Stahlvormund101

Member
  • Content count

    12,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15
medal medal

Stahlvormund101 last won the day on July 18

Stahlvormund101 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8,782 Outstanding

5 Followers

About Stahlvormund101

  • Rank
    Run, playthings!

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

10,715 profile views
  1. When ppl wanna tell me Gaijin will put modern vehicles outside of current vehicles BRs... Maus vs Abrams WILL happen within regular BR range, grind will stay atrocious, maps wont be bigger... I currently see no gain in the addition of more fancy toys. Well, at least not beyond attracting some more money from ppl who want to get to these vehicles asap.
  2. Crippled mobility. It has a 8x8 drive, it should not suffer the current speed and acceleration losses offroad and on inclines.
  3. How many mm? Afaik not enough to withstand HMG fire. Thats basically open-topped. The Dicker Max 105mm has very close pen values as the Sturer Emil and Nashorn, with a longer reload than Nashorn, but shorter than Sturer Emil on a much lower BR. Vehicles like this need to be on a BR where a pen is GUARANTUEED because they suck in everything else but gun. And even then, you dont really see any of the three regularly, especially not the Sturer Emil. And I am spading it right now, I know why noone plays it...
  4. Though I dont get why we need this thread, when we have this:
  5. tbh, even as a connoisseur of german vehicles, Im not really hyped for the Waffenträger. If anything, the Sturer Emil showed how inefficient slow, unarmored, turretless SPGs that end up between 5.0-7.0 are. I'd much rather have something like a 90mm Leopard I or of the sort. The Waffenträger wont have a great impact I am afraid.
  6. Why not put them on different sea map sizes depending on BR: higher BR => bigger ships => bigger maps Already works with planes. Also I doubt even a Battleship takes 500-2000kg bombs to its deck lightly.
  7. I havent really made a pro-con list and havent checked everything of the new post-battle screen but I wanna share one like and one dislike: - dislike: it looks cut off at the top for me, I liked having a colorful picture there, some blank space to center the actual text down below in my screen - like: now I can just continue "To Battle" from post-game screen. Makes it just that bit faster
  8. The entire point is that the sources are about the one that was COMPLETED. It just is Gaijins weird decision to rather model it after something that wasnt comepleted and now refuse to turn around.
  9. Dont get me wrong, I am quite happy with the damage model of planes against weaponry but ramming, the physical contact of two planes weighing tons, used to have a more critical impact. Up until recently I wasnt aware that the ramming modell () was left behind when the damage model was updated.
  10. Source?
  11. For the umptiest time... The V1 design was an empty test block of steel, the actual built one always was 236-240mm thick.
  12. Since when can the B-29A survive ramming from an Arado234 B-2 without taking visual damage? Just now, I rammed a B-29A right wing between the first and second engine with the centermass of my Arado234 B-2 from a ~80-70° degree from above at ~800kph and when I looked back up, it didnt even shake the B-29A. Interestingly, the impact of around 5000kg going 800kph hitting a plane of around 40.000kg mass didnt break my Arado234 apart either, but "only" severely damaged it beyond control. Second time I rammed a B-29A from the front, hitting its tail. I ripped my left wing, he merely "bumped" his tail down, got back into horizontal position and went into a powerdive which he recovered from in a seemingly steep angle. Whats the rip speed and G-force of a B-29A? Replays incoming: #2017.07.25 19.15.49.wrpl Second game: #2017.07.25 19.31.58.wrpl
  13. Hype for now. I will be genuinely hyped when they fixed its mobility issues.
  14. That is only true for the fire on the move part, not how the gun behaves in the other aspects I mentioned earlier.
  15. So, for the performance of early two axis stabilizers, I found a prominent spokesman: The Chieftain https://console.worldoftanks.com/en/content/about/game-guides/chieftain-survival-stabilization/ "Good enough" doesnt sound like what I see ingame. Some random blokes: https://www.quora.com/The-M1-Abrams-tank-and-the-West-German-Leopard-2-were-the-first-run-and-gun-MBTs-in-history-Have-the-Russians-ever-developed-a-tank-with-true-run-and-gun-capabilities So apparently the Cent 2's stabilization was the first that wasnt too dangerous or costly to leave it out while the T-54B has a number of 30% hit ratio and the Leopard 1A1 was the first tank with a more or less reliable hit-on-the-move ability. Those are just random guys though. Thats what I found for now.
  16. True, I dont have any proof but I havent seen proof about stabilizers performing that well either. When I go into test drive in the Strv.81 and test the gun traverse, especially after braking, while driving, quick change of direction and low-distance movements, it always cheers me up with ridicule. Cant stop thinking about some AI controlled turrets in FPS games that follow you instantly whereever you go. Edit: This is how I see them right now:
  17. The article says the Spitfires supposedly were the heroes of Dunkirk AND that the museum model they have is the first of 140 F. Mk. VIIc, first produced in 1943. Nowhere it says that this model was used over Dunkirk. The closest we have is probably the Spitfire Mk. Ia and IIa.
  18. Exactly. V-1 rockets had a dispersion of about 12kms btw, and the V-2 was even worse. Both used mechanical gyroscopic guidance system, the V-1 even was radio-guided. Just because they had them didnt mean they could hit a target in the still relatively broad area of "only" a few hundred meters. Even artillery was better. The numbers the stabilization can provide is what matters, not the type.
  19. Well, apparently it hits a variety of tanks. Which doesnt make it less bad... I mean, it makes sense to store ammo closer to the turret for a higher RoF, but at this point, it may be interesting to implement a system where players can choose their ammo load locations and depletion order which in turn affects reload time: You want your ammo safe? Put it in the hull, but enjoy some more loading time, probably up to a few seconds with large calibre ammo etc etc. Want to reload faster? Put it in the turret but dont complain that the first penetration cooked it up.
  20. What kind of guided missiles are we talking about? Besides, ingame gun stabilization makes corrections in the area of mere cm's and mm's on a device that weighs tons whereas rocket stabilization only had to correct for the area of metres or cm's for a projecticle not even weighing a couple hundred kgs, mostly less. 1950s gyroscopic stabilization probably could not cancel out inertia totally (wobbling after braking f.e.) as you can see ingame.
  21. Side skirts are usually only 5mm thick RHA, and tracks and suspensions arent RHA. You'd be hard pressed to find an APHE shell with less than 15mm RHA fuze sensivity. Besides, the penetrator of the APHE shell would still continue its flight with nigh unhindered performance.
  22. Yeh, there is no need to downtier the german tanks. I'd say uptier some allies by 0.3 and then obersve the results for another month or so.
  23. I did. In 50 matches with the M6A1, Sherman Firefly and Churchill MK VII, I encountered about 2-3 Tigers, one I even killed with the Churchill MK VII because he probably couldnt repair and I flanked him on Big Sinai. The vortex of Allied and especially british T4 is too strong and sucks them up. Now you also see what sensible, logical and reasonable german players had and have to go through.. you'll always end up in the same pot as the idiots... Though I admit that I currently bash on teeabos myself... feels good for the moment, but not for long. Rest is shame.
  24. I must admit: Gaijin went creative to screw German T4 over and over. Its beautiful.
  25. I kinda love to park it out in the open on big maps, angle and fire in the general direction of the enemy to attract counterfire and generate free points from being hit Will have to check RP numbers, but for now I cant see why German T4 should be easier to reach than British T4. I agree on the stalemate nature of this discussion. Aiming for weakspots is mandatory against russians mainly, and the occasional more sloped/better armored other Allied low-mid tier tank. But it IS the vehicles performance unfortunately. Not necessarily the Cent 1, more the stabilized vehicles. Also unlike most other games, WT strives for realism, so a nerf just for balance sake can only happen in those very generous areas such as reload times or the artificial numbers that are BRs and costs. The current stabilizers on the 1950s vehicles behave more like what youd expect from 1980. With an APHE nerf dawning over the horizon, a very detailed and well-written report has been issued about it, Solid Shot will relatively come up ahead because APHE will almost perform the same. I dont want to change any physically sounds variables, but for now, an 0.3 BR increase on every Centurion, the FV4202 and Caernavon should be issued. I doubt the Cent Mk.1 is inferior to the 6.0 Panthers it was supposed to combat and was developed for. Stabilizers have to be recalibrated. The other end of the fix is to add more Axis vehicles with similar traits such as post-war prototypes or lend-lease. Balancing out CAS capabilties: A LOT of Axis ordnances are missing. Fixing APCR and APDS postpen too, making HESH directional instead of spherical... You see the fixes arent just negative, but constructive too.
  26. No, this is projection. You have been through AB and now are in RB so you think others are too or even a majority. I have been in AB and now am in RB, but I only apply RB rules to RB. Without numbers to back up your claim you cant make such. Thats why I only talk about RB mechanisms because I dont have numbers about players, but the general RB mechanism still apply regardless of your background. The gameplay has enough differences that you learn a good bunch of gameplay entirely anew. If you wanted to play this game: I come from a German AB, then Russian AB then German, Russian, US RB background before I started RB UK. And guess what; it helped me tremendously because I already knew where to hit for weakspots. APHE has to hit for weakspots too? PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM! No, it is true. General experience about RB mechanisms can make you a better player. PS: before you bring my UK RB stats, know that I only play vehicles to spade them so I always end up at a disadvantage by default. You can easily see I am not lying about this by my Spaded to Researched vehicles rate.
  27. This unfortunately is the RB section, and I only talk about the BR 4.7 Sherman Firefly in RB. Bringing AB into this discussion is quite pointless, and I am not interested in it. If you wish it to be changed for AB, comment in an AB thread or make one. Regarding the M36, it is not denial. At least not in RB. I have been there.
  28. Spoilers ppl! Use spoilers!
  29. because the other guys are just trolling you, have a link:
  30. I found the Cromwell and Crusaders to be quite enjoyable (unless russian slopes): the Churchills are my gripe.
  31. I dont play AB, so I cant comment on that. In 17pdr armed vehicles, I'd say my post-pen damage is VERY close to APHE, unless only a part of the crew compartment pokes out, then APHE will always be better. No, the M36 WR is boosted by stuff like the 5.7 Cent 1 or the 6.3 Cent 3.
  32. I really wished they use the April Fools Event spawnsystem for regular RB... it was so superior and would deal with spawnkilling and CAS pretty well too.
  33. We could also give the Panther F an autoloader that was developed at Skoda and put it on 6.3
  34. That was actually my point: the SPAA in his game didnt really fire a shot at him but he didnt discuss why it wouldnt have mattered anyway.
  35. I have. The Sherman Firefly is Point and Click adventure against german tanks and I have a long streak where I was not uptiered against a Tiger or Panther, probably because they all get sucked upwards against British T4. Then I had a Caernavon 20m in front of me who didnt see me out of cover until I put a shell into his LFP. Or a FV4202 who couldnt even score a single hit on my Panther on Kursk in full vision at only 800m. No, grinding through a tree doesnt make you a better player.
  36. Good video; only things I didnt like was that he didnt discuss the possible fixes and weighted their pros and cons (assuming Gaijin would remove rockets is just ridiculous and wont happen) and that he didnt discuss why it is not effective/feasable to spawn SPAA first as a countermeasure.
  37. My only issue with the British low tier tree were russian tanks and their **** slopes and armor thickness. Im not sure the 6pdrs and 75mm of the British should bounce that much on these.
  38. I have little doubt that 100mm or higher APHE means a OHKO due to their high filler but that conceals the importance of the spalling effect of a penetration. Besides, if you do not hit the crew compartment, even such a high calibre means the target can survive. F.e. a Sturer Emil 128mm PzGr. from the side against the engine compartment of a M36 or Sherman Firefly neither results in hull break nor immediate explosion of fuel, but just a destroyed engine and radiator.
  39. client update

    Keep on working to squash all these bugs!
  40. Just replying to ppls statements for clarification.
  41. About the HG II: That document stated "The parts for modification for the second High Speed Fighter (read: HG 2) were ready in Lechfeld. However, before first flight of factory number 111538 could commence, the second High Speed Fighter was damaged by another jet. Finishing the repair was impossible due to a lack of spare parts." I read that as build but not flown.
  42. Not in a test environment but in actual combat over several matches, yes. I find the KwK 42 is especially notorious for that and I think I know why: - high velocity (good for initial pen spalling) - relatively low HE filler which makes it even more apparent that the solid shot part of APHE does play a considerable role in its post-pen damage.
  43. APHE varies greatly though, and more often than not lately I realized that the shrapnels of the initial penetration of APHE matter GREATLY for its damage potential. For example: I recently penetrated a Caernavon LFP with a KwK 42 PzGr.39/42 at about 30m and killed Driver and Gunner who were in a line. according to your view on APHE, it would have killed the tank via the HE sphere inside, but it didnt. Arguably, the KwK 43 may have killed the Caernavon on pen, but that creates more initial spalling too. For all those that like to read more into my post that there is: no, I still think the spherical damage is too much but it is not the same on every APHE shell and spalling from pen matter for their damage too.
  44. I was talking about the Mk108's.
  45. Were only used in a testbed Fw190. It basically is up to Gaijins grace where they are utilized. Theoretically, they could easily fit into the Ho229, the Me262's, the Fw190D's, the Ta152's...
  46. No worries, the HG I will have BR 8.0 because of "overwhelming aramament" and glorious Allied pilots habit to headon 4x30mm guns
  47. Looks about as hard to use as the ASU-57 which was not hard to use at all. Speed, low profile and a highpen gun, even without any armor make for a good combination to work with. M18 or Leopard anyone?
  48. What the actual ****? Quote me where I want APDS to disappear. Quote me where I said I am opposed to the APHE nerf to more realistic levels. The only things I said was that APHE is underperforming in a particular area (which should be respected when it is nerfed, so it wont be overnerfed) and that Solid Shot, apparently not APDS you like to mix them up, CAN pen a tank front to rear with exiting it again. I even provided proof for gods sake! I know teeabos are currently spoonfed with ease to play but that is next level of stubbornness and like to misinterpret and overreact over everything... I get mad about your ignorance! Stop making stuff up and react to what actually was said, not what you produce in your mind and worldview.
  49. With the M2A2 I cruised around, capped points, hit enemies side and penned them with my Freedom cals. Didnt work too bad. The SU-5 may actually have been worse, true, I forgot about it. Bad mobility, bad ammo capacity, no armor, no gun depression and open. Then you got the Japanese 37mm tanks with no armor, no turret traverse and insufficient pen, those are bad too. But the Sturer Emil still tops that, especially with the horrendously bad grind at T4.
  50. Never thought I'd find a vehicle I'd do worse in than the M2A2, but I found it:
  51. A lot =/= everytime Look at this "misinformation": Idgaff about your Chieftain one-time-incident; it can happen. Just because it doesnt happen in your cherrypicked situation doesnt mean it is misinformation.
  52. Another actual depiction of trying to grind. PEGI 16 ahead:
  53. Here the list. Beware, uneasy cross of intermediate happiness ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_decorations_of_Nazi_Germany
  54. The difference is that afaik a lot of the HESH performance comes from the fact it squeezes itself against a plate which makes the effect directional, whereas a HE shell explosion is mostly just spherical. Else you explain why a 105mm DM502 wit 4.31kg TNT equivalent has 127mm pen but a 150mm J.Gr.38 with 8.6kg TNT equivalent has only 60mm. HE in general is poorly modelled, but HESH is just the worst offender because its used more common and the high pen is applied spherical when it should not.
  55. The 3-inch Gun carrier has the 76mm OQF 3in 20cwt cannon, which is actually a ship AA cannon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3-inch_20_cwt The Churchill Mk. I has the 76mm OQF 3-inch Howitzer Mk.I. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_3-inch_howitzer They are NOT the same gun, and the 3-inch Howitzer did NOT have AP ammo.
  56. Thats me when I try to grind the modules of a 6.0 tank without Premium.
  57. I have another rumor: The P47M will not go to 5.7
  58. Afaik A-series Fw190's perform better at low alt than high alt, similar with the Bf109's. The issue is indeed the overperforming boosted controls of the Allied planes which arent brought to the more realistic elevator controls of the current Fw190's yet. Try pulling more than 6-8G on a Fw190 and then try the same with a Spitfire... 10G....
  59. Yeh, dealing with P47M/Ns or Spitfires beyond the Mk IX is the worst as the P47's outdo you in everything and speed and rolladvantage against the Spitfires doesnt mean anything with their boosted controls. Good thing is the influence of Italian planes: Allied brainafk TnB doenst work against these.
  60. Pretty sure that the Mk108's or 2x500kg bombs could be field modded either way and it is mainly a pilots or his commanding officers decision whether he can take the extra weight and difficulty to pilot the plane.
  61. I've gone back to some Air RB, originally only to grind some CAS modules for my german planes, but now I am enjoying it. Pictures like this make me remember why I started and remained in this game:
  62. I'd put it in "open but still have plenty of cover".
  63. Eigentlich habe ich einen guten Scherz und eine elegante Möglichkeit dich ehrenhaft aus der Affäre zu ziehen daraus gemacht... nur DIESE Reaktion ist nun leider sehr unproduktiv.
  64. An engine may be massive, and I may be mistaking here, but afaik it is not the same "armor quality" as the actual tank armor, neither is it solid.
  65. Wüsste nicht was das hier zur Sache tut, da wir doch hier alle schlaue Menschen sind. Oder fühlst du dich von Princess_Pinch beleidigt
  66. No. I have A LOT of instances where the projectile penetrates a tank from front to rear and leave the tank at the other side and runs f.e. into the ground if it has enough residue pen. An APHE, that detonates, ALWAYS has its penetrator disappear.
  67. Der Unterschied ist aber wohl die Größe der Angelegenheit die besprochen wird, und der Ernst der Situation. Wenn man hier in einem Internetforum mit jemand nicht klarkommt, ist das wohl was Anderes als wenn bewaffnete Staaten und Atommächte sich über Weltfrieden und Klimaschutz unterhalten und zu nichts kommen.
  68. I like to load 40belts AP, rest Mineshells. That way I got more than enough to defend myself until the measily armored and gunned vehicle that I have falls to the slightest of counterfire, and plenty of AA ammo too. As the Ostwind can change belts very quick, you only need to "waste" one shell to change belts in clutch situations.
  69. Wenn man bereits öfters geredet hat, um man bereits vorher keine Annäherung gesehen hat... wozu noch weitermachen?
  70. Funny thing is: APHE is underperforming in a certain area. The HE filler is at the base of the shell and bursts the hull to create fragments in a direction perpendicular (curved/affected by the velocity ofc) to the shells flight path, BUT the nose, the actual penetrator should still continue its flight. Ingame, the penetrator disappears after the shell detonates.
  71. Floskeln? Mir geht die ANTIFA am **** vorbei, die haben nicht Teile der Sprache für sich gepachtet. Ich verwende die Worte dir mir passen und solange ich keine Person beleidige oder angreife, wirst du entweder damit leben müssen, oder mich ignorieren bzw. meine Posts nicht lesen müssen. Ich lasse mir meine Wortwahl weder von rechts noch von links vorschreiben, nur von Recht und Menschenwürde. Da werd ich empfindlich, tut mir Leid, ist nicht persönlich gemeint. Ich bin überzeugt du hast nicht vor mir meine Wortwahl vorzuschreiben und es gut gemeint.
  72. Got a better one: I just find it common politeness to put pictures in spoilers in case of potatoe PC/laptop users.
  73. Jup, das ist so das erste was relevant genug für tatsächliche Patchnotes ist.
  74. That is a picture worthy to sum up this british whine thread
  75. Wenn du dir die Mühe machen willst... Ich glaub erneuter "Rechtsklick usw" ist etwas weniger Aufwand. Hast du das Spiel? Wenn nein, wie willst du beurteilen ob es unsachgemäß war? Mal abgesehen davon, dass ich keine Person, weder natürliche noch juristische, adressiert habe. Ich verabscheue Sprachpolizei (damit meine ich nicht Grammatik), besonders wenn sie so unangebracht ist wie das. Niemand muss sich von dem was ich sagte angegriffen fühlen und wenn doch, ist das sein Problem. Ich kann nicht verhindern dass sich Leute absichtlich dazu entscheiden sich von etwas was niemals an sie gerichtet oder sie beinhaltet angegriffen fühlen. Wüsste auch nicht, dass es gegen die Forumregeln ist.
  76. Wenn du AdBlock Plus als Plugin in deinem Browser hast, was ich nur empfehlen kann, kann man die Maus über die lästige Grafik bewegen: Rechtsklick -> AdBlock Plus: Grafik blockieren Und eine neue Blacklist Filterregel für diese einrichten. Dann wird diese nicht mehr angezeigt.
  77. Proximity fuzes afaik werent really a thing for low calibres though.
  78. Rechtsklick -> AdBlock Plus: Grafik blockieren
  79. Übersoldier 1 von Burut hat einen geradezu faschistischen Installer und Kopierschutz und hat schonmal bei mir dazu geführt das beim Hochfahren die Windows Systemwiederherstellung nötig war. Hatte zum Glück ein Backup von kurz vor der Installation, habs dann nicht mehr installiert.
  80. Hab mal so kurz durchgeschaut; also wichtig würd ich das meiste nicht nennen, eher gelinde interessant. Hast du ein herausragendes Beispiel?
  81. Ich hab mal bei Stona die Frage gestellt, welche Änderungen denn mit "Diese Patchnotizen enthalten nicht alle Änderungen" abgedeckt sind. Ein Beispiel war: - überschüssiger Sounddriver-Code wurde entfernt Die Art Patchnotes bräucht ich auch nicht, und ich lese jedes Update. Ich lese lieber Patchnotes à la: - FP-Kosten für Panzermodifikationen wurden drastisch gesenkt - Höhenruderversteifung der allierten Flugzeuge wurden dem realistischeren Standard den die Fw190's bereits haben angepasst Aber man kann ja träumen
  82. War meiner Schon interessant, auf der Wikiseite der Ho229 wird der Einbau der Luftbremsen durch die Hortenbrüder erwähnt, aber in der von mir da verlinkten Abhandlung nicht, so als ob die niemals Teil geworden sind. In diesem Fall vertrau ich aber doch eher wiki, und denke der Autor hat das übersehen in seinem Bestreben die Aerodynamik eines Nurflüglers zu berechnen.
  83. Well, I do ocassionally like to let a Queensman know how much I enjoy shoving a 128mm shell into the LFP of his Cent 10 when matchmaker puts my 6.0 Sturer Emil that much up.
  84. Just some banter. For all the times a British salted my Sauerkraut, I like to repay the gift by pissing in their tea.
  85. Typical British overexaggeration: it cant possibly handle worse than a 29-K or a Ferdinand.
  86. Finland, Abandoned Factory, Port of Puke, Stalingrad, Ash River, Carpathians, Advance to Claustrophobia, Normandy, Kuban, Jungle, Battle of Hürtgen Forest, White Rock Fortress, Eastern Europe, Abandonded Factory, Stalingrad, Berlin, Frozen Pass, Karelia, Small Sinai, 38th Parallel, Ardennes The only real flat map is Kursk, which has **** trees all over the place when it should be free of vegetation and filled with craters from shelling instead. Arguably Mozdok, Poland, Second Battle, Volokolamsk of El Alamein, Big Sinai and Tunisia are "open" but still have plenty of cover.
  87. Neeee... 2013/2014 wars schlimmer. Großteil aller Threads handelten von irgendeinem Nationen-Bias. Oder als es mit den Panzern anfing... Du hast nie solche herausragenden Persönlichkeiten wie Robertorolfo kennengelernt, der dann soviel ich weiß auf permanenten "Nur-Lesen"-Status versetzt wurde. Heutzutage ist das Forum zahm. Nicht zuletzt dadurch das Troll-Wegwerfaccounts durch die Schreibrestriktion verhindert werden, die erfordert das man ein paar Spiele die Woche spielt und die sehr konsequente Moderierung von Themen und deren Einordnung in die richtigen Subforen. Oh, und natürlich weil das Spiel so ein bisschen vor sichhindümpelt und man im Forum hauptsächlich die gleichen Leute sieht, wenig Neue.
  88. They'd weigh way less, have less drag and could be wing-mounted.
  89. I present:
  90. I, in fact, do and no, most ground kills go to regular tanks in my matches. RoF and turret traverse count nothing if you have to spot someone first, and in the surprise, the first shot counts.
  91. Btw, which post did trigger fufubear to create the p51 thread? Couldnt find it.
  92. Thats why I added a "+". Any calibre higher than 75mm fired from a long barrel (which afaik includes every gun ingame that can reliably pen the T-34 and IRL should without care, as opposed to say, a howitzer), including 76mm, or 17pdr. and bigger. Or a 128mm shell bouncing from the turret front of a Super Hellcat
  93. Couldnt bother myself to list that much so I just listed the stuff I know best. Define "long 75mm". The KwK 40 already is a long 75mm, the KwK 42 is even longer and 75mm too. Besides, I was also talking about US or UK guns.
  94. This is how tanks are made: Prepare thy crumpets!
  95. If it would work like IRL, Tiger II H turret would not have a "bad armor modifier", Maus turret front would be 236mm thickness without CHA modifier because it is that thick, no long barreled +75mm caliber of any nation would bounce from any T-34 hull ever... Solid Shot and APHE would have roughly equal damage... PzGr.39 would not disperse entirely after detonation but propell its penetrator ahead like a solid shot...
  96. "elegant"
  97. In that situation, unlikely. I had an open field in front of me and I would have seen him coming before he saw me as I could see every angle of entrance.
  98. Despite the higher calibre apparently the lower pen makes it actually worse in overmatching the rooftops of them. Same test distance, 88mm KwK 36, PzGr.39, targets, Cent. 1 and 3, FV4202, Caernavon and Strv.81
  99. Ik, just wanted to add some more on the pile of unfortunate events. Was recently in my Sherman Firefly and a Wirbelwind sneaked up on me from my side and killed me fair and square, no hard feeling. Most unfortunate still.
  100. Kinda reminds me of a recent game where I bounced from the flat side of a Cent 1 with only ~10° horizontal angle using a Tiger I H PzGr.39...
  101. The only thing I can agree on in this post is that there are places, posts and threads where the German issues are adressed more sensible and reasonable.
  102. As I said, I wont discuss this OT here anymore. Also dont bother PMing me about it, there are already topics regarding this.
  103. It's the "we got 20 vehicles, but you got one like that, so be happy" all over again Wouldnt make them worse as they already are. Also looking at the Tiger I E your statement is not true as a general effect.
  104. I imagine governments to be extremely secretive about working coilguns: you couldnt put enough armor on a tank to protect them from that muzzle energy.
  105. I remember times when this kind of bashing on free-not-so-smarts would result in a postrestriction VERY quick. Anyways, I'd be interested in the first tank to mount a Gauss cannon (Electromagnetic Coilgun). Screw your powder blunderbusses, be they rifled or smoothbore.
  106. Did you not read the title? It never turned, it was always a CAS thread.
  107. I present to you: MISTEL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel He111 and Fi.103 "V1" loadout
  108. Well, I merely suggested something I knew of. Dont know russian vehicles outside these already implemented in WT.
  109. The Ho229 is fine, nothing wrong about it. The only issue it has, and that any cannon-CAS-plane has, is that it needs a clear sky more than rocket/bomb-laden planes which makes it effective use more situational. The Panzerblitz actually arent too bad either: with a direct hit, they kill too. The issue is more their scarcity and that the Fw190 F-8 which carries them becomes a brick in dives (yes, even with full fuel tanks).
  110. Hey, I merely wanted to suggest a Premium Tiger II H for the RUS tree Dunno why some individuals feel the need to chew old bubblegum over it.
  111. After giving it more thoughts, I realized I made a mistake there too: This only was applicable when I use the KwK 43 (which bounces from a Cent 10 UFP), not the KwK 42. Btw, I tested the KwK 42 against british tank rooftops at ~250-300m and it is.. unreliable at best, surely nothing you want to rely on on your first shot.
  112. I think this topic has been discussed to death already. Now, I'd argue the effect of a 50mm PzGr.39 at 483 kJ muzzle energy on a 43,5t vehicle with its structural integrity uncompromised is nothing compared to the effect of a 122mm shell at 7900 kJ muzzle energy against a target of 69,7t weight. The weight to muzzle energy ratio is 0.092 for the KV-1 and 0.0088 for the Tiger II H. The Tiger II tank has to endure 10times more stress for the similar Armor/Shell Diameter ratio, without suspension or internal modules helping to feather the impact. Just looking at calibre and armor thickness only tells a tiny part of the story. I am sure you are aware Volume (and thus mass) increases ^3 when diameter increases ^2. Besides, this is OT anyways.
  113. client update

    Thanks I was mostly asking because ppl, including me, like to attribute certain felt changes in gameplay to these unlisted changes. But apparently they are that isnignificant.
  114. For SB, that clearly would be the best.
  115. Never understood why ppl have such an issue with getting killed by an SPAA: it's not like you'd survive an encounter against a regular tank in that situation anyways.
  116. If you look at the Arado 234 B-2, you see the 500kg bombs are fairly large: I doubt they would fit into the wing. Only place for them would be where the jet engines are...
  117. Cant find it after some googling. I also find it very hard to believe that they would make blatant mistakes at welding the Tiger II's UFP to the point that puny US 75mm is able to damage it. They were only produced in one city so you dont have (too many) different qualities and even with sources of bombing and sabotage, that means these vehicles dont leave quality control. There is an excellent British report that evaluated the Tiger II armor thoroughly;
  118. The original RLM request demanded for the plane to be able to carry 1000kg of ordnance 1000km distance at 1000kph top speed. Given that the plane actually NEEDED the weight of its gun armament to achieve a stable CoG, adding an external bomb rack each below the jet engines or the guns left and right of the central gear could have been a possibility without compromising the plane stability too much. It would however have a MASSIVE added drag, and I cant see a spot in the ingame X-ray where it could have space for an internal bomb bay. Adding a rocket rack for R4M's would be a possibility too: in the RLM description of R4M rocket rack usage, it says they were very simple and easy to wire.
  119. Yeh, I wasnt complaining about it, just clarifying it wasnt APCR and that APHE =/= OHKO after any pen in the crew compartment. No, I meant that the flat turret front of the Cent series is. I didnt try actively aiming to overmatch plates; I dont trust the mechanism outside of lucky shots. Yep, I probably did. My best chance would have been to show my side armor to him lol. Yeh, that was totally a mistake on my side. That's why it was an "unfortunate" happening.
  120. I just had a most unfortunate encounter with a British tank... Was in my Panther F on Berlin, met a British tank at 20m distance, his LFP exposed so I went for it. He miraculously didnt see me before I fired. Killed Driver and Gunner (with APHE mind you), he depleted his front ammo rack so nothing there. Next shot I tried for the turret front as I have learned from my British forum friends that this is a good spot to shoot. Nope. It was a Caernavon and my shot bounced. In the meantime, he replaced his crew, aimed at me, OHKO my crew with one APDS, not from the direct front, but diagonal as I tried to misalign my crew with his LoF. If I had known it was a darn Caern and not a Cent 3, I'd have aimed for the LFP again but these darn teapots look all the same (very similar).
  121. client update

    As there has been a series of these small updates, could you provide some examples of what these "small fixes" not worthy of patchnotes can consist of? It may not be interesting for the majority, but I'd be interested what these may be so I can get a somewhat good picture of the effort-to-include-them-into-patchnotes/impact-on-game ratio of that.
  122. No reason why not. With the exception of the engines, it is literally the same plane.
  123. The russians shipped it to the muricans? (what was left of it)
  124. Maybe the captured Tiger II H with the collapsing armor they attested to have bad armor quality after stripping its insides out and firing multiple times at it with various medium to heavy calibres Would be second best moneygrab stunt Gaijin could pull off after the IS-6.
  125. I know my big cats from actually playing them. The problem with the Panther is that the side armor can easily be overmatched even at very steep angles. Obviously a Tiger I is not immune, but in CQB and in duels, the ability to angle the armor and the thicker side armor is more valuable. Though the Panther front armor suffices on the large maps.
  126. I used the Tiger I H on AF, because of the better armor, reload and turret traverse. I only favor the Panther D over the Tiger I on maps with large open space to use the higher V0 of the KwK 42.
  127. I just had a series of actually enjoyable German 5.7 games: Ger/japan against UK/US/RUS, but max. BR was actually 5.7(!!!) on Abandonded Factory. Used the Tiger I H, got 4 kills didnt die. You can use that thing as a large, hulky medium tank, so mobile it is for a heavy. 5.7 max BR on Big Sinai, used Panther D, 4 kills, only died to a US 76mm making its way between hull and gun mantlet through the turret front and ammo racked me. 5.7 max BR on Abandonded Factory in my Tiger I H, casually bounced a shot from a Cent. 1 side with only a 10° angle at 10m distance, but got some kills before that and took him out then too because he was completely oblivious he could shoot me back although he saw me. 6.7 max BR with my 5.7 lineup on Kursk, got 4 kills because I got lucky that a FV4202 cant aim and kinda panicked, didnt really shoot me back much. In between some matches I lost, but w/e. Only one of these was a Ger/Rus vs US game. Tbh, I kinda felt bad for some of the kills. What chance does a M4A1 (76) have against a Panther D at 1200m distance except for that lucky turret front pen? Dont feel bad about the kills against the T-34-85 on Abandonded Factory; its tight enough for them to pen me, if they played better.
  128. I'd have no issues bringing Solid Shot to current APHE performance. May probably be easier to game balance than nerfing APHE to the historical barely-better-than-solid-shot performance.
  129. The difference between K and M are just the engines. Compared to ingame, this is the K. Missing loadout as most planes...
  130. I do get it, but in the end, it means with same skill and different machines on same BR you get inferior/superior outcomes which isnt balance. Why should I clap the US P-47D pilot over the head and hold him up to the same standard as a Bf109F pilot of same player skill? The P-47D is more difficult to fly. Player Skill or ease of playing something is also something Gaijin doesnt really have in their hands with the focus on realistic performance, so that is pointless to bring up. You can tell ppl to l2p, you can train them, give advice, they may perform better and better, but in the end with same effort due to worse opportunity you are bound to have worse outcome. That's what this is about: changing the game to give everyone balanced opportunities and that has nothing to do with player skill.
  131. I read it just fine, thank you, no need to feel attacked. I just dont understand the fixiation on player skill when in reality the addition of new tech, neglect of adding other new tech to balance it at the same time and wrong BRs are to blame. Human Error ALWAYS is a factor, so it is NEVER a factor.
  132. I think the "more advanced" is the key word here.
  133. But human error wasnt added in recent patches.
  134. "Nothing" is too strong of a word. The better wording would be "not everything".
  135. Just testing Tiger I E PzGr.39 against the Cent. 1 turret at 250m distance. I always aim at the same spot, no movment of the mouse and I wait to full rest of the barrel between shots. The possible outcomes are : - bounce - pen, no damage - pen, minor damage - pen, medium damage - pen, heavy damage - pen, KO Note that these arent with numbers, bounce/no pen is 33% of the time. the KwK 36 is unprecise over range too it seems. Not specific to the 17pdr.
  136. That in turn makes your argument about the Tiger I turret moot. Cent 1 on 6.0 would be fine.
  137. Implying that with german tanks you dont have to aim for weakspots. There are KV-1's, T-34's, IS tanks, Churchill's, Jumbo Shermans etc. out there. With British tanks, I dont aim for weakspots: I am for internal modules, my pen is usually enough for everything but for the darn russian sloped tanks.
  138. Es kommt nicht darauf an, wie oft man jemanden durchschlägt, sondern was man drinnen trifft. Ein Panzer in Warthunder zählt als ausgeschaltet wenn: - er ausbrennt, was etwas Zeit dauert, wobei die meisten Spieler zweimal Feuer löschen können dank Feuerlöscher. Panzer werden durch Treffer in Motor, Getriebe oder Triebstofftanks in Brand gesetzt, wobei Motor der zuverlässigste Treffer ist - Treibstofftanks oder Munition explodiert, was meistens einen direkten Treffer erfordert, besonders mit einem reinen Stahlgeschoss wie vom A13. Munitionstreffer ist zuverlässiger als in den Treibstofftank - man die Besatzung tötet, wobei er ausgeschaltet ist, wenn nicht mehr Fahrer- und Richtschützenposition bemannt werden können. - wenn ein Hüllenbruch stattfindet, wobei das nur bei ausgewählten sehr schwach bis gar nicht gepanzerten Fahrzeugen passieren kann Schau dir am besten im Hangar die Gegner an, die dir begegnen können und plane deine Schüsse im Vorraus.
  139. Same I could say in my matches on the Allies side: I see vehicles that are toptier in the match, especially russian ones when they should fare well with their APHE, getting downed right from the start when they charge headlong into the midst of the fray whereas I am busy taking the scenic route: if I dont make a blatant mistake at the start of a match, I end up around and at the top of team score frequently. Cant explain that without blaming general skill levels. Or can I? I'd think I can: BS happens, thats it. A few Allies vehicles below 5.3 could be pushed around too, but its nowhere close to be a too hard match for them.
  140. Ok, so no 6.3, but 6.0 with the spawn costs of a Heavy tank and only one spawn in SB. Thats fine with me. /s nah, I'd rather just see it on 6.0 without increased costs.
  141. I dont have a problem with the statement that good players can handle the odds: I have a problem with the statement that a lack of capability to handle the odds is a reason to assume that the players of a certain nation are generally bad. ALL players are equally bad on all nations from what I experienced grinding various trees. I dont even blame the US AF players anymore: it IS hard to do well in the face of planes that are boosted beyond physics by instructor to abuse their low stall speed and generous lift for impossible turns and stall-snipes when your own plane (pre P-47M and N) mostly got speed and energy retention as a trait. US planes such as the P-47D f.e. require way more discipline or even better: a permanent squadmate to do well, whereas a Spitfire is perfectly fine in most situations on its own. I dont even am opposed to the statement that the german GF tree is perfectly fine below 5.3: it is very strong, may require up or downtiers here and there. But beyond that, the issues get thick. I dont know what it is with Gaijin and Tier 4 and 5; to me it looked it always was some sort of club or be clubbed mess.
  142. Average Allies battle tonight involved half (or three-quarters, depending on how terrible they were) of my Allies team not scoring a single kill or assist, dying (and giving the enemy SP) and leaving the match. What few of us remained were not in for a great time--and it wasn't the vehicles' fault. Allies GFs teams are what Allies AFs teams have historically been. Allies vehicles are superb--especially at the tier I was playing--and yet the teams got tossed. The Allies teams played poorly and so they were defeated. This is undoubtedly at play elsewhere too. The longer people deny this the worse it'll get for them.
  143. I'd argue acceleration and energy retention in turns is more important on the RB GF cardboard box map sizes. Though the Tiger II is not as slow as you'd think. Handles like a sluggish WW2-era medium. I especially stress the WW2-era because post-war mediums run circles around german mediums such as the 6.0 Panthers. I dont really get the issue: - the Tiger II P is not fielded frequently outside of SB Events where it is toptier - most maps have engagements areas around 800-100m distance or enough cover to get into them - the Tiger II P costs more SP and is threatened by US and Rus APHE, US and UK CAS, and HEATFS - the current BR system makes concessions of ALL sorts to match vehicles against each other The Cent 1 vs Tiger II P case is neither special nor spectacular.
  144. Most maps dont even allow +1km shots lol.
  145. In Arcade gibt es eine künstliche Ungenauigkeit für Schüsse für alle Panzer um die Hilfe durch das grüne Kreuz auszugleichen. Kann mittels Crewpunkten und Modifikationen etwas verbessert werden. Am besten du informierst dich mal über Munitionsarten: die PzGr. 40/43 sollte niemals deine Standardgranate sein: wenn du weißt du kommst durch, nimm immer die PzGr.39/43. Wirkt besser gegen gewinkelte Panzerung und hat massive höheren Schaden nach Durchschlag dank Explosivfüllung, während die PzGr.40/43 nur ein vergleichsweise dünner Wolframkern ist, der hauptsächlich punktuell Schaden anrichtet und genaueres Zielen benötigt, sowie nur gegen die stärkste, nicht-gewinkelte Panzerung benutzt werden sollte. Bei einem Tiger II H solltest du locker mit der PzGr.39/43 durch die butterweiche Turmfront kommen.
  146. With one shell in the breech and the other in the lap, you might get that "potential" for 2 shells
  147. Was this about reload rates or stabilizers? I was talking about sources for stabilizers to be hard to come by. Reload rates I dont mind them to be off that much or to be used as a balance tool. Historical reload rates may be too much to balance even with BR and SL costs.
  148. Reload rates are a Gaijin tool of balance: they got so many different numbers on that, they just go by what fits them (test range conditions, lap loading, combat conditions, with or without taking aim after loading etc...) A lot of tanks would benefit from "historical" reload times. Got a source for that other than that one propaganda video? I asked a bit around and nobody seemed to be able to provide one, it even was admitted that sources on that seem to be very hard to come by especially hard numbers.