 11:34 PM, said:

The only thing that needs to be done to the M51 has nothing to do with paint.

 

the computer model itself needs to be cleaned up,

 

the mantlet has incorrect shape in profile it looked more like a triangle than a half circle,

 

the gun is too short, which is hilarious because WG likes putting ridiculously long guns on things that didn’t even exist, and this one existed with a ridiculously long gun and they made it about 4 feet shorter than it should be,

 

also the muzzle brake is more than twice as big as it should be which gives it the feel of those Christmas toy tanks with the plungers on the end of the gun

 

but the biggest glaring issue with the tank is the hideous rubber track, the Israelis couldn’t use the rubber in the desert for a couple of reasons, it didn’t have enough traction in sand and it got so hot in the desert that it bonded to gravel roads and sand which destroyed roads and clumped up the track pads with debri.  The tracks already exist in the game on the TT M4A3E8 so it’s just a matter of cut and paste.

 

I have a theory as to why WG used the black rubber tracks, the outdoor tank museum at Latrum has all the M51s with metal tracks painted black, perhaps to protect them from rust?  IDK but all the images clearly show metal track links not rubber.

 

the other thing that the M51 need is a small buff to it’s gun handling (quicker aim time) and it had tons of gun depression so t needs another couple of degrees to take advantage of the only armor it has which is on the mantlet.

 

 

 

Yes while the tracks on the WOT Console Model are wrong (T84 track) the M51 didn't use the standard T80 track, it used the T80E5 (an Israeli mod) which was basically the same except they rubberized the front of the shoe. So they weren't concerned about them melting in the hot desert sun. I am sure that there were plenty of M51s with standard T80 tracks however. 

 

View PostCORSAIR_CRAZY, on 12 February 2020 - 01:14 AM, said:

The Rev was a Prototype, it wasn’t better at anything compared to the production model.  

 

The Rev retained the old WW2 radial which didn’t do well at low end torque even in it’s heyday, once it got to speed it was fast but sluggish getting there.  There is a reason the US Army standardized the Ford V8 models (GAA M4A3E8) tanks right after WW2, nobody liked the radial.  So the radial was initially used on 75mm gunned shermans which weighed 29 tons, by the time the bigger more heavily armored T23 turret was added with the 76mm gun, the tank weighed almost 34 tons.  

 

The Rev with the 105mm and the turret bustle counterweight to balance the long gun weighed almost 39 tons so the old narrow tracks and the radial engine were being pushed to their absolute limit.  To solve the weight gain issue, the israelis added the HVSS suspension to improve flotation on production models but that addition increased the weight to 42 tons which by then the original production models of M51 with the radial were severely underpowered especially taking off and climbing.

 

they immediately started searching for a suitable engine around the world and settled on the turbocharged cummins diesel, now the tank was very powerful had plenty of torque and could get to maximum speed quickly and climb hills with ease.  The only issue they had with the engine was not really engine related, the air filters that they came with were mot suitable for extreme dusty conditions but once they got the air filter thing ironed out the tank was a beast! 

 

The Rev should not be quicker or have better handling than the M51, the reason it does is that WG just looks at the horse power numbers without understanding low end torque which is way more important for heavy machines.  So they see more horses and they think it’s a better engine:teethhappy:

 

 

 

I was under the impression that the Rev is just totally made up and was not even a prototype. Do you have a link to some documentation please. BTW, I think that the HMH M51 even with the short barrel and WAY to big Muzzle Brake is still one of the best looking tanks in the game.

 

Roy



LordWilliam71 #12 Posted 12 February 2020 - 03:17 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16376 battles
  • 695
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    01-20-2015
I appreciate the history, I really do, but I was just pointing out that if you wanted an unskinned version to put normal camo on there is an option. I have the M51 myself and held out for it since I knew it really existed and love the look of it.

Haukkis #13 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:36 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 36760 battles
  • 3,764
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 12 February 2020 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

Yes while the tracks on the WOT Console Model are wrong (T84 track) the M51 didn't use the standard T80 track, it used the T80E5 (an Israeli mod) which was basically the same except they rubberized the front of the shoe. So they weren't concerned about them melting in the hot desert sun. I am sure that there were plenty of M51s with standard T80 tracks however. 

 

 

I was under the impression that the Rev is just totally made up and was not even a prototype. Do you have a link to some documentation please. BTW, I think that the HMH M51 even with the short barrel and WAY to big Muzzle Brake is still one of the best looking tanks in the game.

 

Roy

HMH: SuperSherman is much better looking tank than Revalorize, I agree :)



Teffisk #14 Posted 16 February 2020 - 01:33 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25224 battles
  • 1,931
  • [-L7-]
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015
I like the look, but I think in reality it needs a buff. Way underpowered compared to things like the Draugen and King Dragon. Maybe nerf the reload of the Rev by like 1 second and make it a tier 7.

C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #15 Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 12 February 2020 - 02:22 PM, said:

 

Yes while the tracks on the WOT Console Model are wrong (T84 track) the M51 didn't use the standard T80 track, it used the T80E5 (an Israeli mod) which was basically the same except they rubberized the front of the shoe. So they weren't concerned about them melting in the hot desert sun. I am sure that there were plenty of M51s with standard T80 tracks however. 

 

 

I was under the impression that the Rev is just totally made up and was not even a prototype. Do you have a link to some documentation please. BTW, I think that the HMH M51 even with the short barrel and WAY to big Muzzle Brake is still one of the best looking tanks in the game.

 

Roy

I think you are confusing the track issue a tad.  For starters the regular T80 was used in all the initial M51, the first was the degem alef version then came the degem beth, so the T80E5 track was still being developed when the IDF already had M51 in active service.  It’s not uncommon to see early vintage photos of M51 with T80 track parked next to M51 with T80E5 track.  The only difference between the T80 and the T80E5 was the length of the metal cleat.  The E5 track cleat was longer which improved traction in soft sand.  I don’t know how deep the cleat was on normal T80 but from what I found in my books the new T80E5 cleat was 38mm from the base of the metal pad to the edge of the cleat and it is substantial increase in depth as the cleats stand out in photos and T80E5 track can be easily identified.

 

Let’s be clear on T80E5 track, it was not rubber padded on the front, ok?  All sherman tracks going back to WW2 were rubber padded on the inside to extend wheel and track life.  Perhaps that lends to the confusion. But a few types also had rubber blocks in the front.  The T80 and T80E5 did not have rubber blocks in the front.  They were both (T80 and T80E5) later “painted” with a rubber based coat (think plastidip or rhino lining) perhaps to protect from rust?  but this doesn’t make them rubber padded tracks not even close.  From searching my sources it looks like that rubber coating doesn’t begin to appear in period photos until very late 1960s and early 1970s. So M51 saw service from initial testing stages (1959-1961) and became officially a frontline tank in 1962, T80E5 begins to appear around 1965 and rubber painted appears after that.   Most of the early vintage images in Dr. Manasharab’s books show M51 with both T80 and T80E5 on bare metal.  The vintage photos show the metal pads without the coat but when the coat appears it is very clear and noticeable and usually peeled off from the metal chevrons (wear) providing a shiny metalic contrast from the rest of the dark coated metal block.  

 

So to clarify, the inner workings of rubber padded and metal tracks is very different.  Rubber padded tracks are molded onto the skeleton of the track all the way thru while metal tracks are welded onto the skeleton and then have a thick rubber backing molded on them.  So rubber tracks like the T84 lack the welded plate against the skeleton and are just rubber all the way thru.  So T80 and T80E5,  given a rubber coat frontside does not make them rubber tracks, there is a huge distinction there.  

 

Dr Manasharab is considered the top authority on IDF tank history and has written volumes of material on the subject.  I own all his IDF Sherman stuff.  I recommend you look into them.

 

BTW, there was a M51 prototype, it was called revalorise because the word simply means revalued, it doesn’t translate properly but the gist of the word is that something old has been made relevant and valuable again.  A better English translation might be revitalized?  In the case of the Rev it was a late narrow track VVSS M4A1 sherman with T23 turret (google it several images online) so originally from manufacturer it would’ve had a 76mm gun.  The 76mm was replaced with a shortened version of the French 105mm found on the AMX 30 tank.  The French designated the modified gun the M51 gun so the Israelis simply designated the tank after the name of the gun.  The same thing happened with the M50, it used the French (license built panther gun) M50 gun which was exact 75mm gun used on the Panther in WW2.


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #16 Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015
To add to the confusion, we see many M51s from private collections wearing T84 rubber tracks, they never served with those tracks.  Thing is, there is still a ton of surplus materiel (sherman parts) available  OEM.  France still has stores of stuff aquired during WW2 and MDAP.  I learned this from visiting the littlefield collection that they could still aquire new track from France for sherman tanks.  Aquiring the Israeli T80E5 would be entirely different and my guess is there isn’t any available.

  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


Tempest fox3 #17 Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:19 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22817 battles
  • 20,465
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
The M4 Rev exists and you can paint that one however you like.

War is a Democracy and the enemy always gets a vote.

3 MoE's: E-25, M41 Walker Bulldog, E-50, Snakebite, E-75, T32, Tiger 131, Skoda T25, Boilermaker, Sentinel AC4 Experimental - In order obtained

 

Spoiler

C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #18 Posted 19 February 2020 - 08:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

View PostTempest fox3, on 19 February 2020 - 04:19 PM, said:

The M4 Rev exists and you can paint that one however you like.

Actually that would be fantastic, if we actually could paint them any way we like.   Unfortunately the game isn’t designed to support that type of customization.  I’m told by someone who actually was offered a job at WG that the camo, insignias, emblems, and flags eat up a massive portion of the information required to render the tanks, according to this guy the files in some cases exceed the size of the whole tank itself.  I’m not a computer guy but I believed him because it explains why customization in this game is so limited.

 

I’m not a big fan of the french camo variety available in the game.

 


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato


Tempest fox3 #19 Posted 19 February 2020 - 09:40 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22817 battles
  • 20,465
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostCORSAIR_CRAZY, on 19 February 2020 - 08:26 PM, said:

Actually that would be fantastic, if we actually could paint them any way we like.   Unfortunately the game isn’t designed to support that type of customization.  I’m told by someone who actually was offered a job at WG that the camo, insignias, emblems, and flags eat up a massive portion of the information required to render the tanks, according to this guy the files in some cases exceed the size of the whole tank itself.  I’m not a computer guy but I believed him because it explains why customization in this game is so limited.

 

I’m not a big fan of the french camo variety available in the game.

 

 

That seems somewhat hard to believe. Tank camos are a small tile pattern that gets repeated over a tank

 

And emblems and such are just tiny decals. I can't imagine there more than a few MB in size. 

 

If it is somehow true, then it's a result of inefficient programming. 


War is a Democracy and the enemy always gets a vote.

3 MoE's: E-25, M41 Walker Bulldog, E-50, Snakebite, E-75, T32, Tiger 131, Skoda T25, Boilermaker, Sentinel AC4 Experimental - In order obtained

 

Spoiler

C-O-R-S-A-i-R_ #20 Posted 19 February 2020 - 09:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 38518 battles
  • 4,093
  • [SALT-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

View PostTempest fox3, on 19 February 2020 - 09:40 PM, said:

 

That seems somewhat hard to believe. Tank camos are a small tile pattern that gets repeated over a tank

 

And emblems and such are just tiny decals. I can't imagine there more than a few MB in size. 

 

If it is somehow true, then it's a result of inefficient programming

That’s what he said, that the original code was based on a limited setup, like I said, I’m not a computer guy.  I’m just repeating what my friend said.  


  

I am a farmable asset,  please don’t call me a potato






Also tagged with Camo

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users