Stahlvormund101

Member
  • Content count

    11,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12
medal medal

Stahlvormund101 last won the day on May 9

Stahlvormund101 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,714 Outstanding

3 Followers

About Stahlvormund101

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Beyond........your wildest imagination

Recent Profile Visitors

10,285 profile views
  1. Was about to make a list for every BR step, but then I figured "why bother?" when you probably will ignore it anyways. I will just point towards their armor comes at the cost of the two aforementioned drawbacks.
  2. That's one out of ~100? in their tech tree. Russian tanks do not forgive being penetrated as they have a low crew count, and their long-reload guns do not forgive misfires.
  3. Battle tanks are also capable of it. The effectiveness of the weapon is the question, not even of the players. My experience is that only Fighters can actually effectively prevent enemy planes from dropping their ordnance as they, as you mentioned, can intercept enemy planes before they even made it to the battlefield. SPAA cant do that effectively. Unless the targeted plane pilot is afk, he can see the incoming shots and make evasive maneuvers with plenty energy.
  4. I still didnt do the job you always claim SPAA can do: kill planes to protect my team from their ordnance drop because they dropped it already
  5. Yesterday I took my Coelian into RB as top vehicle (6.7 LUL), and did nothing than waiting for planes on a single capture point map. Killed 2 of 3 fielded enemy planes and got ****ed by a tank with no chance of self-defense. Reward was pathetic, couldnt shoot down the planes before they dropped their ordnance anyways and gave away my position for free by firing. And I didnt just "hide in spawn", I moved as close as I could behind our frontline without exposing myself to enemy battle tanks I have no chance of combatting. Tell me about how "more ppl should play SPAA and they'd have less of an issue with aircraft". It certainly didnt stop them from spawning them right after they got only 1 kill, it certainly didnt stop them from dropping their ordnance as you usually cant drive to the map edge of your enemies side to intercept them before the enter the battlefield. You guys sure make some good arguments in defense of current CAS, but "use SPAA" is not one of these.
  6. Well, a Panther turret side is rather thin, so I'd not be surprised to see it be destroyed by a 152mm HE shell. Though expecting a Ferdinand 200mm armor to crack from that is too much for my imagination. From what I gathered British against Russians is basically a walk in the park as their HESH obliterates the Russian tanks simply through their UFP. It's not like all tanks would have spall liners anyways.
  7. So its not crying, glad we sorted that out.
  8. Since when is stating that a vehicle is competitive = crying?
  9. 1.Please provide the source or formula for that energy. 2.How much of that energy is chemical, how much kinetical? 3.How much chemical energy is used to break the shell? 4.How much chemical energy will blow out in the areas of less resistances than the tank it faces? The difference between the 30MJ mostly chemical energy of an HE shell and the 13MJ pure kinetic energy of an AP shell is where and how the energy is transferred. The kinetical energy direction is straight towards the target and thus will be mostly transferred from the shell to the target, whereas the chemical energy direction is spherical, with most of it blowing towards the path of least resistance which is exactly not towards the target which resists more than the air around it.
  10. You can play RB in commander view, which would basically be just as you want SB to be.
  11. German Jagdtiger 128mm APCBC shell did in fact rip off the turret of a Churchill by sheer kinetic force. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/25/the-big-bad-128mm/
  12. I know me, and at least one other player, would not enjoy having taken away the need to identify the vehicles party, friend or foe, yourself and the sensation that accompanies it. My question to you: why do you want it?
  13. So I guess from the front it is a shot on the left side of the gun right into the 200mm plate then.
  14. Fair enough. Sometimes that was the case, as I have an extremely hard time telling the difference in split-second engagements. Which is also why I try to aim for LFP as often as possible. Would it be worth shooting the Cent or Caerns turret front?
  15. Cant tell how often I bounced from T-29 or Cent UFPs with the KwK 43 which are supposedly weak.
  16. The only issue the Kingtiger has compared to other similar vehicles is that it cant hide its weakspots and these are widely known.
  17. Ok, then its fine. Was under the impression that was the only bug report about it Is the value correct now?
  18. Yes, but that is not different to how almost any MG or driver Port armor works. The actual port armor is weak but the "donut" or framework around it is extra thick. This is not exclusive to the Tiger or german tanks. I am sure you are aware that this users claim of russian "high hardness" armor was more referring to a supposedly higher chance of wierd bounces when firing at them and not about actual armor modifiers.
  19. What happened to the "two independent primary sources" requirement....
  20. Dont tell me, I had my 128mm bounce from a Super Hellcat turret
  21. Dont ask me, I am all in favor for taking into account actual shell energy. That would mean shells such as 128mm and 120mm would actually "hullbreak" the majority of tanks we have.
  22. I didnt say it should work like that, but the 120mm is not the only gun affected by this.
  23. All shell types can be eaten by tracks.
  24. Tbf, the part of the driver port that has no armor is very small, and the armor around is 180mm (which is not much different than similar objects, see 75mm T-34 driverport compared to 45mm UFP, or up to 110 mm around T-34 or Sherman MG ports). However, you can always pen a Tiger I turret ring, even when he faces his turret towards you. US 76mm APCR also works when he is diamond angled.
  25. Actually not. Tiger I H MG port is ~100-110mm, not a weakspot but not "double" the armor as the rest of the tank. Tiger I H driver port actually can be penned by literally EVERYTHING, the armor around is 80mm+100mm. The "high hardness" add-on armor 20mm + 50mm regular armor of the Panzer III's doesnt stop a Panzer III J PzGr.39 with 74mm pen at 10m, so it might as well be regular steel quality, though arguably that could be within the +/-10%. Also I cant see him talk about the 122mm. Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with the one you responded to. However, neither do I with what you said. Panzer III J.wrpl
  26. Like that I would still not field SPAA. Nerfing their BR and belts so they dont "kill tanks from the front left and right" didnt really help the situation against planes, did it? Grinding SPAA, and I talk for every nation in this, is punishing. Yesterday I took my Coelian into RB as top vehicle (6.7 LUL), and did nothing than waiting for planes on a single capture point map. Killed 2 of 3 fielded enemy planes and got ****ed by a tank with no chance of self-defense. Reward was pathetic, couldnt shoot down the planes before they dropped their ordnance anyways and gave away my position for free by firing. Come to think of it, I am sure the same guys complaining about planes now are the ones who complained about SPAA, the difference being you can easily blow up SPAA with any tank of same BR, but cant do that against planes.
  27. What about having an option to set engine settings of your planes in hangar in the customization menu which in turn will affect their BR dynamically?
  28. Is it common practice to look at all models of a plane simultaneously, aka visual, Flight and Damage?
  29. I like the silence in the Updates section... means we are getting close.
  30. As I said, not my experience. Most do exactly choose to do that, to expose themselves. Let's say you are hidden, searching for targets. You see one in distance peeking around a corner. Now you can either wait til he comes out further or you shoot his tranmission. By the time he spotted you, as you are somewhat concealed yourself, you can take out his gunner and subsequently finish the job. Let's say you are driving forward. You meet someone on the move too. Kill his gunner, then his transmission, finish the job. When both of you are on the move, no biggie. Stabilizer, superior gun traverse and 6s reload. If you move and get sniped you had the worse position to fight to begin with. If you are hidden and get reverse sniped before you get your second shot off, you werent that well hidden after all. If you find someone hiding hulldown in the distance, sniping him at least means he has to abandon position. If he chooses to stay, finish the job. We can discuss our personal experiences on end, but I merely wanted to lay out why I cant fathom how UK should have troubles against Ger.
  31. Inb4 GrafvonZahl...
  32. just here to give my condolences for Smin's excellent insights into the process, highly appreciated
  33. Quote

    I love seeing people getting upset because of me defending an OP tank. XD XD XD

    I bought it because its Pay2win and OP. I will buy the RU251 for the same reason. I bought the T29 for the same reason.

    MONEY WINS in game and in real life!

    When someone goes full honest.

  34. Now at least you are being honest.
  35. I didnt say that (while I would question the penetration part of "reliable" anyways), what I meant to say was that multiple shots against one enemy do still yield good results in my experience. Depends.
  36. Can't say I have the same experience. As long as I can pen someone and kill at least one or two cre members, it doesnt really matter. It's not like in the most common situtations the Tiger II is gonna run anywhere before the second APDS penned the LFP and killed the transmission.
  37. This again touches the topic of ammo usage depending on nation you face. My point is, as I said, why would you load HESH against Ger first when you know it isnt reliable? And if you dont load HESH first, what issues do UK tanks have against Ger tanks besides not been able to OHKO them when hitting a giant UFP as they can with USSR tanks with HESH? They can certainly pen and keep a Ger tank from firing back using APDS ammo and reload faster than crew is replaced, while also being able to stabilize their gun first for the first aimed shot.
  38. Yeh, sniping beyond 400m and prophanging is a major nuisance in RB.
  39. Oh, I had my share of these in tanks like Tiger I too from Artillery.
  40. Looks more like a bunkerbusting shaped charge than a simple bomb.
  41. You dont have to tell me again, I read your posts already and am not against their impact. In fact, I would appreciate a "buff" of bomb splash damage to tanks and a "nerf" of it to planes. I find it quite ridiculous that 2x500kg bombs in 500m distance still tear my plane apart entirely while merely damaging, not even destroying, a tanks tracks 10m next to it.
  42. Cant see a mention of the IS-3 not being WW2 in this thread. Any IS beyond it is however not, neither are T-54.
  43. Only certain ones. Try the same with the RS-series, Pb.'s, R4M's, Japanese rockets.
  44. I guess UK ammo choice then largely depends on the teams you face which you can see in the statistics. Though I cant see how the APDS would struggle against the IS-3 turret front (can be penned by KwK 43, especially with APCR) or IS-4 driver hatch. T-10M and IS-6 have only tiny turret weakspots though, I agree. Yeh, I like to go on flanking even, or rather especially, with my big cats. Wonder what you guys think when a Tiger II shoots your side from your far rear flank Though being slow could potentially be an advantage, especially combined with your stabilizers. There is almost no way a Ger tank stops and stops wobbling before he gets an APDS to the gunner given that both guys see each other roughly at the same time. Which is why I think choosing specific ammo against specific enemies is important and the notion that german tanks do pose more of an issue to take out (only to take out, as in their ability to take damage or return fire after you fired first, not their penetration or speed as Leo's) to UK tanks I cannot understand. Though then again, I do not own any higher german tank than WW2 equip.
  45. Well, when it comes down who shoots first between UK and Ger when both saw each other at roughly the same time, the UK tank usually wins thanks to better gun traverse and with an APDS loaded, there goes the German gunner and most likely commander too. 1 or 2 more shots and it's done for. At the same time I reckon APDS would work to cripple a russian tank too, so why not load the ammo that works against both first? That's how I do it in the M4A2 for example: against Ger/japan teams, I load M82 first, against russians I load APCR first as at that BR they tend to bounce the short US 75mm cannon.
  46. I was more thinking about APDS to the gunner/turret crew.
  47. Und ich treff oft genug auf den wenn ich US oder UK 4.7 fahre... absoluter Horror, so viele Abpralle an dem. Kommt oft genug vor, das deutsche Teams +3 russiche Beutefahrzeuge haben.
  48. How? While you may not OHKO them like USSR tanks, you can certainly cripple them beyond self-defense.
  49. Disagree. It's just that their effectiveness against planes is limited, especially compared to how other weapon systems in WT fare against their designated enemies. Ppl like to quote the oh-so-mighty Wirbelwind SPAA one cannot avoid but when I see his shots coming, it is childs play to evade
  50. 1.69

    You mean both German and Russian tankers?
  51. You cant model a vehicles or weapons performance without affecting SIM.
  52. Though you say you steer clear of cap points for the most part, which to me indicates you focus on killing enemy tanks instead and thats exactly what planes do.
  53. Not to mention the IS-4M has the driver hatch and a shot trap unlike an IS-6.
  54. Also because its entry level of skill required not to suffocate from frustration while getting sealclubbed by lvl 100 squadron players is moderately high compared to other games.
  55. Why would I ever hop into a vehicle (SPAA) that is virtually useless in the most important part of the battle to win the match, the ground to ground combat?
  56. I got a response to a bug report I made about the optics absorbing shells and fragments of APHE and APCR at 50m distance. Report was rejected, it apparently works as intended.
  57. Your comment was directed to me? I didnt feel like it applied to me. Neither am I a kid, nor do I lack a life. Please quite the ad hominem if you dont have any more sensible arguments left to defend the IS-6.
  58. Maybe players like me have an advantage, as I started WT back when it had only planes and thus learned the basics of flying, then I was part of the Beta testing of GF and later witnessed introduction of Mixed Battles. Tbf, it used to be worse than now. If you've ever seen what a Do217 with 4x1000kg bombs or worse a Yer with 5x1000kg bombs do to tanks you know what I mean. There were favorable and unfavorable developments along the way: - removal of 3rd person bomb reticles: positive - bomb splash nerf to tanks while simultaneosly increasing its damage against planes: negative - gutting of SPAA: negative (though I suspect the same ppl who now critizice planes used to critizice SPAA) - removal of enemy markers for both air and ground: positive
  59. 1.69

    You mean the projectile itself or its post-pen effect? I thought it is not about balancing date of introduction and/or service but performances against each other?
  60. Actually, the meme of the bad P47 comes from a time before US were enabled for GF or even before GF was a thing. They were notorious lawnmowers in RB. Though I think that was at a time WT had more and less knowledgable players.
  61. 1.69

    I am rather sure the ingame difference between HEAT and HEATFS compared to HEAT vs other HEAT is just two letters.
  62. I was more referring to the P47 as an Air to Air Fighter, especially in Air RB.
  63. You dont fly much, dont you? the P47 is a beast.
  64. 1.69

    Who got HEATFS first btw?
  65. Saying no is different than not saying yes. Also you are now only referring to the new MBT part, but not to the "update" part, which could possibly refer to bugfixes.
  66. In the other thread, I already pointed out how more and actually potent CAS options for the three other nations they had IRL to they have plety available and effective options makes the CAS capabilities "similar", while being realistic and not copypasta. For Germany, it wouldnt be hard to fix. There are still loads of CAS options missing. About Japan and USSR I sadly dont know what else they had, though I think the IL-series could use downtiers. Hell, if you wanna be very cheeky, give the He-111 H-16 the option for their RL Fi.103 loadout. That'd be some rockets. Afaik Germany also fights in RB GF below BR 7.0. It isnt uncommon to see US and UK CAS prop fighters from several BRs lower to be used in 7.0 games too, but obviously, you cant downtier the Ho-229.
  67. You know how powerful an airborne Air-to-Ground MCLOS 1000kg bomb (Hs.293) would be? Or that Me410 got 6x210mm rocket configurations and are lacking bomb options?
  68. P-47 is a fighter. IL-2 is an attacker, or a Ju87, but not a Ju88 thats a bomber.
  69. Rounded up or down maybe.
  70. Follow the link. It literally lists the % of BRs included in the table
  71. I can second this statement.
  72. Whats the source website of that? How was it calculated? Does it take into account that there are BRs that are more or less affected by planes, or is it a general data summary over all BRs?
  73. Prophanging and sniping is the real reason fighting Japan, USSR and UK is so much pain Edit: well, at least for me. I am sure more seasoned pilots than me can deal with it better.
  74. 1.69

    Playing Japan is slow Seppuku.
  75. Until their pioneers set charges on your tank and your turret is jammed from their Panzeranklopfgerät.
  76. Good thing you got your smoke grenade and IRL has no Call of Duty mouseaim.
  77. TFW your spaded P-51D-5 cant run away from an A7M2 from alts of 6000m-0m...
  78. Surprisingly, nerfing of SPAA AT capabilities did not magically increase numbers of players using it in SPAA duty. Who would have thought, huh. /s
  79. I think you missed some sarcasm.
  80. Balancing out =/= equal Giving nations more of their real world CAS options up to a level that they have enough and proper ones to choose from, since it is limited by the number of players in one match anyways, is enough and realistic.
  81. Dont go that way. This game has probably gone through "US-bias, Russian bias, UK-bias, Ger-Bias, Japan-Bias" once or twice each through the development until now and it will continue.
  82. Tried M4A2 APCR against KV-1: penetration that aims directly at modules kills them now reliably.
  83. I beg to differ. Most of these topics are based on facts that can be measured and explained how and why they are as they are and how to fix them Player performance and "get gud" advice topics are pointless, as they cannot really be improved through changes in the game, unlike the other topics I frequent.
  84. How is giving nations that are currently lacking CAS options a betrayal of realism? I remember dozens of matches where I took out my Bf109K-4 to intercept enemy planes, my team did not complain whatsoever, but I was swarmed by 3-4 allied fighters already in the air after my first death.
  85. Oh boy, identifying planes without markers for the common RB player
  86. The Dev Server is like Las Vegas, a joyful place of happy messing around and having fun but with the same premise: What happens in the Dev Server stays in the Dev Server.
  87. Considering the various bugs and inaccuracies of every nation, I find bugs as an argument for bias ridiculous anyways. As I said, I was only making a theoretical argument.
  88. What worth is it to discuss a whine topic anyways?
  89. I hope you are aware that I am firmly AGAINST implementing any kind of random mechanical errors for ANY vehicle. What I criticized in that post was the one-sided view on mechanical errors of the vehicles we have ingame. Everyone heard this or that about "bad german transmissions and suspensions" but knowledge about Allied vehicles errors arent that wide-spread. What I also wanted to say is that if, theoretically, there was a bias, which warrior argued against because german vehicle have none of their common mechanical failures, I gave an argument that would support the notion of bias because russian tanks dont have theirs either. I hope you understand what I wanted to say. I dont believe in bias, it was merely a statement for argumentative purpose.
  90. Considering how rarely the early T-34 UFP disintegrates from continuos hits and how few russian shells just shatter, the idea of no bias is quite shaky right out of the gate. Now, I am not seriously believing there is bias, and the inaccuracies of vehicles do not stem from that. However, arguing against bias with a lack of mechanical failures of german vehicles, while disregarding the lack of mechanical failures of russian vehicles doesnt work.
  91. While it sure would be nice to have CAS options on equal footing, it doesnt make the base problem of revenge bombing and the likes better, potentially worse. Imagine the Allied tankers rivers of tears when german planes can actually use Hs.293 to lead the equivalent of current 1000kg bombs with MCLOS into tanks on the ground. No, more CAS ordnance is not the solution, neither is nerfing it, but tweaking how it is earned.
  92. This is the kind of insight I wished Gaijin would communicate with us more often. Background, development history, etc. I do agree with all your points.
  93. Bomb splash damage fix (too low against tanks, too high against planes), RS-rockets should be looked on and possible downtier of some IL-2's.
  94. You know a tank is nothing special when ppl with good performance with it use a heap of "when, if" to describe when it can perform well.
  95. Just like the commanders or gunners job in a tank, who did the ranging.
  96. Complaining about "MUH SPAA OP!!!" is so 2016. It is beyond reason to still complain about them. You live in the past.
  97. The second part does not, it was just debunked. About this: Depends greatly on the rockets and bombs in question. If you talk about bombs below 500kg against fully enclosed tanks, I agree. Above that, paired with a 2s timer, one can get close, drop them, fly onward and be spared the blast. Armored tanks cant run fast enough and light armored vehicles die from the blast anyways. Rocket =/= rocket. RS-82, RBS-82, Panzerblitz actually need direct hits and arent the easiest to aim. Now, I dont have experience with the Japanese rocekts, and only partial experience with the HVARs, M-8 bazookas and RS-, RBS-132, but the RP-3 do not require a precise hit to destroy their targets from my time using them. Not that, unlike with bombs, you get an aiming device and more tries with them anyways.
  98. No, it's not. It is a particularly bad post with no base in WT gameplay reality. Let's compare: IL-series maximum armament are 4x100kg bombs and 8x132mm rockets. Ju87 maximum bombload is 1x500kg + 2x250kg bombs, Ju88 gets that to 1x1000kg + 1x500kg Only the AD-2 Skyraider has an outstanding CAS armament for an Attacker, 12xHVAR + 2xTiny Tim or 1x2000lbs bomb. Compare the IL-series and Ju-line to the Hurricane Mk IIB/Trop: 6xRP-3 Hurricane Mk IV: 8xRP-3 F6F-5, 5N: 6xHVAR + 2x1000lbs bomb, already superior to the IL-series P-47D, M, N: 10x HVAR + 2x1000lbs bomb Tempest V: 8xRP-3 Spitfire F Mk XVIIIe: 8xRP-3 Seafire FR 47: 8xRP-3 Sea Fury FB 11: 12xRP-3 and a few more. All of them capable fighter planes with even or even more CAS ordnance than dedicated Attacker planes.
  99. important!

    I'm actually more worried about non-german tanks when the M4A3E2 gets downtiered. These cannot pen the MG port that easily.
  100. important!

    Panzer IV F-2 can penetrate the MG port of the Jumbo though.
  101. Maybe they give the chance once the update is live.
  102. The Waffen-SS was notorious for ruthlessness and brutality. So I have to drive forward like a braindead tard?
  103. The roof MG of tanks can only be fired as long as the commander is still alive.
  104. With that attitude it is okay to teamkill and push teammates into enemy fire because that means there is more to kill for yourself. As you said, it is still a game, and games have rules and regulations to make them competitive and enjoyable for everyone, even the losing side.
  105. Which 88 against which Sherman at what distance, using which shell and which angle? The Jumbo Shermans UFP may very well bounce the 88mm KwK 36 PzGr.39 and PzGr., same with the 88mm Flakbus, depending on distance and angle and the their turret does it too. Jumbo Sherman UFP is 101mm at 47°, 88mm KwK 36 PzGr.39 has 130mm pen at an angle of 60° and distance of 10m. My tip if you face a Sherman and dont know whether it is a Jumbo or not, aim here: It is mostly a guarantueed penetration and a OHKO with APHE.
  106. 1.69

    My worries apply to that one too.
  107. The tears would fill the seas of ancient Earth times that covered the entire planets surface.
  108. I could say the same to everyone who complained about "Kugelblitz OPOPOPOP SPAA OPOPOPOPOPOP!!!!!" Just swimming with the flow man. Damage has already been done. Also it is not like any SPAA can survive once it got caught.
  109. I think a Bug Report in the proper Dev Server section would do better than this.
  110. I'd say that depends on the contract the Texture Modeller does with Gaijin, whether they decide to share revenue from the plane being in regular tree and have GE used on.
  111. I would never accuse the Gaijin devs of laziness. I would however question the direction of their efforts and decisionmaking.
  112. Can we expect one of the upcoming changelogs to say: - Maus bug reports have been accepted and Maus has been changed accordingly ? Any new on the "Economy changes" announced weeks ago? Besides, great update looking forward to flying Bruschetta planes
  113. Which is exactly why this can't be a measure to be taken. Gaijin will not shoot in their own foot by raising the entry level of difficulty that much, so this is an unrealistic "solution".
  114. Nope. Test Drive in Tank Polygon and the Cromwell V goes through the turrets of Panzer III and IV like a hot knife through butter.
  115. It is. It says "german teams are bad, they should l2p". You dont advice, you whine and cry about how they should change something but give no particular counsil as to how. Not much different than a "XXX OP GAIJIN NERF PLOX!"-thread, only a bigger opening post.
  116. - I destroy one enemy aircraft in Air RB on BR 4.3 -> get 15.000 SL + - I destroy 3 enemy tanks in Ground RB on BR 6.0 while only spawning in one vehicle -> barely break even
  117. Dude, you got lucky your thread wasnt insta-locked as a pointless whine-thread anyways.
  118. Fw190 D-9 with MEC is the only german prop I'd give chance to outrun a Spacefire on same BR. Edit: well objection, the Fw190 A-1 can, the Fw190 A-4 probably still slighlty faster than the Spitfire Mk IX but above it gets dark.
  119. Me-163 Sabre MiG-15 Me262 C-1a and C-2b with activated boosters
  120. I get the impression that in my bug report either my assumption has not been understood, is understood but ignored anyways OR that the game mechanics work way different to what I thought they do. My biggest problem with how the optics work is this: - when you shoot them with a APHE, the shells fragments get absorbed entirely by the module. this is consistent with an APHE firing at another large module like a transmission or engine block - when you shoot them with AP, the shell and fragments get absorbed entirely by the module too. This is in contrast to how AP works against transmissions or engine block, because in that case, the AP shot would penetrate and destroy the transmission/engine block while still moving on Though the response to that would probably too be "these are different vehicles/modules, they cant be compared". I am so tired...
  121. This probably was solved when you have to fly a few km from your bases in England over France or even Germany.
  122. I made a bug report for the IS-6 optics. It was rejected; the optics supposedly work fine.
  123. Stay back and use it to fight planes as all the other SPAA'S?
  124. It's performance will depend highly on the map (terrain). I see it being deadly in city maps or open maps with roads, basically anywhere with favorable ground that allows it to rush in unexpected positions and set up ambushes.
  125. I'd say 2.7, Tier II.
  126. Primary source > Secondary source
  127. Recent game in my Sturer Emil. I stalk a T34 (yes, 6.0 vs 6.7 yay), hear the sound of bombs, hit W and 2s later I get hit dead-centre by a F6F. "no-bomb reticle" "so unprecise" "pilot will kill himself with bombing" "you can hear bombs and evade in time"
  128. Nice impressum:
  129. But pls try it in Tank Polygon or any test drive first so you dont get in a matchmade game, it doesnt work for you and I am a total d*** for showing a supposedly weakspot.
  130. Armor is 8-30mm, so probably yes.
  131. Try that spot I highlighted. It is very reliable.
  132. If you make a video, that'd be highly appreciated. Thanks for the tip. Didnt know that.
  133. The D-9 is fine (though stiff elevator syndrome hurts it), the D-12 and D-13 less so. I chased down a D-9 in my P-51D-30. That's 1.0 BR lower. I wouldnt call it "sealclubbing".
  134. Though you forget that the P-51D's have 60kph more topspeed than the Fw's of same BR. That's quite much.
  135. I agree on the A-4 and A-1, but any Fw above them gets incrementally tougher to fly.
  136. At least it has an elevator... and roll speed gets better at medium-high speeds. Though I cant say which one is better or worse. Overall, I have been enjoying P-51s more than Fw190s.
  137. You still can do that. Capture points and choke points should provide rich harvest and gunning down enemy planes with your gunners works too. There used to be bases in Mixed Battles to be bombed. Where did they go?
  138. If you want to damage the IS-6, I found a very reliable area here: Both with PzGr.39/43 (APCBC-HE) and PzGr.40/43 (APCR), I could pen it and kill gunner, commander and gun breech, so it is applicable to solid shots too. Really, it is the most reliable spot to cause post pen damage on the turret front. I tried it in Tanky Polygon and it yielded great results both with APHE and APCR, so AP and APDS should work too. I only pointed out a weakspot of the turret front that avoids the "optics absorption syndrome". How viable that weakspot is, as tiny as it is, I didnt judge yet. It's probably easier to hit than a shottrap of an IS-3 but far more difficult than hitting a Sherman MG port or T-34-85 turret ring.
  139. I only pointed out a weakspot of the turret front that avoids the "optics absorption syndrome". How viable that weakspot is, as tiny as it is, I didnt judge yet. It's probably easier to hit than a shottrap of an IS-3 but far more difficult than hitting a Sherman MG port or T-34-85 turret ring.
  140. Pls direct me to these supposedly "german cry" threads about HESH, I havent seen them and I have been frequenting the forums daily. Why do you aim for ammo instead of crew, especially after you realized your first hit didnt do anything? Alternatively, aim at his engine and fire 3 times for a kill, obviously waiting for him to use FPE.
  141. I tried it in Tanky Polygon and it yielded great results both with APHE and APCR, so AP and APDS should work too.