On Land and at Sea
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

medal medal

LordMustang last won the day on June 24 2016

LordMustang had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,835 Outstanding


About LordMustang

  • Rank
    Community Location Creator
  • Birthday February 27

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Interests
    сомяаdе таик, F9F, P51D.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,804 profile views
  1. @gromvoiny is the one to ask, he runs this store
  2. Check whether you have been charged for the purchase. If you've been charged and didn't receive your items, please contact support. https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us
  3. Problem is not in developers. There is real-life test that you need to adapt. Please use stopping Translate Google. You I think must accept you need to better become. You is problem
  4. I don't think it will appear anytime soon. Adding it for the Leos negates the last advantage the T-62 really holds.
  5. poll

    wat? I agree No, this depends on whether it had a minimal arming range IRL. Agreed Hmm, dunno. For that to happen the entire DM has to be changed. You should try the tactics you use on a Leo with the IT-1. The IT-1 isn't a sniper, but rather a short range shotgun with the ability to shoot over hills and walls. You can shoot over the ruins in Cologne for example.
  6. poll

    You're supposed to hear it, light swoosh like sound coming in. You're also supposed to see the missile and it's heat haze. However, sometimes it bugs and you won't see the missile, nor hear the sound or its impact.
  7. Maybe because the IS-2 can only pen the KT H in that quite tiny spot of the mantlet. Shooting too much towards the edges or too close to the barrel results in shell being eaten. If you pen the turret, the KT will still be able to drive, and you have to reload for 30 secs. KT can OHK IS-2 almost anywhere besides the UFP. It gets 9 second reload. Yeah... Add a bit of 'muh just flank' argumenting and voilá
  8. Leopard 1A1a addon armour is rubber-ish stuff. It isn't normal steel. Source: I touched it ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  9. Clearly needs Leopard 2 to compete with T-64
  10. 1.67

    The T-55A did have an improved engine over the T-54B, giving it slightly better mobility than a T-62. But as how it stands right now, the T-54 1947 is better than the other 2 T-54s, which just saddens me.
  11. 1.67

    The T-54-3 didn't use HEAT-FS or APDS until it was upgraded to T-54B standards. So basically there isn't a model 1951 with HEAT-FS and APDS.
  12. 1.67

    Does the Ru 251 get a stabilizer? And I'm also wondering what the traverse and reload will be.
  13. 1.67

    Yes, but in the current BR state, the Ru 251 shouldn't be any lower than the Jpz 4-5. That's what I'm implying. Where they both should be is a different story.
  14. 1.67

    It should be 7.3 or higher. It wouldn't be fair towards the Jpz 4-5 to place this thing at 7.0.
  15. 1.67

    My suggested lineup for the T-54s would currently be: Stacked: -T-54-1 (1947), adjusted turret drive -T-54-2 (1949) without APDS -T-54-3 (1951) without APDS and HEAT-FS, adjusted turret drive Stacked: -T-54A (optional, 1-plane stabilizer) -T-54B, 2-plane stabilizer, adjusted turret drive. HEAT-FS and APDS And then T-55s.
  16. 1.67

    A new day, a new hope for the T-55
  17. try setting the game to fullscreen windowed.
  18. It's not questionable. It is in the game because back in the days Germany didn't have any Cold war vehicles and they had to fight T-54s. That's why the Tiger 105 and Panther II were introduced. The tank is fictional, yes. But there were plans to instal a KwK43 on a Panther, but the Schmallturm was modified for it.
  19. It's fine. It belongs at the same BR of the T-44-100.
  20. 1.67

    Maybe today...
  21. I don't know if you guys read it correctly, but he said fire 'in', not fire 'at'.
  22. 1.67

    Opinions? Looks like a fun tank to play. I expect a BR around 7.0. Good all around tank with once again amazing APCR ammo, but since it's premium you'll get HEAT-FS immediately.
  23. I works for me just fine.
  24. 1.67

    I hope it is coming, patiently waiting..
  25. You're quite right here. But I do think that the T-55 might bring back some things that the Soviets really lack right now: a medium tank with a stabilizer, good reload, nice traverse, APCBC and decently priced HEAT-FS.
  26. Of course it CAN do good, but it requires an extremely good crew and all upgrades to be of SOME effectiveness. It's outclassed by huge margins by the Leo on several very important factors, and it somehow still can't get decently priced shells. Sounds like an M103 case to me. "The tank can still do good". Tell that to the Maus drivers that are suffering on 90% of the maps. "It can still do good (under very specific circumstances" would suit better.
  27. t-34-100

    How am I supposed to flank if the maps are literally 500x500 meters?
  28. t-34-100

    Yup. Kinda sad to put 6090 GE straight into the trashbin :I
  29. T32

  30. The T-54 series have been haunted by various inaccuracies for a while. Let's kick of with the T-54-1947. This T-54 should be called T-54-1, but that aside it's the best T-54. Why? Because it has the best armor layout and the best turret traverse. The turret traverse isn't historical and should get fixed. Right now it definitely deserves the 7.7 spot just as much as the other T-54s do. The T-54-2 is really just an RP hog. It has a slow turret traverse and a worse armor layout. It's basically a free kill for any potent Leopard driver. The KwK 43 can reliably pen the turret frontally, even with APCBC. APDS is close to useless, given it's 1300 SL cost and the huge grind. The T-54-3 (1951) gets a HEAT-FS shell. Funny fact is that this shell costs 1400 SL!!! per shot, one of the most ridiculous prices in the game currently. The grind on this tank is unbearable. It still suffers from the same turret traverse issues and a weaker armor layout, making it quite vulnerable to even a KwK43 frontally. APDS costs 1400 SL as well, just laughable. Both the 1949 and 1951 models are pretty much made up. They are supposed to reflect the variants that rolled out of the factories in 1949 and 1951, but receive shells from well into the '60s. By that time these T-54s were already upgraded with a newer turret drive and stabilizers. It also received a new D10 cannon variant. To sum it up: both the 1949 and 1951 are average, you can even call them average. The 1947 model sits at a proper BR when it receives its historical changes. Right now it's by far the best T-54.
  31. Yield strength for armor plates should be implemented. Then for each shell kinetic energy and energy created by an explosion should be calculated. If the total energy of the projectile is greater than the yield strength, the plate should brake. This is a very simplified, yet reliable mechanic. It could be expanded heavily to include armor wear and stressing.
  32. t-34-100

    I think this is one of the worst tanks in the Soviet tree. Since the overmatch change it doesn't bounce anything, and it sits at the same BR of the Tiger IIH and T-29, both which are pretty much invulnerable frontally. There's barely any room left for flanking because the maps keep shrinking and shrinking. What's your thoughts on this tank? Should it go back to 6.3?
  33. Well it might just be me but 90% of my matches I see Tiger IIP spam with my 5.7 lineups. Impenetrable UFP and Kwk43 that makes Swiss cheese out of anything it faces.
  34. Me neither. IS-2 gets completely shat on by Tiger IIH since it's D shell has been removed. The 0.3 decrease didn't change a dime at all. And don't start me on T-34-85 vs Tiger II lol. Nope, still not balanced. Not that I expected it since even the increase of Panther II almost caused a civil revolt.
  35. LordMustang Last of its Kind Artistic screenshot http://live.warthunder.com/post/568521/en/ A T-10M in the streets of Prague during the Prague Spring, which was part of "Operation Danube", also called Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Local civilians have drawn various slurs and remarks on the tank.
  36. [server] [update]

    And what happened with the feedback given on the economy and BR update? The usual thing I guess...
  37. Just because Gaijin decided to remove the D shell from the IS-2 1944, that doesn't mean that it should be removed from all others. While I can see the reason of removing it from the T-34-100, removing it from the T-44-100 is just nonsense. Since the Paper II gets its uptier to 7.0, T-44-100 can stay there as well. And decrease turret traverse to 10deg/sec. And remove the T-54 model 1949? This is the T-54-1....
  38. Please, reduce the HEAT-FS price for the T-54 1951 and M103. These tanks rely on those shells to be effective. 1400 SL per shot is ridiculous if you compare it to way better tanks like the Leopard or M60 that get HEAT for 1200 SL per shot. Also, please consider reducing T-54 3BM8 APDS, since it's also 1400 SL.
  39. I have yet to see a proper argument coming from you. You haven't posted a single factual, source-based claim in understandable English. I don't expect you to write 100% grammatically correct English, but a little bit of quality is greatly appreciated. You're here to convince the community with your reasoning. Then try to do the best you can.
  40. The T-62 has never been the workhorse for the Soviet Union. The T-55 series continued to occupy that role until the T-72 entered service.
  41. And now in English?
  42. Most Western countries went with the Leo. Countries that participated in the Yom Kippur war had Centurions because they were sold on by countries that sold the Centurion on and bought Leos in return. I've done some research on how Belgium and the Netherlands dealt with it. It turned out that the growing numbers of T54/55s in the DDR forced these countries to upgun the Centurions or sell them in favor of the Leopard. The Centurions were definitely behind in technique back then. I've been in one.
  43. Jets aren't molten.
  44. Centurions weren't regarded as cheaper than a T-55. In fact, many countries shifted either to an upgunned Centurion with the L7 or went with a Chieftain or Leopard 1 because the T-54/54 appeared in huge numbers in the DDR. Given that the Leopard 1 was more available in the 60s, that's what most countries went with.
  45. Yes, but as long as I don't have HEAT I prefer HESH over APDS. HEAT is indeed less prone to the angle of a tank, since you rely on ammorack. HEAT is in almost every aspect the better shell, but it comes with a price.
  46. I never called you stupid. I only told you that using HESH on sides of tanks is stupid. That's definitely different. Don't make it look worse than it was. And yes, I shouldn't have said that you claimed it to not work. I tried to say that I believe HESH does more damage when striking a frontal plate. HEAT relies on ammoracks. Damage done by exploding ammoracks isn't the damage a HEAT shell directly causes. It's also unrelated to attacking a tank frontally or from the sides.
  47. I never claimed to be an expert on HESH. All I said is that HESH offers good performance for its pricetag and that it's a viable alternative for APDS. You're making things up now. Yes, HEAT-FS is better in raw performance, but along with it comes a pricetag and you need to grind for it since it's a tier 4 mod (unless you buy it of course). How well I personally do with it doesn't define how good the shell performs. If someone fails to play well with a Leopard, does that automatically mean to you that the Leopard is a bad tank?
  48. I think you are in the wrong section. Here you can bring your "arguments" and brag about your statistics. If you think the arguments you've presented so far contributed anything to the thread, you might want to reconsider your argumentation. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/152-esport-section/ You're wasting my time pretty much. Have a nice day.
  49. 293/111= 2,6396396396396396396396396396396 231/87= 2,6551724137931034482758620689655 2,66> 2,64 But I guess even mathematics can be hard sometimes. W/R has nothing to do with one's individual performance and purely reflect the teams/BR balance/squads at that time. This is getting offtopic. Personal statistics are a non-valid argument when judging general balance of a vehicle and/or its capabilities. Don't try to use it as an argument against HESH.
  50. Claiming that HESH is the only factor that decides a tank's performance is once again dumb reasoning.
  51. Using my stats to prove that you think HESH sucks. I don't know what you're thinking. Also, statistics heavily depend on several factors, like graphics quality (you look like a guy that would put everything on ULQ just to preserve good stats), squads and modifications. I'm not sure as to why you think you can use these as a objective, convincing argument to prove that HESH is bad. Also, my Panther II stats are better than yours. Not sure how you can even think that using stats as an argument comes close to being valid.
  52. Because I don't buy HEAT-FS when I unlock a tank. I play it how it is, and grind the upgrades by playing. I'm not that guy that spends his $$ to buy upgrades for a tank, purely to brag with my artificial "skill" later on.
  53. You don't get the point of HESH at all, do you? There are several tanks that only have APDS and HESH, and often HESH provides way better killing power than APDS does. For tanks like the Leo and Type 74 HESH offers better killing power against frontal plates compared to APDS, and it is unlocked earlier than HEAT-FS and is considerably cheaper. But I imagine you as a guy that just buys the HEAT-FS modification and SL with GE, so you refuse to learn to use a different shell and just roll with the "ez heat" wave. So you shouldn't even comment on it, given that you don't play with it at all and don't even know how to use it. As for the reloading argument, tanks like the Leopard and Chieftain have a short reloading time, so with some skill you can definitely use your HESH effectively.
  54. Not sure what you're smoking, but HESH works fine against a frontal plate. Using it against sides is plainly stupid.
  55. I'd have to give it to the Leo 1A1. It offers instant gun depression while the Type 74 still has to drop its suspension. I don't think the extra armor the Type offers really makes it better. Since the ZSU nerf the Leo 1A1 is quite hard to pen frontally. The stabilizer and faster reload are useful as well.
  56. That is only relevant for the Panther D. The other Panthers have a good traverse. Troll armor isn't trolly since the overmatch change a while ago. Let's sum it up for you. Panther D: -Better cannon -Better armor -Better survivability -Better ammunition -Better gun depression -Better reload -Neutral turning T-34-85 -Better turret traverse speed -Better reverse speed The Panther II diminishes the T-34's advantage in reverse speed. The Panther A dimishes the T-34's traverse speed. I'm sorry to say, but looking at the points mentioned, I conclude that the Panther is the better tank. And I have all Panthers, I talismanned the Panther II. I even unlocked the Russian T-V. I also have a talismanned T-34-85. I used those tanks extensively. So yes, I do have the experience.
  57. Not sure how this can even be a discussion. Any of the Panthers is better than the T-34-85s. Panthers offer far superior armor, neutral steering, gun depression, marginally better gun and way better survivability. The only thing the T-34 does better is forward and reverse speed. The Panther offers a way more balanced platform that combines several great aspects. Not sure how you guys think the T-34 is better, but I'm ready to receive irrelevant arguments like "his track ate muh 75" and so on.
  58. Depends on the yield strength and the other physical aspects of the plate. It is very likely that a solid shot hitting a thin plate passes through and leaves a hole.
  59. @Senio BR-417D will be removed because of teh BR decrease. It wont need them to fight heavily protected opponents anymore. That's why it was introduced in the first place Removing the D shell wasn't really necessary. IS-2 1944 will still face the same opponent, namely KT H, 99% of the time. Also, the changes are good, but Gaijin is slowly working itself into ultra compression. Extending the BR range is the final solution, not lowering almost everything.
  60. You guys forgot the Tiger IIH and T-29 to 7.0, but overall really good and welcome changes. I will be awaiting the day when 9.0 for GF becomes a reality.
  61. If it's 2-part ammunition, propellant is stored elsewhere.
  62. You keep shifting the blame onto the IT-1, while the HOT is even more able to shoot from behind cover with its periscope, which the IT-1 lacks. Please look at all ATGMs from a neutral PoV or just don't comment on them at all.
  63. Depends. For some vehicles that are already good at killing planes it makes sense. Some SPAA could only combat ground vehicles effectively, so now they're worthless. Selectively nerfing ammo belts is not the right option.
  64. So, here we are. Now Gaijin decided to fill the BR-281U belt of the ZSU-57-2 for 50% with HE. Without any sources whatsoever. One can assume that this is supposed to be a balancing change. The ZSU now not only costs as much to spawn as a heavy tank, but also enjoys a useless belt. And the Gepard is still running around with an unrealistic amount of APDS shells in its belts, with an extremely low SP cost. I guess the bad Germans who don't know how to play their Leopards win again. How is this supposed to be a realistic game if everything is handed out to the Germans? They already enjoy full sealclubbery at almost any BR. What's next? Giving the Falcon a 100% HE belt because they can kill a Leo from the sides?
  65. This bug report applies to all T-54s currently in-game. Т-54 обр. 1947 г., Т-54 обр. 1949 г. and Т-54 обр. 1951 г.. The current T-54s have a mix of unhistorical turret traverses. T-54-1947 was originally build with traverse device ЭПБ-1 which allowed a maximum traverse of 10°/sec. This is currently not reflected in the game, as it turns at 13°/sec. 13°/sec is a figure that comes along with maximum traverse when the commander takes control of the drive, according to several sources. This system was installed in drive ЭПБ-4 only. However, several different sources claim that the turret traverse for the 1949 and 1951 models should be 13°/sec. ЭПБ-4 was an upgraded drive that allowed the commander to take over control of the gunner when it was needed. T-54 обр. 1947 г (T-54-1) The T-54 обр. 1947 г. should have a 10°/sec turret traverse. There is no source that confirms the 13°/sec for the ЭПБ-1. Its drive was (according to my knowledge) never upgraded to ЭПБ-4, and if it was, it should share the exact same traverse speed with the other 2 T-54s in case these are stuck with ЭПБ-4. There is no way the T-54-1 can have a faster turret traverse than the other T-54s. РУКОВОДСТВО ПО МАТЕРИАЛЬНОЙ ЧАСТИ И ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ ТАНКА Т-54 , page 12 Т-54 обр. 1949 г. and Т-54 обр. 1951 г. (T-54-2 and T-54-3, also called T-54) Т-54 обр. 1949 г. and Т-54 обр. 1951 г. are mixed bags. Both tanks are equipped with the БМ8 APDS shell, which was supplied in 1966, and the 1951 carries the БК5 HEAT-FS was supplied in 1961. This sets both our current 1949 and 1951 model to 1966 standards according to the ammunition types available to them. Отечественные Бронированные Машины ХХ век Том 3 1946-1965 - 2010 page 258 One source claims that the Т-54 обр. 1949 г. was fitted with the ЭПБ-4 when it rolled out of the factories. Other sources claim ЭПБ-4 was retrofitted in 1951. Either way, it doesn't really matter giving the fact that our 2 T-54s are up to the 1966 standard. Given this date, ЭПБ-4 was fitted to all 1949 and 1951 models. More likely was that they already received a T-54B upgrade. Барятинский М.Б. - Т-54 и Т-55. Танк-солдат (Война и мы. Танковая коллекция) - 2015 page 18 https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.nl/2017/01/t-54.html?spref=tw subject: POWER TRAVERSE, STABILIZERS Possible modeling options for the Т-54 обр. 1949 and Т-54 обр. 1951 are: 1. Model both T-54s with ЭПБ-4 drives. Some sources claim that this drive could turn at 13°/sec. Other sources claim that it still turned at 10°/sec. If this drive is installed, then consideration to remove the HEAT-FS and APDS from both T-54s should be contemplated, as these shells weren't available at the dates this drive was used. http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/SuT5455/SuT5455119.htm online version of ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННЫЕ БРОНИРОВАННЫЕ МАШИНЫ 1945-1965 гг 2. Upgrade the both latter T-54's to 1966 standards. This includes a new СТП-2 "Циклон" 2-plane stabilizer which comes with a D10-T2 cannon. The same was installed on the T-55 and T-54B. Most T-54s were retrofitted with this mechanism. This would allow for a faster vertical speed and a 15°/sec traverse, as can be confirmed by T-55 manuals. This option would preserve the various shells and historical accuracy currently in the game. https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.nl/2017/01/t-54.html?spref=t subject D10T Sources ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННЫЕ БРОНИРОВАННЫЕ МАШИНЫ 1945-1965 гг, М.В. Павлов; И.В. Павлов. Т-54 и Т-55. Танк-солдат (Война и мы. Танковая коллекция), Барятинский М.Б. Отечественные Бронированные Машины ХХ век Том 3 1946-1965, Солянкин А.Г., Желтов И.Г., Кудряшов К.Н. Танк Т-54. Руководство по войсковому ремонту танков Т-54 и Т-54А. 1968 Танк Т-54. Методика определения технического состояния танка Т-54. 1959 http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/SuRuPzWg/SuRuPzWg084.htm http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/SuT5455/SuT5455119.htm https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.nl/2017/01/t-54.html?spref=tw Scans Files 2017_01_10_15_14_19__11828.clog DxDiag.txt Edited and amended for readability. KotA 21/02/2017 1204hrs
  66. I'm sick of it. If there's one feature in this game that seriously hampers gameplay, it would be the current visibility mechanic. Gaijin decided to "improve" the algorithm for visibility a while back. The server renders which tanks are in your FoV (field of view) and only sends data to the client of tanks that should be visible to you (according to the server). Gaijin has been doing this for a while, even before 1.65 dropped. Tanks would not render when they weren't visible for you. But since 1.65 they drastically changed the system and made it stricter. Not only do solid objects like houses, rocks or hills stop vehicles from rendering, trees can do it now as well. This makes up for really weird situations. People can be behind a single trunk and disappear, because the server deems the enemy "invisible" for you. The same thing happens at distance. You can notice this the best on big maps like Kursk and Mozdok. Due to a LoD (low object detail. Low polygon landscape in the distance for improving performance) of the landmesh (map) you should see an enemy, while the server thinks you shouln't. This creates the suddenly appearing and disappearing tanks. In the past you would see a tank reverse on the other side of Kursk, but not anymore. Now they just suddenly disappear, and reappear when they're back. Even when a tank is driving towards you on Kursk, he might suddenly disappear for no reason. You can check the system yourself by looking around a corner with 3rd person view where you should see an enemy. The enemy will remain invisible for a short moment, and then he'll suddenly appear. The "visibility check" needs some time to process what you shouldn't and should see; a process that consumes time which could possibly ruin your victory over your opponent. Gaijin even tried to implement a WoT-like system where visibility depended on your keen vision crew skill. This is a blatant slap in the face of the self-proclaimed "realistic tank game". Why did Gaijin implement this system? Cheaters. Gaijin thinks the only way to stop cheaters is to stop sending data of tanks you shouldn't be able to see. It's all nice and such, but the current system just doesn't work. Without a doubt the system hurts legit players more than it hurts actual cheaters. So what do I propose? At least revert the system as to how it was in for example 1.63. There weren't as many cases of randomly appearing vehicles as there are now. The current approach Gaijin is taking to defend the game from cheaters is not working, and I'm sure they're aware of it right now. Gaijin has been doing a very good job recently of tracking down cheaters by reports and any other possible systems. It's also very nice that players can now see on the site whether someone has been banned or not. But I think the current visibility system is really overdone and destroys any kind of long-range gameplay. Some examples:
  67. 1.67

    Q. Any news about the T-55? A. We plan to introduce the vehicle, we are working on it. So it's finally happening. I can't wait to club the living hell out of Leopards with this thing. Improved traverse, stabilization, more powerful engine, bore evacuator. The only con of it is the depression, as with all Russki stuff. Thoughts?