On Land and at Sea
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

1,446 Outstanding


About Results45

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Coast, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

17,220 profile views
  1. tanks/vehicles

    I say you go find the sekrit info on it and suggest it
  2. USSR heavies TOO STRONK for now, Pablo America and Britain need these to counter first:
  3. From the Tiers 3-5, the average improvement in reload speed for a maxed crew ranges from 1.5-2.5 seconds (4-7 sec. on the high end and for tanks with exceptionally longer reloads). So yeah the M60s and Type 74s ingame (both with stock reloads of 10.8 seconds) likely have a max rate of 8.3 seconds. Chieftain has more armor and slightly faster rate by 0.8 seconds while the Leopard has rice-paper protection, light tank-grade mobility, and a stock reload rate of 1.5 seconds faster. IMO technically, all MBTs with the L7A3 and readyracks could recieve a max reload of 6 seconds (ace crew required)
  4. Well IMO it should still have a 6-sec max reload in RB/SB/EC (for realism's sake).
  5. Still salty that none of these were passed-up: 24). Hide contents Documented Suggestions Latest Transfers: . .
  6. tanks/vehicles

    Better than Ironman armor slapped on tanks
  7. gameplay

    5-10 pages on average and anywhere from 50-5000 votes (5000 on the insane end).
  8. Kinda reminds me of this:
  9. 6 seconds flat......that's faster than the FlaK 88! Anybody if one can achieve that ingame with a maxed/ace crew?
  10. Space-bound ponies shooting pillows We tankers on the other hand get Davy Crocketts:
  11. Player tactics and team efficiency aside, I get what you mean
  12. Misc/Other

    I guess it's just a waiting game. It's kinda like that phase in life where you just wanna do what you wanna do when you want to do it and nobody can stop you from fulfilling your own wishes and dreams. And then the train hits you that you can only do so much and keep so much to yourself and you need the help of the wider community or the expertise of others in the field to look at your work with a fresh eye and point you in the right direction. Who knows? That time may come in 1 year, 5 years, or even 20 years :P But IMO they've already taken the first steps: they take suggestions, they heed volcanic community outcries, they integrated SHIELD and PS4 players (Xbox or mobile could be next), they relased their development kit to the public (however slightly stripped), and they welcome the addition of community-made vehicles, maps, and missions via competition or offer. So there is hope and the potential of the game doesn't look any less brighter. Some of the best WoT/WoWs mobile ripoffs: Armored Aces Armada: Modern Tanks WoT Blitz Wild Tanks World of Steel War Robots World War: Battleship Naval Frontline: Regina .
  13. That would be torture How do we get the devs to look at this thread?
  14. gameplay

    I like it!
  15. Well firstly, how are the French and Italian trees gonna be "smaller"? And second, yeah they use slightly enlarged AB map for RB and keep the double-sized maps for SB only On the MM/BR-spread/compression/boring objectives/spawncamping/powercreep side of things, there are solutions and I'm sure most of those issues will be addressed and/or solved eventually it's just that Gaijin has a vehicle-oriented development structure.
  16. Is it a user mission or a replay? If it's a replay file, you might want to might want to make a video using BandiCam or IceCream Recorder and show us that way.
  17. "Bring back old April Fool's stuff." ~BaronVonGamez Countdown: 5 days, 8 hours, 19 minutes, 41.3 seconds.
  18. MM affects the vehicle composition of a team, not necessarily team effectiveness/efficiency. For example Team #1 could have Tigers, Panthers, and Panzer IVs while Team #2 has IS-1s, T-34-85s, and Sherman 76Ws. Looking from a purely vehicle standpoint, the German team might seem slightly superior to the Allied team, but the German team could very well be spawn-camped and defeated if they don't flank, reach certain strategic positions on the map, spread-out/group together enough, stay aggressive and on the offensive, maintain a frontline, and cap/hold the majority of capture points. Of course same goes for the Allies, but in terms of MM, you get my point
  19. T-72 is still Gen 1.75 (as are a handful of other composites MBTs developed in the late '60s before the beasts of present-day came about). Question for everyone: would you rather have highly modernized non-composite MBTs (add-on ERA + composites , upgraded mobility, advanced optics/targeting/FCS, & higher ammo versatility) or entirely composite MBTs?
  20. Well we could have GAU-8 variant then
  21. Nice! Wish I could re-cast my vote :P
  22. Thanks (the list of transfers now totals 24). .
  23. Well the fact that GM's XM1 turret is what ultimately gave birth to the design of the production M1 Abrams turret (not M1E1 or M1A2) means we're getting too close to present-day here. Basically, it's kinda like saying that we can have the Object 219 (T-80), Object 188 (T-90), Leopard 2, Challenger 1, and other 21st Century MBT prototypes without actually getting into the production-model MBTs in-service right now in 2017.
  24. Well decompression can only happen if we have enough vehicles (either variants, next-gen, or highly modernized) and even then you're gonna have cracks between n.3 and n.7 BRs which may need an additional BR level* to alleviate whatever compression is left (say Panther IIs being uptiered to face Leopards, M60s and T-54s). Basically the extra BRs will serve as both spacing between individual vehicle models and prevention against uptiering. *n.5 BRs (---> further explanation <---)
  25. Yeah the Taiwan-Chinese and Extended British tech trees. Listed them all in the spoiler (6 posts above^^).
  26. 0.7 BR-spread had better by passed-up. *fingers crossed*
  27. Hence make it harder for the enemy to know where the team is spawning from, having potent AI units protecting the spawn as decoys, and regularly shifting points so that they can't rely on camping or guarding a single area of the map. Exclusion/countdown SP zones ---> enemy can still camp just outside and ambush Server decides whether shots that make-it into SPs count ---> not realistic Increase invulnerability period (say 45 seconds) ---> only solves the issue for current game modes/mission types making behind-the-spawn areas off-limits ---> "encircling the enemy" is an actual battle tactic Integrating the HUD minimap mechanic that keeps all enemies in the spawn-zone marked ---> only viable for AB (automatic "enemy near base" voice command is a better alternative) Top 2 unimplemented solutions (SP that become available later in a match already a part of AB/RB mechanics): .
  28. What's "Documented Suggestions"? Well it means that either the thread is too old and is no longer discussed (not the case with most of the recent additions) or that it's in limbo waiting to be decided whether to be left alone or sent to the developers. There's still hope, guys.
  29. Mike's unofficial patch notes: I especially liked this one (though I wish they would just combine the two areas and increase team sizes): .
  30. Tanks/Vehicles

    More Specs (source here):
  31. Here's just the spec sheets from that book (T95 series, MBT-70, XM803, XM1, M1, M1E1, and M1A1):
  32. The ammo pen screenshots from the Chinese Client/Server weren't included in the OP.
  33. Can you add a "International Tank Tree" option for Question #2? And also I'm pretty sure this has already been suggested in the other Chinese tanks suggestion
  34. Tanks/Vehicles

    FYI, T57 (120mm variant) and T58 (155mm variant) are both heavies.
  35. Tanks/Vehicles

    Yeah T42, T54, T69, and T95 are all mediums
  36. tanks/vehicles

    IMHO in addition to the 300mm HEAT ammo currently ingame, the Type 60 could get M344A1 400mm HEAT-T (1500m @ 90 degrees): - M40.html BR 7.3 maybe?
  37. Well the A2 does have the same ammo as the Sheridan as well as 40mm more on the turret frontal. IMHO the M60AX is basically the American-made T-64 (once all non-composite tanks and 0.7 BR-spread are added).
  38. Chieftain Mk.10, Vickers Valiant Mk.4, T-64A/AM/B/BM & T-72A/B/BM would be pretty on par with the MBT-70/XM803 that came before the XM1.
  39. Tanks/Vehicles

    Another helpful document:
  40. Ground vehicles

    So why do you guys think this should come after the ZSU-23-4 Shilka?
  41. M60A1 with fixed mantlet, M60AX, or M60A2 fit your bill?
  42. An then this gets suggested (not that I'm opposed to it):
  43. Misc/Other

    IMO Vulkan 1.0 could actually bring War Thunder to phones (maybe by v2.0 in 2020): And maybe Vulkan could also optimize and provide better support for AMD card users as well (includes GPUs found in PS4 & Xbox) : .
  44. Nice idea. IMO "invisible", heavily-defended bases (like airfields), or shifting/moving spawn areas would also work as well
  45. Any of these in general (especially the higher-penning ones): And here's estimated values for 120mm ammo:
  46. AFAIK, the highest penning 105mm L7 APFSDS ammo goes through around 550mm, which is probably why they upgraded to a 120mm gun to fire shells capable of punching through 750-900mm RHAe.
  47. Well the highest pen ammo I can see being in game to combat T-72Bs and Kpz-70s is 120/125mm APFSDS-T penning 650mm at 1000m and even that is probably at least semi-classified (visual/demonstrated/estimated penetration values, shell kinetics, dimensions, components, etc.)
  48. Well with maxed crew it's possible to have up to 2s faster max reload speed.......
  49. Add a BR 11.0/12.0 option to the poll and I'll say yes (aka Tier 6) Better alternatives: FV4211 Aluminum Chieftain/Vickers Valiant Mk.4: XM803 (modified MBT-70; led to XM1) AMX-32/40: Much of the reputable and official info on XM1/M1 development, armor, and ammo penetration is still classified. If nothing else, can't wait to see the release of Modern Thunder in 2025
  50. tanks/vehicles

    Well the 130mm M65 gun could pen 280mm at 90 degrees at 1000m.
  51. tanks/vehicles

    Well anyway it's BR 6.0 material (and SU-100M after the ISU-122-54 at 8.0).
  52. 因为现在没有国际坦克树和中国的车辆不足以填满整棵树 "Because there aren't enough Chinese vehicles to fill an entire tree and the International Tank Tree is still a few years out."
  53. tanks/vehicles

    Yes, but that's APDS and/or APBC, not HEATFS.
  54. HEAT-T HEAP HEP-T APERS HE Sources: - M40.html
  55. Yeah and supposedly stronk M60 mantlet goes *kaput* April Fool's maybe?
  56. tanks/vehicles

    Up until the 70s, I don't think the Soviets ever had a 152mm SPG/TD firing HEAT-FS shells. And AFAIK, they only developed such ammo for 76, 85, 100, 115, 122, and 125mm cannons (maybe 130mm but I'm not sure).
  57. tanks/vehicles

    IF we or Gaijin can find reputable information.
  58. tanks/vehicles

    It's gun is similar to the one found on the ISU-152 so yeah, it will probably have 75mm HE and 250mm HEAT. .
  59. Uh.....Google "World Equipment Guide 2001"? And this (specs on T95E1/E2/E3, MBT-70, and XM803):
  60. And this stuff (Also from US FM 100-65): 1. A neat tool I found online: the Relative Armor Angle Effectiveness Calculator (LoS Calc.): 2. US field manual (FM 100-65) disclosing penetration values of ammo mainly for Soviet & international origin (majority of disclosed values for HVAP (APCR), APDS, HEAT, HEAT-FS, and APFSDS): Anti-aircraft: ZSU-57-2 --- page 273 ZSU-23-2 --- page 269 Flakpanzer Gepard --- page 270 [all nations] Upgraded and/or modernized (for reference, not in-game): T-64B --- page 150 to 151 T-72B --- page 152 to 153 US: M36 --- page 170 M60A1/A3 --- page 142 to 143 M40 106mm recoilless rifle --- page 60 Russia: PT-76B --- page 130 BMD-1 --- page 89 to 90 BMP-1/1P --- page 94 to 96 BRM-1/1K --- page 114 T-34-85 --- pages 144 to 145 T-55AMV --- page 146 to 147 T-62M --- pages 148 to 149 China/France/Germany: Type 59-II --- page 85 to 86 AMX-10RC --- page 111 AMX-13 --- page 124 AMX-30 --- page 132 to 133 Leopard 1A1 --- page 138 to 139
  61. Well Gaijin being the developer (Tencent the publisher) means that they have game-ready models of the Type 59, 63, and 65 that could be added anytime now. And IMO China is our best bet for 8.0 and higher
  62. tanks/vehicles

    Well info on APFSDS is an issue and finding values for composite armor (if still classified) is also an issue. Furthermore, Japan and Italy don't have any mid-Cold War MBT designs and would be left in the dust from BR 9.0-10.0 If any of those hurdles can be tackled, then 2nd Gen composite MBTs can be a part of the game.
  63. From the Chinese client: Type 63 (PT-85*): Type 65: Type 59 (Chinese-built T-54): T-54 from the regular client: Type 62 from the regular client: Type 62 from the Chinese client: *ASU-85 gun + PT-76 hull/chassis
  64. tanks/vehicles

  65. Found more stuff to show from the Chinese client: Type 63 (PT-85*): Type 65: Type 59 (Chinese-built T-54): T-54 from the regular client: Type 62 from the regular client: Type 62 from the Chinese client: *ASU-85 gun + PT-76 hull/chassis
  66. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Britian: Hunter F.6 Scimitar Swift Gnat Japan: F-104 Starfighter (if we ever get into Mach 1.5+ aircraft) Germany: CL-13 Mk.6 G. 91R/Y Russia: MiG-17F Su-7 La-190 Italy: G.91R/Y France: Mystere IV/IVA/IVN Entendard IV/IVB/IVM Super Entendard International: HF-24 Marut (India) A-32A/J-32B Lansen (Sweeden) CL-13 (Canada) Avon Sabre (Australia) Unfortunately, I think Japan's pretty much in the moot for BR 8.7-10.0 vehicles (fighters and MBTs). :P
  67. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Well they added ATGMs (or any missiles) when nobody though they ever would.....
  68. Aircraft/Loadouts

    That's why we need this: Or this:
  69. If RB tanks gets pre-modern FCS BR 8.3 onwards*, then I'd also like to see arcade-style radar aides for SPAAGs tracking jets above 1,500 meters *with +/-0.7 BR-spread in effect
  70. Finalized Suggestion:



    Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb

    By MarkNash On January 29, 2017 · 6 Comments

    Nazi germany Nazi Germany (1944)
    Prototype – 1 built

    In 1943, an alternative drive system for the Panzer IV entered development. This was the Hydrostatischem Antrieb or Hydrostatic Drive, also known as the “Thoma” drive.

    It was designed and produced in the Augsburg plant of ZF Friedrichshafe, and was tested on a turret-less Panzer IV Ausf. G chassis that had been badly damaged during combat operations.


    Pz IV Hydro 2

    Surviving Panzerkampfwagen IV mit Hydrostatischen Antrieb in the US. Note the now sloped engine deck, and the smaller rear drive wheels. (Source:-

    The Thoma system operates in a similar way to the petrol/electric drive system produced by Porsche for his Tiger I concept vehicle that would later become the Ferdinand/Elefant. This system was a lot safer, however, as it was a petrol/hydraulic system. This gave the benefits of the Porsche system without the fire risk that plagued it so badly.


    The Hydrostatic Drive system outside of the vehicle. Photo: – Spielberger Publishing


    The Panzer IV chassis underwent heavy modification to be able to mount this new drive system. The engine compartment of the tank was almost completely removed and rebuilt. The drive was placed in the rear of the tank under a large sloping engine deck. Two oil pumps were installed behind, and connected directly to the normal Maybach HL 120 TRM engine. These powered two hydraulic motors. A swash plate drive sent the power through a reduction gear into the newly added rear drive wheels, which replaced the traditional idler wheel.



    The new controls added to the Panzer, note the new control “wheel” and the many new dials. Photo: – Spielberger Publishing

    Inside the crew compartment, the old drive shafts were removed along with the large gearbox and final drive assembly at the bow end of the vehicle. The traditional steering tillers were replaced with a crescent-like wheel, similar to the one found on Tiger I. Directional movement was achieved by two control cylinders. These cylinders regulated the volume of the oil inside the pump. This governed the amount of power the drive wheels would receive. Two large 780mm adjustable toothed idlers replaced the original Panzer IV drive sprockets.


    Later in 1944, the vehicle was tested with a hydraulically powered turret. Unfortunately, more information on this modification is unavailable.


    Tanks Encyclopedia’s own rendition of the Panzer IV with Hydrostatic Drive, by Jarosław Janas.



    Only one prototype of the vehicle with this drive system was built by the time the Allies were knocking on Germany’s door. In April 1945, the US 3rd Infantry Division was advancing through southern Germany and into Bavaria. They broke into Augsburg on the 27th and had the whole city secured by the 28th. With the city, they captured the Zahnradfabrik plant, and the test vehicle.

    The Turretless hull of the Panzer in the Zahnradfabrik plant. Photo: – Spielberger Publishing

    After the war, the vehicle was shipped back to the United States, where it was subjected to thorough tests by Vickers Inc. Detroit, Michigan until at least 12th April 1946, when a report stating how the drive worked was drafted:


    “The power train consisted of two staggered-plate oils pumps that are assembled as a unit and are driven by a 12-cylinder Maybach engine. Oil is pushed by the pumps to two separate oils engines which power the drive wheels of the tracks. The oil engines are attached to the final drive housings. The engine and power aggregate are located in the rear of the vehicle, and the vehicle is moved by rear mounted drive wheels. The volume of the pumps is controlled by the driver, who thereby controls the torque of the various pressure conditions that are created by the steering and stopping of the vehicle. In the same manner, the forward and backward movement of the vehicle is achieved by directing oil flow. Pressurized oil to activate the pumps and engines and for the high-pressure connections was advanced by a geared-wheel pump that was connected to the vehicle’s engine by direct drive.”


    Unfortunately the german test data has been lost to history. The vehicle was left in the open, exposed to the elements, at the U.S Army Ordnance Proving Grounds, Aberdeen in Maryland. In 2015 it was moved to the U.S. Army Center for Military History Storage Facility, Anniston, AL, USA. Where it is has the officially long-winded designation of “Tank, Medium, Full Track, Experimental Transmission, German Army, Steel, Tan, PzKpfw IV, 75mm Gun, German, 1945, World War II”.


    This Pz.Kpfw IV mit hydrostatischen antrieb is now in storage in the U.S. Army Center for Military History Storage Facility, Anniston, AL, USA. (Photo – Masa Narita)

    An article by Mark Nash

    Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb

    Dimensions 5.41 x 2.88 x 2.68 m (17.7×9.4×8.8 ft)
    Total weight, battle ready 25 tons
    Crew 5
    Armament Rheinmetall 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 40
    2-3 MG 34/MG 42 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine-guns
    Armor From 15 to 65 mm (0.59-2.56 in)
    Propulsion Maybach V12 gasoline HL 120 TRM
    (220 kW) 300 bhp@2500 rpm
    Suspension Leaf springs
    Speed on /off road 42 km/h (26 mph)
    Total production 1

    Links & Resources



    Panzerkampfwagen IV mit hydrostatischen Antrieb.

    Sonderausführung des PzKpfw IV.

    In late 1943, Zahnradfabrik Augsburg equipped normal (turretless) Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf G/Hwith newly developed hydraulic steering system. Thoma (non-liquid) oil drive transmission was installed and drive sprocket was replaced with the new one. The power train consisted of twin oil pumps driven by Maybach HL 120 TRM engine. In order to accommodate all the changes, entire engine deck and rear was modified. In mid 1944, this prototype was fitted with modified hydraulically operated turret. Tests were carried on but were never concluded and for testing purposes the only prototype was send to Russia and served with the Waffen SS unit. At the end of the war, this vehicle was captured by the US Army and was sent to United States for further examination. Tests were never concluded and this vehicle is still at Aberdeen U.S Army Proving Grounds in Maryland.

    Sonderausführung des PzKpfw IV.
    Sonderausführung des PzKpfw IV.

    Panzerkampfwagen IV mit hydrostatischen Antrieb at Aberdeen. 
    Photo provided by Alec Corapinski.


    Additional Images:












    Hope you like it! ;)

  71. Yeah I agree. Auyer & Buda M60 gun mantlet source conspiracy: +/-0.7 MMBR-spread: Spawn-camping issues, ideas, & solutions: Improvement of teamplay mechanics: GF map design (size, scale, & detail): Air, land, and sea integration: In-game bug reporting and better organization of suggestions: Permanent integration of more realistic sounds (rather than just a mod): Reducing the grind in Tiers 4 & 5 (aka lower RP percentage-rate increase in between vehicles): suggestion in the works
  72. gameplay

    Well with ECRB, you can grind-out half or even most of a Tier 3/4 plane in a 6-hour match. Air Assault PvE in comparison is just for kicks (and adrenaline rush).
  73. Did anybody mention that the M60A1 RISE has a 950hp AVDS-1790-2G RISE instead of the non-RISE 750hp engine? Oh and IMO if the devs decide to add "modernized" MBTs instead of composite, then the RISE could probably counter the Type 88A, T-62MV and AMX-30B2 BRENUS.
  74. "ERA - will introduce only if all nations gets it "
  75. gameplay

    Well you can already bring attackers and heavy fighters into the current "Air Assault" PvE mode. Maybe a bomber/attacker sub-mode where you have to straif or bomb SPAA/tank columns or defend against assaulting AI fighters?
  76. Added Germany, Japan, France, and The Netherlands to the list (see 5 posts above^^).
  77. Oh, thanks.
  78. Yeah there's a handful of options: MDR-4/MTB-1: MTB-2: Be-4: Be-6: MDR-5: MDR-6: R-1 (development led to Be-10): Be-10: Flying boats for other nations: So what's the one shown in your picture?
  79. Well all the aircraft listed on the release trees were supposedly for the stock tree and yet they released the MBR-2 floatplane as a prize plane instead of placing it in the main tree at BR 1.3. So I guess you could say that the Soviet aircraft tree is missing a non-prize floatplane. Plus there's the DB-3 that could be released as something like a premium IL-4 or a bomber that precedes it in the main tree as well as things like the MiG-17 that were never promised, but we're added anyway.
  80. APRIL FOOLS 2017 COUNTDOWN (GMT): 12 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes, and 43.8 seconds
  81. We already have "dead" camo for the Japanese tanks, so why not stone-wall for the Brits?
  82. Tanks/Vehicles

    Here's the T42 if anybody was wondering:
  83. tanks/vehicles

    Yes T54E2 was built, but the T96E6 most closely resembled the T110E5 and even that was a wooden mockup: T110E5: A wooden mockup and technical diagrams were made of this version as well. T95E6:
  84. Now if only crew reinforcements were airdropped from bombers or ferried-in by armored cars and APCs......
  85. Meet the Fire Hedgehog: the Soviet gunship that rains down 200 bullets per second
  86. Being composite, the Super Patton would only make sense if things like the T-64 and Leo 1A6/Kpz-Keiler are to be added as well. And we haven't even gotten mid-70s MBT variants and APFSDS yet. Yeah US needs a dedicated SPG line not to mention a missing 2nd bomber-attacker line. But anyway I think IRL the Soviets actually did have more prototypes or "objects" than the US during the Cold War. You know how the T95 had 8 or more different unique variants each with a different turret or gun? Well the Russians did that with every medium and heavy tank platform they had. There were tank destroyers and gun-launched ATGMs based on the IS series chassis, hybrid-model MBTs, 6 late-war TD prototypes, 30+ rocket/ATGM prototypes, and 8 heavy tank prototypes. (Almost) complete list of Soviet "objects":
  87. T95 is the ultimate choice IMO as it incorporated the M48 turret, the to-be M60 silicious-core hull, and the T54 turret: Right. The T54 was meant to replace the M48 and later was superceded by the T95 which eventually led to the M60. So how it a proper counter against the T-64? Edit: IMO the T95E6 with a 120mm T123 gun firing the same HEAT-FS rounds as the M103 would make for a better counter.
  88. AFAIK, yes there's already a suggestion for the M60A2 and only Hunnicutt's article on the M60AX.
  89. tanks/vehicles

    Stalinium goes pfffffft Yuuusssss
  90. tanks/vehicles

    It was designed concurrently with the M103 (T43) as the "perfect alternative", but the M103 was built and production-ready first so the US Army went with that instead. The T57 & T58 were actually built and would be what comes after the M103A2 (T110 should be added too if Russia gets the Obj. 279).
  91. Well for all intents and purposes, the game doesn't deserve them right now (and probably not for the next year or more) and armor mechanics (3D pen models/composite material properties) need an entire rework to make it even possible. You got any other reasons?
  92. tanks/vehicles

    Well the IS-7 (and RU tanks all the way up to Obj. 279) would be placed at BR 8.7 or higher where HEAT-FS from MBTs and ATGMs can pen it anywhere (including the front). Hopefully for us Americans, we'll get our T58s and spam some glorious 155mm HEAT-T at it. And by spam, I mean 6 autoloaded shells fired every 5 seconds
  93. I used the "most replies" filter and look at any suggestion that had a reply since January with 5 pages or more. Then I organized them in Top 10 list.
  94. If difficulty getting reputable information and/or basing penetration values on estimated numbers is what inhibits APFSDS from being added into the game, then what's the point of having 2nd Gen composite tanks if their armor can barely be penetrated?
  95. Look in the spoilers
  96. Ever wondered what suggestions are the best to support? Well here they are below: Moderated Suggestions: M4 Skink AA Tank Folland Gnat FV415b [Stage II] Tank Destroyer - A Cold War Behemoth Soviet Heavy Tank: Object 277/278 155mm T30 Heavy Tank Ammunition Object 934 Reduce 105 Tiger II reload time Atomic 90mm Gun Tank TV-8 by Chrysler AKA "The Pod Tank" German B-17G and German B-24 Premiums Cheiftain Mk. 10 - Top British MBT (BR 10.0) Further Discussion: Lower the BR MM Spread from 1.0 to 0.7 Italian-Hungarian Ground Units Suggestion France - Organization of Air and Ground Forces tree Plane's maps for tanks? Experimentaleintwicklung Kampfpanzer Keiler (leo 2 EARLY, EARLY prototype) Geschutzwagen Tiger Feasible way to add T5 premiums Flakpanzer V "Super Coelian" - The German ZSU-57 Junkers EF-132 Heavy Jet Bomber Panzerkampfwagen VII Schwerer Lowe as German 7.3 heavy note: rankings based on number/recency of posts (feedback given), poll votes, topic upvotes, and the idea presented by the original poster.
  97. Alternates for US & UK: M60AX Super Patton & XM803/805 - USA Chieftain Mk.11, Valiant Mk.4, & FV4211 - UK
  98. Or the XM803/805 (American modified MBT-70 after breakup with Germany): P.S. really wishing Type 74G was composite right now.
  99. Maybe use Google Translate go mine the Russian dev Q&A forum threads for undiscovered answers?
  100. Fair enough. But then that begs the question: why haven't tanks started spawning from "home bases" in 64-player RB matches on maps twice as large as those in AB (like 8x8km or 6x12km)? Also, will ECRB planes ever become a permanent game mode or begin testing tanks ECRB with the JiP matchmaker constantly filling AI spots with real players? I ask (the 2nd question) because I had a 6-hour match where my team started out with 10 players and 6 bots and ended with me and a fellow teammate outnumbered against 5 enemy players and 11 invincible German boom-n-zoom bot fighter.
  101. If it's about the gameplay, then why not improve "convoy mode" by making one team escort the ships from sea to shore through the mini-islands while the opposing team goes on the offensive and tries to assault the convoy? Example: Or how about having the sea-based team's planes spawn from a carrier while the land-based team spawns from an air base onshore while boat teams on the water battle over "heal zones" rather than cap points that when captured is a place were team members can go to rapid reload & repair? And would it be possible to add a balancing mechanic in Arcade similar to "behemoths" in BF1 where the loosing team gets to take control of a 300-foot corvette or frigate? All these things would make for much more fun (and fair) naval matches and I don't see much of a reason to keep on introducing new content that is only used in cap-and-destroy based gameplay.
  102. tanks/vehicles

    How well do you guys think this would do against the IS-7, AMX-50/T.C.B. 120, and WZ-111?
  103. Now add autoloading T57, T58, and T110 and we're in business.
  104. 2017 wish list

    May the force be with the snail
  105. Looks like a hybrid between Scandinavia (2nd half of images), Jungle, and Pacific Hidden Base:
  106. Pen for that? I mean to work directly with the community and for the sake of the game itself (not just at an arm's length via the admins and tech mods).
  107. Or just give Britain the Chieftain Mk.10, Germany the Leo 1A6 and Kpz-Keiler* and US the M60AX Super Patton** IMO the MBT/Kpz-70 is a more appropriate counter against the T-72B and FV4211 Aluminum Chieftain. *thin armor, RU-251 mobility, 500-650mm APFSDS-T **2nd Gen composite armor, 460mm APFSDS-T, based on the M60A2
  108. If they plan that far ahead (say addition of 10 maps, 200 vehicles, and 2 new battle modes each year), then why don't they work with modders and challenge the community to help them create maps, match objectives, and vehicle models? T30 and autoloading T58 could get T267 HEATFS (US heavies didn't carry APFSDS):
  109. Well FV4005 Stage II with a lower profile more armor was the FV215b: AFAIK M103 ammo still needs fixing.
  110. How can they release WWM (aka combined forces EC in campaign organization) without making ECRB planes, ships, and tanks a permanent gamemode first to build off of?
  111. I would think most likely next year (2018) as they seem to be making a big push on naval vessels, imperial tanks, and other game mechanics (i.e. BR reshifting, improving Sim mode, aircraft interiors, fixing vehicle performance/damage models, etc.). 2019 and 2020 we might see French trees, International trees, and maybe even WW Mode.
  112. Japan hasn't even received half its tanks yet so IMO it might be best to release it later this year
  113. And this (start watching from 13:30) .
  114. It's what your get sometimes when you copy&paste from websites like this: Anybody excited for the DB-A? 
  115. "We have plans for a SPAAG based on the BTR-152, but I don’t think it will be at such a high BR." BTR-40/152 ZPU-2, ZPU-4, & ZSU-23-2: Other sources suggest the BTR-152A also had quad mounted 12.7x108mm DShK’s behind the Goryunov. Another variant, the BTR-152D, was allegedly the one that mounted the ZPU-2’s. When Russian sources are consulted this was revealed to be the BTR-152E. Confusing? Blame the conflicting uncorrected “facts” of neglected open sources. Judging by the image above it appears the BTR-152A/D/E was developed into a complete system. Take note of the P-12 mobile radar array in the background. Did it serve to relay targeting information to the BTR-152? Or was the BTR deployed as a mobile escort to protect the P-12? What are those levers stuck on the wheels? (This was the external tire deflation system.) The configuration of the BTR-152A/D/E is also interesting. The ZPU-2 is fixed behind the cab and seats a gunner. The remaining space at the rear of the vehicle is for the spotter…who stands gazing at the sky with his binoculars. Here’s another grainy picture of the BTR-152 A/D from behind. It appears the ZPU-2 was installed on a retrofitted ring mount whose exact designation has been lost to history. It appears eight (yes, EIGHT) people can fit in a BTR-152 even with a 14.5mm ZPU-2 installed. Wow! The photo above is of a BTR-152A/D in Hungary. Come to think of it, the superb elevation of the ZPU-2 made it quite useful in suppressing hostiles taking pot shots from windows during urban combat. But a well-aimed Molotov cocktail can still completely crisp the BTR-152’s exposed interior. The Soviets later developed an anti-aircraft BTR-152 that could mount a ZPU-4 in a different setup. Given how the armor of the BTR-152 enclosed the entire vehicle, the ZPU was reconfigured to have two KPV’s above the cab and two KPV’s behind them whose elevation could be raised. Peculiar but sensible. The same from another angle: Since the BTR-152 was a vehicle of the 1950s whose production ceased soon after the Soviets never developed the platform to remain in step with advancing technology. It turns out it was the client states and customers left with stocks of the BTR-152 who kept installing larger and larger weapons. It was the storm and stress of the Palestinian struggle against Israel that brought the BTR-152 to its lethal apogee. During the 1970s the PLO were able to mount a ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun on a BTR-152. The result was impressive in light of all the crappy Hilux technicals roving Third World war zones today. Keep in mind the original BTR-152 weighed a little over 8 tons. The ZU-23-2 added 9,500 kilograms. Throw in a driver, gunner, and loader and the BTR-152 is now very encumbered. Ergo this modification hampered the vehicle’s mobility.
  116. Two T-10Ms vs. a single twin-recoiless Type 60....... Type 60 got the best of em'
  117. EC mode combining 32 vs. 32 air and 32 vs. 32 ground and then ships, ships, and MORE SHIPS!
  118. Whole suggestion dedicated to indirect artillery gameplay mechanics:
  119. Actually kinda surprised that they are considering for it to be a premium vehicle or tournament prize given similarly OP options like Object 770, 277, and 278. Plus these three: Object 266, 752, and 777
  120. Thought I might bring this up again: CONFIRMED: Ammo racks will show empty space when ammo gets used(because sometimes shots to ammo racks that appear full don't explode) MASSIVE BR CHANGES NEXT WEEK(wait news in next few days) HE shell damage changes happened because there were times it took more shots than to kill a tank T32 will have BR changes Jumbo - BR changes and possible DM changes Italian tree confirmed Japan - more CAS planes in next patches, working on rocket bombs Thinkin' about it...... Looking to improve post pen damage for large caliber guns (especially for slow reloading) IS-7 still maybe Spawn killing - moving spawn location not very likely as it requires map changes. They have some other ideas that they are working on but would not elaborate on that BT-42, BT-7A - interesting tanks that they might consider introducing They have planed vehicle list for 1 year ahead BMP, BMD - very probable Navy - soon new test with ships that have powerful guns Smoke - thinking how to introduce them (probably as smoke grenades shot from main gun) ERA - will introduce only if all nations gets it Nope! (for now): Chinese tank tree - no comments, currently only for china server, maybe few interesting tanks will be implemented on warthunder servers MIG-21 & F-100 nope No air-air rockets because whoever gets on tail first wins T-64 still possible but not now World war - no real information, wait for new some time
  121. Where did you find that information?
  122. Hell yes it can (50 vs. 50 teams). Arma III: Days of War: Squad: Dev confirmation of 50, 70, and 100-player servers: Server list:
  123. Or 100-player combined sim
  124. Ground vehicles

    Now for some live fire: .
  125. What we actually need is "Tactical Sim Mode" (rated PEGI 16+) with life-sized battlefields (10-20 x 10-20km), multiplayer vehicles (2 or more), MM pickup squads, mandatory voicechat/text-to-voice chat translation, limited roles/classes, team command structure/resource management, and tournament-style campaigns with battles lasting 6-12 hours* in length. *no AI to fill player spots; Join-in-Progress MM mechanic fills teams and squads with new players as old players leave the battlefield.
  126. What do you guys think of this stuff?


    My view on adding more vehicles vs. focusing development on gameplay:



    1 hour ago, Choogleblitz said:

    60's composite tank talk?

    NATO fans defaulting to mid-80's tanks?


    Nothing new here.


    Poor MBT/KPz-70. One day they'll recognize how god damn powerful you are. There should be a 100% enforced rule on the forum that no one should be allowed to suggest things with guessed armour or penetration values. Leopard 2AV and Keiler suggestions would be RIP'ed immediately, and rightfully so because it's nothing more than a factless gib fest. 


    Enjoy your mid-80's stabilization next patch and quit suggesting things you don't have facts to back up. 


    Composite tanks or no composite tanks, lack of meaningful gameplay is the real issue right now.  Like yeah me having a 100 km/h tank with 900mm APFSDS and rice-paper armor against your Kryptonium-reinforced Stalinum armored tank with self-guided HEATFS shells is awesome and all, but what's the point of having all this ingame if all you do in "battles" are point, click, shoot, cap, camp, hunt, and all over again and again?


    Armor serves to protect the tank and it's crew as the systems and components that comprise a tank work together to make a deadly mobile fighting machine.


    And tanks are only one piece in a complex puzzle of strategic tactical operations called war, and war happens because of social-political events throughout human history.


    Basically what I'm saying here is that the variety of tanks we've got in game (and whatever is to be added all the way up to 10.0) is already more than enough to relive whole historical and alternate-historical battles in their most intense moments and what we need is not necessarily more or "better" tanks, but the maps, the gameplay structure, and the devoted players to make it a reality.



    And balanced realistic indirect artillery gameplay:



    Finally found some demonstration gameplay (BVR arty as specified):

    As opposed to this (which is just plain cheap):

      Reveal hidden contents


    Battlefield 1 indirect artillery (using only the map to aim):





  127. same as Type 60 (or higher if mounted with ATGMs).
  128. Battlefield 1 indirect artillery (using only the map to aim):
  129. 0.7 MMBR-spread was first suggested like.....almost 2 years ago? Honestly, player numbers isn't the problem here (besides maybe in Sim mode).
  130. Definitely not dynamic or fair enough, but those other games are based around HP-bars and abilities so they're irrelevant.
  131. The only catalog you'll ever need for finding books about military vehicles:

  132. tanks/vehicles

    Here's one for China (or the International Tree): WZ141:
  133. Stuff to counter the IS-4M/T-10M, Chieftain, T-62/64/72, and Type 60 SPRG: WZ-111: WZ-122 WZ1224: WZ1226: WZ141: Sources: