Sirchby

Member
  • Content count

    3,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

Sirchby last won the day on February 25

Sirchby had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,361 Outstanding

4 Followers

About Sirchby

  • Rank
    BravoBigBooms Was Here
  • Birthday April 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    アジア
  • Interests
    The Impenetrable T32E1

Recent Profile Visitors

3,548 profile views
  1. It participated in the infamous Battle of the Bulge.
  2. Tanks affected T25 Bug Missing 1-plane vertical gun stabilizer Bug description The T25 in game right now is based from the T25 Pilot 1 & Pilot 2. These tanks were experimented with a 1-plane vertical gun stabilizer for the 90 mm T7 gun from 1944 to 1945. Firing tests have indicated that the 90 mm gun can be stabilized with the same degree of accuracy as the 75 & 76 mm guns. Bug fix Provide the missing 1-plane vertical gun stabilizer for the T25 medium tank Source: RAC Situation Report
  3. For one, Tiger II (H) has rolled homogeneous front turret plate. For another, why do we talk about the King Tiger in a T29 thread?
  4. Do not be personal, huh? You might need to check your Google Translate better. Let me get my simplest sentences in english: 1. M46 Patton HAS HEAT-FS IN REAL LIFE. You CANNOT CHANGE WHAT HAS ALREADY EXISTED IN REAL LIFE. 2. The reason for the change from HEAT to HEAT-FS is purely because of BUG REPORTS. It already existed way before the IS-6 comes 3. T-44-100 & Panther II do NOT have HEAT-FS in any shape or size. I suggest you MUST STUDY about both tanks first before you can simply ask for HEAT-FS if these tanks has HEAT-FS. 4. US and UK tanks did not ask. They DEMAND for HISTORICAL RELEVANCY OF PERFORMANCE. That means the HEAT is a BUG and MUST BE FIXED as HEAT-FS with increased penetration. 5. This change has NOTHING to do in PERSONAL with the losing of German and Russian tanks. Only Battle Rating does
  5. >M46 has realistic HEAT-FS >Proceed to give T-44-100 & Panther II HEAT-FS >Removing the HEAT-FS out of the M46 Are you dumb or something.
  6. Well, I can put the M26A1 in, but I don't know as where to place it yet... Still working on 10.0 BR range.
  7. Spaghetti tank soon.
  8. And there is this,
  9. That bulge thingy is at average 162 mm thick realistically.
  10. No, that would be unnecessary (& strictly just another M103 with all-around inferior stats) for just slightly lower BR.
  11. Well, you're indeed right to ask someone in rank, & not someone else.
  12. It is. M22 Locust, please.
  13. Tanks affected T29 T34 Bug Wrong stats card information of the side turret armor Bug description The thickness of side turret armor from stats card is not changed yet after the recent bug fix on the T29/T34 turret armor. T29: T34: Bug Fix Change the turret armor from the stats card: 203 / 127 / 102 ---> 203 / 158 / 102 mm
  14. What some ugly fat ducks.
  15. Hell no to L7 at 6.7. It's just insane. As every other post-WWII guns.
  16. That's not an april fools. That's frontal humiliation.
  17. Now you've unveiled the truth why the T95 is on different footing than the Jagdtiger at 6.7 I'd like to add that with fixed performance of the US WWII tanks, they can stand on their own even against German WWII tanks without the aid of CW tanks. Just to remind, though: T29, T34, & T95 are WWII designed tanks. All of their modules, facilities, & equipment are built in WWII.
  18. What in the name of rocket science is this.
  19. ground vehicles

    I forgot this thread existed. Micro features like this would be very convenient for those who are very touchy with tank micro control management.
  20. The one that has significant difference compared to other planes, but is not available yet: Yes, it's the F4U-4C.
  21. The sole reason of the team kill removal is the presence of M56 Scorpion in the game. It's immediately removed shortly after that tank destroyer comes in, because of frequent rascals shooting MG at the unarmored airborne gun carrier.
  22. This is actually quite catchy. A lot of American tanks, while having wet ammo rack, also have "armored rack", up to 25.4 mm thick. 8/10 would not blow up a random T29 with APHE explosion through lower plate.
  23. f-84g

    This time, it's airborne. And in the enemy team.
  24. f-84g

    Reminds me to something about a thing that spew a container of nothing but rockets,
  25. f-84g

    What the... 24x HVAR + 2x Tiny Tims? Even the American one doesn't have that amount of firepower.
  26. Wow, that is so small. You can bug report it too.
  27. Couldn't think of any.
  28. You know that it's not.
  29. Double the cannons is always better
  30. How bad is their net coding compared to most games nowadays (particularly with the well-known BF4 with its net code issue)?
  31. Borrowing Unreal Engine 4 would be spectacular. Just think about WT but with more sharp details in every places.
  32. But it still bounces. I mean, unless you have slight height advantage over the T-44, you will surely bounce an over 60° plate.
  33. You can use tape measure. Both of you are arguing to something that is not helping at all...
  34. There are still 4 more nations left.
  35. If the Americans have early Sidewinders, what do to others have?
  36. Dat me
  37. No. Everything that is not shaped charge shell will be bounced on level terrain.
  38. Instead of both of you arguing like some other players arguing x vs y, how about you guys doing a research then bug report it yourself? Seriously, all of you are arguing for just a small typo. It won't change the M26 in the game if you just don't start working on it. Or at least make some effort.
  39. You can't nerf something so obvious. That's how it works. No. I'm very against paper & mock up only tanks with questionable importance in the current situation. Total packing punch? There are M103, M60 + M60A1, 2 missile tanks, & 1 more APFSDS launcher. The most effective lineup than most nations in the game. We changed stats for balance since there is a dispute between this source & that source. Meanwhile a very obvious detail that T58 has 6-drum autoloader is fixed & undeniable. You can't change that. 2 wrongs won't make 1 right Every Tier 5 tanks can pen each other. The problem with it is that: -It can load more shells than any single tank in the game in rapid succession -Has a 155 mm gun with 2 shells that will always explode a tank regardless of the enemy armor -Can destroy up to 6 tanks at once in under half a minute with precision -Heavily armored than average heavy tanks Meanwhile, Chi-Ri has: -Below average armor compared to most contemporary tanks -Only has 75 mm gun that has 50/50 performance than most medium caliber guns given its gun loading mechanism -Doesn't pose a significant threat Something completely inversed.
  40. Ouch
  41. That if you can keep up with the trajectory aim of a howitzer.
  42. Far from powerful. It's literally a killzone.
  43. This additional subreport: It's more complex than the initial bug report description, so I re-report it with more specified detail. The bug fix no. 1 & 3 are also described in the "main report" (the M60A1 Gunshield and Mantlet), but no. 2 isn't. I'll focus the attention to gun shield separately, since it's more manageable to point out the problems for this subject only, which are object separation, gun shield angle, and armor thickness. The front turret armor, is actually referring to the M60A1's 127 mm mantlet angled at 60°, giving it 254 mm effective armor, which is written in his book.
  44. And what's the focus of the next update?
  45. M103 armor unknown rate of fire 6-drum revolver
  46. 155 mm revolving semi-autoloader.
  47. Given the kinetic energy, I'll take my word back.
  48. It is true if you are trying to hill-hull-down like some random allied tanks, same like the Maus. Its size hinders its depression on hills.
  49. Well, the first step is always to ask. There is nothing stupid with that. (provided you know who you're looking for) You should form up a team primarily for discussing the matter of subject. I formed one in late 2016. Find a place for your team to coveniently speak each other. We were using the forum messenger at first, but due to the limitation on how many people can enter, we decided to use Discord instead.
  50. Yes, to keep the M60A2(105) presence at minimum compared to M60A1 as the standard American MBT. I intentionally removed any ACAV w/ weapon mount currently. Too cramped for tank destroyer line until the BR is extended. First, the M113 with M40 Recoilles is not any better than the Type 60, nor the upcoming M50 Ontos. Its size is just too large, has exposed gunner, & its only advantages are more 106 mm ammo & protection from HMGs. Can't place it yet. Second, the American doesn't have any true ATGM carrier yet. Rather than bringing very low effective Dragon ATGM, I placed the M901 ITVs first until the BR range is feasible enough for every vehicle to be spread conveniently. Wouldn't want an extremely low tiered ATGM that would only intensify "WWII tank vs ATGM" even bigger as for now (Type 60 ATGM) TOW Jeep is very hard to decide for its capability in the game.
  51. Too bad its size hinders it from having any better gun depression at all against soviet tanks in general
  52. Truth be told. 291 mm is indeed reasonable for a WWII Gun instead of 313 mm.
  53. I want to report a bug in subject with the M26/M46. Tanks affected M26 Pershing M26(T99) Pershing T26E1-1 Super Pershing M26E1 Super Pershing M46 Patton M46 Tiger Bug Incorrect front ventilator bulge armor thickness Bug description The M26/M46 front armor was fixed recently from 43° to 46°. effectively enabling its invulnerability against the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun from the Tiger I & 85 mm ZiS-53 gun from the T-34-85, while also applying the fix based from the earlier bug report of it. This is a good change, but there is one thing that has not been fixed yet, which is the front ventilator bulge. It's still not effective enough to block any common guns, even for the 7.5 cm KwK 40 class. According to New Tanks for 1944: The T26 / T26E3 / M26 Pershing, while still in development, was required to be resistant against the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun mounted by the Tiger I. This was done by increasing the front plate from 76.2 (T25) to 101.6 mm (T26) while retaining the same angle (46°). Moving to detailed report, the M26 specification and schematic from ''HEAVY TANKS AND ASSAULT TANKS''. The upper front armor of the M26 is 4" in actual (101.6 mm) and 6.9" in basis (175.26 mm) Basis armor means the total resistance of the plate (taking sloping into account) against enemy anti-tank shell Since the 101.6 mm front plate is sloped at 46°, it holds true armor basis protection at 175.26 mm effectiveness, making the front plate able to block 8.8 cm PzGr 39 shell. But the requirement is that the whole front hull armor is to be 175.26 mm effective, and the ventilator bulge, only sloped at 25°, wouldn't be immune if it has the same thickness as the front plate. So a change was made to the M26 by thickening the bulge to be more armored than the front plate. Based from the schematic, it's visible that the bulge is thicker than the front plate. As for the thickness itself, in order to exceed the front plate armor effectiveness, the 25° sloped bulge must have a minimum thickness of 160 mm armor. This corresponds to an ultrasonic thickness gauge measurement of a surviving M26 Pershing Serial Number 922 in New Bedford, Massachusetts. The thickness of the bulge is ranging from 161.5 mm to 163.4 mm, but take a standard armor thickness at 162.5 mm, or 6.4" in U.S. standard imperial unit. Bug Fix 1. Remodel the ventilator bulge into a separate armor object from the upper front plate 2. Change the thickness from 101.6 mm to 162.5 mm Primary Sources: New Tanks for 1944 HEAVY TANKS AND ASSAULT TANKS Secondary Sources: Firepower - A History of the American Heavy Tank, R.P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Pr; First Edition (March 1988) , ISBN 978-0891413042 Surviving M26 Pershing Serial Number 922 in New Bedford, Massachusetts. - Special thanks to @Yukari___Akiyama for the measurement result.
  54. Assuming it doesn't get hit first. In which also happen to be the same issue as the Jagdtiger when it comes to 8.0 match... well, everything in existence, at 8.0, doesn't have any chance to get hit first in the first place. But both Stage II & Jagdtiger have something in common: Size & Armor trouble (in which the latter is still at least capable of terrorizing anything below 7.0 with the gun + armor pack, what worse if it becomes a sniper.).
  55. Conway? FV4005? Nah.
  56. It is. It's technically the same gun as the M10. Without turret (yay lower BR )
  57. The M9 is not kinda derp, tho.
  58. This is the pic I've been looking for... Where did you find this? Good catch.
  59. M9 GMC for lulz
  60. Googling for a bit, http://weaponsman.com/?p=20181 It would be extremely odd for the Americans not to give proximity fuze supplies to the original designer of it (Brits).
  61. I know, but it's still odd why the U.S. didn't mount British standard QF 6-Pounder gun instead.
  62. You can come here and look for some of those :^)
  63. After thinking for a while, yeah. I think there's should be more premium armored cars. The T17E3 would be moved to premium just like the T18E2. Thanks for the feedback.
  64. Like, the British used VT fuzes to counterattack V-1 missile barrages?
  65. Seems they kept the source hidden whether it was a reverse engineered American tech or their own research. I suspiciously believe the former, since the Japanese is always as hideous as their research during WWII. You forgot the British.
  66. Hello, I want to report a discrepancies of the M60A1 armor, on behalf of @Godman_82's initial report of the M60A1 gun shield. I'm going to provide sources and calculations about gun shield. This is a very complicated case, so I need to make a couple of threads here. There are few sources, that are not fully agreeing with each other, and the information are mostly not precise/detailed. Please assign new ID for the gun shield. 1. Gunshield design M60A1 was created as improvement for M60, and one of the requirements was - the tank need to be immune to Soviet 100 mm AP round, that we know from War Thunder - it is D-10T, used on T-44-100, T-54 and SU-100. BR-412 is AP capable of defeating 208 mm of RHA at close range, while BR-412D - 240 mm of RHA. That’s why the requirement for armor of the tank was to be “equivalent of 254 mm of RHA”. That is exactly 10 inches of effective armor. The same design and requirements were used earlier, in early 1950 for a Heavy Tank M103. The gunshield was formed to be as sloped as possible around the gun port. We can see many pictures of M103’s gunshield (example), and we can clearly see that it’s very similar to M60A1’s one. Because of the shape, that is angled in few axis, with different angle values, it’s extremely hard to describe the armor values in one or two figures, like we can do with most of the armor parts. For example - upper frontal plate of M60A1 is 109 mm at 65 degrees. Simple. How to describe a gunshield armor, when we have multiple angles and thicknesses? Mr. Hunnicutt went for giving the exact requirement - "5 inches at 60 degrees angle", which is giving 10 inches / 254 mm of effective armor. It does not mean that any part of the gunshield is angled 60 degrees, or the whole part is 127 mm thick, it only means that effective armor of this part is 254 mm. 2. Sources We have two sources for this part - Hunnicutt’s Patton book, and previously used by Devs - Ballistic Protection Analysis, M60 Series Tanks by A. Auyer and L. Buda. Both sources are giving us 60 degrees of obliquity, but second source is giving only 4,5 inch of armor for the gunshield. I will try to explain why this happens, and why there is a difference. Hunnicutt based his work more on requirements and design. It was meant to be 254 mm effective - so that’s what he put into the book. You can see that other armor parts have 0 degrees given (which is complete nonsense), and it says “equal to”. I’m sure the same thing happens to gunshield data, despite there is no “equal to” in description. In M103 case Hunnicutt gave us a bit more detailed info - ranges of thickness (from 10 to 4 inches) and of angle (0 to 45). But M103 gunshield is a bit simpler - it is angled mostly in the side view. M60A1 gunshield is angled from side view, and also from the top view. Maybe that’s why he used only the equivalent. Because even if he knew the actual angles and thicknesses, it would be extremly hard to put that into simple numbers. He chose effective armor value. Later on You will see how complicated this shape is, when it comes to angles. Auyer and Buda worked on actual M60A1 tank, so they measured the part actual thickness. On page 3 of their analysis there is an explanation, that angle and thickness of the gunshield is averaged. It is not actual value, only average. Now, if we will look on the gunshield from different perspectives, we will see that there is some kind of collar around the actual gunshield, that covers gun mount. It was noticed by WT developers, and it is modeled in the game as different part, with different thickness (50,8 mm) than rest of the gunshield. But in fact, it is a part of the gunshield, and this area’s thickness could be easily averaged along with the main part. Because it’s very thin area (definitely thinner than we have in game, I will also address it), it could easily lower the average thickness to 4,5 inch. Beside, according to Auyer & Buda calculations, the Protection on gunshield area is better than above and below mantlet (see pages 20, 21, 22). while in the game we have complete opposite - it is the mantlet that is the weakest part. In my opinion we should use 5 inches (127 mm) instead of 4,5 (114 mm), and because we have 127 mm value right now in the game, I believe that Dev Team agrees with me. There is no differences when it comes to angle, so the base for proposed changes will be effective armor thickness of 10 inches / 254 mm. That is also confirmed in other sources, for example this one: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA392790 Page 12. All those sources are proving that 127 mm is NOT a thickness of the element. The armor value is equal to 127 mm at 60 degrees obliquity - those values are inseparable. The real armor thickness depends on the angling of the particular area of the gunshield, as on every other cast armor. Even on the same vehicle cast armor is well recreated on the turret armor. It needs to be also done for gunshield. 3. Angles Because this tank (as many others, especially modern tanks) is basing its protection on effective thickness rather than actual thickness of steel plates, it is crucial to recreate the angles on that part with decent precision. Of course we don’t need a perfect, or very detailed model. All we need is a model that would recreate the effective thickness of 10 inch / 254 mm. Unfortunately, the 3D model of mantlet is giving a lot of wrong angle values across the whole area. This needs to be fixed and corrected, so the angle values at every part of the mantlet would be real. As explained later, the angle range is between 31 and 60, and that should be recreated in the 3D model. As we can see in armor view, the model needs overall correction: As there is no precise description of gunshield angles, we have to estimate it. The difficulty of describing the shape comes from the fact, that gunshield is not a flat plate, it is bend with about 90 degrees angle (we can see it from side perspective), but also there is a “nose” sticking out of the plate, formed around the gun port. To make it harder - that “nose” is not equally angled around the gun port. We will have to estimate those angles, and calculate compound angles at some areas. Lets start with the angles at the edges of the gunshield, and then we will calculate central part which is more angled thanks to “nose”. As You can see on the pictures, the angle between top part and lowest part is around 90 degrees. By graphical estimations on few pictures, the upper part is angled at around 55 degrees. That means that lower part would be angled at max 35 degrees at the very bottom. This is one of the pictures I've analyzed: If we would look at the gun from top perspective, the nose is angled at around 28 and 34 degrees. Let’s use average 31 degrees for both sides, to make it simpler: Now we have side perspective angles and top perspective angles, we can calculate the complete angles for the gunshield parts. I will divide it into sections, to make calculations simple and clear: Upper gunshield, Central gunshield (gun port area) and Lower Gunshield. Upper gunshield This part is angled 55 degrees at the top of it, 60 degrees at central part and 41 degrees at the sides. The average value is 52 degrees for that part. Central gunshield This part is not angled from side view, so the top angle would be used for this part. Average angle is 31 degrees. Lower gunshield This part has shape similar to upper gunshield, except the lower part, which is angled only about 35 degrees. The average value from 35 (down), 41 (sides) and 60 (central part) is 45 degrees. 4. Thickness From the sources we only know what is the average thickness of the part, and projected angle. So in fact, we only have the effective thickness, and nothing more. But thanks to the pictures I was able to estimate the angles on different parts of the gunshield. We know, that the effective thickness (ET) is: ET = Normal plate thickness / cosinus(angle) Where angle is from vertical, so completely flat armor is 0 degrees. Cosinus(0) is 1, so when armor is flat then ET = normal plate thickness. By transforming this formula we can have Normal Plate Thickness (T): T = ET * cosinus (angle) We have ET given - 254 mm, and we have average angles. Using this formula we can calculate the average thickness of the divided gunshield parts. 5. Calculations Upper gunshield - 52 degrees T = 254 mm * cosinus(52) = 156 mm Gun port area - 31 degrees T = 254 mm * cosinus(31) = 218 mm Upper gunshield - 45 degrees T = 254 mm * cosinus(45) = 180 mm 6. Collar thickness The collar thickness currently has 50,8 mm thickness (2 inches). It is definitely too much. By looking at this picture we can see it is supported by steel construction. Those pipes are around 5-7 cm in diameter, so 2-3 inches. As You can see the collar is way thinner that this. I can’t say exactly, but knowing that most US vehicles are designed in inches without the decimals, I’m pretty sure this part should be 1 inch thick, so 25 mm. 7. Checking the average value The areas over and under gunport, along with the gunport area are about the same size. The area of all the edges is about 45% of all, so the three gunport parts are about 18,3% of whole area each. So we have areas: Collar - 25 mm, 45% Upper - 156 mm, 18,3% Central - 218 mm, 18,3% Lower - 180 mm, 18,3% By weighting armor thickness by area we will have the average armor thickness of the whole gunshield. 25*0,45 + 156*0,183 + 218*0,183 + 180*0,183 = 113 mm So, the average thickness of whole part would be 113 mm, which means… 4,4 inch! Exactly as Auyer & Buda calculated and put into document as “averaged”. In my opinion this is the reason why both sources have different values. That also means that both Hunnicutt, and Auyer & Buda are correct, they are just giving two different things. 8. Proposed changes to fix the problem Please assign new ID for the gun shield, as it would be sectioned under different subjects, from gun shield objects separation, new angles, and armor thickness change 1. Remodel gun shield part into 5 separate objects: 1. Upper 2. Central 3. Lower 4. Upper Collar 5. Lower Collar (exactly like how the M103 mantlet is divided) 2. Angles of the new parts: Upper - 55° at top, 60° at center, 41° at sides Central - 31° Lower - 35° at bottom, 41° at sides, 60° at center 3. Change thicknes Upper part - from 127 mm to 156 mm Central part - from 127 mm to 218 mm Lower part - from 127 mm to 180 mm Upper Collar - from 50.8 mm to 38.1 mm Lower Collar - no change needed That's all for the details of the M60A1 gun shield. Thank You.
  67. U.S. GROUND FORCES REINFORCMENET Yesterday was the 4th of July, the Independence Day of United States of America To commemorate this day, I'd like to introduce a tech tree with fully reinforced American ground forces in War Thunder We've been thinking that the current arsenal of the U.S. Ground Forces is good in quality, but not enough in quantity when it comes to total amount of available vehicles Some examples would be low amount of effective anti-air guns compared to other nations, small number of tank destroyers, and also less variation of the heavy tanks which need more version to come THE TECH TREE Unfortunately we don't have any Graphic Designer to model the illustration for the Tech Tree, but I will provide images for the vehicles to give you a better view. GROUND VEHICLES LIST I will explain each vehicles accordingly with their main aspects (WIP - Work in Progress): Light Tank Medium Tank Heavy Tank Tank Destroyer Anti-Air Gun Rocket Launcher Mobile Artillery (WIP - Work in Progress) Reconnaissance (WIP - Work in Progress) Premium Rare / Event (WIP - Work in Progress) Q&A Q: Why are there so many familiar prototypes & paper tanks in the tech tree? A: Many prototypes are included to give a chance for the U.S. Ground Forces (USGF) for an equal footing in term of weaponry in comparison to other nations, especially considering the Americans didn't have any heavy tank at all fielded during WWII with sole exception for the M26 Pershing (which was made to counter the Tiger I as a heavy tank). It's also to represent the technology of the American armored vehicle development that were failed to enter combat due to many reasons (including political issues, difficulties of transporting the tanks overseas vs straight out of assembly workshop, developed too late, and many more). On the other side, though, there is not even a single paper tank. All tanks were built & had at least tested in trials. Q: Wouldn't prototypes just break the historical immersion of the game? A: By that mean, is the historical match just like in WWII where it was mostly a platoon of M4 Sherman against a single Tiger I, which is not what War Thunder are capable of balancing in the first place. Also, a Devblog summary ofthe T95E1 summed up the relevance of a prototype vehicle's availability in the game: The performance of those prototypes would be maintained as historical as possible with any available references and data. Q: Why is there an artillery tech tree? A: Artillery vehicles have been existed since War Thunder Air Force, present as ground target to destroy. The idea comes up when the World War Mode is announced. These direct/indirect artillery units can be used either for strategic mission and/or secondary anti-tank barrage. The mechanics on how an artillery vehicle works is still unknown. It's up to the Dev on how to implement it. "artillery map" HUD like in Battlefield series would be very convenient compared to "UAV map" for indirect artillery support, and direct sight telescope was installed on all of these artillery for direct firing. Q: Why is there a rocket launcher tech tree? A: Based from a certain Q&A about multiple rocket launcher system: It's a new unit with already existing mechanics of a rocket motor carriage. A whole fleet of rocket vehicles is my current suggestion to deploy a new regular tech tree for it. It's been proven that rocket vehicles are adaptable within the game (there is an event solely for rocket tanks to earn a rocket truck). Whether it's suitable in the game as a whole tech tree or not, it's also up to the Dev Q: I didn't remember there were so many anti-air guns in U.S. arsenal. How? A: The development of anti-air guns, compared to well known projects such as the American heavy tanks, were so low profile. There is even T53E1 AT/AA if you want to consider a heavy AA gun in USGF tech tree like the German "Flakbus" or Soviet "Assault Farm Truck". The Canadian (or "Commonwealth") also had Ram 3.7-Inch AT/AA, but that's out of my reach Q: Why some of the vehicles and their data can't be found on internet? A: Some of these are still in secrecy inside numerous classified documents and reports Q: What sources did you use? Did you use Wikipedia? A: No, as per War Thunder's policy about Wikipedia, it's not a genuine source, nor a reliable one. It can be edited by anyone, without any careful cross-check and confirmation. Such simple example is this "T99 Heavy Tank". The source cited is Hunnicutt - Patton: A History of the American Heavy Tank, even though there is no such tank designated as T99 heavy tank in the book. As for the sources I use (mostly): Various U.S. military manuals & classified reports RAC Situation Report Hunnicutt - Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank Hunnicutt - Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank Hunnicutt - Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series Hunnicutt - Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank Hunnicutt - Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank Volume 2 Hunnicutt - Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Hunnicutt - Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Volume 2 Hunnicutt - Bradley: A History of the American Fighting and Support Vehicles Hunnicutt - Armored Car: A History of American Wheeled Combat Vehicles Hunnicutt - Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked Vehicles Zaloga - Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II Crimson - U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles War Thunder Wiki (for description of some vehicles) AFV Database Q: How about oscillating semi-autoloader tank such as T69, T54E1, T57, and T58? A: Out of all 4 American semi-autoloaders, only the T69 and T54E1 existed and built. The T57 and T58 were only made as mock-up, and it would be hard to balance the tanks given such performance of the guns The T57 had eight-revolving 120 mm shells with the same firepower and kinetic force of the M103's gun while the T58 had six-revolving 155 mm HESH and HEAT launcher capable of evaporating an entire tank convoy in rapid succession. Combining both, and these can evaporate an entire team Q: Since when did you plan this? A: The plan has been carried out since late 2016. It was also slated for release on the D-Day (6 June) (I made an implicit announcement in the earlier U.S. tech tree thread), but whole tech tree reshuffle and some data "reset" has caused a delay for about a month, which is yesterday, the Independence Day (4 July). Sorry for those who have been waiting since D-Day. Q: Is the tech tree already final? I see that some BR positioning and the vehicles are not convenient in my opinion A: The tech tree is actually almost final. The final step is your feedback and your opinion that could help for a better positioning and Dev's attention to the proposed tech tree Of course, this would mean another reshuffle again with the possible BR extension up to 9.0 / 10.0 to solve BR compression problem THE TEAM OF THE TECH TREE arczer25 Conraire *MiseryIndex556 JohnGR Godman_82 GanJ Sirchby Whelmy Yukari___Akiyama Well, all of us basically made the tech tree together, found the vehicle data together, and discussed the project together The tech tree is subject to change. Some of the vehicles need more description and details, which will be given later (marked with ---TBA--- & -----WIP-----) Feel free to discuss anything about any American ground vehicles here God I'm such a horrible person to delay the release again (I do have habit to delay just about anything)
  68. A. T30 Heavy Tank, 1944 Circa 1948 The T30 is notoriously known only to fire "Basic AP" with terrible penetration, as a result, it must reliably use HE to destroy enemy tanks, in which we all know how HE currently works. 1. APBC-HE As you know, the "Basic AP" shell is the M112B1 APBC-HE used from 155 mm M1 (L/45) "Long Tom" field artillery. But since the 155 mm T7 (L/40) is basically a scaled down version of the field gun, it didn't achieve any better penetration, but rather reduced. M112, M112B1, & M112B2 are only different by how the windshield is attached to each of these rounds. Performances remain the same. 155 mm M112B1 APBC-HE Projectile Mass: 45.36 kg (100 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 670 m/s (2200 ft/s) Explosive Type: Exp. D Explosive Mass: 653 g (1.44 lbs) Fuze Type: B.D., M60 Muzzle velocity & penetration of M112B1 APBC-HE From Situation Report No. 34 As explained by @arczer25 The penetration is indeed very low for a field gun class. Basically, it's only enough to destroy tanks such as Tiger I, Panther, & IS-2 from effective combat range. (low tier aspect) But not for tanks as armored as Tiger II, Ferdinand, & IS-3 unless striking from flank, which is not what a heavy tank supposed to do. (high tier aspect) 2. HE Also a HE round supplied from 155 mm M1 too. Not far different as M112B1, M101 also has reduced muzzle velocity due to shorter gun barrel from 155 mm M1 (L/45) to 155 mm T7 (L/40). 155 mm M101 HE Projectile Mass: 42.95 kg (94.69 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 717 m/s (2300 ft/s) Explosive Type: TNT Explosive Mass: 7.58 kg (15.56 lbs) Fuze Type: P.D., M51A4 Muzzle velocity of M101 HE & its availability for T30 From Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank, 1988 Specifications for both M112B1 & M101 HE From TM 9-1901 Artillery Ammunition, 1944 But they are not the only rounds available to use for 155 mm T7 yet: 3. HVAP (APCR) A 155 mm HVAP especially made for 155 mm T7 (L/40). Known variants of T35 are T35, T35E1, & T35E2. T35 was fired from M1 (L/45). T35E1 was fired from T7 (L/40). Unlike M112B1 & M101, T35E1 is supposed to have similar performance, muzzle velocity, & penetration as T35. 155 mm T35E1 HVAP Projectile Mass: 25.85 kg (57 lbs) Core Mass: 6.8 kg (15 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 1031 m/s (3385 ft/s) Vertical Point Blank Penetration: 355 mm (14") Projectile mass of T35 HVAP corresponding similar weight to T35E1 HVAP From AD800469 - Aerodynamic Data for Spinning Projectile, 1947 Penetration of T35 HVAP From AD301343 - An Analytical Study of Data on Armor Penetration by Tank-Fired, Kinetic Energy Projectiles, 1958 Projectile & core mass of specifically-designed T35E1 HVAP for 155 mm T7. Penetration value of the HVAP. 4. HEP (HESH) 155 mm M1 fired T152 HEP rounds in Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1958. Known variants of T152 are T152, T152E4, T152E5, & T152E6. I pick T152E5 since it has the most complete information out of all T152 rounds, except T152E6. And also considered superior to T152E6. The only difference between T152E5 & T152E6 is: T152E5: Soft wall. T152E6: Hard wall. Weight of both shell & filler is based from average calculation of 48 total shells. It only used PA-E-23XXX charge during trials due to lack of supply, which would launch the projectile at 1837 ft/s (557 m/s)., It was actually to be fired with M4A1 charge, the same charge used on M107 HE, which would launch the projectile at 2151 ft/s (655 m/s). Judging from the velocity based from test report, it can be assumed that even if the 155 mm T7 (L/40) is a scaled down 155 mm M1 (L/45), the muzzle velocity of HEP round remains the same, corresponding with the model of propellant charge. + T152E5 HEP is lighter than M101 HE but has more explosive. The primary target for T152E5 to strike 6" armor was, surprisingly, The King Tiger. 155 mm T152E5 HEP / HESH Projectile Mass: 31.82 kg (70.16 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 665 m/s (2151 ft/s) Explosive Type: Comp. A-3 Explosive Mass: 11.72 kg (25.86 lbs) TNT Equivalent: 16.87 kg Fuze Type: B.D., T-Adjustable Fuse Delay: 0.4 m Fuse Sensitivity: 0.1 mm Penetration: Complete specifications of T152E5 & T152E6 From AD0155208 - Accuracy and Armor Defeating Evaluation of Shell, Hep, 155mm, T152E5 and T152E6, 1958 B. T58 Heavy Tank, 1952 Circa 1954 Semi-Autoloading 155 mm T180 (155 mm T7E2) weaponized to T58 Heavy Tank was planned in 1952, a direct successor to both T57 Heavy & T30 Heavy. Modified from 155 mm T7. The T58 itself was developed in response of needing a high caliber gun tank capable of firing in rapid succession. It was to be primarily armed with HEAT & HESH. 5. HEAT A HEAT round was developed during the extended development of T30 Heavy Tank, & also to be supplied for T58 Gun Tank for primary anti tank munition. 155 mm T267 HEAT Projectile Mass: 29.48 kg (65 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s (2800 ft/s) (Secondary source, Hunnicutt, listed the muzzle velocity as 2650 ft/s (826 m/s), which is likely an error) Explosive type: Composition B Explosive mass: ? TNT equivalent: ? Fuse Sensitivity: 0.1 mm Penetration: 155 mm T152 HEP / HESH Projectile Mass: 31.75 kg (70 lbs) Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s (2600 ft/s) Explosive type: ?Composition B? Explosive mass: ? TNT equivalent: ? Fuse Delay: 0.4 m Fuse Sensitivity: 0.1 mm Penetration: [1]Specification from Armament for future tanks or similar combat vehicles, 1958, might be incorrect as it doesn't contain specific information regarding the T152 HEP (denoted by T152(e) - Suspended). Possibly theoretical numbers instead of actual test numbers [2]Actual detailed specification from a different variant, the T152E5 HEP round can be found on Accuracy and Armor Defeating Evaluation of Shell, Hep, 155mm, T152E5 and T152E6, 1958. [3]Already summarized on Shell No. 4 HEP (HESH) Summary of 155 mm T180 / T7E2 From AD395259 - Development of 155mm Gun Tank T58, 1954. Detailed specifications for both T267 HEAT & T152 HESH (not T152E5) From Armament for future tanks or similar combat vehicles, 1958 Both 155 mm T7 & T180 were based from 155 mm M1 Long Tom. So it wouldn't be surprising if both M1 & T180 were planned to use the same T152 HEP round family. Also the T7. 155 mm T7 was able to fire 155 mm T180 ammunition. 1. Both fire the same HE ammunition 2. Both have the same rifling 3. Both have the same chamber capacity 4. Some more are detailed in the sources, From Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank, 1988 Suggestion: T30 (7.3) 155 mm T7 with ammunition loadout consisting of: AP M112B1 HE M101 APCR T35E1 HESH T152E5 Optional ammunition including T267 HEAT (its specification is incomplete, though. I will look for more information about it.) IMPORTANT NOTES: 1. Some tanks in the game are equipped with rounds compatible to their gun as primary factor, because it can fire so. Not using documented standard ammunition loadout assigned tank itself listed under tank datasheet. Examples: -T29 can fire T13 APC when its standard tank ammo loadout didn't specify such munition. -M4A3E2 can fire T45 HVAP when its standard tank ammo loadout didn't specify such munition. -T32 can fire T50E1 APC when its standard tank ammo loadout didn't specify such munition. 3. 150mm+ mm guns usually rely on chemical weaponry & shaped charge attack rather than kinetic penetration (its problematic T35E1 HVAP). ISU-152 also uses BP-540 HEAT. So does for Brummbar with J.Gr.39 HI/A HEAT. Especially when tanks with large calibers are stationed in higher tier. 4. T30 reloads at 3 RPM / 20 seconds, not 2 RPM / 30 seconds. 6. UNKNOWN APFSDS T30 running a firing test from Aberdeen video documentary. It was firing an experimental APFSDS during the test. Unfortunately, there is no known information about its 155 mm APFSDS. Yet. So I will exclude it from my suggestion to arm it with APFSDS. Thanks to @arczer25 @Conraire @Whelmy for their effort to find the info. Any missing parameters will be added immediately upon a new data has been found. I will routinely follow the post should there is something to revise / update.