[討論帖]對於《坦克世界》的裝甲改動，你怎麼看？

Wargaming在宣布要「讓裝甲回到遊戲」後，首當其衝的就是發布了對蘇系中坦T-44、T-54和140工程的改動。在這項預計在9.20版本正式上線的改動中，T-44的炮塔前部裝甲由原來的120mm厚度變為190mm，炮塔臉頰裝甲由100mm變為130mm，使得該車炮塔的抗擊打能力大大增強，以後D-25T的銀幣彈就對T-44的炮塔束手無策咯。

在T-54身上，炮塔前部裝甲由200mm躍升到240mm，同時臉頰裝甲由160mm增強到180mm。以後穿深250的一票HEAT彈再想打T-54的頭要求的就更加嚴格了。T-54的對抗者們只能心中暗罵MMP咯。

而在歷史上，這兩台車的炮塔數據是怎麼樣的呢？

史實的T-44整輛車裝甲最厚的地方也僅有120mm，而這120mm厚度的裝甲擺放位置與現在遊戲中的相同，是T-44的炮塔前方裝甲。 而T-54的炮塔前部裝甲也僅有200mm，與現在遊戲中的數據相同。T-44上炮塔前部裝甲180mm的改動與T-54上炮塔前部裝甲240mm的改動，純屬Wargaming的捏造。

由此可見，Wargaming在進行改動設計時，是脫離事實的，純粹為了一個所謂的「Medium tanks with strong turret armor」(炮塔很硬的中型坦克)的為其設置的定位而進行的改動。這和Wargaming以往的作風很像：

The Swedish heavies have just hit the public test server and have ngenerally been well received, however, I thought it would be a good idean to give you the real data about these vehicles. From the way WG?s nbalance department chose to ignore their historians and historical data In think the Swedish heavies mark a new era of WoT where history is ndiscarded for the sake of convenience for the balance team.

瑞典重坦線剛剛加入了公共測試服里，並且廣受大眾好評。然而，我認為給大家展示瑞典重坦真正的數據會是一個很好的想法。很明顯WG平衡部門選擇無視了歷史學家和歷史數據。我認為，瑞典重坦線的創造，標誌著WG開啟了無視歷史全看平衡的新紀元。

The tier 8 Emil as represented in the game is based on the 1951 proposaln for a new Swedish 30-tonne tank which had the project name EMIL. Note nthat nowhere in the original documents is this initial design referred nto as Emil 1, instead, it is simply listed as 「EMIL」.

八級的埃米爾就像遊戲中所展示的那樣，是一台基於1951年時瑞典埃米爾計劃的新型30噸坦克。值得注意的是，在原始文件中沒有一處將此設計稱呼為埃米爾1。反而將其簡單的稱為「埃米爾」

n The name Emil 1 was later used in 1952 for a completely nredesigned version of the tank which was a scaled down version of the nEmil 2 that you see in game. It is not fair to either of these vehicles nto misrepresent the name like this, but more importantly, it confuses npeople as to what the tier 8 Emil actually is. You see the 1952 Emil 1 nunlike the 1951 proposal had several armor options (none of which are asn thick as the one in game btw) and I think WG might have done this ndeliberately to confuse people into thinking that the tanks armor isn』t nreally fake.

埃米爾1這個名字是在1952年時用來命名一個被完全重新設計後的坦克版本，也就是你們在遊戲中所見到的埃米爾2型坦克。兩個坦克其中的任何一個都不能完整的代表這個名字。但是更加重要的是，這讓人們分不清楚8級的埃米爾到底是一輛怎樣的車。你看，1952年的埃米爾1不像1951年的計劃，有多個裝甲配置（順便一提沒有一個像遊戲內那樣厚）並且我像WG也許想用這個辦法來讓人們相信這個坦克的裝甲不是那麼的虛假。

EMIL 1951 stats

埃米爾1951數據

ARMOR

裝甲

The Emil as represented in the game has roughly 30-40% nthicker armor than it had historically. In real life, the Emils armor nwas designed to have 170-200mm of effective thickness for the front withn a maximum thickness of 200mm for the gun mantle and 150mm for the nturret front. Compare that to the 280mm mantle and 180mm thick turret nfront of the ingame Emil, even the hull armor has been increased to n100mm for the upper front which is 30mm thicker than the historical narmor.

遊戲中的埃米爾差不多要比歷史中的裝甲要厚百分之30至40。而在現實中，埃米爾的裝甲只計劃在正面有170-200mm等效的裝甲，炮盾最高有200mm厚並且炮塔裝甲也只有150mm。對比來看看遊戲中的埃米爾有280mm的炮盾和180mm厚的正面炮塔，甚至車身首上裝甲也從歷史上的70mm增加到了100mm。

Armor scheme drawings EMIL 1951

埃米爾1951 裝甲分布圖

GUN DEPRESSION

炮的俯角

As you can see on the armor scheme drawing then 1951 Emil had 14 degrees of gun depression over the front of the nvehicle, the turret was however designed to be able to depress to 15 ndegrees over the sides. In the game, the Emil initially received the nwhole 15-degree gun depression but by the time it was added to the npublic test its gun depression was nerfed to 12 degrees which is worse nthan the historical value.

你可以在上面的裝甲分布圖中看到，埃米爾1951型在正面有14度的俯角，而在側面會有15度的俯角。埃米爾在超測服的時候最開始擁有全向15度俯角，但是到了加入測試服的時候俯角卻被砍到了12度，比歷史上差了很多。

Turret drawing

炮塔圖紙

MOBILITY

機動方面

Ifn you have a keen eye you may have noticed that the Emil I on the test nserver has a 450 hp top engine, you may also have noticed that in the nstat sheet provided in the original documents this engine was rated at n550 hp, this is yet another change from the Historical characteristics nof the EMIL (the stock engine was also nerfed by 100 hp). Additionally, nthe top speed has been reduced from the 55 kph top speed in the originaln documents to 50 kph in game, which was actually buffed from the even nlower 45kph top speed that the vehicle had in supertest. Though to be nfair the original documents lists a 「marching speed」 of 50kph.

如果你很仔細的話，你會發現測試服中的埃米爾1有一台450馬力的頂級發動機，你也會發現原始檔案里所以提供的數據表明這台引擎其實有550馬力。這又是一個對於歷史埃米爾的修改。（白板發動機也被砍了100馬力）在此之上，雖然埃米爾的極速是從超測服里的45kph加強到現在50kph，但也是從原始檔案中的55kph極速砍下去的。但是平心而論，原始文件列出了50kph的「行軍速度」。

EMIL top speed

埃米爾極速的檔案

After seeing how this vehicle was implemented I must ask the question asn to why it wasn』t balanced with its historical characteristics in mind. nIt would have been very easy to balance the tier 8 Emil even with its nproper stats, tanks like the amx 50 100 has shown that a low-moderately narmored heavy tank can work and the 14-15 degrees of gun depression nwould still allow the turret to be very strong in a hull down position.

既然白毛子在測試服這樣實裝了這輛車，那我也想問一個問題：為什麼這輛車就不能按照歷史的性能來平衡設定呢？用他的史實數據，八級的埃米爾也會很容易在遊戲中平衡。一輛像50100一樣有很薄的裝甲可以有14-15度俯角，而當他很好的利用他的俯角時，他的炮塔裝甲也會顯得非常堅固。

The Emil II is based of the 1952 Emil II s2b which was a variation of none of three versions of the Emil that existed at this point. This was nthe most heavily armored version of the Emil II.

遊戲中的埃米爾 II型是基於埃米爾的改型，1952年埃米爾 II s2b。這也是埃米爾II裝甲最好的版本。

Out of all the Swedish heavies, the Emil II is perhaps the most accuraten to its real life armor layout, though this isn』t really saying much. nThe real Emil II s2b was planned to have a hull armor of 95mm for the nupper front (with a 145mm lower glacis) with 30mm at the sides and rear,n the turret was to be 170mm thick at the front with 60mm at the side andn 30mm at the rear. This frontal armor option was the thickest consideredn for all versions of the Emil in 1952.

從裝甲的角度上來講，emil2可能是裝甲分布最符合歷史的瑞典重坦了，但是還是非常的不準確。歷史上的埃米爾IIn s2b n計劃有95mm的首上裝甲（145mm的褲襠裝甲）和30mm的側面和菊花裝甲。炮塔計劃在正面有170mm厚，側面有60mm而後面有30mm。截止到1952年，在Emil系列中這已經是最硬的裝甲厚度了。

The Emil II on the public test server has had its frontal armor nincreased to 100mm for the upper glacis and 215mm for the turret. The nhull side armor was also increased to 60mm. Like the Emil I this is a nhuge increase over the real values and this is especially strange as nwhen the Emil 2 appeared on the supertest it did have a mostly nhistorical armor scheme.

埃米爾 II在公測服中首上裝甲增加到了100mm而炮塔裝甲增加到了215mm。車體裝甲也都增加到了60mm。像8級的埃米爾I一樣，這是對於歷史數據的巨大加強。並且這也非常奇怪，當埃米爾II在超測服中出現的時候，他的裝甲還是非常歷史的。

Emil II armor

埃米爾 II 裝甲

surprisingly the rest of the stats for this vehicle represents the nproject its based of fairly well with a correct top speed, engines and ngun depression. But this just makes me all the more curious as to why a nfake armor scheme was chosen.

令人驚訝的是，這車所有其他的數據都比較精確的還原了這個計劃中坦克的數據，包括極速，發動機以及俯角等。但這讓我更加好奇毛子為啥非要選擇這種虛假的裝甲分布呢？

Unlike the other Swedish heavies, the Kranvagn was actually completed, nat least partially with a hull still remaining in the storage of the nArsenalen museum. This was the ultimate development of the Emil project nand was a further development of the Emil III which was a larger and nheavier version of the Emil II. Though the vehicle was referred to as nKranvagn to confuse potential spies I think in retrospect that its more ncommonly used abbreviation KRV would have made for a better name, at nleast in world of tanks.

和其他瑞典坦克不同的是，KRV是被實際建造出來的的，起碼現在還有個車體在阿森納博物館的倉庫里。這是埃米爾計劃的最終發展也是埃米爾III（就是個更大更重的埃米爾II）進一步的發展型。儘管這車被叫做Kranvagn（這個代號其實是汽車起重機的意思）來迷惑潛在的間諜，但是我認為KRV這個更常用的名字對於wot來說是個更好的選擇。

Since the hull of the KRV was actually built we have been able to find nwelding drawings that show the actual armor thickness, at least for nparts of the hull. Besides the hull floor (that isn』t really ninteresting) we can tell that the KRV had 37mm thick side and rear narmor.

因為KRV的車體是有實物的，我們起碼可以找到車體部分的實際裝甲厚度分布的圖紙。除了車體的底盤以外，我們還可以看到KRV擁有37mm的側面和菊部裝甲。

n The KRV was the prototype of the Emil III that appeared in nthe 1952 documents, from this we know that the KRV hull armor was to be nidentical to that of the Emil II with the exception of a slight increasen to the side and rear hull armor. That is to say, the Kranvagn should nhave a frontal hull armor of 95mm with a 145mm lower glacis and 37mm nsides and rear.

在1952年的檔案中顯示KRV是埃米爾II的原型車，從此我們我們能知道KRV的車體裝甲與埃米爾II是相同的，除了側面和菊部的裝甲有一點點的增厚。這就是說，KRV的車體應該有95mm的首上，145mm的褲襠和37mm的側面和菊部裝甲。

The turret armor was also similar to the Emil II with 170mm at the front but with a side armor up to 80mm thick. Later armor schemes for the turret from 1954, however, reduced the side armor to 70mm.

炮塔裝甲也和埃米爾II相類似，擁有170mm的正面但是側面裝甲高達80mm。後期1954年的炮塔裝甲計劃卻把炮塔側面降低到了70mm。

Kranvagn turret armor (1953)

KRV炮塔裝甲（1953年版）

like the other Swedish heavies the Kranvagn has been unhistorically nbuffed. Arguably some armor buffs to the turret could be justified sincen the front was to be cast, but even cast armor do not vary as much as nthe 55mm that was added to the turret front. The Balance department alson increased the side armor to 70mm and the upper front to 110mm from the nhistorical 95mm.

跟其他瑞典重型坦克一樣，KRV也收到了完全不歷史的加強。可以說，有些炮塔的裝甲加強是可以接受的，因為正面裝甲是鑄造的。但就算是鑄造的裝甲也比不上遊戲中炮塔正面加上的55mm裝甲。平衡部門還把側面加強到了70mm，首上也從歷史上的95mm加強到了110mm。

Conclusion

結論

As I have said throughout this article the Swedish nheavies could easily have been balanced with their historical values. nThe tier 9 and 10 would still have had a good front with 260-290mm of neffective frontal armor unangled and they would still have been beasts nwhen using hull down positions, but currently the armor on the Emil II nand Kranvagn bare so little resemblance to reality that only the rear narmor is accurate. The handling of the tier 8 Emil, in general, is also nsomething I find baffling as so many elements were made unhistorical forn no apparent reason.

正像我在整篇文章中所說的那樣，瑞典重坦本可以用它的歷史數據來平衡。9級和10級正面在不擺角度的情況下仍然會有260-290mm的等效裝甲，並且賣頭的時候更是非常強勢。但是現在在埃米爾II和KRV身上的裝甲太過科幻，也就菊部裝甲是準確的。而對於8級埃米爾眾多特色在沒有明顯原因的情況下被搞的不歷史，更是讓我感到莫名其妙。

As somebody who has spent hundreds of hours gathering the information ton make this line possible in the first place, I find it very frustrating nto see my work go to waste when there was no reason the heavies couldn』tn have been properly represented. After speaking with Silentstalker and nDaigensui who have had lines implemented into the game before I found nthat this kind of disregard for the real stats did not happen a year or ntwo ago, but is likely due to more recent changes to the balance team. nThis is why I say that the Swedish heavies mark a new era of WoT, as a nnew balance team without any regard for history are put in charge of then future of world of tanks for better or worse.

作為一名辛辛苦苦收集資料並且使得瑞典坦克第一次出現在遊戲中的人，我在看到成果就這樣因為沒有任何原因就被改的完全不歷史而感到非常沮喪。在與Silentstalker和Daigensui交談之後，我發現這種對真實數據的忽視在一年或兩年前並沒有發生，但很可能是由於最近平衡部門的人事變動導致的。一個完全無視歷史的平衡部門，帶來的完全不歷史的瑞典重坦。會將WOT引向何方呢？無論如何，這都將標誌著WOT進入了一個新時代，而這到底是福是禍？我們拭目以待。

以上引用內容來自11-23【情報組】我們的遊戲很歷史之－瑞典重坦線的謊言【坦克世界吧】，由此可以看出，Wargaming專註於不歷史的坦克設計已經有一段時間了。這次的蘇系中坦非史實加強，也能看出來Wargaming對於「定位」而非「歷史」的看重。

個人認為，對於一輛史實坦克，後續遊戲的開發商和普通玩家，都應該對其史實數據抱有最基本的尊重。對於一輛弱勢的史實坦克，遊戲開發商應當著眼於精度、火控、DPM、地面阻力係數等不影響這台車外觀、裝甲厚度和火炮的方面。至於穿深問題，也可以通過增加非史實火炮的方法進行平衡。一個基於歷史的遊戲，無論其內容有多麼需要為了遊戲性進行改動，對史實記錄的尊重永遠是不可或缺的。它不但是遊戲製作者對歷史研究專業性的表現，更是對坦克這種裝甲車輛產生熱情的玩家的負責任的態度。

你對這項改動有什麼看法？歡迎留言討論。

支持方觀點舉例：

1. 《坦克世界》本來就不是戰車模擬器，要史實，去玩戰雷或者參軍啊！

2. T-44在之前的版本太弱勢了，59的銀幣彈都能隨便打穿炮塔和首上，加強之後T-44又能玩了。

3. 這就是平衡，大家都開心。改變就是好事嘛。

反對方觀點舉例：

1. 儘管《坦克世界》是一個競技性很強的遊戲，但其吸引人的地方也在於其基於歷史。隨便改一輛坦克的裝甲厚度，和《創世戰車》那種純靠腦洞的遊戲又有什麼兩樣？

2. 為什麼只改蘇系中坦？中國的59、WZ-120，德國的T-55A和T-54裝甲厚度憑什麼不一樣？要求Wargaming給予其他系別的坦克同等待遇。

3. 要加強的時候談定位，要削弱的時候談歷史，Wargaming玩的一手雙重標準啊！

歡迎各位在評論區留言討論~
推薦閱讀：