Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 22/12/18 in all areas

  1. 27 points
    As the tittle suggest. This thing has 400mm HEATFS, has 120km/h (!!!!!) of maximum speed, has stabilizer, it has BEST ARMOR (no armor), and DOES NOT hullbreak. This thing is terrible clubber at 7.7. It needs to go to 8.3 or 8.7 ASAP. I talk about RB.
  2. 26 points
    Let’s discuss this game changing meta that is going to put a stop to USA CAS. Since it’s 75mm, the range is huge, and it’s a proximity fuse round that explodes near your jet or helicopter. ive been hit flying at 2km altitude in an ah1g. The first shot I said wtf was that, and looked for a jet. Then 10 seconds later.... BOOM Can Italy be matched with allies? If not it seems it’s the break Germany and USSR has been waiting for. lets discuss
  3. 24 points
    For the people wondering about the state of the top tier tanks in WT, and about how realistic things are up there Leopard 2A4 - unrealistically low mantlet armour & missing 240mm thick solid trunnion (50mm hollow trunnion ingame is once again a ridiculous error and again just another Gaijin balance implementation) - severely lacking mobility (should be slightly better than the Abrams, yet it's slower around a course ingame than a T-64 !) - severely underperforming DM23 APFSDS shell (~50% less post penetration dmg of all other APFSDS shells!) - lack of real life wide FOV 4x zoom in optics (hampered situational awareness, because balance??) - unrealistically low side armour (10mm sponsons is just a laughably stupid error) - lacking HHA plating on sides, UFP and countless other places (Balance?) M1 & M1IP Abrams - unrealistically low mantlet armour (120mm RHA trunnion + ~350mm NERA module does not just provide 200mm RHAe protection for gods sake!) - lacking HHA plating on sides, UFP and countless other places (Balance?) T-64B & T-80B - unrealistically high UFP protection value (Balance?) - severely overperforming APFSDS shells vs slope (Balance?) - unrealistically resilient ammunition storage/carousels (Balance?) Gotta be a coincidence that the only tanks with errors that benefit them are all Russian, whilst the rest only got errors are detrimental to their performance ingame.
  4. 18 points
    As the title suggest, Out of 20 games played in my beloved type 90, I won 2 matches. Great way to enjoy festive season, repeatedly getting matched with level 40 players who haven't even played a 1000 sessions in this game. Top tier in this game is broken to point you literally cant play anything except for USA. I don't understand how can Gaijin let such a lop sided affair in top tier. I have been playing this game for almost 3 years now but this has to be the lowest of lows I have seen. You post anything half negative about the game, the devs delete your post but here are my 2 cents on how to add balance:- 1) Give Germans Dm33, they get matched with russians 90 percent of games anywayz 2) Give all nations Spaa that can fight hellis sitting 5 kms away 3) Give Russians and Germans planes like FJ4B 4) Fix the match making system which makes every single match lop sided to a point you either steam roll or get destroyed the next match 5) Reduce the spawn points for planes without any armament to fight hellis Zero fun playing in lop sided matches, doesnt matter which side you are on
  5. 18 points
    Technical Moderators are recruiting! Are you a dedicated and keen pilot, tanker or captain seeking to help aid the War Thunder Project? The Technical team is currently looking for new recruits willing and eager to help improve the game and contribute to the Community Technical Support and Moderated Bug Reports area. In particular, we are looking for users with spesific interests in Ground and Naval related bugs and historical issues. This can range from Armour investigation, visual model bugs, performance queries and graphical problems too. Of course, we would welcome applications from players on any platform that wish to register interest for the team. Perhaps you have a wealth of experience with US tanks? Japanese aircraft, Ammunition types or just want to help forward bug reports from the community, Technical Moderation may very well be just the place for you. Tech Mods are primarily involved in bug reports and technical support for the community; as a Tech Mod you are an important link between the game community and development, passing along any identified problems so they may be fixed in a timely manner. Testing and replicating possible issues and validating reports on both production and development servers is a key part of the Technical role. Requirements: Good knowledge and understanding of the game and its mechanics as well as being active players in the game and in the Community. A positive connection to the game as well as a desire to make the game better. An ability to work in an international volunteer team, sociable, and able to communicate on various communication platforms. Availability to commit time to testing and the reproduction of issues, when required. Generally sound technical knowledge as well as any previous technical experience. Solid proficiency in both spoken and written English. Must be over 18 years of age and able to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as well as being a trustworthy and responsible individual. What would also benefit: Additional technical knowledge of WIndows, Linux. Playstation 4, Xbox One or Mac Any additional languages spoken would be a bonus (German, Polish, Japanese, Korean, ect.) Your role may also include being involved in Suggestions and Community Technical Support depending on your preference and abilities. Day to day tasks and responsibilities of a Technical Moderator: Addressing and Dealing with Moderated Bug Reports in the forum Forwarding any viable issues and bugs to the devs via In house tracker Answering and addressing any queries, issues or problems in Community Technical Support. Assisting in the testing and replication of any issues with fellow Technical Team members at the direction of Seniors or Administration/CM. Provide technical assistance during Public Dev Server tests both on the forum and in game. Testing and replicating bugs raised by the community and your own initative. Review and test all changes in any given update and monitor all news and feedback threads/topics for any additional issues being brought up that need highlighting or forwarding. APPLICATIONS NOW CLOSED - Successful applicants will be contacted via PM and announced here on Tuesday evening. Please contact Smin1080p with your application telling us a bit about yourself and why you think you would be a great Tech Mod! Please title all application PM’s “Technical Moderator - Application [Your Game Name]”.
  6. 16 points
    I want to let people know that the ingame maus has nothing to do with its real counterpart.I want to make the ingame tank the way it was supposed to be.I have all the documents a man can find and get his hands to. HERE.WE.GO. Here are the documents that prove that the pzgr43 had more penetrating power.In there you can also see that a pzgr ts is listed.That is the apds round that this tanks gun used in some tests.It did indeed exist and it could work.It was not a standart round but that is not a problem in war thunders realm.According to my calculations done with the below formula the pzgr43 shell reaches 248mm of penetration at 1000m 0 degrees angle and the pzgr ts reaches 324 at 1000m 0 degrees angle.All these documents come from krupps and porches firing ranges.The sources are written in the documents so dont start yelling that they have no source.And dont tell me that i dont have at least 2 sources.I have listed 3. Here is the formula for calculating armor penetration in angled or not plates Next comes the armor thickness on the turret front and on the tank in general.The armor was wotan hart n/a for a reason.Yes the modifier may have been the same as on rolled homogenous steal but it was mcuh stronger from that because it was ment to be equipped to battleships.But much greater tensile strength and endurance was delivered.The turret front was supposed to be 240mm thick wotan hart.Some times tanks got more thickness due to cherry picking.Some times the armor was higher,by a few mms,from what it was supposed to be some times lower and some times it was exatly (no absolute exists lets say it was as close as possible) as much as it was supposed to be.If the turret front in real life came out to be 236 or 238 or 231 or 245 or 280 i dont care.If it was supposed to be 240 wotan hart then thats what we should get.No more no less and no other version.In this case the ingame armor should be 260 or something or just 240 wotan hart but withstand and ricochet shells as if it is 260.Or at least most shells listed against it should say "protection from this shell is 260mm".In the end even the 240 is good. The sources are michael frontlichs book and an american book about the maus.The first picture is from the first link i posted if i am correct. Here comes the proof Now we go to the rangefinder the 360 smoke launcer and the much much better scope this tank had.The zoom was x10 and the tank did indeed have a rangefinder up to 1000 meters.Also the smokelauncer could rotate 360 degrees unlike what we have in game.It was the exact same smoke launcer that was used in the tigers. Here they come We must also take a look at the ventilation shafts that in game are extremely underarmored (if that is even a word) for some reason.I have been killed a multitude of times from people that shot a heatfs round that exploded near the vent shafts.Take a look at these ventilation shafts and tell me if they seem to you as 10mm thick.I suggest making them 50mm thick And finaly I will end this post with a picture about a suggestion and some final words.This tank was supposed to receive a second turret (i dont count the mockup turret as first) that was better suited for its era.A turret backwards angled that would negate all the shot trap problems and add to the tank a bit more protection to its most frontaly vulnerable spot.A maus 2 or a tier 4 upgrade would not be bad at all considering that many tanks have many of their variants in game.It would not be game braking and it would certainly not give maus players a massive advantage.Its like the porsche-henschel tiger 2 variants.In the extreme case add it as a premium cause why not.This is my suggestion. A really long post that was not actually made in an hour but in a year because thats how much i needed to gather all the required documents about our overweight friend.I thank everyone that took the time to read and go through all my documents. Have a great day ! P.S.According to what is said on this thread about the reload times of the 128mm gun,the reload time of the maus(and the jagdtiger)should be a lot lower from what we have in game,the guy states 16 seconds,on a stock maus let alone an expert and aced one !
  7. 16 points
    1) First they added these cancer vehicles that can kill from out of range of everything 2) They give hell fires and air to air missile 3) Now with a minor update, these hellis can get hit by tank shell multiple times or by aircraft gun and still stay alive I have Ah1z myself but i don't play it because its just dead brain gameplay and not fair to opponent team, IMO this helli patch was 1 one of the worst unbalanced patch since they added IS6 and nerfed apds and heatfs. I mean ffs can they atleast fix the damage model for these hellis? How did the whole community come together all of a sudden on repair and fire extinguisher and not even talk about these cancer vehicles.
  8. 15 points
    As the title says, it is very tiring to be ground-pounded constantly by the German Do 335 and Me 262, with the only hope of self-defense being the roof 50 cal, which however has nerfed elevation speed (same as the main gun), and is therefore no good. I always thought that the reason why the US has the worst SPAAG in the game is because all the tanks have roof-mounted 50 cals, but considering that Gaijin has seemingly put effort into ensuring that these machine guns cannot be used in the AA role, I wonder what is the actual reasoning behind that. Same with the German AA. I always assumed it was the best out of all the nations as a counter to the broken Allied CAS (one-shot HVARs), but nowadays the Germans have one of the more capable CAS setups. Using cannons on already very fast or agile fighter planes is very strong. Other nations can only mount payloads on their plane, which cripples its flight performance. When it comes to SPAA, the US has these options at that BR: M13: Worse M16 M16: Decent AA capacity, but is extremely fragile and the 50 cals often aren't sufficient enough to win a 1v1 headon against a plane M15A1: Probably the worst SPAAG in the game. The 37mm autocannon is completely useless because its ballistics don't match that of the 50 cals, so you will be using either the twin 50 cal or the 37mm, not both M19 / M42: Slightly better at surviving a pass, the twin Bofors can oneshot most planes with the HE shells, but without sequential firing, these SPAAGs have too low rate of fire to be practical, as it's way too difficult to land a hit However if sequential firing were to be implemented, the effective rate of fire of the twin Bofors would be a combined 240 rpm, which would make them actually usable. Add to this the fact that all these SPAAGs are hull-breakable and have exposed crew, with very little armour overall Seeing as the current AA options are ineffective, either the German CAS should be nerfed, or the US should receive better AA options. I can't talk for other nations, as I haven't really played much besides the US, and some UK and Japan, but it is indisputable that the US and UK are the only nations that aren't able to play alongside Germany, which means that these nations will always face German CAS, but will never be under the protection of German AA, therefore these nations should have their own valid AA options. Gaijin recently stated that they consider adding the Skink as an event vehicle. They don't want it in the regular tree because "it would be controversial to have an SPAAG with very little armour penetration". Well I think it's more controversial that the Skink isn't in the game yet. I wouldn't be opposed to adding it into both the US and UK trees as a regular tree vehicle at 3.7 / 4.0 / 4.3, as an equivalent to the Wirbelwind and Italian M42. Or even place it at 6.7, it's going to be great either way. I don't see the problem. The Skink entered mass production, but it was soon stopped because the Luftwaffe was long gone by then, so there was no need for an SPAAG. Regarding the US x UK question, I believe that ideally it should be present in the US tree, considering that out of these two nations, there are more people playing the US than the UK. Therefore it would make a greater impact on the balance of the game, meaning that perhaps the German CAS players could no longer lawnmow with impunity. Then there's also the point that the Canadian M4A5 Ram II is already in the US tree, so I suppose the Skink should be there as well for the sake of consistency? But then again, it's fine by me to have the Skink in both trees, if it's ever added. (note for moderators: This post debates the current balance of the game between the German CAS and US AA, and draws parallels to Axis AA vs Allied CAS. Therefore this isn't a general CAS topic but instead a topic of general tech tree balance, namely the balance of the SPAAG vehicle type across all tech trees)
  9. 15 points
    And even further now.... I loved this GF mode. I always did but the captured/ sold vehicles are destroying the immersion for me as are the small maps... First we had Japan M4A3 76mms and M24 chaffes fighting agaist US ones... And now ? We have M26 Pershings on the axis side - Italy fighting M26 Pershings on allied side ? US ... What a nonsense is this the same as Jumbs fight Jumbos ( France vs US....)? I always imagined this mode as one of the modes that is trying to be 'accurate' but this is just nonsense and a result of trying to balance something that can't be balanced differently than setting years of eras accordinlgy when the vehicles were used.... I am sure US army wouldn't secure their control in Japan or in Italy by giving/ selling them their equipment if they knew they could fight against them in it... what a dumb imagination.
  10. 15 points
    If the Japanese get the Ho-Ri...and the Germans get the Tiger II 10.5 and Panther II...Italy should get the P.43 Nothing else really needs to be said.
  11. 15 points
    Getting tired of this bs. Full team of Japanese planes but for some reason MM feels like we definitely need those 2 GER planes which means that suddenly we have to play some nonsense map from Europe together with Italy against French and British planes. Same on the other side, not my cup of tea to play GER on Hokkaido. This is like giving us night battles and black clouds to have more fun (HINT: IT ISNT!). Japanese were perfectly fine without these stupid mixes and from my experience all these do is make allied teams suffer even more than in classic battles because combination of GER + JPN planes (i. e. incredibly fast and agile) is pretty tough to beat. But this is secondary, I hate it and I am willing to wait couple more minutes to get proper Air RB battle. I hope nobody competent does not even think about making this atrocious thing permanent.
  12. 14 points
    Recently got the maus and so far it isn't an enjoyable experience compared to other 7.7s I have played, at 7.7 br, its only good at a downteir and rn the 8.7br black hole has began. When at 8.7 the maus has no way to even survive the battle as everything lol pens him with atgms, heatfs, apfsds, and apds. At 7.3 or 7.0, it would be balanced as bmps, cent mk 10s, Vickers, conquerors, m46, m47, t44 100, amx 30, amx 13-90, will penetrate the turret easily, 6.7s can do the same but with either apds, ap, or apcr, 6.3s will have to use apcr and 6.0s can flank around it. I would see no problem at 7.3 or 7.0 as it wont be sucked into the 8.7 black hole and wont be too op
  13. 14 points
    When I first saw the M42 SPAA I thought it would perform like a Wirblewind. Unfortunately it does not. It has MUCH smaller magazines for the 20mm autocannons and therefore is quite difficult to use and demonstrably worse than its peers (Wirblewind, Crusader AA Mk II , M15A1 CGMC and BTR-152A.) The R3 T20 FA-HS, on the other hand is vastly superior to every Tier II SPAA in the game. The rate of fire is amazing, it is stabilized, and the vehicle it is on is the fastest in the game. The R3 is clearly superior to the M42 SPAA (Yes I know the HVAP rounds on the M42 will make it better at killing tranks, but that's IT) I strongly recommend that the M42 remain in Rank III and drop to 3.3 BR and the R3 T20 move to Rank IV and be adjusted to 4.7 BR.
  14. 14 points
    Ju-86 Family The Junkers Ju 86 was a German monoplane bomber and civilian airliner designed in the early 1930s, and employed by both sides during World War II. Like the contemporary He 111, the Ju 86 was developed as an airliner and bomber, and five prototypes of each were ordered in 1934. The Junkers aircraft flew five months later, four months ahead of its competitor, and had been designed around the new Junkers Jumo 205 diesel engine. Initial flight trials were disappointing, handling in particular being poor, and during subsequent modifications (which may have improved but not eradicated the problems) gun positions were installed. The third prototype was completed as a bomber and flew in January 1935, four months before the second prototype that was built as a commercial aircraft with 10 passenger seats. The fourth prototype, destined to become the first definitive Ju 86B airliner, flew in May 1935, followed three months later by the fifth prototype, the production prototype for the Ju 86A bomber. Initial deliveries of Ju 86A-1 pre-production bombers were made in February 1936 and the first Ju 86B pre-production transport for Swissair was delivered in April 1936. Five Ju 86D-1 bombers with improved Jumo 205C engines served with the Legion Condor during the Spanish Civil War, but the powerplant did not stand up well to combat conditions and the aircraft proved markedly inferior to the Heinkel He 111. Military export orders included the Ju 86K-1 for South Africa and Sweden, where Saab subsequently licence-built the type as the SAAB B3; the Ju 86K-2 for Hungary, which built 66; and the Ju 86K-6 for Chile and Portugal. The Ju-86 was also powered by 800 hp Pratt & Whitney radial engines. They were used by S.A.A. Ju-86K-5 Luftwaffe dissatisfaction with the capability of the Ju 86D led to the far more reliable Ju 86E-1 with B.M.W. 132F radial engines and the Ju 86E-2 with B.M.W. 132Ns; improvements introduced during production brought re-designation of the last 40 Ju 86Es on the production line as Ju 86G-1 aircraft, with round glazed noses; production ended in 1938. However, in 1939 two Ju 86D airframes were used for conversion as the Jumo 207A-engined prototypes of a high-altitude version with a two-seat pressurised cabin. Successful trials led to two initial production versions, the Ju 86P-1 bomber and Ju 86P-2 reconnaissance aircraft. The latter had a ceiling of about 12800m, and in an effort to gain more altitude a high aspect ratio wing spanning 32.00m was introduced to produce the Ju 86R-1 reconnaissance aircraft and Ju 86R-2 bomber. Only a few reached service, but one demonstrated a ceiling of 14400m. Development of the Ju 86R-3 with supercharged Jumo 208 engines and of the proposed Ju 186 four-engined high-altitude bomber based on the Ju 86 were abandoned. A six-engined Ju 286 high-altitude bomber did not progress beyond the initial planning stage. Ju.86P-1 History: The bomber was field tested in the Spanish Civil War, where it proved inferior to the Heinkel He 111. Four Ju 86 D-1s arrived in Spain in early February 1937, but after a few sorties one of them (coded 26-1) was shot down on 23 February by Republican fighters with the loss of three crewmen killed and one captured. A replacement aircraft was sent from Germany, but in the summer of 1937 another D-1 was lost in an accident, and the three remaining aircraft were sold to the Nationalist air forces. It was again used in the 1939 invasion of Poland, but retired soon after. In January 1940, the Luftwaffe tested the prototype Ju 86P with a longer wingspan, pressurized cabin, Jumo 207A1 turbocharged diesel engines, and a two-man crew. The Ju 86P could fly at heights of 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and higher on occasion, where it was felt to be safe from Allied fighters. The British Westland Welkin and Soviet Yakovlev Yak-9PD were developed specifically to counter this threat. At the outbreak of the Second World War, South Africa's Ju 86Zs were militarized and armed as bombers with defensive guns and external bomb racks. The aircraft were initially used for coastal patrols along with the sole Ju 86 K-1, playing an important role in the interception of the German blockade runner SS Watussi in December 1939. In May 1940, they were used to re-equip No. 12 Squadron SAAF, which was deployed in the East African Campaign from June 1940. It flew its first bombing missions on 14 June 1940. As more modern aircraft became available, the South African Ju 86s were passed from squadron to squadron, seeing their last use with No. 22 Squadron SAAF at Durban, who used it, along with the Avro Anson in the coastal reconnaissance role, finally retiring its Ju 86s in September 1942, when it re-equipped with Lockheed Venturas. The largest order for Ju.86 came from Hungary. After considering the issue of the possibility of producing He.111 with licensed engines "Gnome-Ron" - 14K "Mistral-Major", the Hungarians stopped buying Junkers bomber with the same engines. They planned to equip two bomber units of their "secret" Air Force. In 1936, the first order was issued for 24 Ju.86k-2, and a total of 66 bombers were purchased. The deliveries of Ju.86k-2 to the Hungarian Air Force went erratically due to the inability of Manfred Weiss to withstand the production schedule of the Gnome-Ron 14K. The first bomber was delivered to Hungary only in early 1938. On Ju.86k-2, the 3rd Bomber Regiment was re-armed. The 1st group of the regiment (3./I) in Tapolka had three squadrons (3/1, 3/2 and 3/3) with nine cars each, and 3./II in the Pope - two squadrons (3/4 and 3/5). In addition, Ju.86k-2 received one squadron of the second bomber regiment (2/3), and one link each was in two other squadrons (2/4 and 2/5) at the airfield in Szombathely. Ju.86k-2 did not participate in the transient war with Yugoslavia, which followed the invasion of the German troops in the Balkans on April 6, 1941. Two months later, on June 1, 3./II was disbanded to replenish the other two groups with already outdated aircraft. As a result, by the time Hungary declared the war on the USSR on June 27, 1941, their air force had only two groups of a two-squadron squadron with Junkers bombers - 4./I and 4./II at Debrecen airfield. With the outbreak of hostilities, a mixed squadron (4/0) with six Ju.86k-2 and six Caproni Ca.135bis was formed on the basis of the 4th air regiment. As part of the air brigade supporting the "fast corps", they crossed the Carpathians, but the Ju.86k days were already numbered. In 1942 it was decommissioned, although it was used to train pilots in groups 4./I and 4./II. Variants: A Fuel capacity: 330 gallon D Fuel capacity: 360 gallon Empty weight: 11,354 lb Disposable load: 6416 lb Ju-86D-1 Engines: 2 x Junkers Jumo 205C-4, 447kW Max take-off weight: 8200 kg / 18078 lb Loaded weight norm: 17,760 lb Empty weight: 5150 kg / 11354 lb Wingspan: 22.50 m / 73 ft 10 in Length: 17.87 m / 57 ft 8 in Height: 5.06 m / 16 ft 7 in Wing area: 82.00 sq.m / 882.64 sq ft Max. speed: 325 km/h / 202 mph Cruise speed: 170 mph Ceiling: 5900 m / 19350 ft Range w/max.fuel: 1500 km / 932 miles Armament: 3 x 7.92mm machine-guns, 800kg of bombs Crew: 4 E Range: 746 miles E-1 Loaded weight max: 18,080 lb Max speed SL: 202 mph Cruise speed: 174 mph Landing speed: 66 mph Rate of climb: 918 fpm Service ceiling: 22,310 ft E-4 Empty weight: 11,464 lb Disposable load: 6416 lb G-1 Wingspan: 73 ft 9.5 in Length: 56 ft 5 in Length: 16 ft 7.25 in Wing area: 882.6 sq.ft Empty weight: 12,040 lb Disposable load: 6416 lb Loaded weight: 18,127 lb Max speed SL: 205 mph Max speed 13,120ft: 236 mph Cruise speed: 210 mph Service ceiling: 25,255 ft Range: 870 miles Ju.86H – A development of the D series as a high altitude bomber / reconnaissance type, which became the P series. Ju.86K – Powered by two 905 hp Bristol Mercury XIX radials or Pratt & Whitney Hornet radials. Forty for Sweden built by Junkers and sixteen built by Saab (first one delivered on 18 Dec 1936 and the last on 3 Jan 1941. Armed with a 7.9mm manually operated mg in nose turret. Another mg in the open cockpit above the fuslage aft, plus another in a dust bin turret beneath the fuselage. Able to carry a bomb load of 2205 lb. K-1 – For Sweden (as the B 3) who built the type under licence. Powered by two 875 hp Pratt & Whitney Hornet radials. c/n 0856/131 – cn 0957/132, cn 0958/133 K-2 – For Hungary who produced 66, mostly powered by Gnome Rhone 14K Mistral-Major radials. Serials HA-JBA to HA-JCA & HA-XIA / B 301 to B 362 & G 211 to G 213 K-3 – For South Africa Airways K-4 – 20 licence built in Sweden, designated B 3A Powered by two 820 hp Bristol Pegasus III radials K-5 – 16 aircraft similar to the K-4, also Swedish built, designated B 3B Powered by two 920 hp Bristol Pegasus XII radials Serials 134 – 136 to 170 K-6 – For the Chilean Air Force (J-1 to J-12) and Portugal (cn 0960 to 0969 – 250 to 259) K-9 – Powered by Gnome Rhone radials K-13 – Bomber type built by Sweden with Polish and Swedish built Pegasus engines K-16 – Built by SAAB for the Swedish Air Force (C 1 to C 16) and designated - B 3C powered by two 980 hp Bristol Pegasus XXIV or – B 3D powered by two 835 hp PZL engines Ju.86P – high altitude pressurised bomber / reconnaissance type with a crew of 2 PV-1 – D-AUHB – prototype for the P serieswhich first flew during Jan/Feb 1940 Powered by two supercharged 900 hp Junkers-Jumo 207A diesel engines PV-2 – Similar to the PV-1 and flew for the first time during Mar 1940 PV-3 – with a greater wingspan Wingspan: 83 ft 11 7/8 in P Max speed 39,000ft: 242 mph P-1 – As a reconnaissance / bomber type, powered by two 1000 hp Junkers Jumo 207 Later armed with one remotely controlled aft firing 7.92mm MG 17 and able to carry four SC 250 bombs internally Wingspan: 74 ft 0 in Length: 54 ft 0 in Height: 15 ft 5 in Wing area: 990 sq.ft Empty weight: 14,560 lb Disposable load: 6416 lb Loaded weight: 22,930 lb Max speed 19,685ft: 224 mph Cruise speed: 160 mph Service ceiling: 36,360 ft Range: 625 miles P-2 – As an unarmed two seat high altitude photo reconnaissance type, fitted with a pressurised cabin carrying three cameras P-3 – One only – cn 561-V-37 – as a high altitude bomber type which first flew Nov 1941 Powered by two 1475 hp Junkers Jumo diesel two stage supercharged engines. The two stage supercharger was powered by a supercharged 1475 hp Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine within the fuselage Service ceiling: 52,480 ft Ju.86R – A higher altitude reconnaissance type, with greater wing span an increased fuel capacity. Prototype converted from a P type, flying February 1942 R Height: 15 ft 5 in Max speed: 261 mph R-1 - Reconnaissance type Wingspan: 104 ft 11.75 in Length: 54 ft 0 in Wing area: 1045 sq.ft Empty weight: 14,950 lb Disposable load: 6416 lb Loaded weight: 25,420 lb Max speed 44,935ft: 155 mph Cruise speed: 205 mph Landing speed: 63 mph Rate of climb: 900 fpm Service ceiling: 47,240 ft Range: 980 miles R-2 – Bomber / Reconnaissance type R-3 – Proposed version to operate at even higher altitudes Powered by two 1500 hp Junkers Jumo 208 supercharged diesel engines The superchargers were powered by Daimler-Benz 605 engine inside the fuselage which was also supercharged. Ju.86Z – Civil type Mainly saw service on the Russian front and were usually unarmed. Z-1 – c/n 0951 HB-IXE for Swissair – initially powered by Junkers Jumo engines. c/n 0647 ZS-A for South Afrcan Airways. Engines: Jumo Range: 1555 miles Z-2 HB-IXE – later re-engined with BMW 132 Dc radial engies and re-registered HB-IXA HB-IXI also owned by Swissair. Seventeen for the Manchurian Railways powered by BMW engines Engines: BMW Climb to 13,200ft: 16 min Range: 935-1242 miles Z-3 – Five aircraft for South African Airways SAA, powered by 750 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine ‘Louis Trichardt’ ZS-AGE Z-7 – Seventeen civil type for South African Airways (cn 0065 ZS-ANI) and one bomber for South African Air Force, during 1937 Initially powered by 745 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines, but these were later changed to Pratt & Whitney radials. The type was also supplied to Sweded – cn 0959 Svalan’ SE-BAE – powered by Bristol engines – later impressed into the Swedish Air Force as Tp 9 No 911 during 1940 Sweden also procuced a few manufactured under licence Two for Lloyd Aereo Boliviano of Bolivia (cn 0013 ‘Illimani’ CB-23) during 1937, later impressed into the Bolinian Air Force during 1941 They also served with – Australia, Austria, Chile (3 – Z-1s), China (5), Germany, Hungary, Japan, Manchukuo, Portugal, Romania, Spain (2), and Switzerland. 390 were produced Ju-86 D-1 Ju-86 E-1 Ju-86 G-1 Ju-86 K-1 Ju-86 P-1 Ju-86 R-1 REFERNCE : http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/juju86pp2aih.html https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=825 http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/aircraft/175/ju-86-k-3-z http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/ju86.shtml https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Junkers_Ju_86.html http://m.airpages.ru/lw/ju86.html
  15. 13 points
    In high tier game, here I am, sitting in my Leo 2K, stalking enemy Abrams tanks... there is like 5 of them in front of me; they have no idea where I am. Perfect. As I take first shot I move back a little, others have no idea where it's coming from, one tank explodes and everyone is in panic as they are all in an open field. Split second later, guy sees the kill cam and reports my exact location.... helis, planes and tanks quickly rush my position and kill me. I fired off a few shots, but the enemy force was overwhelming. Heli pinned me down and tanks ripped me apart in a matter of seconds. All the waiting, sneaking and patience down the drain just like that... it's absurd and frustrating. I don't think it would change the whole battle outcome but if I could take out more tanks it would surely help a lot If you really need a kill cam, make it record every kill like replay so you can watch it after the battle but not during the battle. Or simply cut it and show only the moment of impact and damage done without giving away my position.
  16. 12 points
    Hi there guys! How are you? Today, I want to suggest a new map, setted in Italy: Taranto. Taranto is one of the most important cities regarding the military aspect, its port is one of the most important ones in Italy, and has a lot of history behind. As you may know, Taranto was the theatre of Operation Judgement, a Royal Navy attack that had the objective to destroy and to damage critically the Italian Navy, that was at Taranto at the time. Now let's talk about a bit of history of Operation Judgement itself: (↑Aerial photo following the air attack, with two battleships hit just offshore wrapped in smoke and naphtha↑) With Taranto's Night we refer to an air attack that occurred on the night between 11 and 12 November 1940 against the port of Taranto, during the Second World War. On that date the naval fleet of the Italian Royal Navy, located in the port of Taranto, reported serious damage as a result of the attack carried by the British Royal Navy boarded aircraft. •Premise: The naval base of Taranto, as well as all the Italian naval bases, was well equipped for the repair of damaged units, thanks above all to the availability of large dry docks, and to the presence in its arsenal of all the spare parts for machinery and the weapons. However, there were serious shortcomings for everything related to the anti-aircraft protection and the anti-torch protection of ships in port: the anti-aircraft batteries were completely insufficient both in number and in caliber, and to this was added the lack of night protection caused by the absence of radar , whereby the detection of any approaching hostile aircraft was entrusted to old low-range projectors, driven by aircrafts dating back to the First World War. As for the anti-torpedo protection, this was entrusted to the anti-torpedo nets, also not very numerous due to the scarcity of raw materials that afflicted the Italian industry: in fact, they produced 3.600 meters of network per month, to be distributed to all the Italian bases, and of the 12.800 meters commissioned for the protection of ships moored in the Great Sea, just over half had reached their destination, and many had not yet been laid. •Scenario: (↑Italian Navy spotlight at Taranto↑) In August 1940, two important new units of the Royal Navy entered into service: the battleships Vittorio Veneto and Littorio. With a displacement of 41,300 t and a main armament of nine 381/50 mm cannons, they were among the most powerful warships of the time. Two months later Italian troops attacked Greece from Albania, occupied the previous year, forcing Britain to intervene alongside Greece, both to prevent the Italians from ending up controlling the Aegean Sea, thus endangering security of Alexandria, both to discourage Turkey from entering the conflict as an ally of the Axis. This led to a significant increase in the number of British maritime convoys departing from Egypt, already engaged to supply the island of Malta, a British stronghold in the Sicilian Channel, near which Italian maritime convoys headed for Libya. The position of Taranto, which together with the ports of Tripoli and Tobruch, allowed the Royal Navy to control the central Mediterranean, aroused the concern of the British admiralty, as the Italian ships, which made it base, could easily reach and destroy the British maritime convoys at sea. (↑Moorings of all italian ships at the time of the Operation Judgement↑) •Battle order: Allied(Great Britain in this case): Axis(Italy in this case): •The Operation Judgement: The Royal Navy, in the person of the Commander in Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, Admiral Andrew Cunningham, decided to set up an operation to attack the Italian naval units located in the base of Taranto, perfecting a night attack plan with torpedo bombers studied as early as 1935 Admiral Lumley Lyster, at the time of the Ethiopian war. The plan was very risky and counted heavily on the surprise factor, as the aircraft carriers from which the aircraft would take off to perform the mission had to take at least 130 miles from the Italian coast, with the risk of being discovered by the enemy. In addition, it was necessary to illuminate the roadstead by resorting to the launch of flares, while the torpedoes would have to fly on the water, to evade the anti-aircraft batteries and to prevent the torpedoes sinking into the mud of the shallow water. Even with all these precautions, if the Italian ships had spread the smokescreens, the action would certainly have failed. The afternoon of November 6, 1940, the operation began: the battleships Malaya, Ramillies, Valiant and Warspite(they never reached Taranto though, probably these 4 ships escorted the main fleet, then they left), the aircraft carrier Illustrious, the cruisers Gloucester and York and 13 destroyers sailed from Alexandria to Malta, near which it was stationed the Eagle aircraft carrier. On 8 November, alarmed by these maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea, the Supreme Command of the Italian Navy sent destroyers, torpedo boats and patrol submarines into the Sicilian channel, while the bulk of the Italian naval force was concentrated in the Taranto base. The British ships reached Malta on the day of 10 November, and the following day the aircraft carrier Illustrious began to head towards the point set for the launch of the aircraft to Taranto. The aircraft carrier Eagle could not sail due to an engine failure: this inconvenience halved the number of aircraft available, but did not force to postpone the raid. The reconnaissance of the British planes on Taranto lasted until the evening of November 11, when the Royal Navy learned that in the two bays of the port of Taranto the battleships Andrea Doria, Caio Duilio, Conte di Cavour, Giulio Cesare had gathered Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, the heavy cruisers Bolzano, Fiume, Gorizia, Pola, Trento, Trieste and Zara, the two light cruisers Luigi di Savoia Duca degli Abruzzi and Giuseppe Garibaldi and various destroyers. To quote an expression from Admiral Andrew Cunningham: "All the pheasants were in the nest". 87 defense balloons were planned to defend the port, but the bad weather conditions of the previous days had torn 60 and could not be replaced due to the lack of hydrogen. The naval units were protected by parasiluri networks, but of the 8,600 meters needed for an effective defense, only 4 200 meters had been laid. These networks were however spread out for only 10 meters below sea level, leaving therefore an unprotected space between the net and the seabed, while the team admiral Inigo Campioni had asked that the parasiluri networks be placed at a distance from his ships that can sail quickly, without first having to remove the guards. The attack at the base of Taranto was scheduled for October 21, in honor of the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, but technical problems on board the Illustrious postponed the attack on 11 November. At 20:30 from the Illustrious aircraft carrier began operations to take off the first wave of aircraft to Taranto. (↑Arrangements of ships, anti-torpedo nets, blocking balloons, release points of torpedo bombers, anti-aircraft artillery in the Mar Grande of Taranto↑) (↑The Fairey Swordfish's attack↑) On reaching the goal a few minutes before 11.00 PM, they were greeted by an intense barrage fire. Two airplanes began to launch the flares on the eastern shore of the Great Sea to illuminate the profiles of the targets, while 6 Fairey Swordfish torpedoes began to descend to the torpedo. A first aircraft, which was then shot down, unhooked a torpedo against the Count of Cavour, squaring the left side, two others aimed against Andrea Doria, but did not hit him. At the same time four torpedo bombers, armed with bombs, damaged the destroyers Libeccio and Pessagno, bombarded the fuel depots and destroyed two seaplanes. At 11.15 PM two torpedoes attacked the Littorio at the same time, hitting it on both starboard and left, while the last Swordfish unhooked a torpedo against Vittorio Veneto unnecessarily. At 11.20 PM the planes of the first wave retreated, but the second wave planes arrived at 11:30 PM. Despite the barrage, a first Swordfish unhooked a torpedo against the Caio Duilio hitting it to starboard, while two torpedoes struck the Littorio. Another plane aimed at the Vittorio Veneto that this time was spared, while a second Swordfish was shot down in an attempt to attack the Gorizia. Finally, one last attack seriously damaged the cruiser Trento. The last aircraft withdrew at 0:30 AM on 12 November: the attack against Taranto was over. In 90 minutes the torpedo aircraft of the Royal Navy had produced considerable damage, as half of the Italian battleships had been put out of action. There were 58 dead, 32 of them on the Littorio, and 581 wounded, six damaged warships (3 armored, the Cavour so severe that it no longer took service, 1 cruiser and 2 destroyers), and several damage to land installations. Laconic, for obvious military reasons, the war bulletin of the Supreme Command nº 158 of 12 November 1940: «In the early hours of the night on the 12th, enemy planes attacked the naval base of Taranto. The anti-aircraft defense of the square and the ships at the bottom reacted vigorously. Only one unit has been seriously affected. No Victims» (War Bulletin of the Supreme Command nº 158 of 12 November 1940) The outcome of the raid showed how wrong was the belief that the torpedoes could not hit the ships inside the bases, due to the shallow waters, and marked a turning point in the strategies of the war on the sea entrusting to aviation boarded, and therefore to the aircraft carriers, a fundamental role in future battles. In Taranto he also went to the military attaché at the Japanese embassy in Rome, with the task of gathering more information on the raid. Who seemed to have not fully understood the extent of the event was Mussolini, in fact on November 12, Ciano noted in his diary: "Black Day. The British attacked the fleet at the bottom, in Taranto, and they plunged the Cavour and severely damaged The Littorio and the Duilio. For many months they will be out of action, I thought I would find the Duce knocked down, but instead he cashed the shot well and it almost seems, in these first moments, not to have evaluated all the gravity". Corriere della Sera announced on the front page: "Massacre of enemy devices during an incursion to Taranto". But since, truthfully, the truth circulated, a few days later, on November 18, Mussolini stated during a speech: "Indeed, three ships were hit, but none of them was sunk It is false, I say false, that two other ships war have been sunk or hit, or otherwise even slightly damaged ". •The incursion in the Strait of Otranto: At the same time as the attack on Taranto, on the evening of 11 November, around 6.00 pm, some cruisers and destroyers were separated from the main fleet to head towards the Otranto Canal, in order to intercept the Italian traffic to Albania. The British lineup, created by the light cruisers Orion, Ajax, Sydney with the escort of the Nubian and Mohawk Tribal Class destroyers, intercepted a convoy bound for Valona, established by the steamers Antonio Locatelli, Premuda, Capo Vado and Catalani, escorted by the old torpediniera Fabrizi and the auxiliary cruiser RAMB III. The action took place at 1:05 am on 12 November, when the English formation, after locating the Italian convoy, sank all the steamers despite the defense offered by the torpedo boat Fabrizi, who, although badly damaged, faced the enemy ships. While the cruiser RAMB III, after an initial artillery exchange, disappeared and saved himself in the port of Brindisi. In the clash 36 Italian sailors lost their lives, 42 were wounded, while 140 sailors were rescued by the torpedo boats Curtatone and Solferino. The commander of the torpedo boat Fabrizi, lieutenant of vessel Giovanni Barbini, was designed with the military gold medal. •Consequences: «Taranto, and the night of November 11th - 12th, 1940, should be remembered for ever as having shown once and for all that in the Fleet Air Arm the Navy has its most devastating weapon.» (Admiral Andrew Cunningham) After the attack the base fleet in Taranto was moved to the port of Naples. The knockout of three of the five battleships in service was a blow to the Royal Navy and represented a decisive moment of the war in the Mediterranean since, according to a report by Supermarina of December 30, 1940, after Taranto "one of the fundamental strategic postulates on which our conduct of operations could be based: that is, dealing with a superiority of strength of one or other of the two fractions of the Mediterranean Fleet." After having made a historical excursus of this operation, let's see how it would appear in War Thunder: (↑How it should appear the Taranto map in the Briefing Loading Screen↑) (↑The Taranto map's In-Game layout↑) Generally speaking, it is a map for Air RB only, and the map organization is reminiscent of another map that we have in game already: Pearl Harbor, in its Operation version, without bases, and with the sole objective of damaging or destroying completely or partially the fleet anchored in the main port (in this case Taranto). It would be better if this map was set at night, as in reality, but given the rarity of the night battles in War Thunder, I do not think it's possible. The Allied Forces, in this case Great Britain, will have HMS Illustrious as the only spawn, and a low-altitude aerial spawn, always near the aircraft carrier, which is accompanied by a dozen additional ships, mostly destroyers and some cruisers. The main objective of the allies is the partial or total destruction of the Regia Marina allocated to Taranto. Other secondary objectives include damage to the Taranto-Grottaglie airports, the Idroscalo di Brindisi, the Manduria airport, and the ports of Monopoli and Porto Cesareo. The Allied forces will then be accompanied by a formation of Fairey Swordfish bombers, commanded by the IA. For those who can't land the plane on the aircraft carrier, there will be at south a zone marked with this blue-slashed area,in which planes will fly through,and they will get ammo and fuel after a certain time, is like to leave the battlefield,but after that you'll get full ammo and fuel. I adopted this solution also into this other suggestion: The Axis Forces, in this case Italy, will have as their main spawn the airport of Gioia del Colle, northwest of Taranto. The pilots of this faction can also use the secondary airports of Taranto-Grottaglie, Manduria and the Idroscalo di Brindisi, but on these they will not have the option of the spawn. The port of Taranto will count over 50 units between ships, anti-aircraft and coastal artillery, and 27 barrier balloons (they are not targets but can be destroyed). The ports of Brindisi, Monopoli and Gallipoli and Porto Cesareo will be defended by AA and coastal artillery, while only the ports of Monopoli and Brindisi will also have cargo ships. The primary objective of the axis forces is the defense of the fleet set up in Taranto, and the destruction of the British attack fleet. Furthermore, with the secondary objective, the forces of the axis must defend the cargo ships of the ports of Brindisi and Monopoli. Both teams should have an airspawn since the map is very big. Fighters spawn at low altitude, Attackers and Bombers spawn as usual. I hope you have appreciated, if you are interested support it by voting and giving it a like and a comment!
  17. 11 points
    They closed the thread where people were complaining about CAS being overpowered. It is obvious the developers do not want to move on that topic, but not every battle in the war had tanks and airplanes. The entire start to the "Battle of the Bulge" had no air at all, due to dense low cloud cover, just as one example. I don't ask that anything be changed about the current "tank battle", beyond renaming it "combined arms battle", and adding another tank battle mode that does not have airplanes. If, as the pilots tell us, this is not a fun mode of play, then it will quickly die from lack of interest. If, however, it does have lots of interest, then maybe this game will keep more active players, as not everyone wants to be a pilot. There are actual players that only want to drive tanks, believe it or not. I think the only objection to this will be that tankers will largely desert the current realistic tank battles in favor of tanking without airplanes. I see this as something that is actually likely, in that tankers are frequently disappointed when too many of either side takes to the air and ruins the game. (Successful planes on the enemy side mean your side gets slaughtered. Successful planes on your side mean the other team is blown away and there are no more targets, except there's always someone hiding somewhere, so everyone winds up just waiting for the round to end. Crap pilots on the other side mean there are suddenly no more ground targets, and your side winds up waiting for the game to end again, only if one of the enemy goes afk, his plane can keep the round going for quite a while, while everyone waits again. Lastly, if your team takes to the air and leaves you on the ground, and they aren't brilliant at killing tanks/planes, you quickly find you cannot cap anything, and are outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 no matter where you go, and then you're spawncamped. This is the worst and most likely to occur when there is only one zone to capture, in that the advantaged team will nearly always have at least someone go and spawncamp the enemy, then the rest of the tanks need to either follow the camper to the spawn or just sit and wait for someone on the other side to kill the camper. Can we give this a shot? If it does empty the tankers out of the combined arms battle, it could always be adjusted in some way to entice tankers to come back to it. Also, events could be set up where tanker skill could actually be good for getting the tanks. (Pilot skill is currently the more useful in events for getting both tanks and planes, with tanking skill not being anywhere near as rewarded)
  18. 11 points
    The T77 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage was an anti-aircraft weapon that carried a quad .50in machine gun mounting on the back of a modified M24 Chaffee light tank. This tank had a rather unusual looking gun turret with sloped sides and two open crew positions at the back-left and back-right of the turret and mounted 6 .50in machine guns. Each of the two turret positions had a full set of firing controls and gun sights using similar technology to the remote-controlled turrets of the B-29 Superfortress. in the 2nd version called the T77E1, a number of changes were introduced including a computing gun sight and plexiglass covers for the open crew positions. the project was canceled after the end of the Second World War, partly because it was clear that the T77 wouldn’t be able to cope with fast attack jets.I fill that the t77 would work well at BR 3.7 to 4.3, and maybe even to 4.7. what do you think?
  19. 11 points
    The Reserve tanks are better than some of the Tier I vehicles. Specifically the L6 and the M11/39. Perhaps the M11/39 and/or the L6/40 could replace the M13/40 Serie III. Regardless, both of them should be BR 1.0 instead of 1.3. The R3 T20 FA-HS is just too good for 3.3. It should be a 4.7 as its rate of fire is pure murder for aircraft and it's speed makes it a terror on the battlefield. The 75/34 M42 has the same gun as a P40 and is less well protected due to sloping issues. It is clearly less capable than the P40 and should be BR 3.0 The 75/34 M43 may have better armor than the 75/34 M42 but the gun is outclassed at that BR. It is essentially a Stug IIIA with better Armor. It should be, at best 3.3 The M42 SPAA is the same BR as the Wirblewind and Crusader AA Mk II, but worse in every category except Armor Pen (equal to Wirble better than Crusader). It should be 3.3 as it is pathetic at 3.7 The M26A1 has slightly better pen than the M26. That is the only substantive difference. The small increase in Armor Pen is no reason for this to be at 6.7, it should reside at 6.3 Especially considering that the M26 feels over BR when compared to its brother the T26E1-1 The OF-40 is essentially an Italian Version of the Leopard I. It has the same ammunition as the Leopard I and the M60, with the same basic speed and armor as the Leopard I. It should share the same BR of 7.7 I would love some comments.
  20. 11 points
    Dear Gaijin, dear developers! Being positively surprised by the introduction of supersonic aircraft and new weapons I would like to suggest remodeling two of the most important aspects of using air-to-air self-guided missiles. I will be grateful for your consideration. 1. Missile Warning Current missile warning system is not only unhistorical (in the 1960's there was no warning system against passive IR guidance) but also, and more importantly: definitely too easy for the one who is targeted by the IR missile. It's as if you were playing WWII props and a blinking popup would be displayed in the middle of the screen: "Warning, P47 is shooting .50 cals with stealth belt rounds towards your tail, make sharp turn to the right. Warning.." Ridiculous.. Missiles from late 50's and mid 60's are very easy to avoid by the smallest turn. Add to it a long warming up time from "stand by" mode to "ready to fire" - for K13 it is 6 seconds....SIX SECONDS during which you have to stand behind someone's tail and count on that he will not notice you and he will not maneuver. SIX SECONDS is like an eternity in high speed jet dogfight. In current conditions missiles are only effective against someone AFK, stalling after zoom climb or utterly tunnel-visioned. Therefore the warning system should be more discreet AND massively nerfed, at least in AirRB matches. What would I expect: Incoming missile should appear on the "radar" (circle in right corner) in blinking mode during the entire route from the carrier to the target. Nothing more! Additionally: - the warning should be delayed so that a surprise missile attack could be possible at least from a short distance - the delay should depend on: a) player awareness in the gameplay --> holding C and spotting potential attackers should be rewarded by less delay of warnings, while tunnel-visioned play style should be punished..by missile hit. b) player awareness as a part of crew level --> similarly to other crew level parameters: higher level = less delay of warnings. 2. Inflicting damage The ability to inflicting damage by missile's warhead should be more nuanced. Currently, it has zero-one nature: target disintegration by direct hit or nothing if missile miss the target by a few meters. What would I expect: The solution is simple - proximity fuze should work more widely allowing to blast at a certain distance if a direct or almost-direct hit failed. Damage should depend on distance, explosion energy and amount of warhead fragments. It should not always be lethal or miss. Wing damage, engine damage, injury to the pilot - this should happen time to time as an effect of indirect explosion, same as in the case of unguided missiles with time fuze (S21, R4M and so on).
  21. 11 points
    leo 1 came in, ruined t-54. now, even with a team full of t-80s, we get stomped within 3 minutes, either by USA or Germany. Why doesn't gaijin want russian tank players to have fun like the USA or German players? When will this amazing "RuSsiAn BiAs" kick in? Still waiting. p.s. I even dusted off my trusty zsu-57-2 lol...only to find the accuracy has been nerfed so hard (to cater to german players so now their leo 1's club everything) one can't hit a house 10 feet away from the dam thing...
  22. 11 points
    No one wants to research or buy the m551 sheridan, you might as remove that useless failure of a tank from the game. Just let us skip it and train the Bradley instead.
  23. 11 points
    I was a bit surprised there is no EC map between Japan and USA only )besides obvious lack of ocean map!) There is Zhengzhou, but that includes an unfair ganging up of Japan by UK and USSR with USA. Looking for a candidate, the only area with a large enough terrain for 6 AF's and bases far enough apart is Tinian/Saipan map (bit small, but doable). I had already posed this a few months back. Time to get serious. And, add one more aspect: NAVY!! Yes, lets get GJ to add Player Navy to the EC battles! A key advantage is no need for terrain work, since it is just an ocean (unless you want to add whales). ALSO, remember that Sicily map now has a carrier, so yes, can be applied here too. (working on a map idea, for now reposted earlier suggestion) Here is the raw map (I will try removing the clutter, unless someone has a iconless version) NOTE: NORTH island (Saipan) is USA (possibly UK), SOUTH island (Tinian) is JAPAN, closer to historical. Original proposed AF locations and boundaries. (bases are not done, not a big issue to drop a few down) NOTE: ALL AF's (yellow) ARE HISTORIC LOCATIONS! (new AF design may need some wrangling to fit) There WILL be Capture points! Over water is no battle (at first, naval battle add later), but over land will start ground combat. Yes, it will be critical to protect the center AF's from capture! H12 is US NAVY Spawn point (shore will have lots of AAA for spawn protection) M6 (maybe L6) is Japan Navy Spawn point, the closeness of AF will provide protection. Spots chosen to avoid seeing other island on spawn in, but close enough for reasonable travel distance. Points can be move back if needed. History: It was a major battle as the US had to take it these islands, starting with... Saipan (north island) in the first amphibious invasion of Japanese held land. Tinian was the next island invasion starting couple of weeks later. More reading of Saipan battle here, Good new, historically both islands had 3 AF's each. The AF on the north tip of Tinian (south island) could have AAA overlap with Saipan, there is enough room to move it south out of range.
  24. 11 points
    So then that warrens the Tiger 2's And Panther 2's BR Being bumped up too then Right?
  25. 10 points
    No. Clue. I am so tired of getting seal-clubbed by american teams half loaded with T34s/T29s, and T32s. I agree with you. They need higher br. T29/T34 too!