World Of Tanks Magzaine #Issue 3

The Staff Editor in Chief Ilosz

Executive Editor LordofHara

Contributors TheMuffinPirate Woras Piritskenyer Lbano Mr3awsome The_Challenger Ding760

PrivateAli Skudakoi Charcharo

Dear Readers,

September came, saw, conquered every student beings. Actually this caused some good time to those who are playing at their jobs or are ill.(Oh wait, a kid can be ill too) We recieved the new patch, we weren’t amazed by it, shiny soviet tanks aren’t that good nor are the maps,(I got on them once or twice yet, very rare, very noobish battles, I would say) but this little Panther is kicking lots of asses with delivering one of the highest amount of Dmg among mediums, packed with very high mobility and for free to me. This month’s Magazine is the last forerunner, before the big „Storm”. More details will come in time, also we seem to be „out of interests” in EU, no wonder as looking at the quality of this community and the moderation team’s wiseacre attitude.

Because of these things we are moving our main content to the NA server and the other WoT related Forums. A community what can only criticise and whine without knowldege or facts, does not deserve anything. I ask you guys to join us on Facebook and other social portals. Below you can find the addresses. Ah and the Blog is looking for staff, so if you would like to contribute write on our email. I hope you will enjoy this Issue too.

Good reading!

Lonigus

Ilosz House of Ilosz CEO

September 2013 / #Issue 3 World Of Tanks Magazine

By House Of Ilosz CEO: Ilosz COO: LordOfHara Contact Us: Write a Letter/Feedback address: houseofilosz@gmail.com

World Of Tanks Magazine @WoTMagazineEU houseofilosz.blogspot.com houseofilosz.wordpress.com

To join the Team, write an E-mail here: houseofilosz@gmail.com

2

Write A Letter

You wrote,

We answer.

Hi. OK, so I am going to butter you up a little by saying that I LOVE World of Tanks. It is now the end of August and I have not bought or played any other full-scale PC game this year!!

I am addicted, it is fair to say.

What keeps me coming back for more is that there is always something new to aim formodules, tanks, crew skills and more- and this lends itself to much frustration as well- all part of an addiction I suppose.

I am progressing at my own pace up the tiers, stopping now at tier VII and buying tier V to VII tanks during specials to keep my costs down. The 300,000 credits for 30 kills event has really helped top up the pot, and I have purchased six, discounted tier VIIs this month alone.

Thank you.

Of course, the game is not perfect, this is not because you don't try hard enough, but because no-one is ever going to be completely happy with ideas and changes that you implement.

I will use, as an example, the changes to artillery in 8.6. I had, up until this point, three artillery pieces in regular use. Although I have played arty since, I get very little enjoyment from it and have, more or less, stopped playing it all together. It is SO team dependent now, for spotting and pinning down enemies long enough to damage/kill them that it might be great in Clan battles, but very frustrating in random matches.

spread on many scout tanks. If I can scout in an AMX 13 90, in tier X, then why do I have to scout in tier X in my AMX 13 75 or even my AMX 12 t?

Newbies do need to be better informed about the differences between scouts and other light tanks and maybe some Tech Tree adjustments are required.

For example, as with many LT lines, the French LT line leads to tier IX and X medium tanks. However, I only just re-familiarised myself with the USA tech tree last night, noticing that the US LTs lead to HEAVIES. Now that is just weird.

I HATE players who play light tank lines that are closed off- such as the T-50 and T-50-2 lines used to be, as well as the Luchs and Leopard lines- but WILL NOT SCOUT, or just suicide.

Giving scouts dedicated lines that lead nowhere else, or to tier X light tanks (with normal tier spread) is the only sensible way forward that I can see.

Well, I hope that you consider my letter to be "constructive, polite and creative". This is how I try to be on the forums, although my frustration at constant whining does stress my patience sometimes.

Keep up the good work.

Paul Jones a.k.a. PowJay (Eu server) Now, I built up 109,000 XP to unlock the GW Panther. This took TIME. One of the most precious things that we humans have- too precious to be playing computer games all of the Dear Paul, time!! Now, it takes much less than that to unlock the GW Panther even at a tier higher.

All of that extra XP could have gone on crew training, or- as some experienced- was left to Before we start, let me just say: If there’s an SPG buff, I’m going to the dark side and be converted to Free XP at a REAL financial cost.

I’ll TK SPG’s.

It is no wonder that people do get frustrated with you.

I have held on to my three, elite arty in the hope that there will be a little buff- an improvement in aim time is ALL I want- because I have invested time and money in these SPGs. So that is that for the general observation on what is possibly the only thing WRONG with the game- constant changes, some of which are excessive.

So, to a suggestion.

I have found that as I have developed highly skilled crews, and started using equipment, that I can hide away in bushes invisible to enemies that I am spotting half way across the map.

Now, the problem is that I don't always know that it is ME that is doing the spotting. Only when the game is over and I see that I have spotting damage (over 2,000 in one game) do I know that I made this valuable contribution,

Now for the spotting thingy: It is, indeed a good idea. Knowing who spots the target that you are aiming at would definitely be a plus. I for one just don’t know how this could be realised in terms of user interface. A text overhead would be obstructing the view too much IMO. So instead of of marking who has it spotted, I’d say let’s have a marker that shows when YOU are spotting the vehicle. When you don’t have a marker, it’s not you obviously.

I hate to be such a negative mind, but do you think that your average „Terrible driver” would recognise the value of scouts more after such a change? There are, unfortunately, a lot of people in this game who aren’t even smart enough to work the concept of spotting at all. How many times have I been called a cheater or a hacker because I was shooting at targets 500metres away (spotted by a brave little scout who has less HP than an ISU’s minimum fart), all while being unseen myself. These people assume that what they can’t see can’t shoot them, so why would they recognise the value of a scout? While there are IS-3’s camping behind Dicker Max’s, I’m afraid your scout TK problem is far from being solved…

This brings us to your point about MM. Skill based matchmaking that (almost) everyone wants would change the game completely IMO. There would be much less epic and hard-carried games, the teams would be equally matched (in all aspects), which would result in a much slower and much more tactical gameplay (let’s face it, noobrushes are one of the beauties of this game). No more shooting galleries over a An on-screen indicator, showing who is spotting an enemy would not only benefit scouting/ clueless enemy team, no more mopping up the remaining enemies, etc. Everything spotting tanks by confirming that this player is actually, definitely doing something useful, would be much more balanced. But then question is: Is absolute balance a good but would also help other players to recognise the value of scouts. thing?

If I KNEW in the game that it was ME spotting the enemy (as it would be in real life)hen I would not feel so frustrated at times- especially when I know that I have little chance of damaging said enemy should I choose to fire at it.

I read on the forums of scout tanks being hassled and even killed by ignorant allies while doing a sterling job. If that enemy, top-tier heavy had an indicator above it showing that the M5 Stuart (for example) or player X has spotted that tank, then both the scout and allies would know the value of that lowly scout tank.

Something- ANYTHING- that indicates that the tank shooting is relying on another tank spotting could well be of benefit to at least some who have bothered to learn how the game is played.

So, that is an idea that I haven't seen on the forums, or voiced myself before so finally to one that is.

MM usually does a good enough job of balancing teams. It might not always make senseAlmost all light scouts or TDs or even artillery in the old days- but the teams are (in the absence of platoons) usually well matched. Until you use XVM stats.

I have seen teams FULL of decent players, not a single red and hardly any orange among them, go up against teams colloquially known as "Tomatoes" I am NOT in favour of leagues, but as has been suggested and supported by me, I would like to see- if at all possible- skill balance brought into MM. One team has four top-tier heavies who are unicums and the other has four top-tier heavies that are tomatoes, no problem, swap two players from each team.

It might seem simple, but not being a computing expert I have no real idea of how complex it might be to implement. I am guessing that no more complex than the system already is.

I have given thought about the scout MM problem myself (after the 5th consecutive game where a clueless 400-battle guy in an M5 whines about „tier 4 vs tier 8? I can’t damage anything!”), buta t the end I have concluded that without „forced” scouting there just wouldn’t be enough scouts to fill the ranks with. Of course there are dedicated scout light tanks (AMX-12t, 13 75, 13 90, T-50, MT-25, etc), but not nearly enough players play them, and putting those in lower tier matches for scouting would really screw over balance in the sense that they would be a force of their own, bringing mayhem wherever they go. For one, I am bad at scouting, and I don’t really want to do it, unless I really have to (from very recent experience: I HAD to go through the M5A1, I had ONE match where I was doing what I was supposed to).

Light tank lines leading to meds and heavies… Well, in the case of the French scouts lead to scouts (let’s face it, the Batmobile isn’t any less of a scout than, say, the 13 90), and both those scouts are quite deadly in an endgame. In the case of the ’Muricans stress isn’t on the LT-MT-HT transition, but on the autoloading. Since the French lines are based on autoloaders, they don’t have a makeshift line like the US auto-line, but have two (four) full-blown autoloader lines.

As for a full T10 light line? If I refer to military technology history, light tanks were usually phased out in favour of IFV’s, and/or lighter wheeled vehicles. As the dev’s stated, neither of the two are happening, so it would be hard to find LT’s for the end of said lines.

piritskenyer

Also I fully support the current tier spread, but I do not see the need for such wide tier

3

Innocent collateral damage Introduction At the beginning of 1945, were the Western Allied forces preparing for the last attack on Nazi-Germany. The Battle of the Bulge was over and Allied upper command started to move troops towards the Rhine. Bomber Command started to intensify their attack on the German cities. These attacks had two purposes: destroying the German moral and destroying the German war machine. Another way of destroying the moral in occupied territory were attacks carried out by the resistance. These attacks created the idea that the soldiers were never save in occupied territory. In Denmark that was still under control of Nazi Germany at the end of 1944, there was a very active resistance. They carried out a lot of attacks and collected a great amount of intelligence for the Allies. This didn’t go unnoticed. The Gestapo started to arrest key figures of the Danish resistance and collected a big amount of documents about the Danish resistance. By the end of 1944 the situation for the Danish resistance became untenable.

Desperate for help they called London and asked for help from the Royal Air Force (RAF), operation Carthage was born.

Denmark during World War II Denmark, a state in Northern Europe, located south-west of Sweden, south of Norway and bordered to Germany was invaded on the 9 th of April 1940 by German soldiers. The attack on Denmark was part of the German Operation Weserübung Süd (German plan for an invasion of Norway). The main purpose was the securing of the iron shipping from Narvik. The Luftwaffe was in favour of occuping Denmark in order to extend the German airdefence system northwards. By this extension, it became much more difficult for the British bombers to outflank the German airdefence and attacking the German cities. At 4:15 on the morning of 9 April 1940 German forces crossed the border and entered neutral Denmark. The crossing of the border was a violation of a German-Danish non-aggression treaty, signed in 1939. At the same time, the German navy disembarked troops at the docks in Copenhagen. Defeat was certain against the trained German soldiers. The Danish soldiers were outnumbered and poorly equipped. However soldiers in different parts of the country fought hard. The King’s Royal Guard defended the Amalienborg Palace where King Christian X, his ministers and the Danish Army chief General William Wain Prior were discussing about what to do.

During this discussion several formations of Heinkel HE 111 and Dornier 17 bombers dropped the famous OPROP! leaflets. These leaflets were written in broken Danish and Norwegian and were signed by the head of Operation Weserübung Süd General Leonhard Kaupisch. In these leaflets the Germans justified the invasion as a form of protection against the British aggression.

They asked not to resist the German presence while an arrangement with the Danish government was being negotiated. If they wouldn’t listen, the German Luftwaffe would bomb the civilian population of Copenhagen. Under pressure of this threat the Danish Government capitulated in exchange for retaining political independence in domestic matters. Only General Prior was in favor of continuing the fighting. After two hours and 16 death Danish soldiers, Denmark was under German control. This would last until the surrender of Nazi Germany on the 9 th of May 1945. Until 1943 the Danish government remained in power. They would serve as a “model protectorate”. This means that they were “protected” by Nazi-Germany and maintained certain sovereignty. But they had to follow a few orders. For example: the Danish army was largely demobilized, relations with Allied governments were broken, the Communist Party was banned,… Because of this special status, the Danish government could protect the Jewish minority by refusing to accept German demands regarding the Jews (anti-Jew laws, registration of the Jews,…)

However the Danish citizens weren’t happy with the German occupation. The government had attempted to discourage sabotage and violent resistance against the occupier. However the resistance kept on increasing the acts of resistance. By autumn 1942 the numbers of violent acts were so high that Germany declared Denmark as “enemy territory”. After the battles of Stalingrad and El-Alamein (Germans lost for the first time two important battles) the incidents of resistance increased even more. In the summer of 1943 elections, discontent and a feeling of optimism that Germany would be defeated resulted in widespread strikes and civil disturbances. On the 28th of August 1943, the Germans presented an ultimatum to the Danish government. They had to outlaw strikes, introduce a curfew and a ban on people assembling, censorship under German control had to be conducted, special (German military) courts should be introduced and the death penalty should be issued in cases of sabotage. The Danish government refused and on the 29th of August 1943 the Germans dissolved the Danish government and instituted martial law. In September 1943, different Danish resistance groups formed the Danish Freedom Council. This council started to coordinate resistance activities. When the martial law became active, the Danish citizens were exposed to the Nazi terror. In October of 1943 the Germans decided to remove all Jews from Denmark. But thanks to an information leak and fast action from Danish civilians a great majority of the Danish Jews was transported to neutral Sweden by the use of fishing boats. The whole operation took 2 months.

4

BOPA

Danish resistance movement The Danish resistance movement or Modstandsbevægelsen developed slowly because of the lenient terms that were given by Nazi Germany to the Danish people. Immediately after the German occupation there were a few isolated attempts to start resistance and intelligence activities. Four days after the invasion, Danish intelligence officers started to send reports to Londen. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union the Danish Communist Party was banned. A lot of communist inspired groups of resistance started to pop up. These groups were coordinated by BOPA or Borgerlige Partisaner (Civil Partisans). After the introduction of the martial law in 1943, many non-communist resistance groups were formed. Holger Danske and Hvidsten group were the most important ones. The Hvidsten group was responsible for distributing the weapons and explosives dropped by the RAF to the different resistance groups.

Holger Danske carried out sabotage activities and assassinations of collaborators. The Gestapo started to collect documents about the different resistance groups and arrested different members of the resistance.

Gestapo So what is the Gestapo? The Gestapo was the secret and political police in Nazi-Germany. The name comes from Geheime Staatspolizei. It was created in 1933 by Hermann Göring when he was minister of home affairs of Prussia. On the 20 th of April 1934, Heinrich Himmler became Commander-in-Chief of the Gestapo. The day-to-day administration was handled by Reinhard Heydrich and his subordinate Heinrich Müller. After the assassination and death of Reinhard Heydrich on the 4 th of June 1942, the Gestapo was led by Ernst Kaltenbrunner until the end of the war. On the 26 th of June 1936 Heinrich Himmler issued a decree that the German police should be divided in 2 parts: the Ordnungspolizei (Orpo) and the Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo). The Orpo was the normal, uniformed police. The Sipo was divided in the Gestapo, the Reichs Kriminalpolizei (Kripo) and the border police. In 1942 the Kripo, the Sicherheitsdienst and the Gestapo were combined and became the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.

The main task of the Gestapo was to track down possible enemies of Nazi-Germany in Germany and in the occupied territories.

And after those enemies were found, agents of the Gestapo were able to prosecute them without a proper trial. They were allowed to torture prisoners. The Gestapo was not a big unit but they used a big network of spies and informants. By relying on those spies a lot of people who were not guilty were sent to concentration camps. Gestapo agents carried an oval metal badge with them. With this badge they were able to identify themselves. On one side there was the German eagle, on the other side there was written “Geheime Staatspolizei” and a number.

5

Scale model

Shellhus in 1940

The Shellhus The Shellhus is a building in Copenhagen designed by Gerhard Rønne in 1932 and used by Shell Oil Company to house there administration. It is situated near the centre of Copenhagen, 500 meters west of the Town hall.

In the spring of 1944 the building was confiscated and used as a headquarters by the Gestapo. In the fall of 1944 cells were made on the top floor. By making cells on the top floor, the prisoners were used as a living shield against a possible Allied air raid. Also the transportation of prisoners from Vestre faengsel (a prison in Copenhagen) to the Shellhus for interrogation and torture was minimized. The building was completely painted in camouflage colors. It was U-shaped and it h ad six stores.

A plea for help By the end of 1944 the situation for the Danish resistance became untenable. Many leading figures had been arrested and a lot of material was collected and stored in the Shellhus. The leaders of the Danish resistance requested an air attack on the Shellhus via the Special Operations Executives (SOE) in Londen. The RAF decided to answer the call for help and Operation Carthage was born. Before the attack could be carried out, several weeks of careful planning were necessary. Two large scale models (one showing Copenhagen, the other the Shellhus) were used to brief the pilots in every detail. Trees, lakes, houses,…were pointed out on these models. Maps, photographs and drawings needed to make these models came from the Danish resistance. In December 1944 everybody was ready to bomb the Shellhus by using Mosquito bombers However the Germans counter attacked in the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) and plans were put on a hold. By the end of January 1945 the RAF was ready to execute the plans. Again the attack was postponed because of bad weather conditions. In March 1945 a new message was send by Svend Truelson, the Dannish resistance leader: ‘Military leaders arrested and plans in German hands. Situation never before so desperate. Remaining leaders known by Hun. We are regrouping, but need help. Bombing of S.D. Copenhagen will give us breathing space. If any importance at all to Danish Resistance you must help us irrespective of cost.

We will never forget RAF if you come.' The resistance knew that the prisoners held in the attic would probably die during a bombing but those prisoners would prefer to die by RAF bombs than to be shot by the Gestapo. The SOE also got message that 26 resistance and political prisoners were to be shot on the 21 st of March. The RAF could not ignore the information from the SOE and the desperate plea for help. The pilots were briefed once more, planes were fueled and bombs loaded.

Operation Carthage The pilots who were chosen for this operation were the skilled pilots of the No. 140 wing, part of No. 2 Group RAF, 2 nd Tactical Air Force. The pilots were trained in low-level bombing operations and had already done a few bombing raids at very low altitude. The planes that they would use were the Mosquitoes. These planes were extremely fast, nimble and agile at very low altitude. It was also almost entirely build out of wood, this made it harder to detect on radar. On 20 March 1945, 18 FB Mk.VI Mosquitoes were transferred from Rosièeres-en-Santerre in France to Fersfield in Breat-Brittain. The transfer was done because Basil Embry, commander of the 2nd Tactical Air Force wanted to minimize the time the Mosquitoes would be over enemy territory. How longer the Mosquitoes flew over enemy territory, the higher the chance enemy fighters would attack them.

The 18 Mosquitoes would be escorted by 28 Mustangs F.III from the 126 th Squadron. The planes were transferred from their base in Bentwaters to the airfield in Fersfield. The Mustangs would play a dual role. They would escort the fighter bombers on the outward and return journeys, protecting them from German fighters. And during the attack they would silence the flak.

The plan was simple: 18 Mosquitoes take off in Fersfield, they get an escort of Mustangs, fly low over the North Sea towards Tisso (lake in Western Zealand), here the formation would split up into three waves and head towards Koge (a city 30 kilometers south of Copenhagen). Then they would turn, follow the coast to Avedoere, turn again towards the Carlsberg brewery, passing it on the east-side. The last checkpoint was Det Ny Teater (a theater). From this point the Mosquitoes would fly just above the roof top and attack the Shellhus from the south. After the bombardment they would get out and fly back to base.

6

names of the pilots and navigators and there planes

The bombing However things never go according to plan. At 8:55 on the 21 st of March the 18 Mosquitoes took off. Each Mosquito was loaded with 11-second delayed action bombs. Also two Film Photographic Unit (FPU) Mosquitoes B. Mk. IV took off. These two planes would film the attack. A few minutes after the Mosquitoes, the Mustangs took off. All the planes departed from Fersfield. The weather was bad. High waves created a salt spray on the windshields while they flew very low (15 meters high) over the NorthSea. In this way they avoided the German radar. Landfall was made at 10:20 at Hvide Sand. They reached Tisso and the formation split up in three waves of 7, 6 and 7 planes. The first wave led by Lieutenant-Colonel Bateson and his navigator Squadron leader Sismore, existed of 6 Mosquitoes from the 21 st squadron and one FPU Mosquito The second flight consisted of 6 Mosquitoes from the 464th squadron. It was led by Wing Commander Bob Iredale and his navigator Flying Officer B.J. Standish. And the last wave existed of 6 Mosquitoes of the 487th squadron and one FPU Mosquito. This wave was let by Wing Commander Denton.

While a wave departed, the other planes circled around to give 9 miles (14,4 kilometers) distance between them.

At 11:10 the first wave skimmed over the rooftops of Copenhagen and the flak guns immediately start firing. One Mustang was hit and went down instantly. A few blocks away from the Shellhus, citizens of Copenhagen, not knowing what was happening started to wave at the planes. Wing commander Peter Kleboe hat a 40 meters high floodlight pylon in the marshaling yards, 731 meters away from the Shellhus. His plane went in a vertical dive and hit the roof of an apartment block. As a result of this hit, the bombs were torn loose, striked a house and killed 8 Danish civilians (some sources mentions 12 death civilians). The Mosquito finally crashed close to the French and Catholic Jeanne d’Arc school in a garage. Kleboe and his Canadian navigator Hall are death instantly. At 11:14 Bateson dropped his bombs and hit the first and second floor of the Shellhus. Air Vice-Marshall Embry and Squadron Leader Carlisle came in just after Bateson and dropped their bombs. The last two Mosquitoes, one flew by Squadron Leader Henderson and the other piloted by Flight Lieutenant Hetherington released their bombs on the roof of the Shellhus.

Henderson flew so low that Embry was forced down into the streets to avoid a collision. They missed each other only by less than a meter.

The second wave came in. The first three pilots were attracted by the smoke coming from the wreckage of Kleboe’s Mosquito.

Confused by smoke, fear and gunfire they dropped their bombs on the French school. The last three pilots under command of Flight Lieutenant Archie Smith realized the mistake and tried to locate the Shellhus. Eventually Wing Commander Iredale found the Shellhus. He failed his approach and had to make a circle around the Shellhus. Together with the Mosquito of Flight Lieutenant Smith, he came in and bombed the Shellhus. One Mosquito accidently bombed the Jeanne d’Arc school. Flight Officer Shrimpton had to orbit twice but the third wave was coming and he had to abandon his final approach to avoid collision with the planes of the third wave. He took his bombs back home. Two other Mosquitoes were hit by Flak and the pilots had to ditch in the sea. Flight Officer Dawson, Flight Officer Murray, Flight Officer Palmer and Squadron Leader Becker were death when there planes hit the sea. Only the body of Becker was recovered and his body could be identified only in 2000.

The last wave approached the target from the west. Five from the six Mosquitoes dropped their bombs by mistake on the school.

Wing Commander Denton located the Shellhus but didn’t drop his bombs. He saw the burning Shellhus and decided that there was done enough damage. He aborted his attack and dumped his bombs in the sea. The Mosquito of Flight Lieutenant Pattison and his navigator Flight Sergeant Pygram was hit. With a burning engine they tried to reach the cost of Sweden but this was too far. Patisson managed to land his plane on the sea close to the island of Hveen. They were last seen standing on a wing but later they drowned. Wing commander Denton belly landed his heavily damaged Mosquito in Engeland. Flight Lieutenant Dempsey flew home on one engine. And the second FPU Mosquito piloted by Flight Officer Kirkpatrick crash-landed at Rackheath in Norfolk.

7

Mosquitoes just above the roofs

Mosquitoes just above the roofs

Mustang above the rooftops

The burning Shellhus

2 Mosquitoes flying through the streets (watch the Mosquito on the left just above the ground)

Destroyed Shellhus with camouflage paint 8

From the 28 Mustangs, two were lost. The first of flight Lieutenant Drew was hit by Flak and crashed, killing the Flight Lieutenant. The other Mustang was also hit but Pilot Officer Hamilton managed to get away a live after he had made a pancake landing. However he got caught by the Germans.

Map of Copenhagen with the important points.

4 minutes after the first Moqsuito had dropped his bombs, the attack was over. In total 40 500lb MC and type .76 incendiarie bombs were dropped.

Results The following day, a reconnaissance aircraft of No. 34 Wing took off and photographed the area. Damage done by the Mosquitoes was severe. The top storey and roof of the south front were destroyed to ground level. The west wing was destroyed nearly to ground level and the east wing, the top storey and roof were destroyed and the floor below damaged. While the plane was taking pictures, rescue work was still being carried out. Later the RAF received a picture from the resistance, showing the building burning from end to end. The RAF and the Danish resistance called the attack a success. The Gestapo headquarters was destroyed and as a result the Gestapo has to put a hold on their operations. The files about the Danish resistance were destroyed. Some cabinets with documents about Danes who had collaborated with the Gestapo survived the bombing. These documents were of great importance after the war. 18 Gestapo prisoners got away. 55 German soldiers, 47 Danish employees of the Gestapo and 8 prisoners died in the Shellhus.

How come that so many prisoners get out alive? The Shellhus was hit by 8 bombs of 500 pounds: 6 in the western wing and 2 in the eastern wing. The west wing collapsed and a fire started. This fire spread to the rest of the building thanks to the wind. Few bombs hit the building. The 6 bombs in the western wing killed 6 of the 9 prisoners instantly. One died when he jumped from the fifth floor to the ground. All the 14 prisoners in the southern wing survived because no bombs hit this part of the building. The other 3 prisoners were interrogated during the attack on the fifth floor. One of these prisoners died. If all the Mosquitoes managed to drop all their bombs none of the prisoner would have get out alive.

The Germans put out a rumor that almost all the Gestapo officials were out at a funeral at the time of the attack. However official information from Denmark states that 151 Gestapo men were killed and 30 Danish prisoners got away. These numbers are false.

When the first Mosquitoes flew over Copenhagen, German command thought that the Mosquitoes wanted to destroy the German cruiser Leipzig. This cruiser was in the harbor during the attack and provided the most anti-aircraft fire.

This attack was widely published in the British press and the press of the Danish resistance. It was a military triumph and a boost for the morale of the Danish citizens.

9

The Jeanne d’Arc school had been destroyed. Pilots thought that the buring wreckage of Kleboe’s Mosquito was the buring Shellhus. As a result the other pilots dropped their bombs ons the school. In a fraction of a second the catholic school was changed into a bomb crater. Nuns were desperate running around, trying to save the children who were still alive. People started to dig in the rubble, looking for children who were not death. The firemen arrived and started to put out the fire. When the fire was out, rescuers got to the school cellars. They found the bodies of 42 children who had drowned in the water from the firemen’s hoses. In total there were 86 of the 482 children death. Also 16 adults lost their lives. 35 adults and 67 children were wounded.

Several others died around the target.

In total 125 Danish civilians were killed.

Jean d’Arch school

Area around the school

10

grave of Flight Lieutenant Drew at Bispebjerg Kirkegaard

A real success?

From a military point Operation Carthage was a success. The documents were destroyed, prisoners escaped and the Gestapo lost a lot of men. But it came with a deadly cost. Four Mosuitoes F.B. VI were lost and two Mustangs F.III crashed, killing nine airmen on Allied side. Three are buried at Bispebjerg Kirkegaard, the other 6 crashed over the sea. Only Squadron Leader Becker was found.

Shellhus today

For the people who are interested I have found a small documentary (Âą 20 minutes) on Youtube about the raid. It has some awesome parts of visuals, filmed by the FPU Mosquitoes.

By LordOfHara

11

12

Waffenträger Panzer IV Developed in 1942-1944

Characteristics: Crew: -Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Man, Loader (2x) Weight: -23-25 t Length (metres) : -8,1 (128mm K81) Width (metres) : -3,1

Height (metres) : -2,5 Armor: -30/8/8 mm Engine: -Maybach HL 157 P Speed: -45-50 km/h (17 km/h for the real version) Radio: -FuG 12 Armament: -15cm PaK L/29.5 -12.8cm K44 L/55 (Velocity 920 m/s, 360°, 28 kg AP round) -12.8cm K44/2 L/61 (Not the same as Jagdtiger, somewhat better in performance, higher RoF could be reached) -15cm PaK L/38 (This is not historical) 360° turret

Development In the process of separating self-propelled artillery mount production from tank manufacture, the development of socalled „Waffenträger” had been going on since 1942. The Waffenamt (Wa Prüf 4) bought firms that were not directly involved in tank production into the process.

The originally established military requirements called for, among other things: -A fully-tracked chassis, independent of tank production, with a production engine that allowed a marching speed of about 17 km/h.

-Provisions for dismounting the gun by means available to the troops. All equipment had to be carried on the vehicle.

-All-around fire with 360-degree traverse, both on the vehicle and when removed.

-The gun was to be mobile on its own wheeled mount.

-Shrapnel protection for the crew, 8mm armor plate being considered sufficient.

-Uniform chassis on which a choice of several weapons could be carried.

12.8cm K44 on wheels

13

On this basis, several developmental studies were worked out, including, among others, consideration of using chassis components of the Panzer IV and III/IV. Wa Prüf 4 had established the following designations for these vehicles: „Einheits-Waffenträger, Grösse I” and „EinheitsWaffenträger, Grösse II” (Grösse means size, Einheits means universal)

Suggestions were made, involving Panzer IV or III/IV chassis components, for a „Mittleren Waffenträger (Mittleren means medium) für 15 cm sFH 18 (L/29.5)” and a „Mittleren Waffenträger für 12.8cm K 81 (L/55).”

Supertest Leaks

The first prototypes, presented by Krupp, Steyr and Rheinmetall, found only limited approval, since they had turned out to be too complicated and too ponderous. The industry thereupon suggested means of simplification, and Wa Prüf 4 stated its readiness to drop some of its requirements. Despite all of this, no statisfactory solution could be found.

On February 4, 1944, on the occasion of a conference at Steyr-Daimler-Punch, a representative of Wa Prüf 4 presented requirements for a Waffenträger which had been changed again. Among other things, it was stated in them that the development of these vehicles was not to amount to a stopgap measure, meaning the placing of a weapon on an already existing chassis. The complete vehicle was to be developed especially for this purpose.

The Panzer IV and III/IV chassis were now dropped as the basis of this development, since a lighter vehicle was preferred. It should be kept in mind that at this point the Panzer IV was already regarded as a model that would not be produced indefinitely, and that it was only a matter of time until its production would be halted.

By Ilosz Sources: Panzer IV & Its Variants, W alter J. Spielberger German Anti-Tank Guns 1939-1945, T. J. Gander

14

Sturer Emil Development Starting in 1939, preliminary designs were conceived for self-propelled guns, known as schwere Betonknacker (heavy concrete busters), which were intended to be used against strong fortifications such as those being constructed by the French. Utilizing a previously designed 12,8 cm Flak gun, the design of the superstucture and gun was assigned to Rheinmetall and design of the chassis was assigned to Henschel.

A 12,8 cm Kanone L61 was to be designed utilizing the Flak gun tube with carriage and recoil cylinders from the 12,8 cm Flak Gerät 40. The gun by itself weighted 7,835 tons. Mounted on a chassis and surrounded by an open top superstucture, traverse was limited to 12 degrees (7 degrees right and 5 degrees left) with an elevation arc from -15 to +10 degrees. A 12,8 cm Sprenggranate L/4.5 mit Rauchentwichler Nr.9 weighing 26 kg was fired at a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s. A 12,8 cm Panzergranate mit Lichtspurhuelse Nr.4 and weighing 26,35 kg (including 190 gram HE filler) was also fired at a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s.

Components designed for the VK 30.01 were to be incorporated into the Versuchs-Fahrgestell (trial chassis) for the Pz.Sfl.V. Details on the components and design considerations were related in the following Henschel report on the „Sfl.V”:

-Weight: 36 metric tons, maximum speed 19,6 km/h -Pz-Wanne (armor hull): Special model due to its length and mounting a Rheinmetall-Borsig 12,8 cm gun that is to be dismountable. Armor on the front consisted of 50 mm thick rolled plates, while armor plates on the hull sides were 30mm thick.

Superstucture without roof. The hull is longer than the VK 30.01 because of the location of the gun mount, but it is of single piece construction like the VK 30.01.

-Gleiskette (tracks): Same as the VK 30.01, but longer.

-Motor: Mabach 6 cylinder HL 116, but a special model because the engine is higher than the radiators.

-Kuehlung (Cooling): Same as the VK 30.01 but mounted lower. The fan drives are aligned differently, as well as the cooling air path.

-Ketten-Antrieb (track drive): Lower gear ratio because of the longer track contact requires increased steering capability -Laufraeder (roadwheels): One whell more (8 total per side) because of a higher total weight than the VK 30.01 Oberbaurat Kniepkamp had concerns that the track would be thrown because of the great length between the last outer roadwheel and the idler wheel. The order for the inner and outer roadwhells was selected so that it results in both ends having 1300mm distance between the track leaving the roadwheel and being supported by the drive sprocket or idler.

-Stabfedern (torsion bars): As a backfit modification the last two roadwheels on both sides had stronger torsion bars. This was done to eliminate the vehicle rocking so strongly that the gunner couldn’t observe the target again until after the projectile had already hit.

A crew of five manned this self-propelled gun. As always, the names applied to this project evolved with time, as follows: -12,8 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61 Pz.Sfl.V (Rheinmetall, 1940) -Schwere Betonknacker (In 6, 30Jul1941) -Pz.Sfl. fuer 21,8 cm K.40 (W a Z 4, 14Jan1942)

15

Production Henschel was awarded a contract by Wa Pruef 6 to complete two Versuchs-Fahrgestell (trial chassis) and Rheinmetall was given a contract by Wa Pruef 4 to complete 4 guns. It was still being designed in 1940. On 25 April 1940 WaJ Rue (WuG 6) reported on the status of new models in development by Wa Pruef 6, including a 13 cm Kan. (Pz.Sfl.) auf Fahrgestell des VK 30.01 weighing about 35 tons. At this time the two Versuchssteueck were planned to be delivered in December 1940. If testing proved these to be suitable, AHA intended to order about 100. As reported in July 1941, the detailed drawings needed for production were available to meet the scheduled delivery of both self-propelled guns in August/September 1941. Finally, both Pz.Sfl. fuer 12,8 cm K.40 were assembled and tested by RheinmetallBorsig in early 1942.

Combat Employment An order by the Org.Abt. on 15 May 1942, both 12,8cm Kan. Sfl. and the single surviving 10cm Kan. Sfl. were assigned to a PanzerjägerZug that was incorporated into Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sfl.) 521.

It is possible, that the in-game stats will look something similar like this:

As you see the Guns have high RoF, this is because without this quality, the tank will be only an oversized Dickermax with the same Guns. Accuracy and Aim time stays quite low. Note that this tank is Open-Topped, also has 2 gunner. Penetration is over all Tier 7s and can compete with Tier 8 TDs, in both Penetration and Avg. Dmg.(Of course OP ISU-152 lefts everything behind) Mobility is fairly low, because of weak engines and way too big size(Actually it is bigger, than Porsches’s Ferdinand), this gives 8,15 hp/t whit the historical 320 HP engine. I would say it is the King of Glass Cannons!

By Ilosz 16

Maus: The super-heavy tank The project called Maus was without doubt the largest armoured vehicle built in World War II. The tank which was a mobile fortress, more than 10m long 3,6m high and its weight reached 188 tons. Not before nor after such a large tank was built.

During the mid-30s the German army was rearming itself after leaving the treaty of Versailles. This brought to surface the increasing need for armoured combat vehicles. As a result of continous development the tank’s weight kept increasing. After seeing the success of the Tiger I tank the German high command and espacially Adolf Hitler decided that even heavier designs should be used, even though heavier tanks meant higher costs and more technical difficulties.

The Germans started to design a super heavy tank in 1941, based on their battle experiences gained on the eastern front. The original idea was to improve the Tiger I tank, but the VK72.01 project – led by Krupp company – was cancelled in March, 1942. Instead, an entirely new tank design was preferred. A larger and heavier one. The Tiger I with proper maintenance and supply could dominate the battlefields. The German command thought an even heavier tank could maintain and extend this dominance even further, making the German tank forces undefeatable.

The new design had 100t weight and could (theoretically) carry 100 rounds of ammunition. The lead designer of the project was dr. Ferdinand Porsche who was well known for his successful civil and military vehicle designs. Only weeks after starting the project the lead designers – dr. Porsche and dr. Müller – had a meeting with Hitler. He was not satisfied by the 100-ton design, instead he envisioned a 120-ton tank with the largest available gun and indestructible armour.

This absurd idea lacked any common sense: a tank does not only depend on its firepower and protection. It has to be mobile and able to cross country-terrain. A 120-ton beast was clearly incapable of that.

The engineers however did not think about the actual usefulness of the tank on the battlefield and accepted the new challenge.

The new plans consisted of a 150mm L/40 main armament, supported by additional 20mm MG151 heavy machineguns. The first prototype was planned to be ready by the spring of 1943. During the development Ferdinand Porsche discovered that the tank could carry even more weapons: a 150mm L/37 main gun and a secondary 105mm L/70 gun. Other options were also considered: a 127mm naval gun or a 128mm heavy anti-tank gun. These changes lengthened the development process, postponing the planned finish to the summer of 1943.

By that time difficulties in future mass-production were already anticipated. Due to the complexity of manufacturing such large and heavy tanks Krupp company agreed to produce no more than 5 tanks per month. Even if the super heavy-tank ever made it to the battlefield it wouldn’t have had significant effect in such small numbers. But the engineers did not care much about such negligible matters and kept developing the Maus with great enthusiasm.

In the beginning of 1943 Hitler once again had a meeting with the lead designers and came up with new requirements. The reasons behind this decision is unknown. He wanted the prototype to carry a 128mm main and a 75mm secondary armament, and the final model to be able to carry the 150mm KwK 44 L/71 or a 170mm KwK 48 gun. These changes requred more time and redesign of many components. The original turret could not house a 170mm gun, the new turret was heavier, so the hull had to be reinforced as well. The increased weight affected the suspension and the tracks – these components had to be changed too. The new construction – weighting 188 tons! – finally satisfied Hitler’s megalomaniac desire. Hitler and some engineers thought they built an unrivalled technological wonder – while others had already seen the inevitable failure.

17

The first prototype was built with a wooden turret. It was introduced to Hitler in 1943. He was satisfied and immediately ordered 150 Maus tanks (note that it would have taken at least 2,5 years to construct them). By the end of 1943 the first Maus should have been ready but in reality only the hull was finished. Other parts were missing too: steel sheets protecting the engine and driver’s optics.

First driving tests had quite bad results: the power of the DaimlerBenz MB509 engine was simply not enough, the motorised hull could barely reach 13km/h speed (the planned max. speed was 20km/h, respectively). In addition the tracks were too weak to reliably hold the tank and frequently broke. (Note that the tank did not yet carry the turret!)

Then additional steel units were put on the tank, representing the turret. The overwhelmed engine could not cope with the increased weight, the engineers at Daimler-Benz were asked to improve it. The redesigned tank was finished in March, 1944. It was armed with the planned 128mm and 75mm guns, but it lost its ability to carry a 170mm gun. The 128mm gun could destroy any possible targets of the time but the tank was still very slow and sluggish. It also consumed incredible amount of fuel.

Daimler-Benz engineers were asked again to improve the engine. In the meantime minor upgrades were made on the armament.

Further improvements were planned but were eventually interrupted by Hitler who demanded working, battle-ready tanks at once. The two prototypes were equipped with improved, 1200 horse-power DB 517 Diesel engines, and their tracks had some final improvement too. However, manufacturing could not start, as allied bombers destroyed many of the factories producing the vital components.

Field tests have shown the critical drawbacks of the tank: it required a specially designed railway wagon for transportation.

Although its firepower and armour protection was unmatched, its mobility and manouverability was horrible. The Maus frequently broke down and most time on the testing grounds were spent on repairs. It couldn’t cross smaller bridges either due to its weight. Despite its good gun and armour the Maus was nearly useless as a tank.

Only one prototype survived the war. The Red Army tested it in 1951-1952, some of its components were removed then it was transported to Kubinka Tank Museum.

By Lbano

18

VK30.01H heavy tank Comparison to its piers, to its pre-patch version, and to the VK30.02M

Comparison to its own self Before 8.8, the VK30.01H was not the best T6 German med (it was one of six T6 mediums, mind you), but ir was widely considered to be one of the most fun T6 tanks to play. Good mobility, quick RoF and decent penetration meant it could be played as a fast dpm-sniper/flanker medium. Armour was never a thing to rely on, but in a med you are always better off avoiding gunfire than trying to tank it. It wasn't a de facto heavy like the VK36.01H, which as a medium had the third or fourth highest HP pool in the tier, it really was a medium.

In patch 8.8, as we all know, the VK30.01H was rebalanced by being rclessified as a heavy, and retiered to tier 5. Here is a little comparison to its own prepatch self, to its classmates at tier 5, and to its successor, the VK30.02M.

In 8.8 all the atributes that made the 30.01H a good med were taken from it.

The mobility is now very (and by very I mean almost identical to) similar to the one of the KV-1, speed has been greatly reduced, just as turret and hull traverse. HP-wise it hasn't changed much, it has 660 HP now. It has been upgunned, getting the 75mm Konisch as top gun, giving it 7 more milimetres of pen. Armour is the exact same as it was, no change there.

In short if you liked playing the tank because you could snipe well with it, I think you can make it work in its new position, if you played it for its mobility, you will have to be very patient and re-learn the tank (if you can live with it).

19

Comparison of the "old" VK 30.01H to the VK 30.02M Note: This part will be based much more on impressions than facts and stats.

First of all: the VK M is a completely different machine. It is to be played differently, it has some attributes the VK H could only have wet dreams about, but it also lacks some things the VK H had.

Let's start with the thing that hasn't changed at all: The gun. It's the old and reliable 7.5 cm KwK42 L/70, withe 150mm's of penetration and a vents and rammer DPM of 2286, which is roughly identical to what the VK H had.

Compared to the VK H, the VK M is less mobile, is taller (therefore has a worse camo coefficient - barely noticable if you ask me, but I had them both painted) and is overall bigger. What the VK M does have however, is armour. I don't have the ingame stats with me now, but from memory the Panther Ausf. D (what the VK M in essence is) had 80mm at the front at a 35째angle .

from vertical and 40mm at the front at 30째 angle from vertical (like I said, I don't have the armour tables with me, I'm writing on my phone), which give it a serious frontal and considerable side armour protection. The turret had some 80mm front with a 110mm mantlet if I recall correctly, which is a huge step up from the VK H. The VK M also has 370 metres of viewrange, which is about the same as the VK H's was and a rather large HP pool of 840, which is higher than of some T6 heavy tanks and T7 TD's.

These make the VK M much more of a "universal" tank than the VK H, and probably the best T6 German med, which supplements the VK 36.01H nicely on the battlefield.

R.I.P. ;(

20

I am getting often asked which one is better. Is it in game, forums or from friends directly. I will try to explain according to my point of view the differences between them, pros and cons with some personal opinions.

Both vehicles are very similar on paper, but in reality they differ quite alot while playing them. Both vehicles are researched from in my opinion best medium tank there is, the T-54 soviet tier 9 medium tank. Looking strictly only on their paper statistics one might really think that the Object 140 is a clone of the T-62A and in fact they share the same gun, similar turret thickness and speed, but overall they differ.

Asap when I started to play this medium Soviet tank I felt kind of strange. It was noticable less agile then the T-62A and also had a worse turret rotation speed. The biggest difference was the shooting while moving. Same shots that I easily hit with the T-62A I struggled to hit with the Object 140 while using the same crew for both vehicles. One pleasant surprise was the better gun depression, but thats it in terms of advantages for the Object 140 over the T-62A. Honestly I expected more... The speed is roughly the same and so is the rate of fire with identical penetration values, but it feels way more clumsy in comparsion the T-62A handling. Also what caught my attention was the very often damaged ammorack. While the T-62A is prone to catch fire, the Object 140 gets its ammorack damaged very often. Similar ammorack damage frequency I experienced on the Centurions.

So even the turret is nothing special in comparsion to the T-62A as I mentioned and does not offer much of an advantage in comparsion to the T -62A turret. Both have same camo values with the Object 140 maybe having a slightly better camo on the move potential, but that is very hard to test. Just by playing it I had the feeling that it moves more stealthy. Other then that the differences are very unsignificant.

Both mediums perform very similar with similar roles on the battlefield.

I was expecting to get a T-54 on steroids and that thought made me very looking forward to playing it, but sadly a dissapointment followed very soon. The Object 140 was prolly ment as a brawler, but in my opinion it kind of fails doing so with comparsion the the T-54. One of the reasons are the weak ammoracks on the Object 140. I would compare it to the Leopard PT1 ammorack, but still slightly better then the Centurion ammorack problems.

This Picture shows how the turret armor thickness can be misleading on paper and how it is in the game actually.

These penetration holes were made with standard T-62A ammunition. The only area for good ricochet potential are the edges of the turret. Not even mentioning the two cupolas that are very easy targets from close range.

Shots near the gun are nearly guaranteed penetrations for any decent T8 gun.

Object 140 cons:

Object 140 pros:

-Slower turret rotation -Misleading turret thickness -Two cupola weakspots -Shooting on the move -Ammorack weakness

-excelent gun depression for a Soviet tank -small size -decent upper front plate angle -HEAT ricochet potential

So which medium to choose from those two?

Why not do both?

By lonigus 21

M

y beloved readers I would like to introduce myself. I am Lord of Hara and I will be your guide in a trip through the Q&A sections of WOT. Q&A or questions and answers is the place where players can ask all their questions to the WOT developers. Because the game is made by Belarusian people almost all the Q&A information comes from the Russian forum. On the Russian forum we can find SerB. SerB or Sergey Burkatovsky is WG vice-president and gives almost all the answers in the Q&A. SerB loves to troll the players. That will be clear after reading this article.

Q&A

By LordofHara

-Captured or lend-lease tanks won’t come in 2013, they have very low priority. Same for the ‘airborne’ tanks.

-There are three new city maps coming: Stalingrad, Kharkov and Minsk. The time when they will be implemented is not yet known.

-The new aim reticle (with dot and reload timer) will come out in 8.9.

-No tier 8 French premium medium tank has been found.

-Unified chat and friend contacts between WoT and WoWP are planned.

-There are plans for more crew perks. It will happen much sooner in WoWP than in WoT. Q: “Will Maus characteristics be changed? And please answer without trolling.”

A:”……….. (here there was supposed to be the trolling, but you asked for no trolling, so…)”

-US rebalance has been postponed from 8.9 till later.

Q: “M6A2E1 HT is underperforming in regular MM spread” A: “How terrible…

-Storm on King Tiger armor changes: “The turret front remained the same. The mantlet became 20mm thinner on some places, commander’s copula was buffed from 80 to 150mm, the hatch in the rear part of the turret became 10mm thicker. The bow machinegun stopped being a weakspot (earlier 120mm, now 150mm). According to the words of Hilary Doyle, German machinegun gun shields provided roughly the same level of protection as the main armor. So that’s how we’re going to slowly do it. ” -Soviet breaktrough tanks (T-35, SMK, T-100) will be implemented in WoT. SMK

T-35

T-100

22

-It’s possible SU-85i and Panzer IV Hydro will be obtainable as mission reward. (These tanks are already modeled but are not yet available for the regular player. )

SU-85i Panzer IV Hydro -Sturer Emil will not be called Sturer Emil in game, because it was just an unofficial name.

-KV-1S will not be nerved but split into KV-85 and KV-122.

I-n 8.9, some tier IV-VII arties will be buffed. However top tier arties will not be nerved, their stats are fine.

-T23 will return “in an unexpected way”. (T23 was an American tier VIII medium tank during beta, it has been replaced by M26)

-Big caliber guns with muzzle brakes demask a shooting tank a lot.

-T-44-122 will be a reward tank for supertesters only.

-The frontal plate of King Tiger is historical now (100mm), the120 mm picture circulating on the internet is wrong.

-SerB states that the whole E-series was based on the Tiger II design, therefore the E-50 lower frontal plate was nerfed accordingly to 100mm.

-If you see garage interface issues, such as incorrect XP calculations etc., it can be a result of mods installed.

-If two tanks fire at each other and (theoretically) destroy each other with one shot, only one will die. The one, who (according to the server) fired faster. In other words, when a tank dies, its fired shell apparently disappears.

Q: “SerB, don’t you think you consider yourself God in WG?” A: “No, that would be Storm. I am Satan.”

Q: On Westfield map ther e was a bush r emoved on F0, but ther e was nothing in patchnotes?

A: “How terrible…”

Q: Mountain Pass (F6 quadr ant) is missing one path that could be climbed?

A: “How terrible…”

Q: Was ther e in El Halluf a hill r ewor ked at G6?

A: “How terrible…”

-French arty won’t recieve a shell velocity buff.

-Lowe won’t be changed in the future, its stats are fine.

-AMX-30 does fit the WoT timescale and it is possible it will be introduced as 2nd French top medium.

-For now there are no concrete plans to allow players to get a tier 7-8 premium tank as a mission reward, but SerB states that if such a thing ever comes, the mission will be very difficult.

-SerB doesn’t think the “VK3002M” is a dull name and that it should be called “Prototype Panther”, as the VK3002M is historical.

-Maps returning from re-work “sometimes” have bigger chance to drop when they are implemented like completely new map.

23

-More than one arty branch per nation is not planned, but principally possible.

-Panzer I Ausf.C has regular MM of a tier 3 LT. -Löwe won’t be changed/made into a regular vehicle and added into a German heavy line despite the fact it would fit perfectly, because “it’s a popular premium vehicle”. SerB later states that such a thing did sort of happen with the Type 59 – WZ-120, but that was a special case, because the Chinese didn’t have enough tanks.

-SerB confirms that the graphics requirements of WoT will increase (“it won’t be possible to play on grandma’s calculator”), but he states they will try to save whatever old settings they can.

-Putting a crew into your tank by one click (just like it is removable by one click now) will be implemented.

-IS-3 and Panzer V/IV (alpha tester tank) will receive collision model changes. The Panzer V/IV will also receive a rebalance.

The new hull will be the hull of the ingame Panther and the turret will become the top turret of the Panzer IV.

-Dead crewmember recieves only 90 percent of the crew XP, if he gets revived by a medkit, he gets full 100 percent.

-Both BIA and ventilation do influence camouflage skill.

-There are no plans for now to implement captured KV-1 (German vehicle).

Q: “Is it possible to make WoT realistic?”

A: “Sure, we only have to introduce infantry (ration like 1 batallion on 1 tank), engineers, AT-guns and howitzers and burning gasoline splashing from the screen. Otherwise the fight will be unrealistic.”

-AMX-50/100 armor is fine according to SerB. -It’s completely possible that when tank overturning is implemented, a tank, going down hill full speed will roll on its back if it gets detracked by inertia.

-Hitpoints of each vehicle are not calculated randomly, WG has a program/Excel table algorithm to calculate it, but the formula for it won’t be disclosed.

-E-50 has the worst camo factor of all T9 meds.

Source: FTR 24

Mindset Question: Playstyle Mindset and an Analysis of Various Styles Being a high-ranking member of a tank academy has many perks, such as endless garage slots, free premium tanks and being able to tell things happening before it happens (such as when my enemies will spontaneously explode in a hail of ammo rack fury, or how the future matchmaking system works). But the one perk that cannot be underestimated, and for practical purposes of this Mindset Question dialogue, is that I get unfettered attention from newcomers in SGTA (that’s the tank academy I founded) when I want to see their skills. This perk has some great advantages, it allows me to see how inexperienced players play, thus allowing me to stomp future inexperienced enemies with impunity, but it also allows me to seriously examine what common mistakes players make when they are confronted with different situations. Few in the game will have the consistent and real -time experimental guinea pigs (all students please use normal complaint procedures!) that I have when out on these testing trips, especially when I am hosting one of my infamous ‘Experimental Tank Companies’ (cue Roninrage exploding in the background under a hail of fire and death).

in this current article will remain roughly the same. The player, when in a battle engagement, has only 3 choices if I may generalize the choices greatly, the player can: play aggressively, play defensively or play with a mixed set of aggressiveness and defensiveness. Truth be told, it seems obvious that the third mixed option is the most realistic. However, in my various testing with students in SGTA and sample platoons and Tank Companies, I

AIs such as Call of Duty in which the player kills the charging enemies with ease.

The perhaps unexpected reality is that aggressive playing has an almost undeniable link with a high victory rate, as observed by me in countless profiles and ingame experiences. With certain but few exceptions, purely aggressive players outshine defensive players in almost every sector except survival rate, average

have reached a curious finding, which I will explain below.

survival time, which aggressive players tend to fall behind on. A mixed result in an area of interest is that purely aggresThe Aggressive Method sive players achieve roughly the same amount of kills as defensive players. DeIn my definition, a purely aggressive player is the type that seeks to attack the spite all these, perhaps the most crucial piece of analysis I’ve gained is that agenemy regardless of the circumstances.

The aggressive player will constantly be gressive players tends to define the The topic I wish to discuss in this article on the lookout for a weakspot in the ene- chances of success for the entire team. A will be specifically focused on what hap- my lines to exploit, or in the case in highly skilled aggressive player tends to either spot enough enemies in the initial pens in a solo or ‘one-versus-one’ enwhich there is no certain weakspot, the counter in a battle. I recently hosted a aggressive tanker will charge in through stages of the game to bring almost certain victory to his/her team (through allied special session with students in the acad- the most familiar path he/she knows on tanks taking out a large number of eneemy on solo combat, which involved the map, making plans and improvising each student facing me in a solo encoun- as he/she goes along. There is a common mies in the initial stages), a poor aggressive player tends to do what is usually ter. The results were varied, with some default consensus amongst people, but expected, a useless kamikaze driver who achieving more success than others. But a especially newcomers to this game, that dies with no net contribution to the team. few common traits were clearly visible aggressiveness equates to suicide. AgThis concept of confirming the victory by for those who, like me, were specifically gressive playing tends to be viewed by aggressive players I will go into more looking for it. I wish to engage on a ramany with frowns and head-shaking. The detail later in this article. ther important playstyle finding I’ve dis- mindset to understanding this is quite covered in this article. simple, people who charge out of cover In my last article (‘Mindset Question: To to engage a defensive player will take Order or Not to Order, That is the Ques- more hits and die even before reaching the enemy lines. This conception may be tion’) I talked in highly sarcastic tones about, in essence, which choice to make influenced by historical Japanese kamikain a complete list of 3 choices. The logic ze charges or too much FPS charges by 25

The Defensive Method

thing to do and indeed a very rare occurrence in World of Tanks. The vast majority of player in this game who achieves beyond a 56% win rate uses the mixed playstyle method. The The purely defensive distinction between an aggressive and defensive player to a player in my defini- mixed playstyle player is that the mixed player can switch betion is a player who tween the aggressive and defensive styles, whether consciously seeks to hold his po- or subconsciously, and perhaps more importantly, the mixed sition in an advanta- playstyle player knows when to switch between the playstyles geous location, usually a spot he/she knows well. A resolutely under different circumstances. defensive player will never take the initiative to go to the front Ask people which playstyle in the 3 given is the best and they lines but instead chooses to be amongst the second wave of will undoubtedly tell you the mixed style is better. But then ask allied tanks or simply become a ‘camper’ in the rear. More them why they think this is so, and many will struggle to give skilled defensive players may decide to relocate to a further you a good and robust reason. Sure, knowing how to attack and back location if the enemy is pushing too far into allied front defend is better than only knowing how to either attack or delines or push further in if allies has broken very far inwards fend, but why is that so? enemy territory, however, usually defensive players tends to hold their initial position even when the enemy has pushed I have attempted to answer this since I began my World of through the front line or the enemy lines has collapsed. As stat- Tanks experience. After a long search, I am finally confident ed earlier, there seems to be a mostly common mindset that enough to bring an assessment to the table. This is my personal playing defensively equates to safety. That in the heat of a cha- opinion and obviously people are free to object to it, but thus otic battle, staying behind the very front line will grant a longer far I have seen this theory put to the test and passed with flying survival time. Purely defensive players seem to have a common colours. mentality that yearns for the greatest amount of effect on the The reason why mixed playstyle players are rather successful is battlefield with the least amount of effort, whether consciously that they feed off the failings of the other playstyles. This asseror subconsciously. tion may be so subtle on the battlefield many will not believe it, Despite general stereotype, many purely defensive players do but it is in fact quite real. The aggressive player will usually not have a lack of skills. I have seen more than a definitive end up scouting the enemy tanks, but will not have enough time amount of defensive players who possess substantial skills that, stay still to gain many hits or due to their tank choice, be simpif their playstyle changes, can make a tremendous impact on ly incapable to deal a great amount of damage. A mixed style the battlefield. What I tend to find many times is that, defensive player capitalizes on this and follows the aggressive player, players waste a lot of their skills waiting in the rear hoping for however, when the enemy tanks have their sights trained on the the enemy to pop into their line of fire, this puts greater strain first or nearest tank they see (the aggressive player), the mixed on the rest of the team as a waiting player is a player who is style player stops or slows down to shoot at distracted targets. contributing nothing to the team during the time he/she is wait- One common trait about mixed players relative to aggressive ing. Hence, defensive players tends to complain quite a lot players is that they are usually the last people getting shot at, or about useless teams who die in less than 5 minutes. There are seemingly always the player who gets the ‘easiest time’ as nousually around 5-7 defensive players in a team, which means body on the enemy team seems to care where they are or what almost half of the team is at best not moving and at worst althey do. This is not due to luck, but rather to the skill of the ready disengaged from the team from the outset. What tends to mixed player to place themselves in a situation, both psychohappen is that the aggressive and mixed playstyle members of logically (in relation to the enemy tanker’s mind) and physicalthe team will be put under too much strain, who then dies. ly (in relation to their location on the map), as seemingly the Leaving only the defensive players to fend for themselves. De- smallest threat, when in reality they are the largest threat to the fensive players, who rarely think about how to cover other de- enemy tank. fensive players, struggle against multiple enemies as they are Comparing with defensive players, mixed playstyle player essentially playing a one versus many situation, and ends up compensates on the lack of spotting abilities of the defensive dying too in an unsatisfying slaughter. player and temporarily switches to an aggressive mode. HowPurely defensive players relies heavily on the skill level of ever, most mixed style players do not care for the circumstancfriendly team members. Their performance increases dramati- es of the defensive players and tends to spot and kill the enecally as the level of skill on allied tanks increase. Thus for ex- mies according to their own situation. Any kills gained by defensive players in this instance is usually by chance that their ample, if the aggressive and mixed playstyle members of a location offers them the shot. In short, the mixed style player team has very high levels of skill, then the defensive players gains the damage which the aggressive player fails to deal, but will perform significantly better than if the former does not have sufficient skill. Because of this reliance on the rest of the also gains the damage the defensive player is unable to deal.

Combining these two factors, it makes the mixed player a deadteam, defensive players’ performance varies; however, a conly adversary which always ends up getting the most damage sistent statistic that appears is that they have a high survival and kills, thus their excellent statistics in their profiles. Howevrate and a very low ‘distance travelled’ count. er, the most important aspect of the mixed player is that he/she Mixed Playstyle Method is still dependent on the aggressive player, but not the defensive player.

Mixing the aggressive and defensive playstyle is a very hard 26

Detailed Analysis The consequences of the mixed player’s dependency on aggressive players are quite substantial. In short, this makes the aggressive player the most tactically important part of the team, as the performances of both the mixed and defensive players depends on how well they play aggressively. However, unlike the defensive player, the mixed player can still compensate for the lack of an aggressive player by temporarily becoming aggressive themselves, but this reduces the overall efficiency of the team as then there is no primary damage dealer, as the mixed player has turned temporarily into an aggressive player, a vacuum where the mixed player was, now exists.

The impact of this finding on defensive players may seem quite damning. This effectively means that defensive players are the only players that is not necessary within a team to make it effective. However, in reality, this argument does not hold. All too common is the occasional mistake made by the aggressive and mixed players that a few enemies slip past the front lines (especially when later on in the battle, a front line cannot be defined clearly). Those enemies who slip past the aggressive and mixed players have huge potential in their hands. We all know the horrific consequences if an enemy tank somehow managed to

get behind your tank, stops and starts shooting. Those infiltrated tanks (which are effectively the enemy team’s mixed playstyle players… as enemy aggressive players will usually just scout, but not shoot) will deal massive amounts of damage. In situations like these, the defensive player’s time to shine has come. Whether those infiltrated tanks decide to turn around and shoot at allied advancing tanks or simply try to capture the base, the defensive tank will prove the most useful, as it is they who will either track that infiltrated tank or simply ambush it and then destroy it. Defensive tanks struggle against enemy aggressive tanks merely because usually the element of surprise is on the enemy aggressive tanks at the start of the game, when defensive tanks has not yet got into their positions. But the defensive tanks are the bane of the mixed playstyle tanker. Why do you hear highly skilled players complaining about ‘campers’? Well… because it is usually that they got ambushed by the defensive players and died as they didn’t suspect them to be there, which seems to most people like a cowardly way to kill an enemy, especially to the killed person, but in the end the defensive players has just performing their role well, nothing else.

Overall, and with as little confusion made here as possible, it can be said that the aggressive players are the most tactically important part of the team, as they are the people who the mixed and defensive players depend on to improve their own performances, as mixed and defensive players’ performance increases proportionally to the aggressive player’s performance. The mixed players are the main damage dealers, hence usually the players who wins the match as the team must kill the enemy tanks (no point spotting them all if nobody is going to kill them). Defensive players are tactically the least important, but in reality their role is usually misunderstood but not unimportant. Defensive players are effectively the counter to the enemy team’s mixed players, and in cases in which enough time is given, defensive players can also counter enemy aggressive players. The role of the defensive player is to, in effect, protect the allied aggressive and mixed players and prevent the enemy team from capturing the base. It can also be added that part of the roles of the combination of aggressive and mixed players is to search and destroy enemy defensive players, but rarely will you see only an aggressive player or only a mixed player challenging and defeating a defensive player, at least not with some sort of help by other players.

27

Conclusion Theoretically, the argument I’ve put forward holds rather well. However, practically, the reality is somewhat different, as hardly anybody, if any at all, knows what their roles are on the battlefield.

Even fewer put their roles into practice.

Obviously, the roles you can perform depend on your skill level and another important factor is your tank choice.

However, all too often you can see a slow heavy tank playing aggressively or a fast light tank playing defensively. This shows that those players do not know their roles, which can seem quite obvious to most people. But let’s say… what do you expect the driver of a Pershing to do? Or perhaps a balanced tank like the Type 59, which combines good armor with respectable speed, manoeuvrability and firepower. Players of balanced tanks such as the Type 59 and the Pershing has the most potential on their hands, they can play one of any of the three playstyles mentioned earlier. How well they do is then only dependent on their skill and knowledge of their roles.

When it comes down to who is a better player in World of Tanks, I do not judge by looking at statistics that often, as they are a construct of how good or bad your team ultimately is. A highly capable player within a collection of players who performs the wrong role with the wrong playstyle in the wrong tank will get steamrolled by a group of players who presses all the right buttons. Rather, to truly judge a player, it is in my opinion necessary to platoon with the player and see if he can perform his role suited to his playstyle well, thus my constant pestering of the students in SGTA to platoon and participate in team battles. There is nothing wrong with being a defensive ‘camper’ as long as he/she knows where to position him or herself, that he/she can shoot the tank that needs shooting and that he/she knows what needs higher priority (such as stopping the enemy capturing the base in most circumstances). To judge based on statistics is short-sighted and simply not giving the person the credit he/she deserves if he/she knows his/her roles. In fact, to judge based on statistics usually tells me that the judge him or herself do not understand what is important, but just pretends that he/she does by passing judgment and hoping nobody questions the supports under their ill-based reasoning.

If you have further Question, what I should add in my Articles, leave me a P.M. On Forum. Thx for Reading!, -Ding760

28

Railway Guns An American Civil War railway gun

As always credit where credit is due, to Nick Catford for his work on mounted railway guns in Southern England, Vince Lewis for his work on Dora and Gustav, JR Potts for his work on the K9 series of guns and various wikipedia pages.

The origination of the idea behind this falls into two camps, English and Russian.

Both Anderson and Lebedew published the same idea around 1860 with Lebedew reportedly producing the first mortar mounted on a railway car shortly after. The American Confederate Army seems to have been the first to use this new weapon in action when they bolted a 32 pound Brook naval rifle to a flat car in action leading up the the battle of fair Oaks.

The Union army was soon to follow suit and in 1864 used similar weapons in the siege of Petersburg, the most famous being Dictator, a thirteen inch mortar firing 218 pound shells over 2 and a half miles/4 kilometres.

The Paris Gun

Few advances were made immediately after this with minor experimentation which started to gather pace after the turn of the century particularly in France and to a lesser degree in England. In France guns originally designated for warships were mounted in railway carriages and those deployed covered a wider range of calibres from 320mm, 200mm and down to 155mm. Early in the 1900's the German companies Krupp and Skoda started experimenting developing these weapons and by the beginning of the war were building mammoth siege guns, two of the more famous being namely Big (420mm) and Skinny (305mm) Bertha.

Other contemporaries of that time were the famous Paris gun which could launch a shell seventy six, yes 76, miles against the nine mile range of Big Bertha. Though great on range the Paris gun was considerably lower calibre, being just 220mm and an accuracy that was as poor as its range was great. If it got a shell to land within half a mile of the aiming point it was thought a good shot.

Both sides used these weapons widely during WWI. The Germans notably at at the February 1916 offensive, the French at Verdun and to support the retaking of Fort Douaumont.

At the third Ypres battle the British used fourteen inch railway guns named Boche-Buster and Scene-Shifter. The Americans joined in the act after their entry into the war deploying 14 inch naval guns, the Plunkett guns with a range of 24 miles which were used to attack supply and logistic bases and harass German troop movements.

After WWI development in Britain of railway guns stopped, with many gun carriages and barrels being moth balled, as it would turn out luckily. By the late 1920's and early 1930 Krupp started developing the K5 series of guns. These had an effective range of 40 miles, were extremely accurate due to the rifle barrels, fired a 255kg shell from a 288mm gun. These guns were used extensively in WWII, from July 1940 taking part in coastal bombardments of the English Channel coast line, at the Battle of Anzio in 1944 when they were named Anzio Annie and Anzio Express by the allied soldiers due the express train sound the shells made in passing and extensively on the eastern front.

At the start of WWII Britain was short of large calibre guns and quickly found those pieces that had been put into storage after WWI. Boche-Buster was found in a transport shed at Ruddington covered in cobwebs when the doors were opened for the first time since the 1920s.

The Elham Valley Railway was quickly made ready for the arrival of HMG Boche-Buster. The meandering line allowed it to sweep virtually the complete south-eastern corner of Kent, thus effectively enabling it to bombard any invasion force. Capable of hurling a 6 ft shell weighing 1 tons some 12 miles, Boche-Buster was a highangle Howitzer with an elevation of 40째 but with a traverse of only 2째. Although never fired in anger several test firings caused considerable damage to local housing including bringing down ceilings in houses several miles away in Kingston and Barham.

29

HMG Boche-Buster waits outside the south portal of Bourne Park tunnel.

Russian use of railway guns seems limited. Three 12 inch (305mm) railway guns were built, using guns from the sunken battleship Imperatritsa Mariya, which had been lost to a magazine explosion in Sevastopol harbour in October 1916. They were used in the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939-1940. In 1941 they took part in the defence of the Soviet naval base on Finland's Hanko peninsula. They were disabled when the base was evacuated, and were later restored by Finnish specialists using guns from the withdrawn Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III. After the war these were handed over to the Soviet Union, and they were maintained in operational condition until 1991, and withdrawn in 1999. When withdrawn from service, they were the last battleship - calibre Obukhov pieces still operational in the world.

The two largest railway guns ever completed were Gustav and Dora.

Each of 800mm (31 ½ inch) calibre firing a seven ton shell from a barrel over 30 meters long. The design criteria for these guns was set out to that the shell had to penetrate seven meters of steel reinforced concrete or at least one meter of hardened armour plate, over a range of twenty-five miles.

Gustav/Dora

The scope and size of these guns was enormous. Each one standing fifty feet high, twenty feet wide, one hundred and forty feet long and weighing 1323 tons.

The actual range achieved by Dora was 51,000 yards - twenty-nine miles. She had a crew of two hundred and fifty for the actual firing and a crew of two thousand for full operation, including loaders, train drivers, assembly workers, canteen workers, armed guards, mechanics, electricians and track maintenance. The complete equipment package for Dora was five trains totalling 106 carriages.

Gustav/Dora

The size and weight of the shells including the one ton powder charge was seven tonnes and seventeen feet this restricting the rate of fire to two rounds per hour maximum. The effectiveness was colossal, penetrating thirty feet into the earth and making a crater over 90 feet across. The life span of the barrel was not colossal, limited to between 50 – 150 rounds.

The guns were used in action in 1942 at the siege of Sevastopol where conflicting reports on the usefulness of these guns range from no effect at all to one of detailed destruction where Fort Molotov was destroyed with seven shots on June 6th, nine rounds were fired at The White Cliffs Of Severnaya Bay and a lucky shot hit an underground ammunition store and the whole Fort was completely destroyed. One of the shots missed the target and sunk a large ship in the harbour, the shell burst must have been absolutely devastating. Some days later when Fort Siberia was hit with five shots and destroyed as was Fort Maxim Gorki. As many other large mortar and siege guns were in use at the time these accounts may be more propaganda than accurate we will never surely know but total effect of all of this firepower was overwhelming. .

After this action both guns were shipped back to Germany to have the barrels replaced and neither saw any real action afterwards. Both guns were destroyed towards the end of the war by the retreating Germans. say illusory value.

By HFox 30

Tech Trees World of Warships Alpha will start with 14 ships; two each of the tier 1s, destroyers, cruisers and carriers, and 6 battleships. Half of the ships are Japanese, the other half are American. Currently it is planned that there will be 4 American battleship line: the first line released will mostly consist of slow battleships, this will be sorted when the first fast line is added. There are also going to be at least two each of the destroyer, cruiser and carrier lines. The Japanese have even more battleship lines than the USA, 5 in total. There will be at least 2 each of the destroyer, cruiser and carrier lines too, including formidable vessels such Shimikaze, Zuikaku and Takao.

These two nations will form the core of the game during Alpha and Beta.

The third nation into the game is the Royal Navy, with at least 3 battleship lines. The numbers of the other lines is unknown, but there will probably be at least two of each. British carriers will be the first carrier line to consist entirely of armoured carriers, of which will be in the game before their release (Taiho, G-15 Taiho-kai and Midway).

The decision about the 4th nation in the game has not yet been made, but it will either be the Germans or the Russians. The former will be notable for the plethora of interesting things, such as the Deutschland class (currently tier 4 battleships), the H-42 (possibly tier 10, no definite decision made) and the Flugdeckkreuzer hybrids: the latter will be notorious for the number of paper ships at high tiers.

After these two, there will be the French and Italians, both of whom built relatively fast ships. The final tech trees to be added will be a Team Europe tree and a Team South America tree. There is no possibility of a Chinese tech tree at all.

31

32

The other tech trees have little to show, these 5 do however, and are correct as of 28/09/2013.

Special thanks to Daimon_Frey for making the tech trees.

By mr3awsome

33

Terrible E-100 Bests

By Woras

34

35

Book Review Sturmgeschütze Armoured Assault Guns Edited and Introduced by Bob Caruthers The Sturmgeschutz, commonly known as the StuGIII is one of the Germans lesser renowned tanks, taking a back seat to the Tiger, Panther and Leopard.

The StuGIII is often mistakenly thought of as a main battle tank, and indeed there were many occasions where it was used in the same role as a tank, as mobile artillery and as a tank destroyer, but it was initially designed for, and predominantly used, as an infantry support weapon.

In this book, Bob Caruthers has drawn together many elements, from German design, development and deployment notes and manuals, Allied intelligence bulletins, and the Russian “Tactical and Technical Trends” publications of the period , to shed more light on this superbly crafted machine, and with over 10,000 built during its service life, it now has a well overdue book dedicated to it.

Detailing the initial build specification from 1939, this book takes us through the developments and deployments of the StuGIII, from its first engagement in France 1940, it's spread through many theatres, the introduction of the high velocity 75mm (StuK 40 L/48) in response to the Russian T-34 and KV1, and onward to the final development of the StuGIII, taking the chassis from a Panzer IV, and mounting the superstructure of the StuGIII to create the StuGIV, which, in December 1943, Hitler himself approved, and, owing to the large deficit in StuGIII production, ordered that it be given full support.

Inside, you will find many comparison tables of the different guns that were mounted on the Strumgeschutze, highlighting the different ordinance that it was capable of firing, the differing muzzle velocities and penetration power at varying ranges, as well as build specifications including armour thicknesses, engine capacities, radio ranges, and much more.

Overall, this book is a wealth of information, which Bob Caruthers has put together in such a way as to make it interesting to readers of all types, from the fanatical tank enthusiast, right through to those with just a passing interest.

Sturmgeschutze - Armoured Assault Guns, Edited and Introduced by Bob Caruthers, is part of the “Hitler’s War machines” series, by Pen & Sword Books, is priced at £9.99, and can be purchased directly from www.pen-and-sword.co.uk, and all major book retailers.

Reviewed by Skudakoi, Lord of Noobington Manor.

36

Music Top Of The Month

Cher - Closer to the Truth Ageless diva mixes dated dance tunes and bloated ballads in a kitschy package that is 100% Cher “Surrender to me!” commands Cher on her first album in 12 years.

And who are we to disobey? When it comes to Cher, resistance has always been futile. Her work is beyond good and evil, or, more to the point, beyond any simple distinctions between sincerity and camp. The first half of the new CD finds Cher throwing herself into gauchely dated dance music with irresistible passion. The latter sees her gorging with delight on the most bloated of ballads. It’s at once tacky and enthralling, full of crazed, ’80s echo, kitschy passion and a sense of overstatement that’s too furious to be denied.

And then there’s Cher’s voice.

Whatever procedures she has ordered on her face over the years have nothing on the radical surgery performed on her voice. It’s pulled, tweaked, and tricked-up with every synth flourish in the book. Even so, it retains its bizarre allure. Cher’s vibrato may sound like someone getting whiplash, and her phrasing can, at times, mimic a horse’s whinny, but it’s informed by a Mae West swagger, and an ability to belt that can rivet. It’s utterly distinct and brimming with character.

The material isn’t quite so individual. The disco songs, while danceworthy, miss the clubby genius of “Believe.” The ballads all dream of being “If I Could Turn Back Time” in their next lives.

If that doesn’t add up to Cher’s prime, it pays to remember that bourgeois notions of “good” or “bad” don’t apply to her. At root, the new disc pleases by this sole measure: It’s deeply, madly Cher.

Jim Farber, NY Daily News.com

37

38

What is this about?

The Singer, Director and Writer Madonna started a Project in the early of this year in the favor of Freedom of Speech and Love.This began with the Chime for Change Event, where she supported a teacher from Afghanistan, to raise a school. Over there education can be still described as a luxury, not as a basic right of a human being. After these happenings she worked on this video called Secret Project, what feauters her ideas and toughts about life, what she has undergone, what other people who were judged, because of their religion, skin, sexual preferences have undergone. I think everybody Must watch it and learn. Why are we against each other?

Why are we making false statements before we haven’t knew the other?

Why should people who are categorized as ”different” suffer? We are fully equal, human can’t stand over human, this is bad!!!

Launch Event At NY city

The Revolution is on, go and check it by yourself: http://artforfreedom.com/

MADONNA & STEVEN KLEIN INVITE YOU TO START YOUR OWN REVOLUTION OF LOVE. WE HAVE CREATED THIS PLATFORM TO GIVE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION:

"WHAT DOES FREEDOM MEAN TO YOU?" EXPRESS YOUR PERSONAL MEANING OF FREEDOM AND REVOLUTION IN THE FORM OF VIDEO, MUSIC, POETRY, AND PHOTOGRAPHY. JOIN THE REVOLUTION BY SUBMITTING YOUR ART FOR FREEDOM, OR BY TAGGING YOUR POSTS #ArtForFreedom 39

Madonna

Steven Klein

#artforfreedom 40

41