Teovo

Knight of the Sea
  • Content count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal medal

Community Reputation

116 Neutral

About Teovo

  • Rank
    Warrant officer
  • Birthday 06/22/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sheffield

Recent Profile Visitors

1,241 profile views
  1. Seems more realistic than nothing happening. And I'll +1 anything that makes the British less frustrating.
  2. IMO their priorities are sound, kind of, make money to allow WT to exist. But really doing it in such a blunt obvious manner is pretty poor, if it moves and fires like a T5 then that's what it should be.
  3. No, the source we've found (in print, Russia) states that there is a 'charging fuse' which activates after launch. This (safety) distance is approximately 100m, the control distance starts at approximately 300m! • minimum firing distance of 300 m indicated In fact the minimum distance a fighter tanks is determined by the charging fuse after the rocket launch (0,5-0,7 s) that corresponds to the flight distance of about 100 m.;
  4. As I'm spending more time than I intended on looking for details on arming distances for the SS.11 & MGM-51 Shillelagh I've decided to throw money at it. I've contacted the research department at Bovington Tank Museum this weekend and am waiting for them to get back to me with times & costs. I'll update when I receive a response...
  5. Once again thanks Nope! We all need each other for this kind of thing. You're always relevant!! Thanks again Chap.
  6. My French doesn't quite stretch to understanding ATGM diagrams. I think at the top of the image it says minimum safety range 300m. Can anyone confirm please.
  7. Yeah another British filler, just like the FV4202 we got last update. Meanwhile rather than updating the Conqueror to as it was IRL (independent cupola targeting from the main gun) and keeping it at 7.7 it's just dropped to 7.3. Oh and the Swingfire has always been handicapped by not having it's rightful missile fire arc. Currently Britain has the least amount of 8.0 ground vehicles. Two. The Japanese blog from yesterday is for a vehicle that breaks Gaijin's own rules for technology allowed (composite armour), their reason for including it? "There was no data provided on any composite Armour for the Type 87."@Smin1080p. Google the Type 87, I haven't seen any site mention conventional armour yet. In the past non-conventional armour has been used to halt talk of including other vehicles. I'm annoyed because I've invested an awful lot of my free time and money in this game over the past 4 years and I'm now at a point where I'm considering looking for another game to main.
  8. Yeah I get what you're saying but I disagree. IMO nations shouldn't be homogenised, same vehicles just different skins. Different nations had different needs, Japan, understandably didn't want heavy tanks due to their terrain, an imaginary (paper) heavy tank shouldn't be included just so they're like the others. I'd imagine Japanese being so reliant on medium / MB tanks, had different strategies and tactics to say Russia who envisaged a large ground war where heavy tanks had a role. I'm just bothered by the shifting of service dates and technology (even if it's not implemented) to shoehorn in a vehicle just so they're like everyone else. Let the vehicles (within a given timeframe & technology point) dictate the playstyle of a nation, if a suitable role cannot be filled then leave it empty, players then have to adapt accordingly.
  9. Yes I do, it was mine and I've moved it over to a more appropriate and on topic thread.
  10. I've been a long time player of WT, I still play most days. I did and still kinda do, love the game. However I feel that I have to voice my concerns with recent decisions being made. It's not about the ship vs boat thing (which had the players at loggerheads with developers, to be honest I was of the mind that Devs should know best), nor the issues with appearing / disappearing enemies in ground forces (which seems to be totally ignored while making GFs boarder line unplayable IMO). The thing that annoyed me today was the Dev blog on the Japanese Type 87 SPAAG. I'm no expert on ground forces vehicles and so when something new comes along I tend to read up on it a bit. I'm shocked by the fact it was even considered, it being designed in 1982! then only entering service in 1987!! I mean wow, whatever happened to cut-off dates?, fair enough give things a bit of leeway in the name of balance (it's a game after all) as long as it's close enough and things are balanced... the Type 87s armour is classified due to being part composite, how does that makes sense balance wise? Surely the composite armour can't be modelled (it being classified) so it's just not included? if so then why even have it? Are we gonna start seeing other vehicles introduced but then restricted so that things are balanced? All of a sudden that A-10 thread doesn't seem as laughable as it did a month ago, I'd like to have the BAE Electric Lightning added, just to balance things maybe don't include the afterburner and limit the un-reheated engines to maybe 80%. Is that the direction things are heading? if so countries should be scrapped in the name of balance and we should just have team A and team B with the same generic vehicles. Sorry /rant.
  11. Sorry I've moved my rant to a more appropriate thread...
  12. A positive change for the Conqueror, a BR change was needed IMO. It's no T-10, can only be used for sniping (it's RL intended role so no problem there) but is at a disadvantage due to the reload rate. However could we also get module RP costs to reflect that it's now RB 7.3?
  13. A positive change for the Conqueror, a BR change was needed IMO. It's no T-10, can only be used for sniping (it's RL intended role so no problem there) but is at a disadvantage due to the reload rate. However could we also get module RP costs to reflect that it's now RB 7.3?
  14. I was happy to see the BR down-tiering from 7.7 to 7.3. I felt it was justified as it's no T-10 and can only be played as a sniping vehicle, as, I guess it was intended to be IRL. I played a couple of games with it last night and when not uptiered it can be fun to play. However the visibility issue of tanks appearing and or disappearing regardless of cover still makes RB GF boarder line unplayable, massively frustrating at best! Please add your support to the thread below...
  15. For this thread I'm solely looking at arming fuses which give a minimum distance/time. Anything else that you think needs addressing i can only recommend finding the data and getting it accepted as a mod'ed bug report.
  16. Updated the HOT-1 minimum arming distance (from 75m to 50m) and included source: "Rockets & Missiles" by B. Gunston, page 242, Crescent Books, printed 1979 Still looking for evidence of the arming mechanism for the SS.11 / Robot 52 Interesting fact found though, the designer of the SS.10/SS.11 missiles, Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry, attempted to assassinate Charles de Gaulle in 1962 and was the last Frenchman to be executed by firing squad. Also the book & film "Day of the Jackal" is partial based on Bastien-Thiry's (and the extremist groups he associated with) assassination attempt.
  17. Yeah I'm aware of this, there has been an IT-1 bug report in for a few months (with sources) and there hasn't been a change. However I see it as there are two ways to proceed. 1) Do nothing other than whine and moan about the game being wrong/broken; in game and on the forums, reddit, WT website and anywhere else that 'allows' it. 2) Try and engage, do 'something'. Personally I enjoy reading and researching, I've always loved aircraft and so know the basics of most included in game. As for Naval and ground forces I'm pretty ignorant and so when I have a spare ten minutes I might read up on an article or two. If that benefits the game, which I've been playing for a while now, then great. If not then fair enough I tried to contribute in a positive way, I won't rage quit if things aren't implemented as I'd like. It'll just be the same game that I play now. I just might of learnt something along the way...
  18. Cheers Kamil, I'll update asap. It's looking like we'll need better sources for the others too! Swingfire should be ok though, and the 3m7 of course. Oh and what do you think of the Shillelagh having no minimum arming distance, sound right to you?
  19. I'm pretty disappointed to see this issue hasn't been addressed in the server patch today. Oh well, I've almost got my Sea Venom spaded at least...
  20. Here are the minimum arming distances for different ATMG's (due to safety mechanisms): Numbers in Purple are ones which I think can be submitted as valid evidence to the Devs. ******************************* FV438 Swingfire {Swingfire} : 150 - 4000 meters 1.[http://www.military-today.com/missiles/swingfire.htm] "A 90-degree turn in the horizontal during the launch phase is also possible. The minimum range of the Swingfire is 150 m, at which point in flight the warhead arms." 2.[The British Army Guide (p.74)] 3.[Swingfire.pdf] Additional: [http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1414.html] [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/swingfire.htm] RakJPZ 1 {SS.11} & Centurion Strv .81 {Robot 52}: 500 - 3000 1.[http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH06 - SS-11.html] 2.[http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/Raketenjagdpanzer-I.php] RakJPZ 2 {HOT}: 50 - 4000 1. "Rockets & Missiles" by B. Gunston, page 242, Crescent Books, printed 1979 "Approximately 50 meters after ejecting from the container, the safety system arms the HEAT warhead's fuze and will detonate when the outer skin of the two-layer nose cone is crushed to contact with the inside skin, completing an electrical circuit." Additional: [http://www.military-today.com/missiles/hot.htm] [http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH06 - HOT.html] IT-1 {3M7 Drakon} : 100 - 3300 meters 1.«Техника и вооружение вчера, сегодня, завтра...», 2010, №02. (page 35-42) Web version of above: [http://warfiles.ru/show-38876-drakon-ispepelyayuschiy-tanki-chast-3-istrebitel-tankov-it-1-v-voyskah.html] Google translated extract: "In fact the minimum distance a fighter tanks is determined by the charging fuse after the rocket launch (0,5-0,7 s) that corresponds to the flight distance of about 100m." M551 Sheridan {MGM-51 Shillelagh} : 0 - 2000 meters No minimum arming distance (thought to be due to the missile fired from a conventional cannon). ******************************* I'll have a further look for information and more supporting sources this week (for all missiles) and then look to submitting as a bug report (or series of bug reports) over the weekend. Hopefully this information will be accepted and will have a noticeable effect on ground forces. Any input would, as always, be greatly appreciated.
  21. So I've spent a fair few hours over the past week looking for information on the MGM-51 Shillelagh ATGM missile. I've discovered a lot about it, mostly that it didn't work well until the C variant and had the annoying habit of cracking the gun barrel after several (100 ish) launches. Also if you fired the conventional HEAT rounds the recoil would soon wreck the missiles fire control electronics. As for the safety/arming mechanism (giving a minimum distance) I can't find one! This has lead me to believe that there isn't one due to it being fired from a gun barrel, it seems to differ from other ATMG's in game because it isn't fired off a rail. I'm assuming a safety mechanism is needed when firing off a rail just in case it 'falls off', when fired from a barrel it acts more like a conventional round, just one that can be controlled shortly (300m) after firing. This will mean the the M551 Sheridan is the only ATGM in game that can destroy targets at a range of zero meters up to 2000m. Anyhow if someone finds anything different from this please post and I'll update asap.
  22. I was wondering if anyone is able to help out with an issue I'd eventually like to submit a bug report for. Basically it's the arming distance (not control distance) for ATGM missiles. Below is a link for a thread I started last year. As far as I'm aware all information is correct (in the attached post) for the British and German ATGM's in game, however I need help with the Russian IT-1's 3M7 Drakon missile and the American M551's MGM-51 Shillelagh missile. I can find next to nothing (which will be accepted as a legitimate source) for these damn things. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. So far these are the minimum distances (meters) I have sources for and I'm confident in: FV438 Swingfire {Swingfire} : 150 RakJPZ 1 {SS.11} & Centurion Strv .81 {Robot 52}: 500 RakJPZ 2 {HOT}: 75 Revised from input from this thread, sources still pending: IT-1 {3M7 Drakon} : 100? And not so confident in: M551 Sheridan {MGM-51 Shillelagh} : 60?
  23. So yesterday [19/01/17] we had some answers to a Dev Q&A thingy. Could anyone shed some light on the Chieftan Saber / Marksman issue, as tbh, the answer while still very vague and generic makes little sense to me. http://warthunder.com/en/news/4463-developer-q-a-we-answer-your-questions-en/ Is it possible we will see the Type 87 and Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman as the top SPAAGs for Japan and Britain to compare to the Gepard, ZSU-23-4 Shilka and M163 Vulcan? « We will likely add the Type-87 SPAA, in the case of the earlier versions, if we manage to find data on them we will add them.
  24. I'm British myself and have due to some form of patriotism always mained British vehicles (both Air & Ground) in game. I currently own all main tree vehicles (almost all spaded) and all premium vehicles outside of closed beta testing. However after almost four years in game I'm also pretty much at the same point with US, Russian and Japanese vehicles. I still play British a lot because of how effective and fun they are, the majority require a bit of thought on how and when you engage. So how do you think British boats will fair against the other nations? Sub par, competitive or OP?
  25. The MGB-81 seems like an obvious candidate for the British Royal Navy tree. Not only did she have an active and interesting history but is also fully restored and sea worthy. A lot of official information can be found here: http://www.coastalmotorboat.org.uk/ Brief details to note include: Her main armament was a two pound semi automatic (pom pom), mounted forward (later replaced by a six pounder). She had twin 20mm Oerlikons mounted on the aft superstructure, various machine guns, a grenade launcher and up to 12 x 500lb depth charges. For her size she was the most heavily armed ship in the Navy. 27 April 1944, '77 and '81 directed by Kingswear Radar, to engage five E Boats in Lyme Bay on the South Coast. Two E Boats engaged at close range, MGB 81 hit again by sustained enemy fire. This was part of the aftermath of Exercise Tiger in which the American Army practised a beach landing at Slapton Sands, The E Boats attacked in force, 600 US Soldiers were killed, one Tank Landing Ship was lost others damaged. Such was the shock of this attack that news about it was blacked out and not released till well after the War.