Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 18/12/19 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    Air RB battles are becoming extremely boring to say the least, it's always the exact same thing. We play "Operations" 99% of the time, defined as a game mode in which you have to complete various objectives to win - EXCEPT, you actually don't! NO one cares about the situation on the ground, this game mode is just a fake pretext sandbox for the unrealistic fighters dogfight Team Deathmatch, with the occasional bombers on the background (which occasionally can destroy one of the airfields and win the damn match regardless of how bad they were losing or how many enemy planes are still flying). Otherwise, your ground forces may be pretty much defeated already, but since the enemy "lost" all of theirs planes (while you have a single fighter left), you'll unrealistically and ridiculously "win" the match. It's blatant that this game mode is broken on so many levels. People simply don't have ANY reason to care for the objective as much as they do for kills - with the game literally enforcing players to killsteal, eventually losing altitude and dying, instead of staying high to better support their teammates. We honestly need either more rewards for completing objectives and winning matches (and penalties for ignoring objectives and losing matches) or a whole new mode - perhaps even some PVE (with challenging AI and vehicle progress) - based on the dynamic campaign variety; with missions ranging from protecting bombers from enemy interceptors, to destroying bridges/trains, providing CAS for a mechanised column, intercepting bombers, destroying cruisers, etc... You know, missions aircrafts actually flew during WW2 - so much for a mode called realistic. Players MUST actually be enforced to play the objective and work as a team for once. With the current mode we have, we can only properly do the objectives after we achieve air superiority against enemy fighters, but by that time either the match will be over or the objective failed. You rarely can attack enemy landing crafts, AI attackers, AI tanks or even torpedo run in a wing against enemy cruisers because you're simply dead meat down below; and that ends up making zero difference at all in case you succeed, as you'll lose the match if your team loses all of their planes regardless of objetive completion. So, I don't know. Maybe create a new mode (since people will likely whine if anything changes in their precious unrealistic realistic battles) and (in this mode) perhaps just remove the damn ticket bar as a whole, make the mission outcome (victory/defeat) dependent on the dynamic ground situation. The more you helped, the more likely your forces would be to succeed in the objective for example. Also, while matches would probably take longer so should rewards be increased (let's tune the damn grind down a little bit, eh?) especially if you win and help completing the objectives.
  2. 11 points
    Aside from the obvious matchmaking nonsense, the obvious compression we've had for years.. I think what heavily impacts the outcome of the game, it's lineups. Regardless if a nation has a good tank or not, in RB it's a numbers game, games are won and lost more often than not, based on how willing your team is to stick around, a lot of people that leave the game, do so after just a single spawn, maybe 2, and whilst some might have had a bad game and lack the SP to respawn.. a lot of them are just unwilling to do so for a variety of reasons. For one, repaircosts are a major problem, especially the minor nations, that are already struggling to get their playercounts up, get absolutely ***** on repaircosts.. who wants to play France when a few respawns will set you back 50.000 SL? Who wants to play Japan when you only get 2 vehicles at BR 7, the Ho-ri that sits at a questionable BR has a repaircost of 25k, respawn in a Type 60 for another 8k. At 7.7 you only get a single vehicle, no matter how good or bad the STB is, you die once and you're out.. being a huge detriment to your team and it's just outright not fun to play a nation that gets no option. And for all nations it's just stupidly expensive to build lineups.. I want to play some 7.3 Germany, I want to put in a plane, going to cost me 100k, maybe use the Jpz, another 110k, maybe a bomber, another 110k, the new BMP.. another 110k.. and then if you want to upgrade their crew, probably going to cost you 1.5-2 million to get expert crew on that. Which means I have to spend 2 million silver lions JUST to start playing with these vehicles. Ofcourse to a degree you can manage your lineups but as you unlock new vehicles and new vehicles are added to the game, you're still spending a lot of money on this. And can you then make money? Not really as my vehicles will be stock, they will perform poorly, they will die a lot through fire and lack of repairs, and when they do win all your money is going towards buying new modules. It's not even about wanting to make lineups, sometimes you just can't due to the poor SL economy in this game, the game pushes me away from trying new things, using new vehicles because it's stupidly expensive and a waste of money to do so, and then you're not even talking about the million it costs to buy a top tier vehicle, another 400k to be able to use it, another million to get an expert crew on there.. I don't want to spend half a million just to be able to put it in a different slot to build my lineup Then you get to things like top tier, ignoring all the blatant problems with that, just look at the lineups there.. US teams can field upto 9 competitive tanks of 9.0 and higher.. although more than have is 10 or higher. Ru team can field upto 10 German teams can field 5 Italy upto 5 UK also 5 Japan only 3 France only 2 This alone already affects the outcome of a game, Japan and France are just not competitive by design, even Germany loses out already here,, even if you trade 1 for 1, a few deaths in you're either out of vehicles or you're playing an uncompetitive vehicle, in theory by the time a US player ends up in an MBT-70 after 10 respawns, a Japan player is down to somewhere BR 6.7. And this is not even considering the air support or matchmaking. Many times have I been in a match where my team is performing equally, both sitting on 25 kills for example, yet 50% of my team is gone and maybe 1 or 2 people left on their side due to the different circumstances. Which is why I believe something really has to change in regards to this, to promote people respawning, to make the smaller nations more competitive and not have them lose by design, which can be done through several means. -Limited respawns One I would be in favour of because it really changes many aspects fo the game, in a good way I believe, it works in AB, it works in Sim, which for consistency sake is already a logical step. It puts an actual value on every life, every kill matters as it takes away from a finite pool, every death matters as you only get so many.. in AB and Sim I enjoy feeling the impact you can have on a game, if you got 3 kills, you know you essentially removed a player from the game and carried your weight, in RB killing someone is entirely arbitrary.. I sometimes sit on 2000SP and getting killed is just a minor setback, there's a massive snowball effect going on where the strong just get stronger and practically unstoppable because they're sitting on a pile of SP. Would also allow us to move away from the arbitrary SP system, one that for example treats heavy tanks poorly.. requiring significantly more SP to spawn despite light tanks being the meta for a long time now. Which isn't only dumb and illogical, it's also unfair to nations that rely on heavier tanks or lack light tanks, despite equal performance one might not be able to spawn as they do not have light tanks whilst the other nation can, and the latter being more competitive, meta friendly and rated at the same BR. Obviously for a smaller nation like Japan, France.. they are able to have an impact on the game for once, not fighting a massive uphill battle where you're guaranteed to lose out even if you outperform your enemies.. only needing 2-3 competitive vehicles makes them a lot more feasible. -Reduce/remove repaircosts Let's be real, no one likes it and no one thinks it's a good idea, whenever you do poorly you just get punished with poor rewards and more repaircosts.. the people who fight the hardest get punished for it. Person A who doesn't care to win, dies once in his favorite vehicle and leaves.. Person B really tries to turn the tide of the battle, spawning all his vehicles and racking up a massive repaircost that is in no way compensated by the rewards of the game, as losing just gives horrible rewards. Realistically there isn't even any point to silver lions in the first place. You could entirely remove it from the game overnight and it would only improve, I can't find any legitimate reason to have it. We already have RP which is the grind, then why do we need SL on top? You could remove RP and make SL the grind as well.. allow people to purchase vehicles once they've earned the money.. why are double grind mechanics? Either way repaircosts need to change.. sometimes people don't have a choice as it's one of the few vehicles, for example the Ho-Ri.. you literally screw people over who only have 1 or 2 vehicles to choose from and punish them when they use it. -Multiple respawns for vehicles Something that is already applied to the Swedish vehicles, and to Italian vehicles in the past.. to compensate for the lack of a lineup. Funnily enough it already means Sweden has a more competitive lineup than Germany with a triple 7.3 lineup.. yet Japan is over there with a single 7.7 vehicle that they have to use to grind out the next vehicles.. nowadays they have the Type 75 but I question how good that is. One vehicle, one chance, you die you leave the game, rinse repeat.. that is how you designed the game.. how is that okay? Not only for the player trying to grind the tech tree, but for everyone stuck with single vehicle Andy in their team gets screwed over as well.. I don't want Japan on my team if they're guaranteed to leave after 1 death, not that Germany has a better lineup but still. For these problem spots in the tech tree, vehicles should get 2 or 3 respawns, similar to Sim just without the dumb approach to heavies and TDs as that's severely outdated.. primarly aimed at smaller nations that lack a lineup, but possibly relevant in a few other locations, give them atleast a 2nd respawn and don't require them to get backups to compensate for poor game design. I'm could easily tag on a few things more but i'm curious to hear the responses first and we'll go from there.
  3. 11 points
    The Leopard A1A1 L44 needs to be put up to 9.0 or at max 9.3 It is an unfair premium tank to go against My reasons: -Has Thermal -Has a Decent APFSDS shell -Has great mobility -Has a great reload speed -Mass played by buyers -Great SL and RP gain vehicle The Xm-1 is of course better and I see why it's in that tier. But why then is the OF-40 in 9.0 when it only has a few features such as mobility and a decent shell. That is basically it. The Leopard A1A1 L44 is obviously a great sale for you but would it hurt to put it to 9.0 so people at 8.3 never go against it? Or just make it so that 8.3 never goes against op tanks with thermal etc. The Leopard really needs to be 9.0 or 9.3. I don't care what others say. It is as annoying as the Xm-1 spam. I have used both vehicles. They are both as bad as each other so please put this tank to 9.0. A chinese T62 or low tier 8.3's do not need the hassle of going against an over powered tank such as this. It really wouldn't hurt for you to put it to 9.0. AT ALL. It's just a frustrating vehicle to go against. And yes people who buy it may have trouble but in all honesty why sell it to people who have barely played that tier then or haven't even unlocked it? Why listen to them moaning when they die to a tank they have no expierience going against? In all summarized efforts the L44 needs to be 9.0 so the players have a fair chance of going against the other team without being overwhelmed by an L44 buyer that snipes from a stupid distance.
  4. 9 points
    Why is it possible to use pilot controls + gunners + 3pv at same time
  5. 9 points
    And why on top of that you control all turrets at the same time and they are stabilised in 3 axis against horizon and not a plane? It technically give them better stabilisation than modern tanks which lack roll axis
  6. 8 points
    Recently I found some intersting historical references regarding to HE penetration ability so I would like to share it here for ppl who are interested in. HE contact explosion penetration According to Nathan Okun, HE with instaneous nose-fuse normally can penetrate 0.156 of its calibre thickness of STS armour, when the striking velocity is not taken into account: That means 5" HE normally can penetrate 20mm STS, 23mm for 6" and 32.5mm for 8". However, when the striking velocity is very high (nears the gun's muzzle velocity), there would be "additional" penetration coming from the kinetic energy (keep in mind that even "instaneous fuse" does not perfectly detonate on contact with absolute zero delay since there's no absolute rigid body exist in our world) A German document, 100/40 g.Kdos Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl, recorded test results on HE penetration with various calibre, demontrated this fact: From this chart, we can see: 15cm HE - can penetrate 60mm armour at 3200m (770mps SV), but failed to penetrate 25mm armour at 11200m (400mps SV) 20,3cm HE - can penetrate 50mm armour at 9500m (600mps SV), partially penetrated 25mm but failed to penetrate 30mm at 13500mm (500mps SV) 28cm HE (L/4,2) - can penetrate 105mm armour at 6700m (700mps SV), but failed to penetrate 60mm at 10400m (600mps SV) 28cm HE (L/4,4) - can penetrate 50mm armour at 15100m (550 mps SV), but failed to penetrate the same thickness at 18300m (500mps SV) 38cm HE - unable to penetrate 110mm armour at 7100m (700mps SV), unable to penetrate 100mm at 18000m (550mps SV) Comparison of the filling weight of above HE shells: 15cm HE - 3.914 kg TNT 20,3cm HE - 8.93kg TNT 28cm HE (L/4,2) - 21.8kg TNT 28cm HE (L/4,4) - 21.8kg TNT 38cm HE - 64.2kg TNT As you can see, the increasing of filling weight does NOT affect its penetration in proportion, e.g. 38cm HE has more than 16 times of filling weight than 15cm HE, but its penetration is less than 4 times of the later. It's very clear that HE's explosion penetration in game is heavily overblown. To give a few examples: You can see the penetration value in game is proportional to filling weight, not calibre in real life. (e.g. in game British 6in HE has same penetration as US 5in HC since they have similar filling weight) BTW, Gaijin also removed kinetic penetration from nose-fused HE in 1.95 HE Fragment Penetration Nathan Okun quoted an American test on fragment penetration ability in his article: MIDDLE-BODY FRAGMENT PENETRATION VERSUS DISTANCE THROWN FOR A TYPICAL 8" HE SHELL DISTANCE REMAINING FRAGMENTS 1 PENETRATION FOR 50% OF REMAINING PENETRATION FOR 10% OF REMAINING PENETRATION FOR 1% OF REMAINING CAL FEET NUMBER % NUMBER T (CAL) T (INCHES) NUMBER T (CAL) T (INCHES) NUMBER T (CAL) T (INCHES) 5 3.33 2000 100 1000 0.1100 2 0.880 200 0.110 0.880 20 0.110 0.880 20 13.33 1900 95 950 0.0213 0.170 190 0.093 0.744 19 0.106 0.848 50 33.33 1760 88 880 0.0158 0.126 176 0.075 0.600 17-18 0.100 0.800 100 66.67 1600 80 800 0.0113 0.090 160 0.057 0.456 16 0.091 0.728 500 333.33 1040 52 520 0.0011 0.0088 104 0.0186 0.148 10-11 0.0464 0.371 10003 666.67 800 40 400 0.0006 0.0048 80 0.012 0.096 8 0.023 0.184 This is the fraction of the original 2000 fragments still in the air at the given range. For an SAP projectile use 3000 fragments (50% more) and for an AP projectile use 4000 fragments (100% more) due to their thicker middle bodies, on the average. All of the other NUMBER columns will go up in proportion. The 0.11-caliber thickness at 5-caliber-distance (0.88" for the HE shell used here) is the thickest armor plate that a fragment from a typical HE shell can penetrate due to inertia only (not being accelerated by the detonation blast wave behind it, as is true at under 5 calibers -- see Contact Explosions in Section E). At 5 calibers the fragments are so concentrated that the larger, more-penetrating fragments are tearing large holes in the plates and allowing virtually all fragments through. This is not true at longer distances. This 5-caliber-distance value is replaced by the 0.095-caliber maximum penetration for an SAP projectile (small amount of explosive accelerating more fragments) and by the 0.08-caliber maximum for an AP projectile (smallest amount of explosive and the most fragments formed). For the values at larger distances than 5 calibers in this table, multiply the thicknesses given by (0.095/0.11) = 0.864 x T (i.e., 0.0213-caliber thickness for the 20-caliber distance with 50% of fragments becomes 0.0213 x 0.864 = 0.0184 caliber) for an SAP projectile and by (0.08/0.11) = 0.727 x T (i.e., 0.0213 becomes 0.727 x 0.0213 = 0.0155) for an AP shell. This is the maximum distance that I calculate anything. Most fragments by now have very small penetrative ability and the number that still do are so small that they will be unlikely to hit anything important. German test on fragment penetration ability: Another American test: Nathan Okun's summary: According to this, 1in STS plate should be able to immune fragments from HE up to 203mm calibre. In game I noticed that turrets with less than 2in plate (especially British and Japanese cruisers with 1in-plate turret) are very vulnerable to HE because anything above 6in can damage the turret even without direct hit. In my test in protection anlysis, 28cm HE was even capable to penetrate Brooklyn's 76mm armour tube around its ammo elevator: It's pretty clear that HE's destrutive power in game are quite exaggerated. For old players from pre-CBT tests we all remember there was time when HE was underperfoming against DDs, but since OBT GJ reversed it into an opposite extreme in which HE becomes basically anti-everything ammo.
  7. 8 points
    I think this says it all. I'm done. We are discussing of the UFP not LFP. Saying that parts of the LFP are penetrable with the KwK43 is totally redundant. No one ever said they were slow afaik, what was said is that they aren't incredibly fast or mobile. The T-44 is comparable to the A (although remains more mobile) but it's better than all the other ones. Indeed, but a 76mm can penetrate much more than just 50% of the turret face. Things like the cupola or turret ring remain weakspots despite not being "face". Also, you maybe forgot about the MG port? All I can think of is it will have an easier time penetrating things like a Jumbo's UFP, other than that at close range I can't think of many more advantages. Playing the T-44 is essentially like playing a Tiger E as they have a very similar penetration. I can't recall having too many issues penetrating anything with a Tiger at 6.3-6.7, keeping in mind that the Tiger has worse speed and mobility with other things like worse turret rotation and weaker armor. Really hard to believe you have struggled so much in your T-44.
  8. 8 points
    They need to stop with these band-aids on a gaping wound tho, all these tiny little changes that kinda help untill the next update. Just do it proper, go to BR 20 or something, or rework the whole thing, make it future proof.. they probably have an idea as to what they want to add.. set the M1A2 at BR 16 or something so you can add above it as well.. 6.7 should probably be like BR 8 or 9 at this point. Then based on what they have planned they can prepare for that, probably have to put things a bit closer together for the time being to allow for proper matches and queue times, but that doesn't mean you have to stuff 50-60 years of technology in like 3 BRs.. whilst you have 10 years of WW2 in 7 BRs.
  9. 7 points
    Enduring confrontation should be a mode active all the time...
  10. 7 points
    Hello I have decided to make this post in order to correct misconception and give some new perspective on the Merkava tank series, because a lot of people don't get this tank and why it is made the way it is. Disclaimer - I am a Merkava 2 crew member, so naturally I will not speak about secret information of which I was exposed to. All of the information in this post was extracted from the internet, because if i had real confirmed information I wouldn't be sharing it with you peasants, so it is all speculative. I will talk about the advantages and disadvantages of this machine and how i think it should be implemented in game and I'll try to explain why in my view it is a good tank but a bad war machine. You are more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong or add if you know something. Let's start with some myths about the tank; The Merkava is an Armored Personal Carrier - this is wrong, it is a main battle tank. The fact that there is room for few infantry in the back doesn't mean that we actually carry infantry. Some sites claim that it can carry 10 fully loaded soldiers in the back...how the hell can you fit 10 soldiers in the rear hatch ? it is 3 soldiers max or one sleepy tanker, yes I can even make the leopard an APC by shoving 5 soldiers with the crew but it's not very practical(one can sit one the commander one on the gunner, another spoons the loader and the last one can sit below the canon breach to catch the cartriges). The rear hatch is mainly used to escape the tank and in some cases carry injured troops or cover them in CQB. Infantry have other important stuff to do than hitchhike with us. The merkava was designed to fight infantry not tanks - wrong again, it is an MBT and is expected to fight other tanks. You do not need 120 Canon to fight infantry and in training we almost exclusively train against other tanks. But it is true though that it has increased capability to fight infantry and in CQB. The Merkava focuses on crew survivability because Israel is small and have small population - this is partly true. There are 9 million people in Israel, it's not that difficult to find few thousand troops to man 1000 tanks let's say(not accurate number). The problems is different and it is about Time, in total war the army can grow to almost million soldiers so a lot of people are not working and the army it self is highly technological mechanized...so very expensive. So army needs to end the war quickly in about a month or two or Israel will have a big financial problem. Now what it has to do the the merkava you ask? Well a tank crew member takes about 8-12 months to train, and in times of war less time but still a lot, which means that the casualties you sustain will have to be replaced by the regular army and the reserves, as the war will be over before you can train new troops. So because you cannot effectively stock men for future wars you can stock equipment and sacrifice it in place of your men. This strategy can be effective on the short run but on the long run it is very dangerous, this is why no other country has copied the merkava way of making war. I will expand on this subject later on. (other than this pragmatic problem there is the political problem, israeli citizens are extremely sensitive about loss of life of its soldiers so politicians and generals try their best to honor that) Now I will talk about the armor, mobility and fire power of the tank, detailing the differences between the varients. Armor and survivability It is easily the most interesting and controversial thing about this tank, and we some love it other hate it. OMG the engine is in the front! The idea is this, put engine front people behind shoot engine people safe. The main narrative that people use against this layout is that Israel used this method in the late 70s because it had no advanced technology, so this used what they had, but now the engine won't stop modern penetrators and Israel is stuck with this design flaw. While it is true that wasn't very technological in her early days, it is absolutely not true that the Merkava still have front engine because they can't move it to the back… It is true that if you take the engine and transmission and shoot it with APFSDS it will cut clean through it, but let us not forget that the merkava has armor in front of the engine that will probably break and degrade the penetrators. And when the dart goes inside the engine after it was deviated consumed and broken by the armor, it will find the engine a large obstacle indeed to overcome. Early varients had steel, special and composite armor or the mix of them, the MK4 has all composite 250 mm at 70 degrees, it will block most weaker penetrators while the strongest of darts will get stuck in the engine and save the crew (other composite armors need to break consume AND catch the dart, while this armor array only needs to consume it and the engine will do the catching). Mk1 - simple steel armor on hull Mk2 - on the Israeli website of armored vehicles in Latrun they state that this tank has improved armor on hull with "special armor", i have no further information available. Mk3 - composite armor on hull with old layout. Mk4 - composite armor on front hull with redesigned frontal hull. Turret armor - the main characteristic of the merkava is it's sloped armor. Mk1 - simple steel spaced armor with nasty slopes. Paradoxically the usage of new penetrators such as APFSDS made it possible for this tank to have this kind of slopes, because when they hit at high angles they don't bounce but break or continue through. Older penetrators bounce and can get lodged on to weak points called Shot Traps, this is why historically armies have evaded using highly sloped armor on the turret (example tiger 2 P and H). In game both the Mk1 and Mk2 actually suffer a lot from they way Apfsds is modeled, as in real life these penetrators have a chance of breaking at high angles. (earlier Darts were shorter and stubbier so I am not sure if they broke the same way) You can look at this high angle-space-armor as an early low tech version of the leopard 2a5 arrowhead, so Apfsds snapping can make this tank more survivable. ------ In the israeli armored vehicle museum in Latrun There are some explenation about the diffrence between the varients, they write that Mk1 has spaced armor, and Mk2 has spaced armor with "special armor" seen on this video. Only at Mk3 they start calling the armor composite armor. As you can see there are two blocks of metal seems life 300mm more or less, the first block it says "regular armor" and has two holes, one from an APFSDS the other from sagger missile (note the after penetration damage effect of the Kinetic penetrator vs the shaped charge...nasty . The second block is named "New armor" and has the same entry holes but no exit holes. I have two hypotheses on the nature of this armor, either that they are made from diffrent metals and the lower one has like welded high hardness armor or that they are more or less the same, only that the newer one had this "Special armor" or composite armor like they say ingame infront of it and then they shot the block. Either way the effect is clear as day that the merkava armor at least on the Mk2 should be alot stronger. The first block was penetrated like butter with both weapons, the second one the APFSDS penetrated only halfe of the steel and the Sagger missile even less so. Israel in the 80s and 90s had already started making High level kinetic rounds and knew how to defend against them. Right now in game those composite screens no the turret is a joke they do nothing, as here you can see that they should do alot more.. If some of you don't believe me look at this document by the US government analysing the military technology of Israel and other NATO countries in 1987 : 12-F-0405_15-F-1370_Critical_Technology_Assessment_In_Israel_And_NATO_Nations.pdf Look at pages III-54 and III-55 how they speak of the armor technology. Edit: With the help of Evaris (thanks ) we have concluded that the addon armor on the turret is somekind of High Hardness Steel Armor to protect against kinetic darts and other kind of composites to protect against shaped charges. I think that probably 20mm-30mm of HHS, the remaining 20mm will be composites it will make this vehicle much more survivable and more true to life than it currently is. This kind of technology was readily available to israel and the weight gain isn't alot. Now I think there is some differences between the game and the actual armor layout - first the thickness in game is 25mm of the addon armor, in this photo it looks more like 50mm. Another point of inaccuracy is the armor near the mantle on the inferior side, in game there is composite on the outside, while in real life there are only bolts which means that the composite is actually on the inside of the armor. It is also funny to me that Gaijin have decided that the weakspot of this turret will be the nose or side cheeks near the mantlet..this is traditionally the strongest part of the tank.. why make it so weak ?In game the nose of the tank has 30mm thickness, while the sides and back of the turret has 60mm..it makes no sense why the back is thicker than the front.Third point is lower part of the side armor where there is an hemisphere, on the inside there is a flat plate like you can see in this photo, this plate probably has addon armor, but I have no way of proving that. In this photo you can see another plate inside the side hemisphere of the turret which is not present in game (projectile moving though this structure is in direct contact with the crew) so they should add this plate and composite armor ontop of that. ------ Mk3 - this tank armor scheme is similar to the Mk2D armor, there are still sharp angles with this special armor, and additionally there is composite armor with NERA (earlier versions of the armor were non angled like on other MBT, then they became angled possibly because it was changed to SLERA like on the MK4) a specially on the sides of the turret and some on the front. The Mk3 was the final implementation of how they wanted the Mk1 to be after the first lebanon war. The lessons from the war were implemented in two parts, the first part is the Mk2 and the second part where they actually wanted to be is the Mk3 but they didn't have enough Research Points to get it..maybe they should have taken a premium account Something interesting to note that the first version of the Mk3 had flat Armor just like other MBT, later versions added the sloped armor ----- MK4 - probably the most interesting tank (and controversial in my view). This beast is completely different from the other tanks and took the composite armor to the extreme. So the biggest question why is it so sloped while other MBT are not!? Well it is all about REDUCING WEAKSPOTS. Namely the roof of the tank and the part between the turret and the hull which I will call the turret ring, let's take a closer look. Turret ring - the problem with armoring this spot is that modern western armor is made of multiple rows of plates that take a lot of space, and the firm turret ring is a… ring! A circle to be exact, now look at the mighty M1 Abrams. The turret is shaped like an elongate square because it those massive flat NERA plate on the front. So how can you fit a flat voluminous surface in a circle? You make it angled! An hexagon heptagon merkagon I have no idea how to call this shape. The plates extend angularly from the base of the ring outwards, and another set of plates extend from the roof to create a triangle. Let's play spot the turret ring! Turret armor and hull armor synergy now the hull of the merkava have composites on the front and on the sides of the hull, and the turret armor and hull armor actually protect each other. The turret ring is additionally protected by the hull armor because it is surrounded by composites on the hull, so a penetrators from below needs to pass through the hull first then the sloped part of the turret armor. The flat sloped turret armor on it's part defend the hull from top down attacks, as it is very voluminous and flat. You can see this early attempt of mutual protection hull\turret on the merkava Mk2D more clearly. (ignore the red stuff look at how the hull armor covers the turret). Roof - because the armor is so flat you have to armor the roof, so the armored roof can participate in certain attacks from the front and top down attacks as seen in the photos above. Now you probably think with so much armor and so little weak spot this armor is probably light and not very good, and you will be wrong.. Partially. The armor is indeed lighter in comparison with other MBT armor but it is not less efficient and powerful. other Nato nations uses large numbers of flat NERA plates with high density materials(this armor is a type of passive armor and is considered the least efficient weight wise), giving them large stopping power and very high durability but heavy. Mk4 armor is different as it uses Self Limiting Explosive Reactive armor, this armor is NERA o NxRA plates (the name doesn't really matter because we don't know what it is, NxRA is a patent by Rafael for us it's just words..) with explosive armor. From what we know there are 3 main type of armors on the modern battlefield; 1.NERA used on most MBTs, it has high module life durability but weakest in relation to it's weight. 2.Explosive Reactive armor like the Russian Relikt or Kontact, this armor is the most powerful in relation to it's weight but can be used 1 time. 3.SLERA used on the on the merkava, it is more powerful in relation to NERA while still has some limited multi hit capability, (but less powerful than Era and less durable than NERA. This last point that it is less durable than NERA is why other NATO countries don't use this armor. It says EXPLOSIVE on the back of the armor module showing that it is a SLERA armor Now let's talk about the biggest disadvantage of this armor scheme. The limited durability of the merk armor comes from 3 main reasons: Lack of armor casing - in other tanks the composite armor is enclosed in steel cage of 4-3 cm to protect the modules. In the merkava in order to save weight there is non. (if it were covered by steel the armor would weight quite a few more tons) The armor is sloped - let's take an example, we have two sets of armors 1 with three plates with space in between them angled at 70 degrees, the other armor have the same plates and spaces only there are 6 of them and are not angled. What will be the differences between them? Let's say that both armors stop a certain projectile equally , but the difference will be that armor 1 will suffer much higher damage to the individual plates, because we 3 plates that do the job of 6 plates on the other armor. The fact that it has explosive inside doesn't really contribute to the longevity of the armor.. (SLERA). In these photos you can see the fragility of the armor, but the tank and crew are safe.. and that's what it was designed for. So if it is so good why no 1 uses it? (the armor and the merkava) To explain it I will use the main NATO country. USA is a huge country that wage wars long from home that last years. Immagine if USA used the merkava, what a disaster it will be, they will have to ship the merkava over seas so far so good.. But it doesn't end there, they will have to ship engines, transmissions, armor modules fuel tanks. All this equipment that is sacrificed on the merkava will have to be moved and stored have more technician that can equip it, so instead of using the whole might of this country by sending 1000 Abrams storming and shooting at 60 kmh, crushing opponents by sheer size power and technology, they will have 600 merkavas crawling around like turtles they are at 40 kmh hoping to get hit so they can justify their exaggerated armor. Another absolutely crucial detail about how the abrams work is the separated ammo rack with blowout panels, in case the tank is hit and penetrated the crew will get injured or die, but the tank itself will be recovered, it's internal components replaced and it will be able to be manned when new recruits arrives. Maybe by using the merkava other armies can save a few lives per battle but in the end they might lose more lives the war draws longer. So then why Israel uses the merkava? Israel is a very small country and unlike NATO countries wages defensive wars, so it doesn't need it's logistical lines a lot. So the idea behind the merkava is the it's a holdout tank, it's supposed to meet the enemy at the border stay alive and hold them until the main reserve army arrives and go to counter attack. Now like I said before the main strategy will be Sacrifice equipment for men, but this is a dangerous strategy on the long run as in the end you will end up without equipment and over extended logistical lines. so how is Israel able to take this risk? Well basically it knows that if stuff gets real bad the US will send equipment, tanks ammo even men to help.. So the merkava wouldn't be able to exist without the USA, so I guess it is the best nation in game to put the merk in. Ammo storage probably the biggest weakness of this tank, the ammo is stored in the hull in separeted steel cases. Obviously it is not as good as separated compartment with blowout panels, but it is not so bad if a stray projectile hits on of the shells and ignites it, it will go off but the rest of the shells will probably be fine. To create a catastrophic ammo explosion you would probably need to get a direct hit on several ammo bins. Rear escape hatch this hatch is made in order to escape the tank rapidly and easily.. honestly I don't like it very much, maybe on early varients of the merkava it was usefull but on the Mk4 seems a bit of an overkill. The tank is already heavily armored and in the future will have APS against all types of threats even kinetics, so in my opinion moving the ammo to the turret and making a blowout panel (and removing the loading drum) is probably better. Then you can make the tank shorter if it is possibile to save weight. Mobility Needless to say this tanks weighs more than other tanks and is slower, every time I see a Merkava moving it looks like it's moving in slow motion. But not all is bad.. I heard that in the 90s the army brought m1 to test against the merk mk3 to see if it is still viable to continue producing the tank or simply buy other tanks. In the desert plains the m1 was much better and faster and completely smoked the merk, but on the north in the rocky and muddy terrain of the Golan the merkava fared better because of it's sospensione system and the fact that it is heavier on the front which gives it better traction in the mud. Edit- Information by PantherAI :The suspension on the Merk has almost three times the travel before it hits the bump stops compared to the M1: and the faster you go over the rougher terrain, the more the wheels will tend to move up and hit those bump stops at a faster pace. Each time they do, well, that motion has to go somewhere, and that's the hull moving up and down at that point. Pretty much exactly like any other suspension be it on cars, trains, planes, and tanks. In the M1 and Merk, the poor driver really isn't strapped in nice and tight: so the more the tank bounces, the more the driver does, and drivers are so squishy and breakable, hence the M1 slowing down sooner than the Merk on rough terrain. Firepower It has 120mm Canon that is shorter than other NATO tanks, so it a bit less accurate and less powerful but works better in cities. The Canon also has higher rate of fire because it has a 10 round drum on the back of the turret (I don't think it matters as every shot you fire dust flies all over and you can't see ****..) So then how should the merkava be implemented in game ? Mk1 - probably fine the way it is. Mk2 - I have two problems, 1 is the armor that like I showed earlier should be a lot stronger ..keep in mind that the Mk2 was in service up untile 7 years ago I think.. it is a modern MBT and should be able to withstand atleast APFSDS from syrian tanks T-72, as it was designed specifically for that. The second thing that buges me is the thermal sight and the exaust interaction, ingame the smoke from the exaust will block the view of the thermals.. this is completely incorrect, I have spent many hours on the thermals sights of my tank I have never had this issue... *The versione of merkava 2 in game is probably Mk2c as it has armor on the roof..but i don't really care in the army we just call them merk 2, the b/c/d stuff is for you guys. Mk3 - plays like Mk2 only faster stronger better ..or is it stronger better faster ? can't remember the order of the song Mk4 - diffrent animal altogether. better armor with less weakspots than any other tank, but the armor is degradable and the tank is slower. Another thing to correct about the Merkava in general is the engine fires.. not every small bump should set the engine of fire and once you tuen on FPE there should be anymore fires as theoretically the FPE has pushed out all of the oxygene from the engine compartment so the should be a cool down on fires. The tank series in general should have reduced chance of catastrophic ammo explosion because of the presence of separated ammo containers, ammo explosion should occur only in direct hit to SEVERAL ammo storage bins, otherwise there should be only fire as the result. In conclusion Every machine has its ups and downs and its reason to exist, the merkava sacrifices all other attribuites such as firepower and mobility in order to gain protection and survivability, so when the israeli army claims that this is the most protected MBT in the world (maybe all except T-14 armata, but i actually don't consider the armata as a tank but as a modern tank destroyer because the commander can't look outside the vehicle and it renders the armata even weaker to infantry than other tanks. But still it is probably the best anti tank vehicle in the world as of now) I believe them because the merkava has a whole shopping list of disadvantages to account for this one advantage. When I see some YouTube videos that **** on this tank without understanding it and also say that its protection lacking I feel like punching my self in the face I have put alot of thought on making of this post I hope you have found it enlightning or at least interesting, cheers .
  11. 7 points
    NOTE: THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL SLED A new topic to gather all information on the Japanese naval vessels so if you feel like you want to share with the community what you found you can post them here! Thank you ! In this thread you may: -Ask community for anything regarding Japanese maritime forces. -Ask community to help with your document report on Japanese maritime forces. -Post unique/ rare/ unseen photographs related to Japanese military vessels. -Post documents/ books/ magazines and/ or blueprints related to Japanese military vessels. -You think you found an new or rare Japanese military vessels? Share with us ! -Feel free to share your knowledge regarding Japanese military vessels. -If you think you find a bug that is not historically correct for example vessel model, RoF, armor thickness, mobility, ammunition, armament etc and you are uncertain about it, ask us for help ! This is a copy of this sled in a JPGF forum. I hope this sled can be a help to collect correct information about Japanese combat vessels! Internet Archives Books Published by Government Other books with valuable information I knows etc tips
  12. 7 points
    2019_12_15_23_19_27__25132.clogdrivers head is stuck in optics and confirmed it is that way with two other players.
  13. 7 points
    A bug when using the manual propeller set-up where overly high RPM would damage the engine too slowly, has been fixed. The engine will now become damaged at a faster pace. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  14. 7 points
    A bug when using the manual propeller set-up where overly high RPM would damage the engine too slowly, has been fixed. The engine will now become damaged at a faster pace. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  15. 7 points
    You nerf the bradley making it have weaker armor and now a weaker gun, you nerf the magach 3 apds pen to 260. And to top it off you raise the br of the xm-1, nice job gaijin in pissing off your player base once again. God knows what else you did to the american tech tree.
  16. 7 points
    increasing its rank to 3 would make it more effective at researching tier 4 vehicles and it would also be able to participate in events. As it stands currently it is unable to be used in events to make progress.
  17. 6 points
    Type 99 eelf propelled howitzer is a 155mm crawler type self-propelled gun jointly developed by Komatsu production Institute and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries under the entrustment of Japan Defense Agency Technical Research Department. Since 2002, it has completely replaced the 75 type self-propelled howitzer, which has become the main Artillery Equipment of Japan's land self defense force Evolution of development: The self-propelled howitzers of the Japanese land self defense force are mainly 75 type 155mm self-propelled howitzers, which were installed in 1975. Its performance and shape are very similar to the M109 155mm self-propelled howitzer in the United States. Its maximum range, even if it launches a special long-range projectile, is only 19 kilometers, and its performance is obviously backward. In 1983, Japan obtained a license to produce Swedish fh70 towed howitzers, which were equipped with artillery regiments south of Honshu. The maximum range of fh70 is 24km when launching ordinary shrapnel and 30km when launching rocket extended range projectile. In this way, there is a "strange phenomenon". It is not normal for Hokkaido division, which should be equipped with the most advanced weapons and equipment, to have its own howitzer performance behind that of the artillery regiments in the south of the state. Therefore, the Japanese military began to develop a new type of self-propelled howitzer in 1985. In 1992, the tactical and technical indicators of the new type of self-propelled howitzer were put forward, and the design and component trial production were started; in 1994, the technical demonstration sample car was produced; in 1996, the technical test was started; in 1997-1998, the use test was started; at the end of 1999, the name of the new type of self-propelled howitzer was 99 type 155mm (Japanese name is "99 type self-propelled 155mm howitzer"). In 2001, the land self defense force was equipped with six 99 vehicles, and in 2002, it was equipped with seven vehicles. In 2002, the purchase price was 950 million yen, about 8 million US dollars, which is more expensive than the 90 type main battle tank, which is too expensive. After 2003, 6-8 vehicles will be equipped every year. Due to the limited number of military procurement, the unit price can not be reduced naturally. There is also an episode about the naming of the Type 99 self propelled howitzer. Since it was finalized from the end of 1999 to the beginning of 2000, the Japanese military had to decide whether to name it 99 or zero. It may be that Japan had a famous zero type fighter during World War II. To avoid repetition, it was finally named the 99 type self propelled howitzer Technical characteristics General layout: The 99 type self-propelled howitzer has a total combat weight of 40 tons, four crew members, a total length of 11.3 meters, a full width of 3.2 meters, and a full height of 4.3 meters. The front left side of the car body is the power cabin, the right side is the cab, and the middle rear of the car body is the combat chamber. The driver's seat is on the right side, which is also related to the practice of passing on the left side of Japanese roads. There is a horizontally open hatch above the driver with 3 periscopes. There are louvers of water radiator on the top of the left side at the front of the car body. The exterior of the body part is very similar to that of the 89 infantry combat vehicle of Japan. However, the Japanese military said that the body of the Type 99 self howitzer is newly designed, but some parts on the chassis can be used in common with those of the type 89 infantry combat vehicle. The car body and turret adopt welding structure, while some hatch doors and cover plates mostly adopt screw connection structure dynamic system: The power unit is an in-line six cylinder four stroke water-cooled supercharged diesel engine manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. with a maximum power of 600 HP, which is the same as the power unit of the 89 infantry combat vehicle. However, the combat weight of the 89 ICV is only 26 tons, which indicates that the unit power of the 99 self-propelled howitzer is much lower, so the maximum speed is only 49.6 km / h, while the 89 ICV's maximum speed is 70 km / h. Since the mobility of the self-propelled howitzer is a little lower than that of the tank and infantry chariot, the lower unit power is allowed. On each side of the car body, there are 7 medium-sized load-bearing wheels and 3 belt supporting wheels. The driving wheel is in front and the inducer wheel is in the back, which is also the usual layout of the self-propelled howitzer. The first, second, sixth and seventh loaders are equipped with hydraulic shock absorbers. The three idlers are not arranged in a line, the middle one is located outside the track, and the front and rear two are located inside the track. The advantage of this is that the upper track can be straighter. The suspension device is of torsion bar type. The track shoes are of double pin type, connected at the end and equipped with rubber blocks. Although this kind of track is similar to the track of 89 infantry chariot, they are not the same Carbody material: The armor material and structure of the turret have not been published, and it is a fully welded structure of aluminum alloy armor. cannon In the tower, the front left is the car commander's seat (also known as the gun squad leader's seat), the back is the loading man's seat, the front right is the gun commander's seat, and the rear of the turret is the gun tail and various mechanisms of the automatic loader. The interior of the turret is a little narrow, but the electronic equipment inside the turret is arranged in order, showing the ingenuity of the designer. Although there is an automatic loader in the turret, there is still a loader in the vehicle, which shows that the designer wants to have a certain degree of redundancy in the configuration of the crew. That is to say, under normal circumstances, only three crew members can complete the task of the whole artillery vehicle. The loader can also undertake part of the gunner's task. The hatches on the gun car are not few, including the driver's hatch, two hatches on the top of the turret, two hatches on both sides of the turret, the back door of the car body, etc. The rear door of the car body is of two left and right open types. There is a protruding armor shell on the right side of the rear of the turret, similar to the docking connector of the space station, which can be docked with the ammunition feeder. After docking, it can automatically replenish ammunition to the vehicle. Too many open doors on the turret make it convenient for passengers to get on and off the turret and a small amount of supplementary ammunition, but weaken the protection of the turre Artillery system: The gun of Type 99 self-propelled howitzer is a long barrel 155mm Howitzer with a diameter of 52 times, with an automatic loader. Earlier reports called it a 39 caliber gun. This shows that the Japanese military intends to keep up with the trend of the world's own howitzers. In fact, a 52 caliber gun can be called a cannon, but it is still called a howitzer in terms of habits and tactics. The original 75 type self-propelled howitzer only realizes the automatic loading of the projectile, and the charge (propellant) should be manually loaded by the crew. The specific structure of the autoloader is unknown, and its appearance is similar to that of the autoloader made by Otto Breda company in Italy. Its muzzle brake is porous and its appearance is similar to that of pzh2000 in Germany. The pitching of the gun, the rotation of the turret and the loading of the shell are all hydraulically operated, and can be manually operated if necessary. The matching ammunition has not yet been released, but it is certain that it can launch the NATO standard 155mm ammunition. The charge package is a newly developed 99 type propellant charge. According to the combination, one to six charges can be launched to achieve different range. The biggest characteristic of the new propellant is that it can reduce the ablative property of propellant gas to the inner bore of gun barrel, and has good flameproof property, so it can improve the service life of gun barrel. In addition, the new propellant can also be used on the fh70 howitzer. The maximum range of the gun is 30 kilometers when it launches ordinary grenades, and 40 kilometers when it launches the exhaust bomb at the bottom. The maximum firing rate is 6 per minute, and the burst rate can reach 18 in 3 minutes. The ammunition base has not been published, estimated at more than 18 rounds Fire control accessories: The fire control system has been highly automated, with automatic diagnosis and automatic recovery functions. Although GPS system is not installed on the gun car, INS is installed on the car, which can automatically calibrate its position and share information with the new field command system (New Fadac). In this way, it only takes one minute from the artillery vehicle entering the position to launching the first bullet. It is convenient to adopt the tactics of "hit and run" and quickly transfer the position. In modern war, it is very dangerous for the self-propelled howitzer to stay in a firing position for a long time. It is necessary to quickly transfer the position and replenish ammunition after finishing a base. The auxiliary weapon is a M2 12.7mm heavy machine gun, which is installed on the right side of the top of the turret. The ammunition base is unknown. In front of it is the perimeter sight In the front center of the car body, there are gun barrel marching fixators. Its structure is quite complicated. Because this is a set of remote control automatic device, the fixation and release of the gun barrel and the erection and fall of the marching fixer can be controlled remotely in the vehicle, without the need for passengers to walk outside the vehicle. What's more, in the long-distance March, in order to prevent the long barrel from hindering the maneuvering of the gun car, the crew can operate a special device to indent the barrel for a certain distance. If you notice that there are two connecting hoops on the gun barrel, you should know that they are not fictitious. However, when the gun barrel is retracted, the automatic device cannot be used, and the lifting and falling of the marching fixture need to be realized by manual operation. The expansion and contraction of the barrel can be completed in one minute performance data: Basic parameters of Type 99 self propelled howitzer 4 occupants Total combat weight: 40 tons Vehicle length: 11300mm Gun width 3200mm Full height: 4300mm Weapon: 1 155mm gun, 1 m2 12.7mm machine gun Ammunition base: 18 rounds Armor rolling homogeneous armor Use of ammunition: L15 grenade, NATO standard M107 series shell, smoke bomb, lighting bomb, rocket extended range projectile, 99 long range grenade Performance data of Type 99 self propelled howitzer Power: 441 kw Maximum speed: 50km / h Maximum gradient: 60% Maximum shooting speed: 6 rounds / minute Maximum range 30000 m (ordinary grenade), 40000 m (bottom extended range projectile) High and low range - 5 ~ + 65 degrees Direction range: 360 degrees Service incident: In 1983, Japan obtained a license to produce Swedish fh70 towed howitzers, which were equipped with artillery regiments south of Honshu. The maximum range of fh70 is 24km when launching ordinary shrapnel and 30km when launching rocket extended range projectile. In this way, there is a "strange phenomenon". It is not normal for Hokkaido division, which should be equipped with the most advanced weapons and equipment, to have its own howitzer performance behind that of the artillery regiments in the south of the state. Therefore, the Japanese military began to develop a new type of self-propelled howitzer in 1985. In 1992, the tactical and technical specifications of the new self-propelled howitzer were put forward, and the design and component trial production were started; in 1994, the technical demonstration vehicle was produced; in 1996, the technical test was started; in 1997-1998, the use test was started; in 1999 Type 99 self propelled howitzer Type 99 self propelled howitzer At the bottom, it is named as "Type 99 155mm self propelled howitzer" (Japanese name is "Type 99 self-propelled 155mm howitzer"). In 2001, the land self defense force was equipped with six 99 vehicles, and in 2002, it was equipped with seven vehicles Sources: 99式自行榴弹炮 https://baike.baidu.com/item/99式自行榴弹炮/10174983 99式155毫米自走榴弹炮https://wiki.tw.wjbk.site/baike-99式155公厘自走榴彈砲
  18. 6 points
    No its not a rumor. Again absolutely anyone can come here and make up something they heard. Not how this works.
  19. 6 points
    No because hull break is a poor mechanic that doesn't work half the time and vehicles like that will survive more than a Maus. I can one shot many tanks in a Tiger ll if I had them right but light tanks are some of the worst.. especially the M19 SPAA has higher survivability than an IS-7.. that's just how the game works. I've blasted M18s with the Sturer Emil, meaning a 28kg projectile with 700 grams of explosive mass or something through the length of an M18 and all it did was make the chassis orange.. that's not to say the Sturer Emil has a bad shell, it means the game handles light tanks poorly and that's why they're meta. And how does yours not have a hull MG?
  20. 6 points
    All bomb targets + airfield require 6000 kg TNT, 3x me264 have 7200kg(2400 each) TNT. They start at 5000m and have climb rate of 6-7 m/s. Me264 is better in everything compared to b24(BR6.0), that has lower top speed(-30km/h level speed at spawn altitude, -10km/h top speed in dive), climb rate(3-4m/s),turn rate and bomb load(8x1000lb = 1923kg TNT). At BR6.0 b24 faces jets(kikka,me262,he162,attacker,meteor,f80,yak15-17) and superprops(especially do335 with it's medium bomber like spawn and 830 km/h top speed at BR5.0-5.7) almost every game, and just the airfield destruction requires 12000kg TNT(about 14tons of TNT are required to destroy all targets and airfield). B24 is in the game since 2013 and never saw BR revision. It started mass production years before any me264 prototype was build or tested. Me264 was announced this May as "rank IV" bomber with "low speed and poor climb rate", "decent payload" and 2x cannons as defensive armament. Released BR4.0 rank III, 3x cannons, unmatched speed, climb rate and bomb load up to allied heavy bombers that are BR 6.0 and above(Lancasters have better bomb load but they are slow and armed with only 7mm machine guns)
  21. 6 points
    I was looking for an archive and found an interesting picture that I would like to share with you. This is the appearance when a 120 mm APC round strikes at 22° on a 120 mm armor for a warship. Because it is old data, it may be different from the analysis in physics around World War II. I apologize for my translation being rough because the written Japanese is classic. February 24, 1920 Source Yuzuru Hiraga Digital Archive http://gazo.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hiraga2/show/id/21202701 Thanks for reading my article.
  22. 5 points
    The tank cant aim -5 degree if its shooting straight it has to aim sideways, which gives it the weaker part of the armor, which you can pen with your 7.7 coaxial which part of its mechanic is broken? Stack up SL? Bring 38 rounds which has 130 sl per shot. the Repair cost is 2500 sl per life 4940+2500= 7440 This will be every match some guy drive APC with autocannon at the start of the game, which is every fuchen game. You have to survive facing those IFVs and fight the TANKS with 7440 sl bet.
  23. 5 points
    Both of them are cancer just like every other atgm heli
  24. 5 points
    The story of the Mustang family started in 1940. That’s when the British Purchasing Commission approached North American Aviation to build Curtiss P-40 fighters under license. But North American Aviation came with a counter proposal: to develop a completely new aircraft for the RAF… within four months. The plan wasn’t without risks, but the Commission decided to take it… and won big time. The British had a habit of giving aircraft proper names; this one is now known as the Mustang. The War Thunder Team
  25. 5 points
    Could remove matchmaking lock for US and UK against Germany and you'll get faster waiting times to counter it?
  26. 5 points
    Trying to spade my M1A2 and nearly every match there are way too many XM-1 s in my team and they always leave after 1 death without taking kills. Allied teams were already bad and now russians being mostly on axis side its nearly impossible to win. M1A2 s %75 WR gone back to %65 in last week. Its gonna get much worse in time. XM-1 is not a top tier worthy tank. Its also not a tank for low tiers. So either implement the decompression at march or remove the XM-1 from top tier matchmaking. I dont want any XM-1 kiddos in my top tier matches.
  27. 5 points
    VonRichthofen555 Supersonic Splash Straight Screenshot (Ansel) Link
  28. 5 points
    1. The full name of the vehicle affected. 20 mm Ho-1 flexible cannon Ki-49 (all models) 20 mm Ho-3 fixed cannon Ki-45 Ko, Ki-45 Hei, Ki-45 Hei/Tei 2. A detailed description of the issue you have or what you see as being erroneous regarding its representation in-game. There is an issue with the armor penetration power of the 20 mm Ho-1/Ho-3 cannon. Historically, these aircraft cannons were designed based on a 20 mm Type 97 anti-tank rifle, and were relatively decent penetrating due to the use of powerful, compatible 20 x 125 cartridges. However, the penetrating power is poor in games. It seems that penetration data has been copied and pasted from a Ho-5 cannon using a lightweight 20 x 94 cartridge. 20 mm Ho-1 cannon (Ki-49): 20 mm Ho-3 cannon (Ki-45): 20mm Ho-5 cannon as sample for comparison: 3. A detailed description of the fix you suggest. I suggest fixing penetration data based on Gaijin calculators or historical penetration tests. Type 97 AP-T cartridge Projectile weight: 162.4 g Muzzle velocity: 750 m/s (AP-T round) Ballistic 630 m/s @ 220 m 540 m/s @ 420 m 430 m/s @ 700 m Armor penetration (90° angle) 30 mm @ 250 m 23 mm @ 500 m 18 mm @ 750 m 15 mm @1000 m 12 mm @1250 m 10 mm @1500 m 9 mm @2000 m Armor: RHA (Armor designation: Class I Bulletproof Steel Plate) Armor hardness: approximately 320 BHN Core: 2.05% Tungsten steel (Steel designation: Mk 3 Rifle Steel) Core hardness: Rockwell C scale 65 (Vickers hardness 883) Sources Reference of projectile weight and muzzle velocity: About the adoption of the Type 97 anti-tank rifle (九七7式自動砲仮制式制定ノ件). Published by Army Technology Headquarters. October 1938. p.14 https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/das/meta-en/C12121825700 Reference of ballistic: Authorizing provisional standard for Model 97 machine gun ammunition (九七式自動砲弾薬仮制式制定の件). Creator: Hisamura Taneki, Chief, Army Special Bureau of Technology. September 1938. p. 8 https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/das/meta-en/C01001742600 Reference of penetration power: T and I No, 32. 16 July 1945. Report No. 3-e(16), USSBS Index Section 6. p. 67 (Penetrating Power of AP Shells, extracted from a handwritten document on anti-tank guns, dated January 1944. Source unknown.) http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/4009544/68?itemId=info%3Andljp%2Fpid%2F4009544&contentNo=68&__lang=en Reference of penetration power: Japanese ammunition data, 20 MM, 1 July 1945. Report No. 12-b(51), USSBS Index Section 6 http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/4009974/14?itemId=info%3Andljp%2Fpid%2F4009974&contentNo=14&__lang=en Drawing of Type 97 AP-T round: CINCPAC Bulletin 85-45, Japanese Projectiles Vol 1 (1945). p.93 https://bulletpicker.com/usn.htm Type 97 Anti-Tank Rifle Instruction Manual http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1460370/52?itemId=info%3Andljp%2Fpid%2F1460370&contentNo=52&__lang=en 20 mm Type 97 anti-tank rifle https://www.forgottenweapons.com/japanese-type-97-20mm-anti-tank-rifle/ 20 mm Ho-1/Ho-3 aircraft cannon Catalog of Enemy Ordnance Materiel https://archive.org/details/CatalogOfEnemyOrdnanceMateriel/page/n187 About the composition of steel of Japanese armor-piercing shell. About the composition of the Japanese armor plate. For comparison, Type 2 AP-T round for 20 mm Ho-5 cannon: Plans for manufacturing shells-three copies. Report No. 45g(1), USSBS Index Section 2. Frame Number 28-29 http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/8818429/28?itemId=info%3Andljp%2Fpid%2F8818429&contentNo=28&__lang=en Calculating penetration power is complicated, claims vary from source to source, and I apologize for the rough summary. Please let me know if any information is missing. Thank you. 2019_12_25_10_53_47__4116.clog
  29. 5 points
    I've been playing WT since 2014 and all in all I've been having fun but I have a grocery list of issue with the game. I understand that it's Gajin sandbox and i just play in it but quality of life change could help keep senior player retention. I understand they want people to buy prem accounts, tanks,booster..... but I've never seen a F2P game that put this must effort in to making your blood boil. I also understand the Gaijin for the most part does there own thing and doesn't really take player input to heart. But when the dust settles and they find themselves hemorrhaging player we could tell them I told you so. Here a quick and dirty list of idiocracy in ground forces that have caused my friend to stop playing the game. 1) Having to research spare parts and fire extinguisher. No tank crew in the world would of left for the field of battle without some form of spare parts or the knowledge of how to repair their tank. I doubt they would leave without fire extinguisher. In the USSR case they probably had 7 T34 ready to go. How is this fun been tracked, engine knocked or gun breach destroyed and unable to move, shoot or both. Your only option are to J out. 2) The grind. is real. i understand they want people to spend money on prem account and tanks to help them move up the ranks but having a min research cap per tier is a pretty xxxx move in my opinion. having to unlock 5-6 vehicle that require 45-76k ex to unlock the next tier require alot of time. Alot of my friend have stop playing due to the fact you not only have to research every single tank but also buy every single tank 3) The low graphic exploit. Come on Gaijin why allow people to drop their graphic setting down to 0 and get a advantage.
  30. 5 points
    Déjà comme dit par hirykul donc non réaliste, donc tu fais tous se qui est impossible de faire en RB ( et dans la réalité ) , les lois de la physique et la logique tu les jettes à la poubelle et tu fais ta partie de mario kart à rouler comme *EDIT MODERATION* et tirer la où c'est vert.
  31. 5 points
    1) I'm sorry, but this thread is a joke. Gaijin is using the same event template for something like 15th time in the last 4+ years, there are several events of this type every year and there are always tons of threads with feedback ... are they really going to hear something new? are they now for some reason react to feedback they ignored last 14 times? somehow I doubt it 2) at least stop using tasks that are directly detrimental to teamplay. - capture point 15 times ... way too many players simply jump into fast vehicle, rush nearest capture point, then jump out of battle (and if team manages to win it is even counted as victory for them because they are over the "activity" limit). And increasing the number of points needed for the task isn't solution ... it just makes it almost impossible to achieve this task for anyone who isn't using this scumbag tactic and it also ensures that those who are using this scumbag tactic are annoying in way more battles (they certainly aren't going to stop) - get assist 30 times ... really? game is going to force (or at least heavily encourage) players to NOT kill enemies and instead just damage them and let them drive away hoping someone else is going to finish them? Something that can easily lose the team the battle, especially when there are multiple players finishing this task? - win 10 battles ... well, that wouldn't be that bad, except the activity requirement is absolutely idiotic. Several times I ended up with lower than 70% activity in long battle despite the fact that I was fighting the whole time. In RB air battles it is even worse, if you end up chasing last player (especially if it is bomber somewhere in stratosphere) or have to return to airfield to rearm, you are pretty much guaranteed that you'll fall under the 70% requirement. On the other hand, someone who shoots/damages enemy vehicle once and immediatelly bails from battle less than a minute after it started is guaranteed to have 90%+ activity and gets victory if the rest of the team manages to win the battle. What kind of 'genius' came up with this idea? This task is by far the most tailor made for abuse and exploiting ... and since it is the umpteenth time it is used you really can't pretend that it is done this way by accident. again.
  32. 5 points
    Even though the colored torpedo markers appear rather late with an inexperienced crew, you can see the bubble path of some torpedoes if you look for it. Either third-person camera can help there (due to the height over the ship) or the "binoculars".
  33. 5 points
    I'll be moderating it and viewing it often.
  34. 5 points
    nothing is more frightning than getting jumped by a king tiger that is sitting in a treetop on hürtgen forest
  35. 5 points
    honestly they would probably sell more T14s if they moved it to tier 3 as people would see potential in using it during events, its a win win.
  36. 5 points
    I know a lot of things (cross-console status included), but that doesn’t mean I will tell them in a random topic on the forum. This is what many people fail to understand - we do not announce things until they’re 100% going to be implemented in next major update. Doing otherwise is bad for marketing and only leads to players disappointment, not to mention there is always an NDA when it comes to relations with third parties or some internal workings. So, keep patience and be civil. I understand the frustration but that doesn’t warrant seriously hostile attitude some forum members demonstrate.
  37. 5 points
    fixed that for you. Why should I try to disprove a claim that hasn´t even been proven? It is just your experience again, which can be made up. Prove the swarming and we can continue to talk. I stay with my point on that Allied teams die due to overextending instead of holding the objective. Since they can deal with Panzer IVs just as easily as Panzer IVs can deal with them (see my screenshots from earlier as well as my stats on M24 and M4A1), they must be making another mistake. For someone with your experience who has been playing at that br most of his time that isn´t much of a surprise. You still try to use your own experience (unproven, biased) to try to deny facts which I brought up with screenshots (Protection Analysis/Tank Polygon). TBH anyone with your experience would have 0 difficulties dealing with Panzer IVs. Heck, even I with far less experience than you murder them with my Chaffee or Sherman. If you want to discuss on your level, fine. Someone tell those Panzer IVs that I murder with my little Chaffee their tanks are "OP". So first you try to tell me that the Panzer IIIs are good tanks (with their drawbacks) but you haven´t played them for some time? If you want to know: The Panzer IIIs have decent penetrating guns (basically the same as the T-34s and M4 Shermans) but here is where the armour comes to play. The Panzer IIIs are unable to penetrate both T-34 and M4 Sherman frontally (only exceptions being some weak spots and parts of the turret). Yes, I have. I was comparing the frontal protection of the Jumbo and the Panther 1. You desperately tried to avoid talking about the turret knowing very well that the Jumbo is far superior to the Panther here. You had to take drastic measures to even make a point like mentioning weird trap shots, the lower sides (which we weren´t talking about in the first place) or, even more ridiculous: special angles from which the DMs stock shell can penetrate the UFP of the Jumbo. All of these points were terrible since they worked out for the Panther just as well (trap shots, special angle, etc.). Additionally, only talking about the weaknesses of Allied tanks but not mentioning (basically denying) any on German tanks is just weak and shows a lack of actual disadvantages on Allied tanks (see mobility on British tanks compared to German TDs). Great. You pointed out that the hull of the Jumbo is threatened by two tank destroyers below or at its br in a discussion where I pointed out that there are 3 British tanks (Centurion 1 now included) that also ignore the hull of the Panther. About your second point: The Jumbo´s hull is resistant to many more things than the Panther 1s. I have already shown you a list of how many tanks can penetrate the Panther 1s and the 75mm Jumbo. You have not brought up anything against that (I doubt you can). The 5.0 Jumbo cannot be penetrated by the 5.7 Tiger E The 6.0 Panther F can be penetrated by the 6.7 T29/34 Both are heavy tanks 0.7 higher. All of these points have been countered by me and the only thing you did is limiting our initial discussion so it fits your arguments (even then I can counter them). Simply including the turret worsens the armour situation of the Panther to the Jumbo drastically. Unless you come up with screenshots yourself, this case is closed. My last posts about the armour of the Jumbo (with plenty of os screenshots) are facts. Also, could you quit exaggerating, please? You were talking about the T-44, which is 6.3. The Tiger II H is only 0.4 br higher. It is funny how you, just to make a point, claim things are completely different even if just 0.3 or 0.4 br higher (same with the Jumbo´s WR). You said that the filler of the T-44 doesn´t help if it doesn´t penetrate. Now you claim that the game changes drastically from 6.3 to 6.7 so the advantage of the Tiger II H (being reload rate) doesn´t suffer the same fate. You make up the craziest things so that your hilarious arguments only work for Allied tanks. Also, don´t try changing the subject, please. You were talking about slaughtering, so about the K/D of the Panzer IV. With all the tanks an Allied team can spawn in, the K/D of German tanks must be way higher than its opposition. Yet, TS shows a different picture. You also generally call the Panzer IV F2 OP so how does that work? just as many battles played as the M4A2, worse K/D (kills 1 tank less per battle), yet still slaughtering? Btw. All of the early T-34s have much higher K/Ds than the Panzer IVs as well. KV-1 (Zis-5) has the best K/D of all the tanks I checked so far.
  38. 4 points
    In Ground RB the larger maps, designed for the newest high tier vehicles, are absolutely awful for low-mid tier primarily because of their excessive size. In low-mid tier Air RB you spend 90% of the game climbing and getting to the fight, as compared to jet battles where you spend 80% of the game engaging in or maneuvering through fights. This is an extremely easy problem to solve, so there's no reason Gaijin can't change it. For most maps in Ground and Air RB they would literally just have to apply a coefficient to the dimensions of the map boundaries. With reduced area outside the outer objectives, whether they're bases or ground targets in Air RB or cap points in Ground RB, it would reduce the time it takes to get into the fight, lead to more interactions/engagements between players, and less chasing the last enemy team 30km away from the nearest objective. For Air RB maps that have airfields extremely far from each other low-tier players could simply have air spawns. This wouldn't fix the problem of repairing/rearming at an airfield in those battles, but as a quick fix it would at least help us get into the fight. This obviously isn't a perfect solution, and it wouldn't work for every map without adjusting spawn and objective locations, but the average game would be a lot more enjoyable at low-mid tiers.
  39. 4 points
    F-5E tiger II In 1957, the Vietnam War broke out in which the Americans were the first to test light fighter aircraft in Vietnam under combat conditions. In total, the Vietnamese received 118 upgraded F-5Es. In April 1975, South Vietnamese Air Force lieutenant Nguyen Thanh Trang bombed his presidential palace in Saigon on his F-5E, after which he flew to one of the airfields in North Vietnam. This bombing was the prologue to the victory of North Vietnam and the stampede of the Americans. On April 30, 1975, the war ended with the victory of North Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communists got 27 F-5Es as trophies. Some of them entered service with several mixed squadrons, which also had MiG-21s. The Vietnamese handed over several captured planes to the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Poland, where they passed a comprehensive assessment and testing. After the end of the Vietnam War in the USSR, F-5E Tiger II was delivered to the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow, among other aircraft. After studying the aircraft, the specialists of the Air Force Research Institute familiarized themselves with the leadership of the Air Force and the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry. Pilots appreciated the comfort of the cockpit, a good view of it, the rational placement of instruments and controls, easy takeoff and excellent maneuverability at high subsonic speeds. After testing at the Air Force Research Institute, the aircraft was handed over to TsAGI for conducting static tests, and many of its components and assemblies ended up in the design bureaus of the aircraft industry, where Northrop used interesting technical solutions to develop domestic aircraft. Specifications Dimensions: Wing span, m: standard - 8.13 with tanks at the ends of the wings - 8.54 Length, m - 14.68 Height, m - 4.06 Wing Area, m2 - 17.28 Weights and loadings: Weight kg: empty - 4392 normal take-off - 7030 maximum take-off - 10922 Fuel, l: in internal tanks - 2562.7 PTB - 3 x 1041 Performance specifications: Engine type 2 x turbojet engine General Electric J85-GE-21V Rod, kN - 2 x 22.24 Maximum speed, km / h - 1760 (M = 1.64) Cruising speed, km / h - 1041 Practical range with PTB, km - 3720 Range, km: with maximum combat load - 222 maximum - 1083 Maximum rate of climb, m / min - 9900 Practical ceiling, m - 16460 Armament: Crew 1 Armament: two 20-mm guns Ford M39A2 (2x280) The combat load is 3175 kg on 7 pylons of the suspension. At the ends of the wing there are two UR AIM-9 Sidewinder At five nodes of the suspension, the aircraft can carry a bomb load of up to 2810 kg or 4 missile launchers AGM-65 Maverick, and launchers 127 and 70 mm NUR. Containers with 12.7 mm machine guns or 20 mm guns Sources: https://www.military-today.com/aircraft/northrop_f5e_tiger_ii.htm https://topwar.ru/40987-vtoroe-dyhanie-istrebitelya-f-5.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f5e.html https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Northrop+F-5&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&wprov=acrw1_0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
  40. 4 points
    The RU is nothing special (anymore). It has advantages and disadvantages like many other tanks as well. And btw, everybody is able and allowed to judge opinions. Somebody hitting hard has to be able to be addressed hard in return. And for me it is very very very hard to be convinced by a blind man to buy the newest color TV. I said it in another thread before, bringing up unqualified urban legends over and over again without any scientific or at least countable basis to explain the high win-rate differences won’t enhance the discussion either. What solution is to be found? Bring the RU to a higher BR against all qualified and available statistics? I won’t take part in a discussion about the T-29 here, I don’t own it and I have no problem with it in-game countering it, but I know for sure that hordes of T-29s and T-30s occur from time to time and I had much more games with Ts camping the spawn than with RUs doing anything similar.
  41. 4 points
    This. Not to mention if you kill an M1A2 he still has 5, FIVE, more Abramses to fall back on (not to mention backup for that M1A2), and all the other excellent vehicles, best CAS in game, best helicopter tree, best SPAA, etc. US has no bad vehicles in top tier. Yes some are mediocre, but not one outright bad like T-64A. Otoh, what do you have? T-80B, T-64, inexistant CAS, mediocre fighters, so-so AA... Only good thing above 7.3 in soviet tree is BMP-2 and even that is nerfed compared to NATO what with no thermals (that all NATO 8.3 IFVs have) and ammo that got hit with 20% pen nerf recently. Then there are the Germans with their endless parade of Leopards L44 and G.91 with ATGMs and best choppers taken from both sides, etc.
  42. 4 points
    Heavy tank concept relies on Thick Armor There is a reason why people made Heavy Tanks in the 2nd WW because at that time no practical weapon could penetrate the armor easily. If there were fiat's at that time no one would have bothered themselves with making heavy tanks. That weapon totally ignores armor consequently totally ignores the concept & the strategy of armor and heavy tank just like the Object 120. There is a reason why those Heavy Tanks are slow it is because of their armor. The reason of having such slow tanks is that it is difficult to penetrate. If it is going to be penetrated easily with Vietnam Era vehicles what is the use of having such vehicles? It totally disables the usage of Heavy Tank. They have removed the Maus. They should also remove the Tiger I, II, Ferdinand etc. Because they don't fit to the game in such case... It is just nonsense and absurd
  43. 4 points
    In early 1944 the German Me 262 jet fighter was revealed to Japanese representatives for the first time. The Japanese quickly requested more information, and later purchased detailed manufacturing prints and actual sample aircraft. However, while at this time the Japanese Navy largely saw jet engines as only suitable for Special Attackers, cheap engines "to work for the time necessary", the Army believed in the employment of a high-speed jet fighter using a powerful turbojet to surpass the performance of current piston aircraft. Initially this project, a complete license production of the "Me 262", was assigned to Kawasaki by the Army. A schedule was made, but the plan was so preliminary no Ki number was assigned, it was only the "Kawasaki Rocket Plane". Later, the project was re-allocated to Nakajima for uncertain reasons, and by the end of 1944 it had been officially instructed by the Army for prototyping as the Ki-201 "Karyuu" (Fire Dragon). Because no German design prints nor aircraft were actually procured to Japan, the basic shape of "Me 262" had to be reverse engineered using Japanese methods. Nakajima rushed the development of "Karyuu" and its engine in the last months of the Pacific War, but in the end no aircraft was made. https://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2019/12/ki-201-karyu.html The article covers the history of the Me 262 production plan to Karyuu, with documentation including design syllabus, original drawing, and the airframe manual of Karyuu translated at the footer link.
  44. 4 points
    Ace (no0b) player working my way through the ranks, hoping to find a replacement for WOTs and wow....this game is total crap! I mean, from the insta-loss games, to the insta-kills (even after I nuked him with five penetrating shots), to the spawn killing....this game is total crap! I mean, I could never imagine WOTs could get worse, but this one steps up and says "hold my beer". I mean, ****.....as if throwing 5 rounds from my m10 through a light tank, only to get one-shotted by him wasn't enough, but to spawn in only to get nuked by a t-34 camping in the base? You have to laugh at the mentality of it all. Good job WT, you have succeeded WG in making what could be a really awesome game, into the dumbest **** imaginable. Slow clap and congratulations!
  45. 4 points
    No, that's not the logic used, that's simply you altering his argument and reducing it to something absurd.
  46. 4 points
    26 HP/T vs 12.2 HP/T.... 72kph vs 45kph....on road... 47kph vs 35kph... Offroad.. Right right... Definitely exaggerated... This is bullship... This is such bullship... They are not more mobile then T44... They are faster in straight line offroad by 3kph... And thats it.
  47. 4 points
    I hope they will reduce the cost for buying tasks. Seriously, if I have 2/3 done why do I still pay 999 GE? Couldn't they just make it 999, 666 and 333?
  48. 4 points
    Had a little bit of free time and thought, why not cutting a hole into my office chair and attach my stick to it Best is it is detachable @edenstyle @LeftHandMonkey
  49. 4 points
    VonRichthofen555 "Lost my glasses" Straight Screenshot (Ansel) Link