Necrons31467

Member
  • Content count

    2,126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal medal medal

Necrons31467 last won the day on July 16

Necrons31467 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,173 Outstanding

4 Followers

About Necrons31467

Recent Profile Visitors

11,482 profile views
  1. No, they don't there's no difference between the US/UK and Sovjets in terms of when and how they spawn additional vehicles, all that matters is the type of vehicles you use (Medium, SPAA, Tank Destroyer etc) and what matchmaking you got (up-tiered heavy costs less than a down-tiered one). All this decides how many spawn points you have after being killed, aswell as any other accomplishments you made with your previous vehicle.
  2. Though I generally agree with your post, I did recently go back and play my M47 once again, mainly due to reading similar complaints about it's ammunition in another thread, the match I got right then went as follows: Most shots that didn't do critical damage (if not all), were poorly aimed on my part, but then again, most shots did deal crippling/fatal damage, the only clear example of the HEAT-FS shell not doing proper damage would be at 2:32 where the IS-3's gunner was clearly in the HEAT liner's line of travel but the breech saved him, which I find rather questionable. The main problem with HEAT is that it requires intimate knowledge of exactly where the enemies modules are aswell as flawless aim from the players themselves, asking this from the average German Tier V player is like asking toddlers to solve the Kennedy assasination, it's just not gonna happen. apart from that, the spalling should indeed be increased, not just to help these players out, but also because it's just laughable how penetration 250mm of LoS steel only results in 3-4 relatively harmless pieces of shrapnel. Team got roflstomped hard though...
  3. False, area's where the few Tiger 1's were deployed were in British sectors, not the US.
  4. Oh man... not THAT myth once again.... Seriously, sometimes a single Sherman Firefly took out two Tiger's and a Panther, sometimes a Tiger only took out a single Firefly, and if you're referring to US Shermans, they only ever met an enemy Tiger perhaps once or twice. Please don't spread that stupid myth any further.
  5. That logic goes both ways, the Ru-251 is the quickest vehicle in the entire game, using your logic, it should always reach the caps first, and the enemies would have to take it from the Germans, except, plenty of Ru-251 drivers are just bad players, they rush right towards the enemy without any regards for the objectives and get themselves killed early on.
  6. I know right? surely those 5-1 and 6-1 K/D ratio's, 60/70%+ winrates just fell from the sky! Oh man, were those German tanks ever so bad back then /s Surely couldn't be that terrible players on the German tech tree do terrible and think their tech tree is bad because they themselves are bad right? Oh, that was unexpected!
  7. StuG's and Panzer IV's were used till the 70'ies, not that that has any bearing on a tank's combat effectiveness, please just leave date of introduction/maximum service life out of discussions regarding balance, they're irrelevant numbers. Anywho, the German playerbase is unfortunately being plagued by having the worst players, this isn't meant to be offensive or anything, it's just an unavoidable fact, most younger kids are faimiliar with the ''Mighty, unstoppable legendary Tiger'', this results in a lot of inexperienced gamers flocking to these types of machines, even when the Germans had the strongest overall tech tree, they still were not performing exceptionally well due to this. Unfortunately, now the German tech tree is also suffering from a rather constant level of power-creep, especially from the premium Tier IV area's. Examples: US 6.7 ''Heavy'' tank opponent to the Tiger II H in 2015: M26, 142mm lower glacis 143mm upper hull armour, ≈120mm mantlet armour, 165mm of penetration (APHE) sub-par mobility. US 6.7 Heavy tank opponent to the Tiger II H in 2017: T34, 142mm lower glacis ≈190mm upper hull armour, 215mm mantlet armour, 247mm of penetration (AP) poor mobility. USSR 6.7 Heavy tank opponent to the Tiger II H in 2015 IS-2 Mod. '44, 119mm lower glacis, 245mm upper glacis, ≈95-190mm turret front, 230mm of penetration, 22 second reload, poor mobility USSR 7.0 Heavy tank opponent to the Tiger II H in 2017 IS-6, 220mm lower glacis, 230mm upper hull armour, 200mm+ mantlet armour, 207mm of penetration, 16 second reload, decent mobility. Who knows, perhaps in a patch or two the German tech tree will once again have the best overall selection of vehicles, this type of stuff changes quite often with Gaijin.
  8. There's no point in arguing with you, this topic deserves attention, the Leopard's ammunition is under-performing, but the arguments, or rather, misinformed nonsense you keep spreading just ruins an otherwise good message. You claim CAS is the cause of you not getting good scores, so I ask you why others don;t have similarly poor scores, they fight the exact same aircraft you do, so ofcourse, you dodge the question completely and revert back to your ''Cuz CAS'' ''argument''. Like a broken record.
  9. No you don't, you're just placing the blame elsewhere constantly.
  10. So if CAS is the reason for it, how come others don't have similar stats? same CAS aircraft attacking them as they are you. Also, it doesn't work that way, you do need to experience playing a tank yourself before you can place any judgement on it's performance from an objective point of view. I mean, in this very thread you're describing the M48 as having actual armour, if that doesn't show you having a completely twisted view on the M48 I don't know what does.
  11. Lol @ those two statements in the same paragraph. If you knew how to use HESH, then how did this happen? And if you know how to use HESH properly, why do you claim it is not reliable? And how come you claim the M60, M48, T-55A and T-62 have armour that's worthwhile, while you don't own a single one of them?
  12. Also, sloping messes with HESH, ignore the stat card, HESH simply does drop ''penetration'' over high degrees of sloped armour.
  13. So... you have no clue how to use it, that explains a few things. HESH against the turret ring blows any Patton up. HESH against the cupola severely cripples a Patton. HESH on the upper glacis nukes a Patton HESH on the M60/M48 turret cheeks severely cripples them. Plenty of ways to kill em with HESH. That 10/10 slide though. I never stated the Leopard's turret armour wasn't weak, and I never even implied anything of the sort either. Also, 20mm + 95mm + 44mm = 159mm of mantlet armour on the Leopard 1 A1A1.
  14. I'd just add the BMP-3 instead, around about 90mm of armour frontally, 25 Hp/tonn ratio, auto-loader (roughly 6 second reload, 20 seconds for the ATGM), 8 missiles total (instead of 5 on the BMP-1/2), 30mm coaxial capable of penetrating MBT's side armour at close/medium distances, 2-plane stabilization and it cannot fire from a hidden position since the missiles are tube-launched, preventing the typical ATGM-cheese tactics in the process. Since date of introduction is irrelevant anyways I don't see why it wouldn't be eligible for introduction.
  15. Lel. ''M48 has good armour'' Didn't think I'd see that statement being written in a non-sarcastic manner in my lifetime. 134mm turret front cheeks, that's some serious armour right there alright, 140mm lower glacis,the bulls-eye marked cupola and the 70mm thick turret ring are some seriously good examples of proper armour protection aswell. APDS is garbage, indeed, but don't act as if you cannot penetrate your opponents whatsoever with it, besides, use HESH.
  16. Not really relevant, just go into the Polygon test drive and fire at the 30mm thick front plate with anything that has about 60mm of penetration (or less), you'll note you're striking multiple layers of armour, not exactly ''true'' composite, but it represents it being there.
  17. None of this really makes any sense: High Hardness Armour layered/combined with regular RHA is not composite, I presume you wouldn't consider the Panzer III Ausf. L being a composite tank either would you? Type-87 has composite already, so that non-existant tech cut-off has been broken for quite a while now. APFSDS is as needed as the Leopard 2 A4 is, just fix the current shells and it'll be completely fine, HESH should have around about 147mm of ''penetration'' without the drastic 20% RNG factor, L7 APDS should be penetrating 127mm of steel @ 60° @ 1000 yards (914 metres) and have it's after-pen effects increased (FAR more spalling/fragmentation needs to be modelled) and HEAT-FS should also have it's damage increased. US and USSR APFSDS wouldn't be that special if APDS had damage out-put equal to it, which I mentioned previously. Regenerative steering and a properly modelled transmission for the Leopard 1 (among others) are far more needed than some APFSDS powercreep shell.
  18. Leopard suffers the same drawbacks most NATO (and to some extent, the Sovjet) tanks do: No regenerative steering APDS post-pen is abysmal APDS penetration is generally under-performing (Sovjets probably the most) HEAT-FS post-pen is abysmal 105mm HESH can't deal with T-10M's effectively HESH ''Penetration'' upper limit should be increased. Fix this, and you fix the Leopard, along with 15+ other tanks.
  19. Fairly certain only the A3 had it, not the A4.
  20. Leopard 1 A4 turret armour is composite, but by no means well-armoured: Leopard 1 A4's turret armour is either similar, or identical to this, there's no way this could be considered too powerful currently.
  21. No point, already being worked on: Will you implement armoured vehicles’ transmission differences in the aspect of turning mechanics? Because it really affects vehicle maneuverability in real life and will also affect gameplay and at the moment the only thing we have in game is neutral steering. In the first place it should affect such tanks as the Tigers 1 and 2, Shermans etc which lose much less speed while turning on the move. Yes, we plan to implement alternate turning mechanics. Besides, you can't really bug-report something which isn't in the game to begin with, it'd be a suggestion instead.
  22. Currently, tanks steer by applying the brakes to one side, say you're driving your Leopard 1 at 40 km/h and you want to turn right 90 degrees, you hold ''D'', which in turn applies the brakes to the right side track, causing the tank to pivot, but since you're applying brakes, you're also burning a massive amount of your momentum doing so (perhaps you'll have slowed down to 19 km/h in this simple turn), regenerative steering works by reducing the power to an individual set of track, without resorting to the brakes, this causes the tank to turn more gradually and with significantly less loss of momentum. Notice how the Chieftain turns without coming to a halt, meanwhile, in War Thunder it's been modelled so incredibly poorly, you get this: Can't even properly perform the most basic of turns on flat medium terrain. This is basically why almost every single Tier V tank currently has under-performing mobility, and it seems rather strange that something so basic has as of yet not been implemented.
  23. Lel, you wish: Great, so the top-tiers get power-creeped even further with the introduction of 105mm APFSDS, that's just brilliant. BR 8.7, I mean, how do you even come up with this stuff? shall we place the T-72 Ural at 8.7 aswell? what's next? T-80BV at 9.0 facing the Leopard 1? *Ehem* M48A1 with APCR capable of penetrating 63mm of armour @ 60° facing the Kpz-70, a tank with roughly 163mm of RHA equivalence @ 60°, seems balanced komrade ))))) Oh look: Not even HEAT-FS will harm it, but sure, completely balanced.
  24. IS-6 Lower glacis status: black hole
  25. All I want from the upcoming patch is regenerative steering.
  26. *Get's confronted with direct evidence contradicting his stance on the subject* ''Nah, not true, plenty of *vague, non-specific, non-mentioned* sources state otherwise, see? I'm correct on the matter'' Some compelling stuff really.
  27. Uhmm, King Tiger 105 is the more mobile tank. That's a list of time stamps relevant to the time it takes each vehicle to run the same course. Slightly higher mobility, more spacious internals, slightly more powerful shell.... and that's about it I guess?
  28. I literally did the math on it just 2 posts above, did you not bother to read that? I accounted for the aluminum lower RHA equivalence. FFS, why is this stupid myth still around? Never stated it was ''OP'' specifically for that benefit alone. That's like saying: ''T-72 gets it's turret blown off all the time in Syria because it's ammo is easily detonated, thus it would be fine in War Thunder'' While not taking into account that the ammunition is stored only behind the upper and lower glacis, and not the turret, the upper glacis of which is entirely immune against any 105mm ammunition currently in-game, aswell as several HEAT rounds and ATGM's, and thus the ammunition is relatively safe. If the turret isn;t being penetrated, the amount of crew behind it is irrelevant.
  29. The mantlet is roughly 220mm in effective thickness, so you just have to switch to APCR, not saying it's fair, or balanced, but that's what you have to do right now. It's seen some Pay2Win vehicles for quite a while now: (Couple months back) T-34-100, 6.3 premium medium tank Su-100, 6.7 regular tech tree tank destroyer T-34-100 is literally a Su-100 but with slightly superior armour and the addition of a turret, making it infinitely more flexible, yet it somehow has a lower battle rating?? (Couple months back, before the T34) T29, 6.7 premium heavy tank Super Pershing, 6.7 regular tech tree heavy tank T29 has the better armoured hull, far more effective turret, superior firepower aswell as superior mobility, yet shares the same BR?? (Currently) IS-6, 7.0 premium heavy tank IS-3, 7.3 regular tech tree heavy tank IS-6 currently has FAR superior mobility, FAR superior reload, better armoured sides, slightly inferior shell, slightly lower frontal armour but loses the IS-3's obvious frontal weakspots, yet is at a lower BR??
  30. Ah yes, 105mm HESH, the shell that fails to damage an T-10M's 120mm upper glacis, even though it's listed as having 127mm of ''penetration'': Anyways, to stick to the rumor topic: Composite is no longer a tech cut-off, we could see (and infact already have seen it in the form of the Type-87 in-game) composite starting to appear in the future, Leopard 1 A3/4's composite is in no way capable of defeating contemporary anti-tank shells, so I do not see the problem with it being implemented. They mainly base their cut-offs on the overall capabilities of a machine, not it's date of introduction/specific technologies. Besides that, Gaijin has recently stated: We do not plan to add the T-64 separately and independently from the other nations. If we decide to add the T-64, it will be added along with other tanks similar to its performance for the other nations, which is pretty hard to do without going into tanks of the late 70 early 80's. We will however experiment with the additional armour protection kits. Wether or not they are actively searching for contemporary vehicles to the T-64 is ofcourse unknown at this time, but they are open to it's implementation.
  31. 70mm RHA - 50mm Aluminum insert (roughly 25mm RHA equivalent)- 70mm RHA That's 70 + 25 + 70 = 165mm total, 165mm @ 60° = 330mm LoS effective thickness.
  32. Lol??? how are you this oblivious/clueless? MBT-70 turret armour: 288mm-600mm (not taking the mantlet into account) T-55A turret armour: 192mm-400mm MBT-70 upper glacis: 330mm T-55A upper glacis: 180mm MBT-70 Hp/tonn ratio: 26 T-55A Hp/tonn ratio: 16 Anyways, you get the point, the MBT-70 is blatant powercreep of the same level the T-64A would be. Right... Kinda ironic to dismiss his argument on that basis considering: You only play German Tier V... There is no 120mm armed MBT-70/Kpz-70, it's a fantasy, all models were armed with the 152mm. How do people manage to get THIS misinformed?? 330mm UFP, impenetrable by quite a few APDS shells in-game, turret is highly resistant aswell. No, the gun is not in any way similar to the 2A20 115mm, this XM150E5 reloads in less than half the time it takes the 115mm to be loaded, besides, since when does our T-62 launch ATGM's? Hydro-pneumatic suspension is always better to have than to not have, it's as simple as that. How exactly does the total amount of crew dictate it's overall effectiveness? it's got the mobility of a M18 Hellcat, the firepower of a Chieftain on steroids and the armour that puts the T-10M to shame, all the while having the best gun handling of any Tier V tank in the entire game... ''Not OP'' Comparing current APFSDS to the 125mm APFSDS isn't exactly fair, 2A26M2 APFSDS 3BM-9 can smash Chieftain turret fronts from 3000 metres away. The Leopard has in no way ''pushed'' for the T-64/T-72, those tanks are leagues above the Leopard, luckily, Gaijin agrees. If the T-64A/MBT-70 twins get added, say goodbye to the Japanese and British Tier V's, Chieftains APFSDS is classified, Japanese don't get anything better than the Type-74 that is not also classified, they'll be stuck with out-dated gear fighting tanks with superior armour, firepower and mobility all day long. If you people want a new and more competitive German Tier V main batle tank, stick to suggesting something reasonable perhaps? Leopard 1 A4 with DM23 APFSDS is far more reasonable than immediately jumping to a Kpz-70, all you're doing by asking for the Kpz-70 is pushing further and further into the territory where the Sovjet composite clubmachines could start appearing, a situation you'd rather avoid.
  33. If referring to Youtubers, they can request specific vehicles from Gaijin, even if they do not own the vehicle previous line. If referring to some people only having played those two, I guess they never bothered playing the two other T-54's (and why would they...), which are pretty sub-par. And to answer your question directly, it's not possible to research the T-62 directly after the T-54-1.
  34. Sigh.... The fact that this still needs to be explained....
  35. Why.....
  36. Best shell types (and only viable ones) at Tier V are currently: APHE, HESH and APFSDS, but who knows, could be completely different in just a few months cuz you know... Gaijin.
  37. These images are useless, what we need is images/replay/recording of the shots you took and where they hit the T-62. You mean: '' Gaijin* nerfed APDS* a long time ago '' I presume? Just don't bother with APDS nor HEAT-FS, both are trash, use HESH instead and hope you don't come across T-10M's with any vehicle equipped with the L7 105mm, since T-10M upper plates are magically immune to these types of HESH.
  38. Biggest problem the Leopard faces is it's trash ammunition, if they fix that (which they probably won't do, cuz Gaijin), it should be fine, though it would ofcourse benefit greatly from having it's Regenerative steering implemented (as would nearly all tanks at that tier).
  39. Meh, modelling the gun barrels would mean re-working all city maps to take this into consideration, besides, I recall Gaijin being asked about this specifically and they won't do it.
  40. Which is why it was a stupid decision to implement them in the first place, their role doesn't translate into a game mechanics in a balanced manner. This is some of the most flawed logic I've read in quite a while. ''if you go toe-to-toe with an ATGM carrier behind cover...you deserve to get killed.'', literally the same could be said about engaging cheaters in say... DayZ, if you know he's a cheater, and engage him anyways, it's just your fault if you get your arse kicked, not the cheater's fault for using said cheats or the developer's fault for not combating this issue properly. Besides that. let's not ignore the fact that they can be literally invisible to you while still being able to kill you regardless of this, which is where the cheater analogy comes from, what you're implying is that I should magically know where they're hiding at, and avoid any confrontation cuz they're playing an ATGM-equipped vehicle... M'kay: I want a Leopard 2 A7 in War Thunder, if people engage me in their regular Tier V vehicles and lose, it's their fault because they should just know not to engage me, they should instead just ''apply teamwork'' to take me out. Was keeping an eye out, but I guess I should've just anticipated there being an ATGM vehicle somewhere on their portion of the map and just went AFK on my side of the map so that I wouldn't be getting killed by one.
  41. Not entirely sure if you're trolling here, but incase you're not: Yup, other nation's APHE certainly can't one-shot Sovjets.