Retry

Member
  • Content count

    6,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

Retry last won the day on March 8

Retry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,837 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Retry

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,477 profile views
  1. US and UK personnel may take up some captured or abandoned Panzerfausts & Panzerschrecks, AT guns, and tanks ad hoc until they ran out of ammunition or broke down. There's no reason to assume that the US would encourage re-establishing Germany's broken military industry to continue their production immediately after WWII for the US as 1.The US equipment I've already mentioned were good enough and 2.The US really doesn't like complicating logistics. (Remember that by the time the war ended, Germany's able-bodied military population was decimated, so this equipment would have to be produced for the other powers.) It's doubtful that the remaining spare German equipment would be enough to significantly alter the course of the ground war.
  2. The Beaufort and Beaufighter Mk.21 are standard tech tree Commonwealth aircraft. Commonwealth vehicles are already in the standard tech tree, and unlike e.g. the Pz.38(t), the British themselves never used them (and they aren't necessary for fleshing out either). It's a commonwealth tree by default. About as many tanks have 130mm of roof armour as there are aircraft that can feasibly accomplish a 90 degree rocket attack.
  3. The L-39 hits 405 kts while the Strikemaster hits 450 kts; The Strikemaster is significantly faster, not slower. The Strikemaster is Commonwealth, which the "british" tech tree basically already is.
  4. aircraft

    I like the idea of the suggestion, but the German premium should be something that was actually from the Battle of Britain, so some kind of Bf-109E variant most likely. If you don't get Shilka'd or intercepted by another fighter-bomber, yes, its raw firepower is capable of doing so. Very first prototypes of the Skyraider flew before WWII ended. Would this be good enough to consider the AD-2, a slightly improved derivative, as a "WWII era aircraft" and thus avoiding your suggested post-war BR hike? Would this be good enough to consider the first production model as a "WWII era aircraft?" Or does it need to have entered service with squadrons before the war ended? Or does it need to have fired its guns in anger before the war ended? Is once enough? Or is a little bit more substantial use required to be considered a true WWII era aircraft? There's different answers to these questions depending on who you ask. Korea, basically. There is no intrinsic value in historical BRs and MM for standard battles, especially in our largest mode AB. The only tangible effect of a standard historical MM is creating "meta-makers" around every BR bracket. It's obvious just by looking at the ground forces. E.G. at low tiers the Matilda II (1939) would be a British meta-maker, albeit it itself will get eaten by the KV-2 1939 (1939). Brits would be pretty buggered up for the rest of the game as their other decently advanced tanks weren't available until late-war like the Cromwell (1944), by which time it'd be fighting later Panthers (1943) and Tiger IIs (1944). Britain could regain a foothold with their Centurions (1946) unless it receives your suggested post-war BR buff that stuffs early Centurions w/ early T-54s. The US is boned for the entire WWII period, as their first M4 Shermans (1942) w/ the 75mm cannon will have to try to go toe to toe w/ Tiger Is (1942). By the time they get past the 76s and get 90mms that could really scare the Tiger I, both the Jackson (1944) and the Pershing (1945) would be uptiered to fight the younger Tiger IIs due to their introduction date. Their cold-war situation doesn't improve at all, either, with the M46 (1948), M47 (1952), and early M48s (1953) having T-54/55s (1947-55 ish) variants as their yearly equals. The Pattons, being introduced in the 1950s, would probably have their advanced ammunition like HEATFS stripped from them as they weren't available during their initial years. Only the M60 (1961) and T-62 (1961) are yearly competitors that are sort of close to on-par, and with this new stabilization stuff the edge is given to the T-62. Germany is more or less balanced until mid-late war where their heavy equipment, especially their tank destroyers like the Ferdinand (1942) and Jagdtiger (1945) have side armour that makes the lesser anti-tank guns like the 37mm and short 75mm cry. Other weapons like the Jagdpanther (1944) have more mobility, yet frontal armour to withstand anything other than maybe certain 122mm or 100mm rounds. It's not only the (primarily non-russian) equipment that would suffer: the poor Hetzer (1944) would basically be out of a job. Then there's the question of what one does with the paper tanks like the Tiger II 105 and the Panther II. And Japan... actually, I should have probably opened with Japan as it demonstrates my point quite succinctly. So unless you want to somehow limit what players decide to pick during a given battle (An unnecessary and needlessly complex addition to the MM's algorithm that probably wouldn't work because players want to play as "muh Tiger" or whatever Iconic, or powerful vehicle they get their hands on), or force the RB matchmaker to basically become those SB events 24/7 (in which case BR wouldn't matter anyways), the present BR/MM system is here to stay. What's up with the objection to immersion-breaking though, when it's not even a German aircraft? It's Spanish, Germany probably shouldn't even get their hands on them if it's implemented at all. I love the general idea of this suggestion, these specific vehicle selections much less so.
  5. I must have missed the course in common sense where removing around 1/5th of currently existing content to make a small minority of people happy makes too much sense.
  6. It's doubtful they would have won on the ground. Even when ignoring the obvious aircraft and logistical disparities, the backbone of the Russian tank fleet were T-34-85s. US and Britain had plenty of '76 and 17 pdr Shermans in 1945 which were the equivalent of the -85 T-34s. Add the ability to add some Jumbo kits to some of the Shermans and they're all of the sudden invulnerable to the Russian's most common tank cannons. US M9 Bazookas can penetrate the T-34-85 from all angles as well, as could some field guns like the British 6 pdr. Add that the Pershings were just arriving to Europe and the Centurion was in the pipeline, the Soviet armored corps wouldn't have been able to make a successful push in 1945. They could wait for increased numbers of IS-2s, T-44s, and IS-3s to arrive to make another push, but by then advanced versions of the Pershing and Centurion would be available, not to mention the Soviet heavy threat would strongly encourage development of NATO heavies like the T-Series, as well as improved hand-held anti-tank weaponry which could result in rushed development of the M20 Super Bazooka (which could easily pen all mentioned tanks). Even without the Super Zook, the M9 is capable of penetrating all of these tanks from the side, which will mean the Soviet horde will not be able to push wherever they want free of consequence. With the already-established air superiority advantage and a rather poor anti-aircraft net, fighter-bombers like the Tempest and P-47 are free to knock out artillery and supply lines, which drastically limits the Soviet's offensive (and defensive) capabilities. There's also the problem of the other front; the United States and other combatants can, with a little bit of preparation for the colder climate, invade the Soviet Union from their east coast. Six Million men were planned to participate in Operation Downfall, but if the war were to go hot again, these could be re-directed to land in Russia instead, supported by several fleets and their fighter complements, and planned tank brigades. That's force the Russians to dedicate at least some resources to halt this force, or risk them getting too close to something vital. Oh, and it always comes down to the infantryman and his rifle. With the average US infantryman's standard issue semi-automatic M1 Garand, the average US soldier has a decisive advantage over the typical Russian and his bolt-action.
  7. So basically a USSR Czech A-37 Dragonfly.
  8. MBT 70/Kpz 70 & Kpz Keiler are far more powerful than the Chieftain Mk.5, Mk.10, and anything but the latest T-64 models.
  9. ground vehicles

    Musta missed this one. It shouldn't afaik, game handles multiple Vulcans, Zsu-23-4s, multiple revolver cannons on aircraft, and 12x MGS on aircraft just fine.
  10. The 20mm Wiesel isn't powercreep, not when considering the current top-tier meta. A '80s ish tankette wouldn't necessarily fit the landscape of dueling '60s MBTs, but actually meta-breaking wouldn't occur. I was mostly referring to someone's old suggestion for implementing the Marder 1A3. I told the person that it'd mean IFVs for all the other nations which often have more powerful cannons, ATGMs, and armor.
  11. So decently powerful, but still won't exceed the Bushmaster, BMP-2's 30mm autocannon, RARDEN, or that 35mm on the Type 89.
  12. I can't read German so I'll take your word for it.
  13. In-game terms, the Sgt. York will be more practical. More units produced and has more than the Vigilante's 3 seconds of firing time.
  14. Smaller shells lose velocity less quickly, all else remaining the same. Less drag. Lighter shells lose velocity more quickly. More decelerating effect due to said drag. I can't find any solid information to verify your 44mm at 1000m claim.
  15. BMP-2 is supposed to have .30 cal protection from all angles, you sure you're not mistaking it for the BMD-1 and BMD-2? Gaijin is allegedly considering a BTR platform Over 100mm? Yeah, I'm sure that 20 millimeter cannon will penetrate in the realm of the GAU-8's 30mm DU round.
  16. This one doesn't have any TOWs whatsoever.
  17. And the BRDM-2 can easily be added to the game. BMP-1 maybe, LAV III can be penned by weaker weapons like .50 cals, BMP-2 and -3 can withstand 23mm AP rounds so no, same w/ Bradley. Modern-ish NATO IFVs like the Bradley, Type 89, Warrior, Marder 1 are designed to withstand the relatively common 14.5mm KPVT. They're not dumb. Fine.
  18. You said nothing about equipment we have in-game. You said: I gave a post-war vehicle that would not be powercreep against a WWII vehicle. Your definition of powercreep is wrong.
  19. The devs don't roam this thread, so...
  20. Wrong thread m8 This section is for questions for devs.
  21. Much postwar Such powercreep
  22. Didn't stop them in the early days of Korea. The North didn't have jet aircraft at the time until the Russians sold them some.
  23. That's a band-aid solution imo, trees need to be uncompressed to BR 10.0 at least (both of them).
  24. They bring in suggestions by the batchful every couple of months.
  25. This is probably relevant as a rumor: A whole bunch of suggestions have been moved from Suggestions and Further to Documented, inc. bunch of tanks, aircraft, ^ that, the Expanded British GF TT programme, my T5 Premium suggestion, and a ton more. Think it's ongoing so we may see a few more added to Docu.
  26. ground vehicles

    A supplanted/replaced M46 Tiger camo might work better as a suggestion than a bug report.
  27. Ground vehicles

    I don't think anyone wants it after the Shilka.
  28. Considering XM-1 would absolutely club everything else and would require a meta shift to Leo2/Challie1/T72/T64/T80, that's probably a good thing.
  29. The MBT-70 was already massive overkill.
  30. Ground vehicles

    99% sure it's for the BTR-ZD. Never heard "Skrezhet" as a reference to the ZSU-23-2 weapon system itself.
  31. I loved those WW2 Chronicles, but many of them were pretty one-sided. If there were a way to split the aircraft and tank players apart for the MM...
  32. ground vehicles

    Yeah, since posting this back whenever I found a better, Soviet platform with a similar role: BTR-ZD Skrezhet. I think someone's suggested it before already.
  33. (1.1.1) I have not insulted you merely by saying everything you've said is wrong. (1.1.2) I have not started or participated in a flame war, fact-checking your claims is very much within the realms of this topic, and thus relevant. (1.1.26) I have not used the Report Post feature on your posts at all, not falsely anyways. However, I'm fairly certain falsely accusing someone of sending false alarms or nonsense with this feature is against the forum rules. (1.1.1) Also does not apply. Noting you ignoring several of our points or simply brushing them off is not an "insult" by any stretch of the imagination. (1.1.26) Have not used, doesn't apply. And again, have not used (but strongly thinking about it given this blatant libel).
  34. "Hans, perhaps we should develop a solid shot for our medium 88 instead of one filled with high explosive." "Nein, I have a feeling someone in the future will make a video game about us, so we need the least effective anti-tank rounds to keep the Tiger's armor relevant."
  35. It's just the same old story though, just a different verse. Ground Forces: "Oh, Gaijin will never get around to implement tanks. Too much work, and we never see proof they're actually working on it." *GF announced, followed by CBT and OBT* Japan GF: "Oh, Gaijin will never get around to implement Japanese tanks. Too much work/little data, and we never see proof they're actually working on it." *JPN GF announced, followed by CBT and OBT* Naval Forces: "Oh, Gaijin will never get around to implement navy. Too much..." *Navy announced, followed by CBT...* [Albeit not without controversy] France/Italy: "Oh, Gaijin will never..."
  36. Almost everything you say is wrong. Several people in this very thread disagree with adding the Lowe whatsoever. The claim "Oh we're just arguing whether to put it in the main tree or not" is blatantly false. We've given you several. You've ignored them. Based not on a poll, but your own faulty and biased analysis, which we've long since thrown out as unreliable and not useful. You can't speak on behalf of the "Lowe for Main" crowd, either.
  37. Its a better answer than "sorry comrade Italy cancelled due to budget cuts ((((("
  38. ground vehicles

    No idea, haven't found any references to it. Probably happened in Vietnam with M48A3s, since pretty much everything was slapped onto everything at the time.
  39. ground vehicles

    If you guys want to talk M48A3 & "Grim Reaper", perhaps you should take it there.
  40. Ground vehicles

    Bob semple best t0nk ))))
  41. 1. *Communism 2. Bringing up economic systems is akin to bringing up politics and no bueno in a bloody suggestions forum.
  42. Well, we did try to balance the Tiger vs Sherman thing. The Tigers complained that people were spawning in a bunch of Hurries to kill 'em.
  43. Nope, wasn't clear at all. Japan was not mentioned in that post whatsoever, just those three. Such an unclear post is the fault of the poster, no quote mining required. Either way, I'm not the one trying to group up the PRC, ROK, ROC, and Japan because "muh Asians". Apparently you are also struggling with the concept of the double negative.
  44. Well, there is the M60A3 SLEP which was announced in... a year ago. A tad late for the game, even if we don't have a technical time limit anymore.
  45. I know how drag works, m8. Did you miss that post where I annihilated the other guy? It would be a shame if I had to do the same thing twice in one thread... Drag does not lose significance until you're basically out of the planet's atmosphere, at which point there would be no atmosphere to generate drag in. But you'd also have no atmosphere to produce lift with. The SR-71 can go up to 85,000 feet, which is ~40,000 feet higher than what the P-47 can manage, and at that altitude drag still hasn't become an "insignificant factor", albeit temperature became the hard limit at this point for this particular design. Piston engines and Jet engines are air breathers. They lose effectiveness and thus thrust as altitude increases, because there's less air to feed them. Supercharging and turbocharging can partially offset but never completely nullify this issue. Planes also lose lift for a given speed for precisely the same reason that they lose drag: low density. Your plane needs the thrust and lift to stay in the air and rise higher. If your thrust and lift is dependent on altitude, then you're going to easily hit a point where you simply can't fly any higher. You simply cannot escape to an altitude where drag is insignificant when your means of producing thrust is dependent on altitude. But had you read your own source, you'd know that. TL;DR if you were ever to reach an altitude where "drag is not a significant factor", you'd be in a Space Shuttle. I rate your rebuttal 0/10 Literally proved my original thesis
  46. SIDAM 25, and it's an Italian '80s SPAAG.
  47. Error 404 Altitude Not Found
  48. I got both in a bundle during a sale.
  49. First off: Lol wikipedia as a genuine source It's ok to start out with but it's not a basis to change policy. A few more things: The Fuselage is not the most vulnerable part of the plane at high speeds, that would be the much thinner, wider, and less supported wing structure. The wing itself is, surprise surprise, a two-spar all-metal wing. Funny you should fail to mention that, as it was only one sentence away from your copy-pasta. Our plane uses the M-82A engine, not the M-81. You're attacking a plane that isn't even in the game for being overpowered, so no wonder you think ours is fabricated. Also from your source: "...A second prototype was completed at the end of 1940 with a 14-cylinder, 1,268 kW (1,700 hp) Shvetsov M-82A radial engine. The forward fuselage had to be redesigned to accommodate the slimmer engine and the armament was revised to three synchronized 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannon." This is the relevant prototype we have in-game. This, surprise surprise, corresponds with the statistics of our in-game I-185 M-82A. 3x ShVAK cannons 120kg. An unloaded 2x Berezin & 2x ShKAS weighs about 64 kg. If unloaded, the ShVAKs will weigh a mere 60 kg more than the other weapon set. Not exactly an existential crisis when the plane weighs 4000kg on takeoff. Overall, that was an overly-lazy fact-checking. I rate your post 2/10 and would not read again.
  50. Not to go off topic, but I can't help but notice that @Been_Benuane hasn't replied since my post...
  51. Aircraft/Loadouts

    F-86H is an overall better plane than the MiG-17A.
  52. ground vehicles

    I know this post was forever ago, but the Strv.103 CAN turn their guns left and right, and it uses its suspension to elevate the guns, which we now have in-game. So they're not equivalent.
  53. ground vehicles

    I can only find references to a M47M as a US made modernization program (but not used by the US) which still had the 90mm cannon. Only ones I can find with 105s are Iranian and Spanish modifications. As far as something that's equivalent to the Leopard 1A1A1 and Type 74, I wouldn't know. Well, during this period South Korea were receiving their own M48A5Ks for use, so it may have been for standardization purposes. The M48A5 has VEESS for sure, and I don't think the M60A1 had that, so that'd be an advantage (although not represented in-game, right now anyways). The M48A5 would probably be 7.7 or 8.0, after factoring in the lack of stabilizers.
  54. ground vehicles

    Got it, sprinkled a few more images in there.
  55. ground vehicles

    All right, added two technical manuals (Hull&Turret) and a few general vehicle specs. Didn't go into too much detail as the M48A1 and most of the equipment e.g. the Continental Diesel and 105mm Rifled Gun are already in-game. How's it look now? Poll added
  56. B-47 has a max speed of 535kts at 17.5k ft, while the F-86F-25 thru -40 reaches at least 540 kts up to 30k ft. The B-47 has a max altitude of 41,000 ft versus the F-86F's is nearly 50,000 ft. So that's not quite true. At all.
  57. Gaijin won't remove vehicles completely from the game. But what does replacing one entirely fantasy tank for another entirely fantasy tank solve?
  58. ground vehicles

    The purpose of this suggestion is for the further fleshing out of the M48 line with its final, ultimate conclusion for its lineage: The M48A5. The M48A5 is a mid-1970s, post Vietnam modernization program designed to keep the M48 somewhat competitive against modern armored vehicles as well as to simplify logistics between the M48 and the M60A1, which was the main battle tank of the United States during this time period. Over 2,000 of these vehicles were converted to the M48A5 standard. The M48A5 shares the modernized engine of the M48A3 and the M60A1: the Continental AVDS-1790-2D. In late '76, the M48A5 conversions had their cupolas changed to a smaller, sleeker Israeli-designed “Urdan” model. This was originally called the M48A5API model until the M48A5 included it as standard, when it was simply called the M48A5. The 90mm gun was replaced by a L7A3 105mm cannon with 54 rounds of ammunition. The loader's hatch received a M60D pintle-mounted machinegun and the commander's cupola sometimes mounted the M60D in lieu of the Browning, but otherwise the small arms remained identical to the early M48s. The M48A5 also received the Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System. (VEESS) Most M48A5 Pattons in the US were sent to the National Guard and reserve units, with the exception of the 2nd Infantry Division based in Korea, who exchanged their M60A1 tanks for the M48A5. The M48 was finally phased out of service in the mid 1990s. Ideally, all of the M48s should be tabbed together with the M48A5 at the end of the tab. This would give the player the option to stay with the M48s or go on towards the more modern M60 tanks if they wish. The M48A5 would make a decent but not overpowering backup tank with a similar BR as the current M60, and would potentially be useful for a theoretical 2nd Korean War event. Ultimately, it's another nifty vehicle to flesh out the US Ground Forces in the long run. General Specifications: PROTECTION Same layout as on the M48A1 & A3 Hull front: 4-4.72 in (101-120 mm) Turret front: 4.33 in (110 mm) Hull sides, front: 3 in (76 mm) Turret sides: 3 in (76 mm) Hull sides, rear: 2 in (51 mm) Turret rear: 2 in (50 mm) Hull top: 2.25 in (57 mm) Turret top: 1 in (25 mm) Hull floor: 0.5-2.5 in (12.7-63 mm) Hull rear: 1.75 in (44 mm) M48A5 Specific: VEESS FIREPOWER M68 105mm Rifled Gun (L7), 54 rds Same Specs as on the Leopard 1A1A1, M60A1, Centurion Mk.10, and Type 74. 7.62mm M73 machine gun co-axial, 10,000 rds Same Specs as on current M48 in-game 7.62mm M60D machine gun pintle-mounted on loader's hatch, 10,000 rds .50 caliber M2HB machine gun on turret cupola, 3,000 rds Same Specs as other M2HB Machine Guns in-game. MOBILITY Same as M48A1, but with a 750hp Diesel instead of the 810hp Gasoline, and weighing 54 tons instead of 52 tons may result in a very slight loss in overall tank handling. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M48_Patton.php https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m48.htm http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M48.html M48A5 Technical Manual Turret M48A5 Technical Manual Hull
  59. Ground vehicles

    You... do realize what "hull down" is, right?
  60. ground vehicles

    Nobody does, not even within a nation. Despite this, the Germans still have Czech, Finnish, and Romanian vehicles, the US has Canadian tanks (for some reason), the United Kingdom has the Commonwealth, and the USSR has China. History lesson's nice but not necessary, and doesn't change the fact that Poland became an Eastern Bloc nation, which makes its cold-war vehicles fair game. All right, you win this one.
  61. There's several posts where he replies to people talking about whatever the vehicle-of-the-week is in, not War Thunder, but Wargame: Red Dragon. It's blatantly obvious when he does that (usually references stuff like modern vehicles like M1 Abrams, along with the posts of the stats taken from that Wargame game as well.) I think he sometimes just drunk posts here for some reason.
  62. Malyutka is a MAT-level flaming pile of maneuver and would affect the BMP/D's BR to a similar extent as the Swedeturion's missiles did.
  63. ground vehicles

    I'll give you three guesses as to who had Poland during the cold war. Hint: Polish People's Republic 1952-1990 First 2 guesses don't count. Already suggested the -152s, and the -40A made it to Further. BTR-152D is not a prototype.
  64. All that would do is take something on one side of the ridiculous spectrum, and punt it to the other side of the unrealistic spectrum.
  65. I like BMPs as much as the next guy, but you're drastically overestimating its performance.
  66. We won't have any rumors to actually round up until: Next patch's dev blogs start pumping out Gaijin's Q&A Session is released Someone data-mines something out of one of the mini-patches Some other generic Gaijin Announcement None of these have happened yet. When the rumor well runs dry, this thread tends to go... wherever.
  67. Several suggested german vehicles that actually existed in some form outside of paper ought to have priority Geschutzwagen Tiger. SdKfz 250/11 Begleitpanzer 57 WG/EG mass-fielded foreign vehicles that pop up from time to time.
  68. US doesn't need prototypes in the normal tech tree; not around T5 at least M36B2 Jackson w/ HEATFS -> M113 ACAV M40 -> M113 Dragon -> M150 TOW -> M901 ITV Just need to throw an Ontos in there somewhere and the last fifth of the US TD line is fleshed out.
  69. I can only find the SS.11s used on experimental platforms of the T113E2, and none used on production M113s. Same with M48. Negative
  70. Russia has the BRDM-2 w/ Malyutka missiles (as well as several other BRDM-based ATGM platforms), Japan has a Type 79 ATGM but idk if it was mounted on any armored vehicles outside of the Type 89 IFV, and the US doesn't have any MCLOS missiles and went straight to SACLOS (But their early M47 Dragon ATGMs were absolute rubbish so it could work in the low-tier ATGM slot).
  71. aircraft/loadouts

    20,000 fpm initial climb rate? A counterpart is supposed to be similar in capabilities, not completely trounce them (and this includes all top-tier jets currently in-game).
  72. MOBILITY The Type 62 has mediocre mobility for a light tank, with no neutral steering, 6 mph reverse speed, and capable of hitting high 20s with average acceleration. The RU-251 literally hits a higher speed in reverse than the Type 62 can do fowards. The tank accelerates like the 2nd coming of Jesus. Its neutral steering is extremely swift and thus can turn on a dime very quickly in comparison to the Type 62, let alone basically any other tank in the game. FIREPOWER Type 62 has a weapon comparable to the T-34-85's main gun. Poor -5 gun depression, poor turret traverse rate. Best normal AP ammo is BR-357 with ~160mm pen at point blank. Otherwise you use a HEATFS round with 300mm pen at 850 m/s. It's also a "gift" tank so it comes stock with the need to grind everyyng out. Ru-251 has the gun from the RaJaPa, but better ammo loadouts. The gun has a good -9 gun depression and a good turret traverse. The gun has 90mm HESH with 102mm pen which is devastating against sloped fronts, including the T-44 and T-62. This HESH is generally superior to the APCBC of the Type 62 except against very specific targets e.g. 150mm turret armour like on the Centurions. The HEATFS it has access to has 320mm pen at 1,200 m/s (!!), meaning it well eclipses the Type 62's capacities. ARMOR Basically the only place where the Type 62 wins, as its turret is 50mm thick. Won't protect against any tank guns at 6.7 though, or most SPAAGs around there either. The RU-251 and the Type 62 are both light tanks. That is where the similarities end.
  73. I'm 99% certain those numbers are from him pulling some random big numbers because the mantlet "looks" scary.
  74. ground vehicles

    This ACAV is far worse than the PT-76B at 5.7, which is already pretty bad.
  75. ground vehicles

    I did the same with a field mod of an M48A3, and that gathered traction and near unanimous support.
  76. Oh, I agree. At this point though, it's basically too late. Also, the difference in tone of the general playerbase between this '80s IFV and the Marder 1A3 IFV (also from the '80s ofc) is simply astounding.
  77. Chieftain Mk.V: Improved engine, but could not carry APFSDS Chieftain Mk.V/4: Virtually identical to the Chieftain Mk.V, but could now stow the APFSDS. There seems to be quite a few things you've never heard of.
  78. Well the MILAN is worse than the HOT And the 100mm cannon is a low-velocity gun launcher, so its only useful anti-tank portion of that particular gun is the ATGM. The autocannon is a bit superior to the Marder 1's Rh.202 but not as powerful as something like the Type 89's 35mm cannon or the Bushmaster (IIRC)
  79. ground vehicles

    No other comments? It took some digging to find out what that turreted weapon was...
  80. "An upgrade to our current medium tank's maximum speed, torque, turret drive, and potentially ammunition to our current mass-produced tanks are pointless, but here's a composite armored MBT prototype that is totally a great idea!"
  81. Don't they already do that for vehicles though? Revenue Share Program...
  82. The purpose of this suggestion is to implement a light T4/T5 tank destroyer that is equivalent to the Japanese Type 60 SPG. M113 ACAV The M113 ACAV is a catch-all term for M113s modified for the armored cavalry role. Instead of acting as armored transport buggies like M113s were usually supposed to do, the ACAVs advanced with the infantry, using their all-round small arms protection and relatively heavy firepower as force multipliers. They fought with the infantry, making their role something more along the lines of an IFV than an APC. A few ACAV kits were standard later in the war, but most were field modified by the troops in Vietnam. Despite this increase in protection, one can never have enough firepower. Thus, some M113s were modified to carry a M40 106mm recoilless rifle in place of one of the M60 machinegun mounts. In 1965, the turret kits for the .50 calibre machinegun were standardized as a circular, rounded turret with a gun shield in front. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M113_APC.php http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-acav.htm ARMAMENT The M60 machinegun that is found on the ACAV fires at a rate of ~600 rpm at ~850 m/s. The gun can fire the M61 Armor Piercing round which can penetrate 7mm and 5mm at 300 and 500 meters, respectively. The .50 caliber Browning Machinegun has the same specs as those found on other US vehicles in-game. The M40 Recoilless Rifle is the same found on the Japanese Type 60, and will have the exact same specs and ammunition. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/762mm_ammo.html PLACEMENT Somewhere in the TD line, with a BR of 6.7 or 6.3
  83. ground vehicles

    Granted. Still, the RR position is completely exposed, and this suggestion is for a different variant. I'll suggest the M113 106mm elsewhere.
  84. events/maps/missions

    Actually this turned out to be false IIRC.
  85. ground vehicles

    Sure, but it's not what I'm suggesting and it's not within the scope of my suggestion. It's also not an ACAV kit, which is distinguishable by enhanced gunner protection.
  86. The purpose of this suggestion is to implement a historical (but atypical) field modification of the M113 to represent the famous Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle modifications of the ACAV. The Pink Pussycat Photo proving the existence of the modified M113 "Connie". Notice the gun on the front gun shield. (Unfortunately, I can't find any photos of any other angles of this particular vehicle.) Link to site hosting Photo: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/zippo132/14077294012/ Also from the site we get this vehicle we get the following caption: M113 apc "B" company , 2/47th Infantry "Panthers" Track nickname "The Pink xxxx Cat" fitted with 90mm RR. Saigon 11 May 1968 M113 ACAV The M113 ACAV is a catch-all term for M113s modified for the armored cavalry role. Instead of acting as armored transport buggies like M113s were usually supposed to do, the ACAVs advanced with the infantry, using their all-round small arms protection and relatively heavy firepower as force multipliers. They fought with the infantry, making their role something more along the lines of an IFV than an APC. A few ACAV kits were standard later in the war, but most were field modified by the troops in Vietnam. These field modifications usually included a .50 calibre machine gun in the center turret, with two .30 calibre M60 Machine guns in pintle mounts behind them. You can clearly see the .50 cal on the suggested M113 in this photograph replaced by a 90mm Recoilless Rifle as well as a MG pintle mount behind it. The high attrition rates of the .50 cal gunner in Vietnam demonstrated the need for improved protection for the gunner. As such, gun shields were installed on various ACAVs. The M60 machinegun that is found on the ACAV fires at a rate of ~600 rpm at ~850 m/s. The gun can fire the M61 Armor Piercing round which can penetrate 7mm and 5mm at 300 and 500 meters, respectively. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M113_APC.php http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-acav.htm http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/762mm_ammo.html M67 Recoilless Rifle The M67 Recoilless Rifle was an early light, portable anti-tank weapon of the US Army during the Vietnam War. It is lighter and more portable than the M40 106mm recoilless rifle, although its combat performance is worse with a muzzle velocity of only ~210 m/s and an absolute maximum firing range of ~2100 meters. Its maximum effective range was estimated to be 300 meters for a stationary target. A maximum reload rate of 5 RPM could be achieved under critical circumstances. This weapon system was later replaced by the M47 Dragon ATGM system. The M67 had two types of ammunition available: M371A1 HEATFS The M371A1 HEATFS is the standard anti-tank round. The round has a muzzle velocity of 210 m/s and can penetrate 250mm of steel. M590 Anti-Personnel This round is designed for the use against infantry, but should be perfectly capable of shredding exposed crewmembers or open-topped vehicles. The M590 is loaded with 2,400 tiny steel flechettes, which are released from the barrel around ~370 m/s. The .5 gram flechettes are low-drag and fin-stabilized. As far as I know, War Thunder has yet to implement such a "flechette" shell in-game, and thus the M590 would be the first of its kind, albeit not useful against the majority of combatants in-game. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M67.html http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=857 Suggested Placement The M113 "Connie" ACAV is a very interesting field modification that would represent the venerable M113 ACAV in the treacherous jungles of Vietnam, and would make a good premium due to its odd nature. Its high-pen HEATFS shell, however, has a very low shell velocity (near the level of Japanese reserves) that's far too poor to work near high tiers. For standard gameplay, I recommend a low BR placement for testing of around 2.0. For nonstandard gameplay like events, this M113 can be featured in Vietnam-themed scenarios and user missions.
  87. And then they endure HEATFS Therapy due to your impatience
  88. tanks/vehicles

    This would be hilariously useless against T5 aircraft, only modestly useful against really bad aircraft players in RB GF, or gathering an easy kill from a lawn-darter in AB GF. Which there are plenty of. So +1 from me.
  89. Nah, I'm pretty sure Italy is higher on the radar than France.
  90. Completion of the F-84 family of fighters, testing it as a fighter-bomber, and general aircraft line completion. It's slower than the MiG-17A, Hawker Hunter, and the F-86F Sabre with the 6-3 wing at 595 kts
  91. Most of the German Light Tank Line supporters I knew thought so too and envisioned the Ru.251 as a T5 at 7.3 or 7.7, so...
  92. You wanted late '80s IFVs You get late '80s IFVs
  93. First: 14.5mm ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 mounts were used on the BTR-152A and BTR-40A as SPAAGs. Second: BRDM-2 is an armored recon car. Third: That BRT-152 w/ the ZU-23-2 mount that floats around the forums from time to time is a Palestinian vehicle, not a Soviet vehicle.
  94. Gaijin will not add random system breakdowns. /End of
  95. Russians have 14.5mm armored car based platforms, but no trucks/halftracks with it afaik
  96. I'm not sure why people didn't expect this. 1.5x Calibre pen was at the absolute upper end of the spectrum for HESH, it was very unlikely to be kept. They went the complete other direction with it and put most of them sub 1.3x calibre pen. So basically Gaijin doing business as usual. 105mm HESH will still pen the front plates of basically every MBT and heavy tank in the game except the IS-4 and KT...
  97. I'd rather them just make a separate mode for big ships and small boats.
  98. Muh german engineering's low drag coefficient :'(
  99. The Bf109E was exceptional for its considerably higher drag coefficient than the typical WWII fighter. It's difficult to find a primary source for this of course, but there's a forum here that cites its source, which cites hundreds of sources, if you want to verify it yourself. Drag area of a Bf-109E-3 from a sophisticated aircraft performance computing program demonstrates the drag area as: 4.975 sq ft. Doing the same for the Spitfire Mk.IA spits out the number as: 5.182 sq ft. Dividing these by our reference areas gives us the following drag coefficients: Bf109E3: .0282=Cd Spitfire IA: .0214=Cd The fact that the Spitfire's drag area is so close to the Bf-109's drag area despite the Spitfire being bigger in all dimensions is an indicator that the Bf-109 has a much higher drag coefficient than the Spitfire. And quite frankly, it looks like it. You weren't even correct by the spirit of the argument. Only certain, very modern aircraft are actually able to provide more force by their thrust than weight alone in a dive, and even then, not by much. Gravitation provides the brunt force of our aircraft's acceleration in-game. It's not the end-all, but it's by no means "meaningless". You're wrong. Again. Firstly, I didn't estimate terminal velocity, I estimated the level of difference between the MiG-15's force contributed by gravity and the engine. You're making an assumption of direct proportionality between terminal velocity and force, which you can't make. Take the drag equation as follows: Rearranging this to get V by itself gives us the following: V=Sqrt(2FD/(pCDA)) Since we're pseudocalculating the same plane in the same atmospheric conditions, we can separate the Sqrt(2/(pCDA)) as a constant C V=Sqrt(FD)*C Velocity varies with the square root of the drag force. In other words, the force of aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of Velocity. Terminal velocity is defined to be the velocity at which the force of drag is equal to the downwards forces. An unpowered MiG-15bis would have only its weight to pull it down. Therefore: FD=FG=11,000 lbf (MiG-15bis combat weight) FG=Weight Thus, VT=Sqrt(11,000 lbf)*C Since we don't have any discrete numbers for C, we'll abstract the mass in terms of MiGs and terminal velocity in terms of UnpoweredMiGs, where: VT, Unpowered=Sqrt(1 MiG lbf)*C=1 UnpoweredMiG Where 1 MiG lbf = 11,000 lbf. A powered MiG-15bis's terminal velocity will have its weight PLUS the full thrust of its engine. FD=FG+FT=11,000lbf+6,000lbf=17,000lbf Getting this weight in terms of MiGs gives us: 17,000lbf/11,000lbf=1.545 MiG lbf. In other words, the powered MiG-15 has about 55% more force contributing to its dive. Plug this back into the equation: VT, Powered=Sqrt(1.545 MiG lbf)*C=1.243 Unpowered MiG. Do an easy calculation of (VT, Powered-VT, Unpowered)/VT, Unpowered to find the percent improvement in comparison to the unpowered MiG. (1.243-1)/1=.243 Therefore, the powered MiG-15bis will only have a ~24.3% increase in terminal velocity advantage over a power-off MiG-15bis, not "half as much again" as you "predicted". This is the best case oversimplified scenario in this game: All other jets have lower thrust-to-weight ratios, and so do the props at high speeds. Because of that, we can treat the MiG-15bis scenario as an upper bound, and all other aircraft will end up with a considerably lower % increase in terminal velocity by adding power, many of which will end up being a mere ~10-15% increase. Oh, and this also ignores the burgeoning in the drag coefficient around their drag divergence mach number, which occurs near the transonic region. That'll certainly keep the MiG-15bis from reaching anywhere near that 24.3% projected increase in terminal velocity by adding thrust. You made a silly claim on gravity being several insignificant compared to engine thrust, which was completely false. I debunked it. As far as dive characteristics, the aircraft that has a higher level-flight acceleration will have an advantage over the slower accelerating one in a dive as well. He worded that sentence poorly, but re-read the post; he certainly did not claim that the feather drops more slowly due to weight alone. Not more so, no. Take a 2nd look at the terminal velocity equation. Note that m*g=F, or Weight And A*Cd=D, drag area or just "drag". Terminal velocity is clearly proportional to the square root of weight and inversely proportional to the square root of drag. Saying it's more so due to greater drag implies that a change in drag area will alter terminal velocity more than a similar change in weight. This is clearly not the case. An object with weight M and drag area D will have the exact same terminal velocity as an object with weight 8M and drag area 8D. If it's a real feather from a real bird then yes, as it'd take a ridiculous amount of upscaling the feather to make it hit the ground at the same time as the hammer, by which point it'd be far heavier than the hammer. If not, a synthetic Finch feather created from a dense material such that its mass was similar to a hammer's would easily hit the ground at the same time, if not faster, depending on the hammer's drag area. No one is claiming otherwise. Weight increases an aircraft's lift-induced drag, which is particularly prevalent at low speeds but becomes insignificant in the face of parasitic drag at high speeds: It doesn't take a genius to determine what lift-induced drag approaches as an aircraft's speed increases. Note the F-86L SAC. Despite the combat loading differing around ~1,500 lbs depending on mission type being the only physical difference (no external weapons or fuel tanks, for example), the top speed of the aircraft doesn't change by even a single knot. Part of an equation that approaches zero as aircraft velocities continue to increase... For level flight, mass is insignificant for determining top speeds, and yes, drag is a relevant factor in basically everything. No one is claiming otherwise... Nope. In a dive, weight acts in favour of the plane, while in level flight it doesn't directly affect the equilibrium itself. Basic knowledge of vector operations should have demonstrated to you that the Weight vector has no direct effect on the equilibrium of level flight. Perhaps if you typed that in caps, it'll come true. You've been demonstrably wrong on several of your claims. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. In the real world, or yours? Well actually what you said was: Which is completely xxxx, as I've demonstrated mathematically. Yes, and no one's declaring otherwise.
  100. All I can find is a .50 inch machinegun called the Mk.3
  101. If we limit tanks to HE only, then Sturmtiger is best t0nk ))))
  102. RU.251 shouldn't have been a premium, but similar to the M56? Really?
  103. In that case, what's the harm in adding what's basically a fatter Sabre?
  104. Good thing he never said that, then: His statement is entirely correct. The terminal velocity of a typical hammer is going to be much higher than the terminal velocity of a typical feather, which is important in an atmosphere like Earth's. Weight (mass*gravity, which would be a far more precise term to use in this case) has minimal effect on the top speed of an aircraft. The most that figure would do is force the aircraft to pull a slightly higher angle of attack to produce enough lift to keep the plane in level flight, negligibly increasing parasitic and lift-induced drag. Which, surprise surprise, is already covered in your broad topic of "drag" as a limiting factor. Weight acts towards the surface, while the plane is flying parallel to the ground. Basic knowledge of vector operations should have demonstrated to you that the Weight vector has no direct effect on the equilibrium of level flight. Net drag and net thrust in the horizontal are what needs to be considered, period. A magical Ho.229 with the weight of a mere kilogram would not have a significantly higher maximum level flight velocity than our current one. Yes; Incorrectly. He who lives in glass houses... The Dunning-Kruger is strong here. I've already demonstrated in my previous post that this is not so, you can go ahead and read that. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fortunately for you, Nabutso isn't active on the forums anymore. He wouldn't be quite as nice as me in correcting your misconceptions. As far as "mass is unimportant in a dive" goes, he's basically on a different planet. I've got a short explanation on why somewhere near the top of the page.
  105. No, PE=mgh Mass times height is simply kg*m, which isn't really a meaningful thing and has no SI unit to represent it.
  106. That's completely false. Take one of the fighters with the highest thrust-to-weight ratios in the game: The MiG-15bis. The MiG-15bis is powered by a 6,000 lbf engine. For the sake of argument, let's say this engine hits that thrust regardless of all altitude and velocity levels. The MiG-15bis also weighs 11,000 pounds in its combat weight. In a perfectly vertical dive, this plane is experiencing 17,000 pounds of force downwards. Only 6,000 lbf is contributed by the engine, or about 35%. The other 65% is contributed by... gravity. This is one of the highest thrust-to-mass ratio aircraft in our game. Its engine force in a dive does not exceed gravity's force by mass, let alone by several magnitudes! We've only recently been able to develop aircraft with massive thrust-to-weight ratios above 1, which would actually allow for the engine force to exceed gravity in a vertical dive. (And even at that, not by much...) But this, of course, depends on the current velocity of the aircraft, current mass off the aircraft, and altitude, as thrust doesn't remain constant. Additionally, this feat requires the use of afterburners to gather enough thrust. EDIT:In conclusion, since gravity does make up the vast majority of the force in a deep dive, comparing simple terminal velocity is a good estimation of their long-term dive characteristics. It's not "irrelevant" in the slightest.
  107. I see...
  108. I'm 90% certain that the Leo 1A1A1 will get Stabilization as well.
  109. Oh, I didn't mean putting the Lancaster at lower BRs. I was thinking about something... uh... different.
  110. I thought lower tiers already had "nerfed" base & airfield HP for that purpose.
  111. Can't bomb-load size be adjusted for simply by modifying the health/number of Strat targets and airbase?
  112. *Explicitly states that the ROK, ROC, and US don't hate each other* *Makes a post based on the presumption that I apparently said the ROK, ROC, and US hate each other but give each other arms anyways* *Claims literally nothing I just said has any basis in reality*
  113. The Swedeturion in the British line was a mistake, as the Brits could have easily gathered a Canadian Centurion to the same effect. Sweden was officially neutral during the Cold War and have plenty of vehicles to create their own T5 lineup. They were officially neutral, and being "friendly" to each other is more-or-less a truism for Western developed countries in modern times, which is hardly a reason in itself for implementing them. You're also ignoring all of the non-British export weapons, like the WWII-era Curtiss Hawk, Italian Falcos and Re.2000s, P-51Ds, quite a few Czech tanks, or cold-war equipment like the MIM Hawk and a tonne of small arms. And your J 8 "gladiator" was used as a recon biplane.
  114. ground vehicles

    They'd be much closer in performance to current ATGMs e.g. Type 60 APC w/ MAT, Swingfire, RaJaPa HOT, RaJaPa I, eventually the M113 ATGM platforms, etc.
  115. ...No? The ROC don't hate the ROK or the US The ROK don't hate the ROC or the US The US doesn't hate the ROC or ROK. Oh, and as it turns out, none of them are in trees with the other.
  116. This purpose of this suggestion is to provide mass-produced ATGM alternatives to the limited-production IT-1. The BRDM-2 systems are more similar to current ATGM systems of other countries, and thus it is recommended that these supplement or replace the IT-1 from the main line (changing the current ATGM platform to, say, an event or premium vehicle.) The BRDM-2 originally was a 4x4 amphibious armored car, lightly armored and usually armed with a 14.5 KPVT machinegun, as seen below. This chassis was used as the basis of several modifications, including ATGM and SAM vehicles. I am here to suggest the latter. General lazy copy-paste specs of general platform: BRDM-2 specifications Dimensions (L-w-h) 5.74 x 2.37 x 2.31 m (21.4 x 7.6 x 6.7 in) Total weight, battle ready 7 Tons (14,000 lbs) Crew 4 (Driver, co-driver, Cdr, gunner) Propulsion GAZ-41 gasoline V-8 140 hp (104 kW) @3,400 rpm Speed (land/water) 100/10 km/h (62/6.2 mph) Range (road/off road) 750 km (470 mi) Armament 14.5 mm KPVT, 7.62 mm PKT coax Armor 4 to 14 mm (0.24-0.39 in) Total production Approx. 7,300 9P122 MALYUTKA BRDM-2 w/ Malyutka-M Missile Rack, carrying 14 ATGMs inside. Launcher itself carries 3 missiles on each rack for 6 total. 9M14M 400mm RHA warhead MCLOS Targeting 115 m/s Velocity .5-2 km Range 9P133 MALYUTKA Visually the same as the 9P122 Malyutka, however this one carries 18 Malyutka-P Missiles along with a few slight improvements to stuff like sights. 9M14P 460mm RHA warhead SACLOS Targeting 115 m/s Velocity .4-2 km Range Malyutka Source: http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/BB06 - AT-3 Sagger.html 9P148 KONKURS Armed with one of the better ATGMs the Russians had, the Konkurs is much improved over the Malyutka and is roughly equivalent to the HOT. The vehicle contains a 5x launcher rail with 10 ATGMS in the vehicle for reloads. Konkurs data: http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/BB06 - AT-5 Spandrel.html 9M113 750-800mm RHA warhead SACLOS targeting 200 m/s Velocity (avg) .075-4 km range As an alternative loadout, this vehicles AT5 launchers can also utilize 9M111 Fagot missiles. This increases the missile stowage to 14. Fagot data: http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/BB06 - AT-4 Spigot.html 9M111 400mm RHA warhead SACLOS targeting 180 m/s Velocity (avg) .075-2km range BRDM-2s were widely used and produced by the USSR as well as several smaller countries. In fact, it's surprising that these weren't the very first ATGM platforms implemented for them. Being ubiquitous in the world in various variants even today, I believe that these ATGM vehicles deserve a look. General BRDM-2 ATGM Platform Source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/soviet_BRDM-2.php http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/brdm-2_4x4_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
  117. tanks/vehicles

    Be my guest. But your friend needs to leave the Swedes alone
  118. *And KV-2s
  119. tanks/vehicles

    The UK has alternatives that don't require drawing from other nations that aren't even in the commonwealth. Specifically: Chieftain spam. Bring in the Mk.1 thru 10, but let the Swedes (and Israelis) have their own.
  120. tanks/vehicles

    (Wasn't really directed at you, quoting to make a point to the others)
  121. tanks/vehicles

    Ah, so you mean installing sufficient modifications to another's tank makes it as good as yours? If only Sweden would have installed an entirely new diesel powerplant, explosive reactive armour, and a REMO package including a night vision equipment, targeting systems, laser range finders, improved gun stabilization, barrel thermal sleeves and exhaust pipes...
  122. tanks/vehicles

    Fair is fair!
  123. tanks/vehicles

    *Including the Skink
  124. tanks/vehicles

    The US called: We want our Shermans back.
  125. tanks/vehicles

    That doesn't make sense either.
  126. tanks/vehicles

    Stop trying to make the Swedenwealth happen.
  127. Yeah. Mass simply does not help in a dive until one passes level flight speed, and then it only very slowly begins to take over. There has never been a single instance where an aircraft was actually improved simply by adding mass for the sake of itself.
  128. Tanks/Vehicles

    A 1970s tank buster that can easily destroy AB formations or half of a lightly guarded RB GF team in a few passes is not going to find itself any lower than the absolute top BR.
  129. I've seen plenty of people leave RB due to people abusing FoTMs, odd DM patches with bomber gunships, perceived biases, their favourite aircraft's FM or DM being broken... I have never seen someone leave because there were no stall/spins.
  130. tanks/vehicles

    So was the Lowe and my suggestion for T5 premiums. And they were passed years ago. Needless to say, we haven't seen either of these yet.
  131. You might get away with the ROC, but the PRC and Japanese have hated each other since the People's Republic existence.
  132. Tanks/Vehicles

    I bet the Su-25 would go supersonic if we launched it at the Earth from the moon... once ))))
  133. Funny, I've seen dozens of people that wouldn't have walked straight into obvious hornet's nests if they had been listening to chat...
  134. Ground vehicles

  135. Ground vehicles

    Nah. Keep the current M60A1, add the M60A1 AOS and M60A1 RISE to represent upgrades in their development. Backup Pattons.
  136. That wouldn't work at all. Everyone would be / is queuing up with the Tiger IIs, and "how much there actually was" is usually relative to the time period anyways...
  137. Leopard 1A1A1 is literally the Meta...
  138. poll

    AB is the less offensive mode for ATGMs due to the buffed vehicle maneuverability allowing them to take cover quickly and easily, 3D markers allowing one to basically see where everything is through concealment and also hit stuff through it by aim indicator, and relatively small maps with massive amounts of cover. Also, you're a Chieftain. You're the reason why ATGMs exist.
  139. *Casts spell [Summon Choogleblitz]*
  140. If you're referring to the "damaging its own engine by firing" crap, that's been debunked so many times before in the past...
  141. Ground vehicles

    I'm well aware of the talk around the forums, in fact it's been around for longer than you have. It's continuously debunked, and the further in time we go the more stuff is classified, and thus not possible to actually implement accurately in the game. Gaijin's "no composite" thing has also been extremely strict on that matter.
  142. Ground vehicles

    "Early M60A1s had no stabilization system.  An AOS or add-on-stabilizer was retrofitted in the early 1970s, enhancing first hit killing rate by keeping the gun close to the aim while on the move." I disagree completely with the theory that we'll eventually get all sorts of M60s, especially the M60 Sabre and 120mm M60A3.