Necrons31467

Member
  • Content count

    1,935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
medal medal medal

Necrons31467 last won the day on November 20 2016

Necrons31467 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,674 Outstanding

3 Followers

About Necrons31467

  • Rank
    Group captain

Recent Profile Visitors

9,860 profile views
  1. That's so massively exaggerated: Current APDS is nowhere near as bad as it was just after the infamous nerf at the start of 2016, ofcourse, it also helps ammo rack detonation regularity has been fixed, regardless, it is ammo where you primarily want to aim at ammo racks with, this hasn't really changed much over the past years. What? just use HESH, I mean, I don't even bother loading all that much APDS anylonger on HESH equipped vehicles, I don't see why anyone else would either. Just get yourself accustomed to the velocity and watch your enemies melt away.
  2. You're hitting empty spaces, not quite sure what you were expecting to happen there exactly, also, why APDS? just load HESH instead, won't matter if you hit empty spaces with that.
  3. The T-10M is more survivable, has the better weapon in nearly every meaningful way and mounts those awesome 14.5mm MG's.
  4. The IT-1 isn't competitive, it's a one-trick-pony, easily dealth with when it isn't in it's charactistically cheap hull-down spot, which from my experience, it rarely is. The Russians could use a T-64 prototype, one of Choogle's suggestions most likely, that's not saying others nations don't need addition either. Also, I hope you weren't presuming that I'm of the opinion the T-72 or T-64 are ''needed''. The Hunter isn't exactly the perfect ground forces aircraft I was referring to, the P-47D, AD-2, F-84, Wyvern and Ho-229 is more so what I was thinking of.
  5. And only the T-10M having been a truly competitive one. The back-ups argument also fails when noting how other countries have superior aircraft for ground forces use aswell as every other country now having a highly competitive 8.0 back-up (Chief Mk. 3, M60, Leo 1 and STB-1) with today's patch, besides that, crappy T-54's don't make for much of an effective back-up against current NATO 8.0's running around.
  6. As for the 115mm, I recently bug-reported it's ammunition: Accounting for the Sovjet standard, we should get around 147mm of penetration @ 1000 metres @ 60°, in-game this is currently 153mm, slightly over-performing, however, at longer distances it gets a bit dubious, The source lists 100mm of penetration (109mm accounting for V80) at 2000m @ 60°, in game this is a rather high 137mm. 0° penetration is about as good as it's gonna get.
  7. What? I guess the Chieftain has a autoloader and composite armour now? M60A1 is not a 1971 tank, it's 1961, and if you're counting the AOS, you should also count the 1967 3BM-11 ammo the T-10M uses. What? Left-side section of the turret, area immediately above and below the gun, cupola, driver's hatch, turret cheeks near the gun and the lower section of the upper glacis are all pennable by the T-10M's APCBC round.
  8. So uhmmmm... what happened here? Recently bug-reported the T-62's ammunition penetration deficiencies: Both 3BM-3 and 3BM-4 should roughly have 135mm (Sovjet standard) of penetration @ 1000 metres @ 60°, now, what did Gaijin do with this report? Yup, 153mm of penetration @ 1000 metres @ 60°... Wat?
  9. So uhmm... I recently bug-reported the T-62's APFSDS because it lacked penetration at 60°, Now what did Gaijin do with this report in today's patch? They turned the 115mm into a railgun. M'kay.
  10. That's back when there were no British, the Tiger's APCBC shell had 142mm penetration and the 76mm APCR performed like post-war APDS, it also didn't help the Germans that the Tiger II Porsche and Jagdpanther and Ferdinand were still a 6.7.
  11. The funny thing is, artillery actually seems quite reasonable in-game compared to rockets, (2:39) 150mm HE shell lands directly ontop of my 26mm thick engine deck, only ruptures a single fuel tank and disabled my engine... instead of my entire tank being blown up hollywood style.
  12. Uhmm, wat? A Hunter is quite a bit faster than a P-47D (thus requiring far greater lead), infact, he was travelling at around 1070 km/h at the time of landing my hit, besides that the 37mm on a MiG-15 has a significantly lower muzzle velocity (670 m/s vs 900 m/s), thus requiring even greater lead.
  13. We don't have the Jaguar 1, we have it's predecessor, a 1970's vehicle, the Type-87 is an 1980's tank though, and if we're counting ammo, so are the STB-1 and Type-74.
  14. The T-62 with Boris' sound mod sounds fantastic:
  15. Probably one of my best played air RB matches: And a pretty neat shot.
  16. 1.69

    Better overall ammunition, worse stock ammunition, better turret traverse (though still poor), slightly better gun depression (though still poor), better overall mobility, addition of a stabilizer and perhaps a spall liner, if the latter won't be modelled, it'll have the same poor survivability of other T-54's, so, If it were in the German tech tree, I can't see myself choosing it over the Leopard A1A1 or Leopard 1, If it were in the British tech tree, I would certainly use it as a back-up, however, since the British usually face Sovjets, the Centurion Mk. 10 with HESH is a better choice anyways, If it were in the US tech tree, the M60A1 would easily still be the better choice, even the standard M60 might make for a better back-up, If it were in the Japanese tech tree, it'd be a complete joke compared to the Type-74 and STB-1. Meanwhile it's at a higher battle rating than all of those except for the Type-74.... another case of Gaijin Logic™....
  17. Tanks/Vehicles

    The 16mm HHA applique is indeed not needed, however, wouldn't the T-80 base model make more sense as it more closely matches the MBT-70 twins in terms of mobility?
  18. How is it possible to make that many mistakes in such a small paragraph? The T-72 uses the V-46 V12 4-stroke Diesel engine, this provided the T-72 with 780 horsepowers for a 43 tonne tank, providing it with a 18.1 Hp/tonn ratio, comparatively, the M60A1 has an 750 horsepower engine and weighs around 47 tonnes, providing it with a 15.9 hp/tonn ratio, and keep in mind, the T-72 has FAR superior armour protection. The T-72 has by no means sub-par mobility. Which means, it's still superior to the side-armour of contemporary M60's, Leopard 1's, AMX-30's, Chieftains and Centurions. And HEAT-FS, and APDS, or any other form of kinetic energy penetrator, Upper glacis 80mm RHA - 105mm STEF - 20mm RHA @ 68° 362mm vs KE 420mm vs SC Lower Glacis 80mm RHA @ 64° 182mm Turret Front Mantlet area 350mm CHA Turret front 475-720mm CHA (T-72 turret schematic, it's an estimate, but still found to be relatively accurate) Yup, L7A1/A3 HEAT-FS proof save for the lower glacis and a relatively small portion of the area next to the gun mantlet. Sigh.... It has an autoloader, that's correct, and hydropneumatic suspension, that's also correct, and no, it does not use the M551 Sheridan's weapon system, it uses an elongated 152mm tied to a laser rangefinder and a far more advanced fire control system, additionally, it's also capable of firing APFSDS rounds. Furthermore, it features composite armour, roughly the equivalent of the T-64's armour protection, additionally, it's also FAR more mobile than any MBT we currently see in-game, that includes the Leopard 1. ''Nothing we don't have already'' So please point me towards the in-game composite armoured MBT. Assuming they give it it's most basic round: 3BM-9, it still has superior performance in comparison to the Chieftain Mk. 3. Yup, 180mm of penetration @ 60° at 1000 metres, on the Sovjet standard...
  19. It honestly seems like you almost just started naming vehicles at random.... Let's put these tanks in order of performance, starting from weakest to strongest: 8.3 material Leopard 1 A3 M60A3 Type-74 (Leopard 1 A4) 9.7 material T-72 T-64 Chieftain Mk. 10 (Kpz Keiler) 11.0 material MBT-70 Kpz-70 (T-80B) (T-72A with Kontakt-1) The gaps in here in terms of performance are quite immense, I don't believe you quite understand how powerful the MBT-70 twins are, nor understand how powerful a T-72 would be compared to a Leopard 1 A3, also note how the Japanese would be entirely left in the dust. Firstly, the MBT-70 has mobility superior to that of the Leopard 1, and not just by a tiny margin, it's significantly more mobile, to the point of being more mobile than a Leopard 2A7 or M1A2 SEP, and it has that, while also having T-72A levels of armour protection. Secondly, let's say the T-72 would be implemented in the current version of War Thunder, it'd literally have the most powerful gun yet, by far the most heavily protected front and by far have the highest mobility for it's armour protection in-game, and not only that, it'd have 2-plane stabilization, the lowest profile of any MBT (nearly a third lower than an M60), while also having one of the quickest reloads at Tier V due to it's autoloader, do you really see this being a fair match against a simple Leopard 1 or M60 variant?
  20. I was speaking from a in-game point of view, not a historical one.
  21. Chieftain really isn't within the league of a T-64, not even sure how you came to that conclusion. Chieftain has inferior hull armour, both these tanks feature next to impenetrable upper glacis plates, but the T-64 atleast has a better lower glasic, Chieftain simply has a WAY worse turret, not only is it plagued with numerous weakpoints which even the Sovjet 100mm with it's BR-412D can penetrate, it's also just thinner overall and doesn't have the same advantages against shaped charge / HESH ammunition the T-64 does. T-64 has superior side armour. T-64 is FAR more mobile, essentially having mobility somewhere between the M60 and the Leopard 1, making it capable of flanking the ''heavy tank'' Chieftain while it in return couldn't do the same. The T-64's HEAT-FS is superior to the Chieftains APDS rounds, and since it's HESH rounds will have no effect on the T-64, that specific advantage over other HEAT-FS equipped vehicles is nullified. The T-64 does not have any ammunition stored in the turret, unlike the Chieftain often does. The only advantages the Chieftain has are: Gun depression Turret rotation speed. 4-man crew instead of 3.
  22. T-55A Leopard 1 A1A1 15°/sec turret traverse 24°/sec turret traverse Leo wins 8.6 sec reload (aced) 7.1 sec reload (aced) Leo wins -5° of gun depression -9° of gun depression Leo wins 391mm pen HEAT-FS 400mm pen HEAT-FS Draw, no real difference in game draw Leopard's HEAT-FS has the higher muzzle velocity, which is an argument you use right below 117mm pen APFSDS (1000m 60°) 112mm pen APDS (1000m @ 60°) T-55 wins draw, in higher muzzle velocity Leopard reloads this APDS round at a quicker rate, aswell as having a lesser pen drop-off APHE (can OHK KT frontally) HESH (cannot pen KT frontally) which it never faces T-55 wins Leopard wins, APHE more versatile, also can go through obstacles, 7.92mm mounted on the Leopard can deal with obstacles a split second before firing Hesh is by far the more versatile round, not caring the slightest about armour. 40km/h off-road top-speed 47 km/h off road top-speed Leo wins -7 km/h reverse -25 km/h reverse Leo wins Can't neutral turn Can neutral turn Leo wins Side can stop SPAAG APHE Side cannot stop SPAAG APHE T-55 wins Besides, since when are SPAA your primary opponent? Can survive SPAAG frontally Cannot survive SPAAG frontally T-55 wins Bouncy turret Non-bouncy turret with lower profile T-55 wins out barely Small silhouette Big sillhouette, second tallest medium in T5 - T-55 wins Leopard 1's height: 2.39 metres, T-55's height: 2.4 metres, main drawback on the T-54 are the cupola's. draw.
  23. Nvidia Shadowplay.
  24. T-55A Leopard 1 A1A1 15°/sec turret traverse 24°/sec turret traverse 8.6 sec reload (aced) 7.1 sec reload (aced) -5° of gun depression -9° of gun depression 391mm pen HEAT-FS 400mm pen HEAT-FS 117mm pen APFSDS (1000m 60°) 112mm pen APDS (1000m @ 60°) APHE HESH 40km/h off-road top-speed 47 km/h off road top-speed -7 km/h reverse -25 km/h reverse Can't neutral turn Can neutral turn '' Not needed. At all. Russia has enough BS at top tier that are already over performing.. '' '' Great more ******** **** * gaijan '' '' wow gr8 more russian bias '' '' agreed more russian op '' '' Russia just got T-62 and it's not enough already ? '' '' Great an another russian OP tank. When will you add e50 and e75 tanks. Germany needs new tanks. '' '' And as usual germany still stuck with **** tanks end game '' '' Oh look. Another unbeatable russian tank. What a surprise. '' Dat community's reasoning though.
  25. Basically, what I experienced consistenty in this match:
  26. Except, T-54 Mod. '47 is 200mm cast insteaf of 178mm, and never entirely flat: The T95E1's turret is 100% flat at the cheek area's near the mantlet, thus only around 170mm effective at those areas. It has almost the exact same penetration as regular L7 APDS right now. So, around 215mm effective? so it's pennable by basically anything at Tier V... Uhmm, try 156mm effective, 51mm @ 71 degrees is 156mm, (not accounting for the cast modifier), again, I'm talking about the narrow but wide strip that's angled to a lesser extent on the upper 51mm part of the upper glacis. Overall it seems like this is just another sub-par US top-tier tank, it's mobility is ''meh'' at best, the armour is situational and the gun is simply not on-par with that of the M60A1, if only because it doesn't get the stabilization, meanwhile it still shares many of the M60's downfalls.
  27. They're entirely flat near the front, they're also not the only weakpoints on the turret: Area's highlighted are pennable by stock T-54 ammo and will likely result in one-hit-kills, also, keep in mind this entire thing is cast armour. It's quite small, but then again, I've never had trouble penning the right-side turret cheek of a T-54-3 with any 8.0 tank. Which is to say, not very effective for an 8.0 whatsoever. Not sure where the hostility comes from, and yes, I spend a fair few hours examining each and every new addition. Yet with the penetration of an L7 APDS round, which means it'll struggle against certain Sovjet tank, and since it doesn't get HEAT or HESH, it's really gonna have problems with IS-4M's and most importantly, T-10M's. Sure, but that doesn't fix the turret ring weakspot, nor the other difficiencies such as certain weakpoints across the hull. The two bulging sections near the idler wheel/drive sprocket are relatively flat and contain ammo behind them. As stated, turret ring is a weakness. Lower glacis is inferior to that of the M60, which already gets penetrated quite regularly at 8.0 The upper 51mm section of the upper plate has a relatively small but wide area where the angling is drastically reduced, it'll be an insta-pen area. Wiggling the turret will also put you at further risk to having the cheeks be penetrated due to their relatively low thickness.
  28. So what? you're implying we should get the T-80BV at that point, like that wouldn't be imbalanced or anything right? A tank's performance matters, not it's date of introduction, why is it that so many people can't seem to wrap their brains around that? So what? seriously, it's still a sluggish machine with it's lackluster engine and the armour is nothing special: Thin turret cheeks? -Check Giant cupola weakspot? -Check Weak lower glacis? -Check Ah yes, just add classified and unknown ammunition into the game just so that we can force in a power-creep vehicle that isn't needed to begin with, why not? *facepalm*
  29. '' 1980's '' Leopard 1 A1A1: 1975 M60A1: 1961 Chieftain Mk. 3: 1968 Type-74: 1974 Besides: Their mediums are indeed power-creeped, the T-10M however, is not, even if that is because 90% of it's opposition are entirely clueless. T95E1 currently doesn't have composite modelled, so irrelevant argument, besides that, it doesn't have a stabilizer, has poor mobility and a fairly poor shell. '' Oh, armour is pennable by a select few vehicles which are barely played, no worries m8, just add it! I mean, what could possibly go wrong? '' But sure, add it, I'll enjoy clubbing everything in my T-64.
  30. Sigh.... not one of these posts again. '' Would protect against HESH ''.... and HEAT-FS and AP(FS)DS from point blank range, while in return, the T-64 can penetrate any tank in the game frontally. Oh come on... 115mm gun not good enough? So let me sum the T-72 Ural up real quick: T-72 Ural General statistics: 43 Tonnes 2.2m Tall 3.6m Wide 6.9m Long 125mm 2A26M2 3BM9 (1800 m/s) 1000m 1000m 60° 2000m 2000m 60° 320mm 180mm 265mm 160mm BK-14 (905 m/s) 450mm 450mm 2E42-2 Zhasmin 2-plane stabilizer 18°/sec turret traverse 3.5°/sec gun elevation speed 22 Round Autoloader 7-8 RPM fire-rate (8 second reload rate) Armour Upper glacis 80mm RHA - 105mm STEF - 20mm RHA @ 68° 362mm effective LoS vs KE 420mm effective LoS vs SC Lower Glacis 80mm RHA @ 64° 182mm effective LoS Hull Side 80mm RHA @ 0° Turret Front Mantlet area 350mm CHA Turret front 475-720mm CHA Mobility Engine V-46 780 HP V12 Diesel 18.1 hp/tonn ratio 60 km/h on roads 40 km/h off-roads So, by far the best armour in-game, (making it entirely resistant against any ammunition the Leopard, M60 or Type-74 has access to) best firepower in-game, by far the best mobility for it's armour protection in-game, all while having a lower profile than even the Chieftain or Leopard 1 while also having excellent gun handling thanks to it's 2-plane stabilization system aswell as having a extremely quick reload. Seems balanced komrade, ))))))) As seen above, this is just plain false. T-64 has a composite turret aswell as a composite hull (identical stats to those of the T-72 as described above) T-72 has a cast turret with an identical hull layout to the T-64:
  31. T95E1's APFSDS has nearly the exact same penetration figures regular L7 105 APDS has, complains about it being power-creep... M'kay. T-55A has APFSDS with inferior penetration compared to the T-62, still complains about it being power-creep, *sigh*. Only barely. Besides, Leopard gets HESH, which is about tripple the damage out-put of that silly APFSDS round the T-62/T-55A gets.
  32. Because 120mm APFSDS is pretty giant power-creep, not only would it have truly immense penetration, it'd also have the typically short reload of only 8 seconds in addition to the increased damage out-put due to it being APFSDS instead of APDS. 120mm HESH is plenty when dealing with practically anything.
  33. Sovjet AP (FS) DS under-performing? no way. Indeed, but let's be honest, did we expect otherwise at this point?
  34. *Ehem* It's worse than the T-62's APFSDS.
  35. Site doesn't list even a single source from what I can see.
  36. Because if I do that, he'll be perfectly free to start angling himself, which will require me to reposition, which will put me at further risk of being flanked/spotted, ammo-racking the Maus is just the safest bet, it's just that he was lucky enough to not have that specific area loaded with ammo, which highlights the reload issue on the T-62's part, same goes for other 9+sec reloads: That's my M47 with an expert crew, 9.6 second reload, crew still rotates well before that. It's just BS.
  37. Choogle has already bug reported it a long, long way back, Gaijin doesn't care. T-54 Mod. '47 should go up to 7.7 along with the IS-6 going up to 7.3 while the T-54 Mod. '49 should have it's APDS taken away and be moved down to 7.3, it's currently literally a worse tank at a higher battle rating, more Gaijin logic ofcourse. Also, more ''epicness'' of the T-62: Oh hey look, he just so happened to have loaded just few enough ammo that the specific spot where I aimed for was conveniently empty, and ofcourse, he get's his gunner back up and turns one of the slowest traversing hulls/turret in the game around in time to one-shot me before I can even reload the next shell.
  38. You stated: '' It cares. Russians get APFSDS, NATO do not. '' , to which I said that the Chieftain's gun (not firing APFSDS) is still the superior weapon, so ofcourse, you ignore this and twist it into a comparison between hulls... M'kay... Roughly 1300 metres away (qualifies as sniping I presume?), first shot fired was on-target, just like the following three hits, seriously, 45 seconds needed to kill a measly M47, having had an eight seconds reload here would've significantly cut that time down. My argument with that has been that the HESH equipped vehicles club Sovjets hard enough to the point where the non-HESH equipped vehicles are essentially being carried, this is also a balancing problem that seems to be glossed over far too easily, the current damage out-put of HESH is simply ridiculous, along with the completely insane level of stabilization these machines get: (Skip to 0:27 and 1:06) Yeah, I bet that King Tiger felt good about having the relatively small weakspot of his right-side turret front be penetrated from 800+ metres away by a Centurion travelling at near top-speeds, surely didn't feel cheap at all. You act as though the British are in such a poor state to the point where they're being stomped each match, every single time we show you our results, you refer back to your OP as if that dismisses our results, is it that hard to accept that both nations have vehicles that are simply being power-creeped through the BR compression, and that it isn't a case of Russian Bias? Wether that is true or not, it still shows exactly what I;ve shown you up untill this point, match after match I play in the Conqueror, we're playing with only a select few 7.3's on our team against a large number of 7.3 and 7.0 Sovjets, yet we come out victorious far more often than not. And that's what this topic is about, but apparently when someone shows you a short piece of evidence that doesn't conform with you point of view on the subject, it seems to be dismissed as simple boasting... I mean, that's pretty low.
  39. Remember how I also said that certain area's are still very much relevant? Chieftain's 72 degree UFP ricochets anything, thus it's relevant indeed. You literally said: which is a false statement, that's all I pointed out, I never claimed it was more mobile overall. Nice try though. My point being, Dev-blogs often spout all kinds of stuff which in the end doesn't make an actual appearance in-game, so let's just wait it out and see how it will perform on the live-server, no point already shouting about the T-55's armour being something out of this world. Refer to above, also, nice recovery. And APFSDS is some magical insta-kill dart? Let's jump into an alternate universe in which upon unlocking the T-62, people were given the option to mount the T-62's gun, firing APFSDS with a 13 second reload, or to mount the Chieftain's gun with it's APDS and a 8 second reload, I'm pretty sure I know exactly which gun would be mounted most. It's easy because I just took my average performance per match from the past 3 days in the Conqueror.
  40. Your team stomped the Sovjets, you got 2-5 kills and only 3-8 vehicles on your team were lost, perhaps 2-5 people on your team left the match entirely right before it ended. Got that about right?
  41. '' allows the player to play more aggressively without fear of direct hits from enemy shells on many sections of the armor (primarily on the turret). Thanks to the increased thickness and angles of the armor, the shells of many tanks (including the T-54) can ricochet right off the frontal projection '' In reference to the M60A1's mantlet, guess how that turned out? '' the armor protection on the frontal projection was increased to 254 mm '' Guess how that turned out? (Only counting tanks in which I've had crucial modifications purchased for the majority of the play sessions) Chieftain Mk. 3 K/D ratio: 3.8 - 1 Leopard 1 A1A1 K/D ratio: 3.3 - 1 M47 K/D ratio: 3.8 - 1 Leopard 1 K/D ratio: 3.4 - 1 T-62 K/D ratio: 2.5 - 1 Just a coincidence I presume? Besides, you seriously wanna argue that the T-62 is infact not inferior to the M60A1, Leopard A1A1, Chieftain Mk.3 or Type-74? Oh right, because the T-44-100, T-54 Mod. '47, '49 and '51 are perfectly viable right? Goes both ways. If you are regularly managing to ricochet 400mm pen HEAT-FS shells... well, no words for that. Not even half the upper glacis armour, worse turret armour, FAR worse gun depression, slower turret rotation speed (by far), higher reload (most likely), no HESH, no neutral turning, and infact, not more HP on the engine, CHief: 650 HP, T-55: 580 HP. Gaijin doesn't care, they decide what it fires, STB-1 never fired HEAT-FS, has it anyway. ''tiny''
  42. Which they don't. To be honest, it's more so the Germans than use this argument, not the Sovjets. ''Quickly'' hahaha... Leopard 1 was introduced at around early-mid 2015, ever since the Sovjets haven't had a medium tank that came close to it's performance. 1) like every other nation's top-end MBT. 2) we don't know that yet, don't jump to conclusions. 3) we don't know it's reload rate, and besides that, 320 HEAT-FS is already good enough currently, extra penetration is largely irrelevant. 4) which is to say, mediocre mobility, poor turret traverse, no neutral steering, mediocre reverse speed, poor acceleration. 5) like the US? M60A1, M60, M48, M551 and M47, all viable spawns, besides, if we're really going into the ''viable respawns'' argument, you'll quickly lose out to both the Germans and US: CL-13, 16x rockets, AD-2, ridiculous ground pound ability, Ho-229, will shred any tank on the battlefield, Arado C-3, etc. And when the T-62 was announced, people called Bias, and were later proven wrong, wanna continue cherry-picking? * But I shouldn't mention that reload the T-62 has, that might just look my argument look a bit silly.... * Sigh... Firstly of, a M60A3 in War Thunder is literally identical to the in-game M60A1 AOS, poor comparison. Leopard 1 A4 is just another Leo with a slightly better turret, but not to the extent where it's resistant against tank ammunition, again, poor comparison. Chieftain Mk. 10 blows the T-55A out of the picture entirely, and you know it, so, again, poor comparison.
  43. 1.69

    ''Incredible engine'' Lol. 580 HP instead of the 520 HP engine, dayum.... much Hp increase indeed! Seriously, mobility is identical, the T-55 gained weight in comparison to the T-54's with the weaker engines, thus the overall HP/tonn ratio is identical.
  44. 1.69

    Well, ofcourse it is, though we still need to wait for the dev-server and see what the reload rate is.
  45. I never said that, I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else. Which I already showed you isn't really that drastic of a difference to begin with.
  46. So don't aim for the fuel tank? Also... If that isn't enough for someone to be able to hit with HESH, than it's a pretty nasty case of aiming disabilities. Besides, you don't need to aim for the ammo directly to reliably detonate it with HESH: (Not that you'd wanna do that if you could just nuke the crew instead, but still)
  47. It wasn't changed, still kills crew just fine for me.
  48. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....... ... hahaha.... sigh.... HESH is the definition of a point and click adventure when it comes to facing Sovjets. Oh, what's that? you hit a Leopard's gun barrel? don't worry, it's still a one-shot-kill. seems legit. Hey, you hit the turret front of a T-44, well, the driver dies aswell, how's that? Balanced HESH ))))) Ehem, 845 m/s average velocity vs 761 m/s average velocity. '' by quite a margin. '' Please don't tell me you're trying to say that people who can aim with 845 m/s can't aim with 761 m/s. Seriously so don't angle? getting kinda silly here aren't we? Ah yes, that ''stronk'' fuel tank, which detonates the enitre tank if I splash the turret front: 0:40 Much stronk indeed.
  49. ''7 tanks above BR 7.0'' What? this is RB, tanks above 7.0 in that screenshot are: Conqueror, M47.
  50. Strawman much? First match, a single player on our team knocked out of the match, their side: all 13 players. Second match, four players on our side knocked out of the match, their side: 15 players. ''Wouldn't call that a roflstomp'' Poor prediction.
  51. -Implying 6.3 up-tiered Sovjet's like the T-44's and IS-2 Mod.'44's don't suffer vs Conqueror's, T32's, Centurion Mk. 10's and M47's to a far greater extent. Two more matches played: First match: bunch of 7.0's and 7.3's vs 7.0 - 8.0 Sovjets, complete roflstomp. Second match, mostly 6.7 UK/US vs 7.0 and 7.3 Sovjets, complete roflstomp.
  52. Just played another match, the teams were as follows: USSR v Britain/America 6.7 T-34-100 Type-62 Type-62 T-34-100 7.0 IS-6 IS-6 T-44-100 T-44-100 T-44-100 T-44-100 T-44-100 7.3 T-54 47 T-54 47 T-54 47 -VS- 6.3 M41 6.7 Super Hellcat T29 T92 Caern FV4005 T29 T92 T92 T34 T34 7.0 T32 Cent 10 7.3 Conq M47 That translates to the Sovjets having an average BR of 7.0 with the Brits/US having an average BR of 6.8, So, Sovjets had a higher average BR per vehicle, UK/US still won (as per usual from my experience). (winrate currently at nearly 75%, still rising...)
  53. So.. a King Tiger is suddenly going to magically penetrate my 380mm turret front and kill me? that argument makes no sense. King Tiger's aren't at all the majority of what I face, and even when i do, I've so far mostly come across them with their sides towards me, and the few which I recall meeting frontally I just deleted with HESH. If only you could hide that lower glacis... if only. But seriously, do you honestly think I just mindlessly rush forwards and charge the first enemy I see without giving any effort to hiding my LFP? And that's just the thing, I can basically just delete 95% of what I face through the UFP, while many in return need to have the opportunity to fire at my lower glacis in order to knock me out (refer to previously linked video). And then get unlucky and face 7.3 BR Brits which will get me roflstomped by their HESH, no thanks. Yes, every map does give you an opportunity to hide your lower glacis, that's correct, besides, flanking argument goes both ways, 6.7 Brits could also flank these Sovjets. By far the majority of what i face are a combination of T-44's (any of it's variants) and IS-6's, which I have no problem stomping, As for this thread being about 6.7 struggling against 7.0 and 7.3... well, that's because they're lower tiered vehicles fighting higher tiered vehicles, quite obvious is it not? So, as I said before, people need to start playing the Conqueror and Centurion Mk. 10 more, and not be stupid enough to load nothing but APDS when facing Sovjets like many do. And if you're going to argue that the Sovjets tend to have more 7.0's and 7.3's than the Brits, than that is indeed a MM problem.
  54. It's around about 75% I'd say, the variation is +/-10%, no 20% as far as I'm aware. There are several reasons why you would choose HESH over APDS: Even if you don't pen the UFP, the cannon barrel and perhaps a track will still most likely be knocked out of action, thus you won't be under any risk of return fire. It's far easier to just click the anywhere on the UFP than to carefully aim for that turret front with APDS. APDS won't pen at a certain angle, HESH doesn't give two xxxxX about angles. If HESH does ''penetrate'', the damage is immense, as opposed to APDS. HESH kills about 95% of what you'll face far easier than APDS, it's a safer bet to just load HESH. Oh, and the Conqueror/Centurion Mk. 10 utterly demolish the IS-6 spam right now, I'd highly advice people playing/grinding them atm. That's a T-44, two T-44-100's, a T-54, two IS-6's and a IS-2 Mod. '44, all stopped because of a single Conqueror, which, together with his squadmate farm eight of them, if my barrel wasn't knocked out that would've been even more dead Ruskies.
  55. Gotta love people jumping on the Russian Bias bandwagon when matchmaking happens to favour them, but when this happens: (four more players on the German team for no good reason) Nobody complains.
  56. Tier II is indeed alright for the Sovjets as long as they don't face too many KwK/PaK 40 armed Germans, most notably the StuG III G, Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV G which club the Sovjets. Tier III is also decent for the Sovjets, though the T-34/85's have taken some massive nerfs over the past months, they're still by no means bad tanks, I'd recommend the first T-34/85 and the T-44. Early-mid Tier IV is miserable right now though, they don't even have a single 6.7 that isn't premium, so you'll just have to grind your way past that. however, early Tier V is where they utterly roflstomp anything that isn't HESH equipped, mainly with the easy-mode T-54 Mod.'47 and IS-6. Some general tips: Avoid the TD line like the plague Don't bother with their SPAA Get used to not having any gun depression Get used to staying around cover so that you can hide during the long reloads when playing the heavies I'd say, prioritize the medium tank line, though some of the heavies aren't bad, the mediums generally lead to better tanks comparatively.
  57. Meh, current Jagdtiger at 7.0 is fine, they should however add the 8.8cm Jagdtiger at 6.7, additionally, the Panther II is the equal to the T-44-100 and M46, they should all be either at 7.0, or, preferably, 6.7. The IS-6 indeed needs to be up-tiered to 7.3, the IS-4M could be brought down to 7.3 (where the Conqueror sits) and the T-54 Mod. '47 should be up to 7.7 while the T-54 Mod. '49 goes down to 7.3 without it's APDS, the Sovjets should also get a proper 6.7 in the near future. The King Tiger should have it's turret modifier removed since it's no longer without equals like it was 2 years back and the Maus in it's current state should be dropped to 7.3. As for the British, the Centurion Mk. 3 really has no bussiness being at 6.3, 6.7 is where it belongs, though I'm torn between 7.0 and 7.3 for the Centurion Mk. 10, on one hand it wrecks Sovjets 7.3's with ease, but on the other it struggles against 6.7 and 7.0 Germans. And lastly, the US should have the T29 and T34 up-tiered to 7.0, they're effectively the equals to the Tiger II 105, not the Tiger II H, the M26 could go down to 6.0 and the M47 should be brought down to 7.0, closer to where the Ru-251 sits.
  58. Ughh... not the ''deadly shockwave'' myth again....
  59. Unlocked the Conqueror a few days back, I can't really say that I'm noticing that hate Gaijin has towards the British to be honest.....
  60. misc/other

    ''Hidden armour'' Anyone familiar with the in-game armour viewer will know that it can be quite difficult to check certain armour values, especially when wanting to inspect armour placed behind gun shields or spaced armour for example, to address this, my suggestion is as follows: When activating the armour viewer, you should be able to right click any armour zone, this will temporarily remove it, this will at that point reveal any armour located behind the piece you just removed, to re-active the previously removed armour plating there could be a list of all armour zones modelled on the vehicle (to the right in the example below) in the UI like so: Such a system would be especially useful on tanks like the M60A1 and Type-74, both of which have a spall shield modelled which not that many people are aware of (or at the very least know it's exact thicknesses), the only way to currently check these items is by very carefully finding a gap between the gun barrel and the manlet: Overall I believe that this addition would greatly reduce some of the confusion that is found by people that are not aware of there being another layer of armour on the vehicle they're firing at, thus avoiding some of the annoyances caused from such encounters. Anyways, I look forwards to hearing feedback on this suggestion, -Necrons.