• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Retry last won the day on March 8

Retry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,364 Outstanding


About Retry

  • Rank
    The Incredibly Average

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

12,242 profile views
  1. ...Why not? The biggest limiting factor is time, and the world isn't scheduled to end any time soon.
  2. You sure it's an SPAA prototype? The vehicle doesn't look dissimilar to the Marder 1 IFV, so it's quite possible it's an augmented APC or IFV prototype.
  3. CL-13 is Canadian.
  4. Nah, Japan needs something for their T4 TD line.
  5. If you're going all the way to MBT-70s and composite Chieftains, might as well throw the Type 74E/F and the experimental G as well.
  6. VADS was a ranging-only radar. SPAA shells have a MV of ~1,000 m/s, so it takes at least 2 seconds to travel to a jet around 2 kilometers away.
  7. There's several differences between the M60A1 AOS and the M60A3, including a laser rangefinder, smoke grenade launchers, VEESS, an upgraded coaxial, a lower "udran" cupola, and a Kevlar spall liner in the turret. Also, the ERA packages were originally intended for the M60A3s before the Army went with the newer M1 Abrams instead, so the ERA got passed down to the Marines and their M60A3 RISE PASSIVE tanks.
  8. No it isn't. I've seen several updates where features not on the dev server are added, rolled back, or otherwise changed.
  9. It's worth noting that the "Chieftain Mk.5 Pointless" people are not the same as the "We need Chieftain Mk.5" people.
  10. Both Leopards, the Raketenjagdpanzers, the Kanonenjagdpanzers, and even the Flakpanzer Gepard have smoke grenade launchers. The only cold-war era German ground vehicle sans smoke grenades is the Ru.251. So that's not quite true.
  11. The F-86K specifically is its a bit powerful for the game. F-86K sustains a climb rate above 50 m/s until about 5,500 meters or so. Top speed is a tiny bit higher with a bit more acceleration at sea level, and drops off at a slower rate than the F-86F-25 thru -40 as altitude increases. The sea level difference is a handful of knots, while the difference around ~35,000 ft becomes 10 knots. These numbers are for a F-86K w/ the original slatted wing: If it had the F40 wing like on late Fiat models, the difference would be greater. Rules for GF have thus far been a bit different than rules for AF, as AF seems to have stricter restrictions on what is or isn't viable. Vehicles that ended up primarily in the export market have a tendency to show up in their countries of origin (e.g. P-63 series) and I see no reason why to deny them one of their own aircraft. Additionally, France and Germany also operated F-86Ks, so making this one in particular an Italian exclusive makes even less sense. Italy has plenty of native jet designs that would be Italy-exclusive anyways, with the Aefer Ariete being a particular favorite. Here's a rather comprehensive thread on viable Italian jet options (both foreign and native).
  12. >Introduces an entire Italian Air Tree >Introduces top-tier ground vehicles to satisfy British tastes and put them in a competitive spot >Bloody smoke rounds and smoke grenades everywhere Grey Tiger II: "Where's my 3rd Leo tho"
  13. Now, hang on there. You said: This cannot possibly be interpreted as a subjective opinion because physical reality is not subjective. Something like "Annoyingly high acceleration that's too much for what it sees?" Your own opinion based on your subjective feelings. "It has unrealistic godly acceleration?" That's a false claim, not a subjective opinion.
  14. From what I've heard, it's worse than the La-15. Which is an impressive feat in itself.
  15. La-174. Implemented as a limited time grind-able after the La-15, 380k RP IIRC. Missed out on it myself as I neglected the Lala line to grind the Best 15, as I didn't know beforehand. Kinda bitter 'bout that.
  16. F-86K has afterburners, which is still a no-go in Gaijin's book. They're not adding the F-86K, not for Italy, not for the US. They're also not adding the worse performing afterburners like the F-89 Scorpion or the F-94 starfire, so it's not just a "Dog Sabre" thing. Afterburning aircraft just aren't being implemented* *in the immediate future
  17. You weren't calling him out for anything, you just went for the "seniority" nonsense.
  18. Aaaand I'm back to regretting defending you...
  19. So Gaijin'd again? Should be 300mm 1km, 280mm 2km on the Russian standard.
  20. That'd be odd, since it didn't stop the T-55A's monobloc APFSDS from being added.
  21. Monobloc APFSDS That crap'll probably pen vanilla T-64s without a fuss.
  22. Looking at his system and doing some basic elementary algebra, the maximum you'd earn total via this system is 6000 GE (10x 500 GE + 1x 1000GE). That's not even enough to buy the more-expensive T4 premiums. Gaijin sets their prices at their discretion. There's no market magic causing inexplicable changes in vehicle prices altered by shifts in supply and demand, they're static. I don't care much for his system, but implementing it would change vehicle/premium pricing about as much as introducing GE wagers or the Warbonds shop did: Not at all.
  23. From the sound of it, it's not a SPAAG though.
  24. Good god that's a lot of spoilers. Just use the F2H-3/4's SAC.
  25. But it was flown in combat regardless, on several occasions. AT-6 Mosquitos in Korea flew as FAC aircraft directing the artillery. (I know someone who flew dozens upon dozens of missions, interesting fella). Various T-6 variants used by both Syria and Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War France also used some T-6s in a light-attack role with guns, rockets, and bombs during the Algerian War.
  26. The Russians have a whole lot of bad T5 vehicles, but the only ones that sort of fit the meta were the T-62 and T-10M. The T-55 is an iconic cold war tank which fits the meta better than the T-54 that was announced a long-while back, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Chiefie Mk.5/4 was basically a no-go b/c APFSDS, but now that Gaijin decided that monoblock APFSDS are A-OK, remember to thank the Russians if/when the Brits get a Chieftain Mk.10.
  27. g.91

    No, The requirements specifically state that the plane is meant to be a "light weight tactical strike fighter (LWTSF)" Strike fighters are ground-attack aircraft with a secondary air-to-air role. It is intended as, in other words, a multi-role aircraft similar to how the F-16 and F-15 eventually turned out.
  28. ba.88

    All right, thanks for the clarification. Didn't really consider the center of gravity and AoA. We don't have highly detailed info on the Lince, but the CoG doesn't look like it's particularly rearwards.
  29. ba.88

    I can't see the picture.
  30. gameplay

    I thought the main argument against it was that having escorts fly near the bombers instead of having relatively free reign actually decreased their effectiveness and increased Bomber casualties, as hostile fighters would simply gain the energy advantage and dive on the entire group with impunity. This happened in the BoB w/ German luftwaffe pilots, for instance.
  31. fiat

    Perhaps you can still salvage it. If Gaijin releases the ITT but doesn't have the G.59 initially, you can switch your project to work on that instead. They share quite a few components while being different enough that a good G.59 model should be acceptable to Gaijin for the RSP
  32. ba.88

    "Balance" doesn't have anything to do with take-off other than ease of control of not accidentally plowing back into the Earth, nor does it have any significant effect on turning. Short physics lesson: There are four primary forces acting on an airplane in-flight: Gravity, Thrust, Drag, and Lift. Gravity always pulls the aircraft towards Earth, thrust toward the direction of the propellors or jet engine, drag opposite of the direction of travel, lift perpendicularly to the wings. A plane during takeoff will not suffer any significant compression or control stiffening due to insignificantly low speeds (given how slow a Ba.88 would be even when functioning to spec, neither compression nor control stiffening would have any significant impact on the fighter's handling around top speeds). A plane cannot take off if and only if its vertical component of thrust + lift cannot ovecome Gravity (Fthrust+lift, vertical<FG). There's no unquantified"balance" or "control authority" that magically makes the plane faster to take off regardless of its thrust, it's literally as simple as a sum of vectors. "Control authority" is a vague term so I'm not certain whether you're talking about the ease/preciseness of the pilot's aircraft control mechanisms or the forces behind ailerons/elevators/rudders themselves. The former doesn't have any effect on the physical ability of the plane to roll or pull G's, other than the "preciseness" of controlling. As far as actually rolling the aircraft, it's all about the latter. The ailerons produce torque which acts on the airframe, acting against its moment of inertia and causing the airframe to roll about its axis of rotation. Its "stability" and "control authority" doesn't matter. Given two planes that produce the same amount of torque and have equivalent moments of inertia, a "stable airframe with poor control precision" will roll just as fast as an "unstable airframe with precise controls". (As long as both can deflect their ailerons to their maximum, of course). On the Blenheim: That plane reaches a top speed of ~265mph at an altitude of ~3500 meters, versus the Ba.88's ~305 mph at ~4000 meters. Hitting a top speed that's only slightly lower than the Ba.88's at a lower power rating and lower altitude (which means more drag overall) while a higher wing area wing area means that you are either overstating the Ba.88's aerodynamic cleanliness or severely underestimating the Blenheim, as the only way the Blenheim can achieve such a feat is if its "aerodynamic finesse" is somewhere in the Lince's ballpark. Physics revisionism. Unless all the Ba.88s with sand filters also had invisible parachutes tied to them that we don't know about, its top speed can be cut by roughly half to ~160 mph if and only if the engines were poor, unreliable, and took a massive power hit by equipping the filters. The engines are a historically established blemish on Italy's aviation history that plagued not only the Ba.88, but the Re.2000 as well.
  33. tanks/vehicles

    Wait when did this happen
  34. Aye, its shape alone isn't going to stop any radar and they never coated it with any particularly helpful materials to that affect. So "they made it as a stealth plane" is a myth. Literally the 2nd web link to an actually viable source...
  35. ba.88

    "Too heavy" its wing loading is comparable to other, successful (or at least functional) twin-engine heavy fighters, in fact a tad on the light side. Its power-to-weight ratio is also typical, a bit on the heavy side. Wing loading kg/m2 Ba.88 max: 202 Bf.110G loaded: 201 P-38L loaded: 261 Pe-3bis gross:198 J1N1: 181 PWR hp/lb Ba.88 max: .13 Bf.110G loaded: .17 P-38L loaded: .18 Pe-3bis gross: .12 J1N1: .13
  36. ba.88

    Nope, it was the engines 100%. Those things were god-awful, unreliable mechanical nightmares. The structure itself, while old and outdated, didn't cause any system failures by itself. Yeah, I don't get it either.
  37. tanks/vehicles

    *1987* That's why it's designated the Type 87.
  38. tanks/vehicles

    This is relevant to neither this suggestion (Not a T-62) nor his commentary, as the Obj.268 did not enter service into any Soviet units. By the cold war, everyone basically gave up on turretless gun-based TDs in favor of ATGMs, with the only exceptions of a few ultra-light platforms with recoilless rifles around the '60s, which were generally used for fire-support anyways and not an anti-tank role. Also, spoiler for that image spam. Please.
  39. ba.88

    I've not heard of any such issue with the monoxide intoxication either. The absolute only reference I find of that existing is a site about the 332nd. Out of all the sources I've seen, from P-39 groups in the Pacific, Russian testimony, pilot's notes and manuals, the Cobra! book, none have mentioned carbon monoxide poisoning. Of all the flaws they do talk about f.e. flat spinning, no turbo or two-stage supercharger, not a single one says anything about CO cockpit leaking. Then the entire forum is wrong, and it's not the first time. The T-34-100 w/ the LB-1 performed its firing (as well as road) trials without issues. T-34 attempts before the LB-1 had the recoil issues, which is why the LB-1 was tested on the T-34 in the first place. But it's clearly a LB-1 as one can see on the muzzle break in-game, which makes that moot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T1 sure, but there's like two attack-style craft that can actually be put lower. So I think it's going to be: Ba.64 --> Ba.65 --> Ba.88 --> everything else
  40. tanks/vehicles

    Ok ok new offer We give you a T-64, and in return Germany gets Leopard 2A7 ))))))))))
  41. ba.88

    This was never a real issue IRL. Old pilots who flew tail draggers weren't used to the tricycle landing gear configuration, and inherently didn't trust it. Newer pilots who tried out the P-39 from the get-go had no issues landing and taking off with the tricycle landing gear. It was a non-issue, same as the drive shaft worries. In fact, the configuration was advantageous in taxiing.
  42. ba.88

    Nope. The T-34-100 has a modified ring and the lower-recoil LB-1 cannon, which passed all driving and firing tests without damaging the turret ring. No recoil issues ever reported from firing the LB-1 on the platform.
  43. Well, there's that bit where you'd have to explain to people who bought or won captured vehicles why you're taking them away. Even with more than adequate compensation you've got a breach of trust with the community with the whole "we will not remove vehicles we introduce" thing.
  44. Those numbers aren't very good though. Neither the APHE nor the HEAT shell can penetrate a Black Prince F.E, while the BP would penetrate the O-I at short-medium range. At 6.7 the Tiger II pens the O-I w/ ease while being invulnerable frontally to the AP shells, and there's also the Jagdpanther which is immune to the APHE round, and the Ferdinand, immune to both, all having the same cannon that'd make O-I swiss cheese. Brits have various Centurions around those BRs, most of which are immune to APHE, some of which are resistant against that level HEAT. All of which have a gun which can pen O-Is rather easily. Russian IS-2s would be immune on the frontal plate and would only be vulnerable due to the usual weak-spots, while the gun itself has plenty of punch. Su-100 could likely absorb APHE and still knock out a O-I. Only nation that seems to really suck against the O-I would be the US, but that's primarily because of stuff BR'd too high, wrong ammunition, or simply missing unit types like a M113 106mm RR (ACAV).
  45. tanks/vehicles

    Also Israeli, not Commonwealth. Israel has stronger military ties w/ US than Britain, so these and other Israeli vehicles, if they aren't added as an independent faction, would end up in the US TT somewhere.
  46. tanks/vehicles

    Needs a "Yes, but not in the British tree" option. (Keep to your Commonwealth ya bloody desert rats)
  47. Tanks/Vehicles

    Oh ffs yes it does. You literally went from complaining about nonexistant O-I's on the other forum despite the bloody main post and Japanese Archives worker telling you otherwise, to suggesting some tank variant that doesn't exist because of a picture that "looks like a 17 pdr to me, I'm pretty sure," despite our local Rare Commonwealth expert telling you otherwise.
  48. ba.88

    Yeah no that's a reliability issue. Considering its payload, it's literally physically impossible for a performing up-to-spec Ba.88 to halve its top speed from ~300mph to ~150mph, simply by changing the payload from empty to a war-ready weight. In fact, the only references to ~150mph I can find are with sand filters, which implies that the filters screwed up the power of an already unreliable engine and is primarily responsible for its poor reputation and combat performance. Gaijin is not likely to give us the version with those sand filters. This is supported by the Re.2000's own mechanical reliability issues, which shares the Ba.88's engine. Its engine is described as an unreliable, mechanical nightmare. Expect neither of these aircraft to have these in-game. Real life consists both failures and successes. Neglecting the operational failures (of which over 100 were built, mind you) just because they were not successful and you don't like them? Doesn't get much more unrealistic than that.
  49. ba.88

    That's an odd comparison. What's unrealistic about the T-34-100 anyways?
  50. What's wrong with the Texan?
  51. Normally what you do when you're clubbed spectacularly is admit you were wrong, not complain about his tone. Low-key character assassination?