Wouldn't you know that World Of Tanks doesn't just have fake tanks in it, but some of those tanks (and even real vehicles that were really built) are misnamed? This post is aimed at looking at some of those misnamed vehicles and offering actual (or at least more accurate) name for them. I won't be covering fake tanks outright, so if you want some more on that go read /u/jak_atackka 's post on fake tanks over here.
Also, this is just an excuse for me to be pedantic. While I honestly don't expect any of the name changes I suggest to be made, I do want to let people become more aware of the histories these tanks have and that beyond the balancing that goes into the game, not everything is so accurately represented. Please enjoy.
The AMX M4 ended in 1950 when it evolved into the AMX 50. This tank’s name implies it was designed in 1951, after the project was effectively terminated. Instead, the AMX M4 49 premium tank is effectively the last version of the AMX M4 project.
However, there were various armor thicknesses proposed. To this effect, the AMX M4 51 hull has a frontal thickness of 180 mm, the second known proposal. So a more accurate name for this tank would be the AMX M4 49 bis or maybe just M4 49 bis.
The AMX M4 54 suffers from the same issues as the AMX M4 51. While in-game it only has 220 mm of frontal armor, a third variant of the AMX M4 49 hull was designed with 280 mm (!) of frontal armor. I think it’s a shame this tank is missing 60 mm of frontal armor, but we can nevertheless give this tank the more accurate name AMX M4 49 ter or M4 49 ter for short.
While there was a name “Badger” used in reference to a British tank, it was to the FV421, not the FV217. In reality, the FV217 had no nickname given to it. Renaming this tank to the FV217 would be more accurate.
In 1950, the FAMH company (Compagnie des Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et D'Homécourt) designed a 25 ton medium tank featuring a 90 mm gun and an oscillating turret. However, work was soon canceled during the preliminary stages of development, probably due to the prospect of the AMX-13 equipped with a 90 mm making it redundant. Later in 1954, Batignolles-Châtillon would take the FAMH design and adopt its elements into its own medium tank design, creating a couple of the now-famous Batignolles-Châtillon 25 t. However, B-C’s own design suffered a similar fate but with the AMX 30.
The name “B-C 25 t AP” is supposed to suggest it’s a prototype of the B-C 25 t, which itself is contradictory since you can’t really have a prototype of a prototype. A more accurate name would be FAMH 25 t, as this is quite literally said company’s design.
The E 50 M is a well-known half-fake. It’s based on the Weserhütte Tiger, an alternative design to the E-75 chassis that repositioned the vehicle’s transmission to the rear of the tank, and thus pushing the turret a little bit forward. Given that the E-50 and E-75 were dimensionally identical and designed to share as many parts as possible, it is logical that anything done to one chassis would be considered for the other. This is where the justification for the E 50 M comes from, and personally I’m okay with that.
However, the name “E 50 M” is rather nonsensical. A more accurate, yet just as false name, would be Weserhütte Panther or perhaps just W Panther for short.
While there was a variant of the EBR fitted with the FL-10 turret, it wasn’t called this. The EBR series of vehicles is better denoted by their turrets, not their armaments. So a more accurate name for this vehicle would be EBR-10. The current name is like calling the AMX 13 105 the “AMX 105 (FL-12).” It’s a little redundant and nonsensical.
The EBR 90 is a name that’s also a little redundant. It’s the standard production Panhard EBR. Calling it the EBR 90 is like saying “T-54 100” or “M103 120.” Simply renaming the vehicle to EBR or Pan. EBR would be much better.
Alternatively it could receive the name EBR-11, denoted after the FL-11 turret.
The EMIL series of tanks is a bit of a mess. In summary there were three tanks, known as the EMIL, EMIL 1, and EMIL 2. The EMIL program began in 1951, and the Emil I in game is based off of this first design. As such, calling it the EMIL or EMIL 1951 would be more accurate than “Emil I.” This is confounded by the fact the “Emil I” actually refers to what Wargaming calls the Emil II.
This also means the EMIL 1951 being introduced as an exclusive Frontline reward is essentially just the premium version of the regular tank, with extra flair.
In 1952, the EMIL program was revised. There were three main variants proposed: The EMIL Alt E1, E2, and E3. The E1 referred to the original 1951 specifications, but with a new pike nose. The E2 was a sort of compromise between the E1 and E3, which would be heavier and a little bigger and sport a 15 cm smoothbore gun (which the Emil II obviously lacks). Finally, the E3 was even heavier and deemed a bit too unrealistic. But as powerful American engines became available, this design was selected and two prototype hulls were built.
The Emil II in-game is essentially a mix of the E1 and E2 mocels of the EMIL. So a more accurate name would be EMIL Alt E2 or just EMIL E2.
Also, the prototype EMIL Alt E3 that was built would later be renamed to “Kranvagn” (crane vehicle) to confuse potential spies. This is essentially the Emil II we have now with all the best upgrades. Although all the Swedish heavy tanks are horrifically misrepresented in game, but that’s a different discussion for another time.
To put it simply, there are only two Japanese heavy tanks: the O-I and the Type 4/5. You can read further about the O-Ho and O-Ni on that. But this means to say that there is somehow a sixth heavy tank when there was no third, fourth, or fifth is misleading.
One thought is that the six is a carryover of the Panzer VI, like how the Russians called captured Panther tanks (or Panzer V) the T-5. But as far as I’m aware, the Japanese Tiger had no official designation and the name we have is a Wargaming fabrication to give a tank a name that doesn’t have one. But I think we can do better.
IJA Tiger is one thought, for “Imperial Japanese Army Tiger”. I’m honestly not sure quite what to call this tank, but I’m pretty sure that the name “Heavy Tank No. 6” is at the best inaccurate and at worst misleading.
Nikolai Fedorovich Shashmurin, a well-known Soviet tank designer, drew up designs for a possible improvement to the IS-2. The representation of which is the IS-M we have in the game. However, the tank received no official designation, for a long time was referred to simply as the IS-2Sh, or Shashmurin’s IS-2.
A vehicle known as “IS-2M” became accepted for a design capable of defeating the guns of the German Panther, Tiger, and Ferdinand tanks. However resources for this project were soon swept up in developing the IS-6. This tank, this “IS-2M”, is clearly not he modernized IS-2 we should all be aware of. But I’m not entirely sure what it is either. Some sources suggest it’s one of Shashmurin’s designs, but there’s no telling precisely which design that is.
I think renaming the IS-M to the IS-2Sh would at the very least be more honest and forward with the tank’s origins.
This thing drives me up the wall.
There is a design for a Jagdpanther equipped with the 12,8 cm Pak 80 that was given serious consideration, as part of Krupp’s “Rearming the panzers” initiative. However, the name “Jagdpanther II” is extremely confusing. The tank is based on the Panther II, so does its name infer it’s a Jagdpanther based on the Panther II chassis, or is it more of an improvement to the Jagdpanther like the Tiger II is to the Tiger I? Truthfully, it’s neither.
While it seems to be based on the Panther II, it actually would have used Panther I components. There was also no initiative to upgrade the Jagdpanther to such the extent as the Tiger was to justify calling it a second version. Instead, I think we should called the tank the Jagdpanther Aufgerüstet (Jagdpanther upgraded/rearmed) based on the Krupp’s design series. Although it would probably receive the shorthand “Jagdpanther AG” instead.
While a tank destroyer based on the E-100 was designed and would see as far as a wooden mockup being built, this tank was not a “Jagdpanzer”. That title was usually awarded to production vehicles, such as the Jagdpanzer IV or the Jagdpanther.
Instead, as with all pre-development tank destroyers and assault guns, this tank should receive the name Sturmgeschütz E 100 or just StuG E 100.
Personally I also like the name “Stugy” more than “Jageroo”
In 1964, Research Institute No. 100 was tasked with developing variations based on the Obj. 432 (T-64) chassis. Whether or not a lightweight variant of the Obj. 432 was ever designed, I can’t say. But what I can say is that the LT-432 model is essentially an Obj. 432 squashed into the dimensions of the Obj. 775.
Additionally, the name “LT-432” violates Soviet naming convention for non-production vehicles. Tanks either carried the names of their designers or the institutions that designed them (ex: LTG = Gavalov’s Light Tank), or simply carried an Object-class designation. “LT-432” is poor attempt to transform a main battle tank into a light tank.
More accurate names for this vehicle might be T-64 Ltwt., following the conventions of the T-54 Ltwt. and the T-44 Ltwt. Alternatively, something like Obj. 432-85 or Obj. 775-85 would also work, to denote the vehicle’s armament. But I think the first name would be more honest towards the vehicle’s design.
This vehicle should be called the Panhard ERC or just ERC 90 or even more simply just Lynx. The "6×6" is never used in official reference as far as I can tell and is entirely redundant for all I care.
The vehicle family is known as the Panhard ERC, and there were two versions of the vehicle equipped with 90 mm guns, both of which are collectively known as the ERC-90. There’s the Lynx, which is the light reconnaissance version we have, and the Sagaie which is a tank destroyer variant with a much more powerful smoothbore gun.
This tank is actually called the Marder III. While the “38T” obviously refers to its chassis, I have no idea why Wargaming decided to call this tank this. I have never seen this name mentioned anywhere outside of World Of Tanks.
There were several different variants of the Obj. 261 considered, just like with the Obj. 268 (hence where we get the fourth version of the Obj. 268, or the Obj. 268 4). The original Obj. 261 was armed with a 152 mm gun. The third version was armed with a 180 mm gun. Simply renaming this tank to the Obj. 261 3 would be a more accurate reflection of this particular design.
The famous Obj. 279 has no connection to this tank, so I’m extremely confused why Wargaming would give this tank this name.
In reality, the vehicle was known as the Obj. 726. A test bed in the late 1940s was created to experiment with creating a tank with high cross-country capabilities, wherein the ground pressure of a conventional tank was effectively halved by giving the vehicle two additional sets of tracks.
The Obj. 279 itself was developed in 1959, some 10 or so years after the Obj. 726. While the the lessons learned while trialing the Obj. 726 would undoubtedly be applied to the Obj. 279, the two vehicles are not remotely connected.
Soviet naming convention never used Roman numerals, as far as I’m aware. Simply changing that “II” into an Arabic “2” so we get an Obj. 430 2 would be much more consistent with the rest of the game.
The O-I series of vehicles is more than a bit of a mess. There was only one O-I that was built, and that’s the vehicle we see at Tier VI. Nevermind the Tier V (which is half-fake), there were numerous drawing concepts for the O-I. For a while these drawings misled historians towards the actual O-I that was built, making people think there were at least two versions of the O-I: a 100-ton and a 120-ton variant, when in fact this was a range for the O-I’s desired weight. But these drawings were more of conceptualizations of what the O-I could look like, and they were nothing resembling official blueprints or sketches. The O-Ho itself is less of a fake and more of an interpretation of a misunderstanding.
The name “O-Ho” itself is supposed to mean “heavy tank number five” or something to that extent, when in fact there were only ever two heavy tanks developed by imperial Japan: the Tier VI O-I and the Type 4/5 heavy tanks. So funnily enough, the name is even more fictitious than the vehicle itself.
So while the vehicle is a bit of misinterpretation, the name itself could at least align better with that misinterpretation. Calling this tank the O-I 120 t would at least let Wargaming own the misunderstanding, rather than creating a fake name for a fake tank. An alternative would be O-I III in reference to a third variant of the O-I.
Similar to the O-Ho, the name “O-Ni” is supposed to mean “heavy tank number four” or something to that effect. Funnily enough, there is no “third” heavy tank. As with the O-Ho, the O-Ni is based on a period drawing of what the O-I could look like, not necessarily an actual design.
So it would be more accurate to call the O-Ni the O-I 100 t even though that itself is a historical misunderstanding of the O-I design. An alternative would be O-I II in reference to a second variant of the O-I.
The T25 medium tank was an intermediate design of the T23 as it evolved into the T26. While it served as the basis for numerous experimental equipment, it was never considered to create variations based on the chassis. By contrast, the T23 and T26 were both slated for production as the M27 and M26 tanks respectively, although the M27 order would later be canceled in favor of the M26.
Furthermore, the T25 AT is modeled after an unnamed project to create an assault tank (which is where the “AT” comes from) from the T23 chassis. Calling the tank the T23 AT instead would be much more accurate.
In 1964, there was a project initiated to develop a light tank with armor capable of defeating western 90 mm shells, and was armed with the experimental T-100 100 mm gun. That’s where this tank gets its name from: its own gun. While the name “T-100 LT” is itself not entirely inaccurate, we can do so much better.
This tank also had the name VNII-100. This is short for “Research Institute No. 100” (yes really) where the vehicle was designed. Alternatively, there’s its Object-class designation, the Obj. 975. Either of these names would be much better than “T-100 LT,” especially if Wargaming ever intends to introduce the T-100 Heavy Tank whenever the multiple-turret mechanism is added to the #game.
The T110 tank family began with a design by Detroit Arsenal for an assault tank called the TS-31. This design was accepted for further development and received the designation T110. However, the original design was simply too big. As the perceived battle ground of a war with the Soviet Union was Europe, the vehicle needed to fit through the Bern International Tunnel, a critical railroad tunnel in Switzerland. So the T110 went through numerous revisions in order to fit.
Detroit’s first revision, a T110E1, would achieve this. However, Chrysler wasn’t satisfied with Detroit’s design, citing numerous faults such as an off-center of gravity and forward fuel tanks. They would submit their own revision, second T110E1, that featured a much more conventional loadout. Eventually, Chrysler made five revisions to the original T110 design. Their fourth design is the T110E3 we have in-game.
So there are a two things we can do here. Either rename the T110E3 to the T110E4 and then rename the turreted T110E4 to something else (T110E4A2 or something equally fictitious for a fictitious tank?), or change the T110E3’s model into something more accurate. This design is essentially Chrysler’s fourth proposal (the T110E3 we have right now) with more compact engine compartment.
It should also be stated that the T110 series never had intermediate designations (T110E1, E2, E3, etc.). The designs were known instead as “Chrysler’s fourth T110 design” or something to that effect. As a result, the names T110E3, T110E4, and even the T110E5 are inherently fake. But this is an example of Wargaming creating a name where none exists, so I think these tanks can get a pass in that regard. But it is worth noting nevertheless.
The Porsche Tiger was in fact never known as the “Tiger (P)”. The parenthetical is only found in reference to the Ferdinand and Elefant tank destroyers to differentiate them from the Jagdtiger. They were officially known as the Panzerjäger Tiger (P) and Panzerjäger Tiger respectively, before they would acquire their nicknames. The only name the turreted tank itself had was its VK designation, the VK 45.01 P.
It would also be prudent to remove the parenthetical (P) from the tank as Wargaming has a tendency to use that to refer to “special” tanks like rentals such as the “KV-2 (R)” or for specific premiums like the WT E 100 (P). Removing the (P) from the Tiger (P) would only serve to distance the tank from Wargaming’s own internal nomenclature.
As I talked about with the O-Ho and O-Ni, there were only two Japanese heavy tanks. The O-I, and the O-Ro. The Type 4 Heavy, also known as the Type 2604, was also referred to as the O-Ro. Either name would work, as the “Heavy” attached to the vehicle is a little redundant.
As /u/leggasiini points out, just Type 4 would also work, even if it's a little empty. The "Heavy" comes from the fact there was no official designation for this tank. So while "Type 4 Heavy" technicall works, it's a little bit of a mouthful and other options are available.
Just as with the Type 4 Heavy, this vehicle should be called either the Type 2605, O-Ro Kai, or cut down to just Type 5.
By the time the WZ-131 entered production as the Type 62, China had yet to acquire the license for the Royal Ordnance L7. The WZ-132, as I understand it, was an experimental improvement to the WZ-131 (and by extension, the WZ-132A was an even further development of that). But the WZ-132 itself ceased development sometime in the 1960s, while China wouldn’t acquire the license to the 105 mm L7 which the WZ-132-1 uses until the late 1970s.
Instead, the WZ-132-1 appears to be a WZ-132 brought to the standard of the Type 62G, a standard developed in the year 2000, using the WZ-132 model instead. So in reality, the WZ-132-1 appears to be an attempt to sidestep the age of the most modern tank in the game. But I personally don’t have an issue with post-1970s tank designs if those those designs use pre-1970s technology, as the Type 62G does.
While I don’t think Wargaming will update the model of the WZ-132-1 and rename it to the Type 62G, it’s something I would very much like to see.
Not being able to craft them sucks. Especially when everyone I talk to about it…
First I'd like to say I absolutely love this game it's quality. Basically I first…
Welcome to Teacher Tuesday, a thread where anyone can ask any type of question without…
I’m kind of new/returning to gwent I played beta and obviously it’s a lot lot…
Level 1 Bag (Free with Atmosphere Level 2) 6 small consumable (First Aid, Repair, Fire…