• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sirchby last won the day on February 25

Sirchby had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,763 Outstanding


About Sirchby

  • Rank
    BravoBigBooms Was Here
  • Birthday April 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Somewhere in Asia
  • Interests
    U.S. Army Ground Forces

Recent Profile Visitors

2,678 profile views
  1. Examples?
  2. It's only good if it's somewhat like the current Simulator Battle system where the circumstances may change per period for each historical battle. That means justifed number of players too. Then it's not a part of WWII batte if it's excluded.
  3. "Historical Representation" for standard random battle is a big mistake.
  4. One battle is a part of whole situation on the battlefield.
  5. How about Battle of Remagen?
  6. But "Historical Representation".
  7. You mean this plane:
  8. 10:1 sounds reasonable on the battlefield.
  9. Tu-4 teared down to pieces. Have to add that it has projected flying characteristics compared to most grounded prototype planes. That should be good enough as a base of its performance in game. I'm interested with prototypes running in order & realistic performance (the sole reason I play less WoT due to Arcade gone way too far like go-kart, even for prototype class). I can wait for miscellaneous heavy fighter like this whenever it's ready for release. Waiting as far as this:
  10. "Historical Representation" ? Yeah, 30+ M4(76) Sherman sounds fun.
  11. Aircraft/Loadouts

    It would be a good high tier superprop. Yeah, why not. +1.
  12. Well, that's technically working plane, isn't it? Might have to find more official military record of its whole development process. Tougher-than-average fighter, huh.
  13. Same goes for Tiger II were the most used tank in the game before the appearance of T29 & IS-6. Did that sound ok? In WWII timeline? even outnumbering the amount of M4 player by great effect?
  14. They should as well return the Historical Battle if they want to do that. Or else there will be no place for tanks like T25, T29, Centurion I, Caernarvon, Panther F, Tiger II 10.5, T-44, IS-3 to enter any battle before 5 hours even though all of them were WWII tanks. The more reasonable solution is to return historical battle replacing the current system of simulator battle (for tanks that actually fought in WWII). Make the tanks that were actually built / designed during WWII (that including the T29 & IS-3, both were completed before WWII is over) more common for standard random battle.
  15. It's so fast for a flat heavy tank at this moment.
  16. It doesn't fit the meta as 8.0 propeller bomber. It's too OP as 7.0 with its defensive guns. It's too UP as 8.0 from jet attacks. & what if there is a BR extension from 9.0 to 10.0? I agree that it's not required to have a Flying Pancake in the game at this moment. Sooner or later there will be a time where the BR will be raised & something must enter the newly shifted BR, which is highly anticipated to fill in for wider plane placement such as the mass produced P-51H, troublesome Tu-4 BR placement, & more unexpected planes like currently suggested P.1101. Who knows.
  17. Neither the Tu-4 is also required. At least with its current position, where other Soviet jet bombers are present at 8.0. Redundancy is not a problem to introduce a plane.
  18. By the time they use Panzerschreck, the U.S. have their own upscaled Bazooka instead of reverse engineered one, which is the 90 mm M20 Super Bazooka with massive firepower while being practical. 105 mm T5 guns would have been mass produced for T29 & T95 tanks in great effect. (They planned for producing 1200 T29 by March 1945) Also for a debut to introduce the 120 mm T53 for the T34 heavy tank arming itself with the strongest APCR ever made in history intended to knock off every opponent tanks with life expectancy for up to 10 years since its first development.
  19. That record didn't point out that IS-6 actually came earlier than the IS-4. Also some photograph of the IS-6 showed that it was already completed by late 1944.,prototype
  20. Sounds good. More or less similar to P.1101 case in many way.
  21. Let the pancake fly.
  22. So... I mostly play U.S. tanks at most. Then? Well, let's be honest, Germans will still have Maus & Jagdtiger spam. British have the first iteration of Caernarvon prototype with 17 pounder gun & Tortoise to keep them back off (using APDS as primary munition). Japanese will be the only FUBAR nation, even worse than French Ground Forces at best. Americans have the most promising spam compared to others since T29 & T34 heavies. Yes, those were finished before VJ Day. Do remind about the historical accuracy of the tanks which doesn't seem to happen in the game. What is your proof that the IS-6 wasn't produced & completed by 1944?
  23. That would be USN's superprop right after the Tigercat. This one is USAF's superprop after the Mustang.
  24. Well, it's true. I thought the Ta 152 is still the fastest. Nah, I don't think its maneuverability is going to be vastly superior than P-51D by by much, especially when dragging it to 6.7. Except at high speed.
  25. The term superprops only exist from this game.
  26. It can't be helped since some super props are already at 6.3 - 6.7. But if these super props are overtiered & get into combat with late jets at 7.0 - 8.0, it will end up the same as the "heavy tank nullification" in 7.3 - 7.7 against ATGM & shaped charge shells. BR extension to 10.0 is optional to make 7.0 - 8.0 slot for super props / early jets. Even if it will come down to prototypes.
  27. It will still be inferior to Spitfire Mk. 24 by only using maximum 7 minutes of boost time (80"). Together with 6x 12.7 mm M2 MG. Even worse that it's still a P-51D with only some aerodynamic changes & throttled up WEP to skyrocket it from 4.7 to 6.7. Won't go far over 10 minutes of sustained battle where Spitfires have no slightest problem while still powerful enough. P-51H-0 (90") with 20 minutes boost is the best H the USAF can get.
  28. Hello there, your T34 bug report has been answered, they need a few things from you though: 

    They wanted the server replay file and such.

  29. Like what? The T29?
  30. Ground vehicles

    So, the M6A2(90) were not reinforced with the new armor kit.
  31. Ground vehicles

    So it's the main armor just like the M4A3E2 Jumbo.
  32. It should be able to penetrate the King Tiger's front plate from around 300 m away with its actual APCBC shell. We can use this reference to suggest for a shell change. Development Test of Shell, He, 120MM, T15 For Gun, 120mm, T53. But unfortunately it's not been scanned yet as for now.
  33. That sounds promising, doesn't it. How about the "shoulder" armor? Did its thickness increase too?
  34. That kind of battle should have been replacing the current Tank SB match by regular basis & let the SB has its own independent mode similar to AB & RB. The tank SB as per this patch is supposed to be HB, Historical Battle.
  35. Ground vehicles

    Is this kind of armor package available as auxiliary armor addon (such as the M4A3E8 Thunderbolt VII armor) or main armor only produced from factory (like the M4A3E2 Jumbo armor)?
  36. I thank you for all the help with these bug reports in the past week or so, T34, M18, etc.

  37. It was approved for production by OCM 26825 on March - April 1945 as many as 1152 units. Too bad the war ended too soon before even more tanks could be produced. Before the Pacific War came to an end, one T29 was completed. It's technically a WWII tank per se. Tell whole nations who's better at sniping with retaining high penetration even from long distance with conventional AP.
  38. You can see its HE shell specification of the T30 (M101 HE) here to compare it with all other high caliber HE shell.
  39. Nope. Nope. Nope. Not even reaching 7.0 with current BR decompression & weapon capacity. Why do I have to have 2x 7.0 heavy tanks? If there's a T29 variant that should go to 6.7, it's the T34. The T34 with appropriate weaponry & rate of fire is exponentially superior compared to the T29 which can fend off even 8.0 tanks at 7.0 - 7.3.
  40. Technically, you have T29 turret with -1 coaxial HMG, T34 hull, & a whole new 155 mm gun. Yes. It's kind of easy for a tank which is synchronizing almost all of the parts with its own variants.
  41. It would still club at 7.3.
  42. Hmm, I think its damage output will be increased to over 900, as with the recent 152 mm shells damage increase too. But considering that it would only apply to M112B1 APBC-HE.
  43. You do know what happens with the current solid AP damage parameter, don't you. I've probably been using M304 countless times than most of them only using APHE shot reliably to point-n-shoot... Exactly what happened when Pershing & King Tiger H were at the same BR. While I'm throwing nails at King Tigers, they're throwing brick at me. Boom. One shot dead. But with the T29 appearance, now the rule's changed. They're throwing nails, I'm throwing brick... or both throwing brick. The amount of American tanks that can be aimed at center mass are much more than most other tanks. Even some can still be found on high tier. Something - something - M46 Patton vs Panther II.
  44. Kind of absurd, but it's said from 1.67 Livestream that it will definitely receive more round... The only round left is the T98 APDS. On top of that, every shell missing from the tank is now count as bug, & not a suggestion anymore. Means it should have No, the T29 is fine where it is at 6.7. The T32 is also good at 7.0. Fresh out if its missing T50E1 APCBC-HE gets added ASAP (hardened M82 APCBC-HE with PzGr. 39/43 penetration). While the T34 has the strongest gun out of all the American WWII tanks. I think it's fair enough to say that it will blast the IS-3 on regular basis. You mean the T26E1-1.
  45. I know. But to preserve the accuracy, you know what to do. The whole decompression problem can be seriously considered on wider range. But not for the T34 at this moment or it will drag more tanks which got hit hard by this. It's a temporary solution until the BR can be extended.
  46. The 155 mm APFSDS based from the video.
  47. Because possible auto-APDS-rearmament as a countermeasure to 8.0 tanks, due to its APCBC is going to wreck anything below 7.3. Hence 7.3. By its own development process, the T34 is coming out from 6.7 first to 7.0 with such APCBC. But since it's too strong for a turreted 120 mm armored tank, so it goes up to 7.3. Then remembering that it doesn't have HEAT-FS as M103, but has APDS similar as the Conqueror at 7.3, it's going to use that to fend off the high tier tanks. Too strong at 7.0, I'd say. Also, it's not a T34 without the APDS. At least you can still wreck IS-6 & Jagdtiger like there's no sell. While so damn easier than ever.
  48. Now here comes the T34 heavy as I promised before It is now indeed ambiguous. I advise you to change T34 to T-34.
  49. So, with its correction of its T14E3 from 247 mm PB to 286 mm PB, where do you think it would be? IMO, it's 7.3 tank.
  50. What's the SM of APCBC striking against 65° armor?
  51. What are you guys planning to do?
  52. They should have used War Thunder 3D model to make it look very sharp & clean. Speaking aside, What was one the most fielded tanks by the Imperial Japan other than Chi-Ha?
  53. I know. The sole reason of whole subcaliber nerf is due to BR compression in which historical accuracy is trashed out to compensate for balance. But since the IS-4M & IS-3 are already there, the T34 at this moment is more than capable to enter this combat zone with its fully rearmed shells, while waiting for BR decompression.
  54. It won't go higher without its APDS, by that choice.
  55. Both T30 & T34 are 7.3 material. In similar way to the current T26E1-1 - to - T34, leading the 120 mm development from predecessor to successor, M103. Different weaponry to choose from heavy punching howitzer to high velocity anti-tank gun at 7.3. If you need firepower over the APCR, there's still T98 APDS which is quite superior performance compared to historically-accurate L1G APDS. Since Conqueror is also 7.3 in game. The T34 was intended to outgun every tank design with expectancy for up to 10 years since its day one development, but ultimately dropped in favor to the M103.
  56. Let's not calling for another Wehraboo again. We're here for a discussion, not for insult. No. I don't use M77 or M304 so often. I only load M82 which is incapable to penetrate every part Tiger II (H) front armor, including turret. So I flank. Exactly the same case as I only load PzGr. 39 against the T29. But luckily for Germans, T29's lower plate can be shot just by using that APHE shell, unlike the case when I play the American tanks. However, since T29 exposing its lower plate is rare, so I flank too. In my Tiger I. My only rule of warfare when uptiered is: "Don't even think about trying to head-on a high tier tank & win" I have followed this rule quite well, & the result is quite successful. It's normal to have underpowered performance against more higher tier tank, especially by gun. But that's where the skill & experience come in. Except not really. You don't get what he means yet, The term "point-n-shoot" is that you just aim everywhere on the tank & just penetrates. Most commonly coined by American tankman to German tankman. >Tiger II (H) shoots M26 Pershing & penetrates it no matter where you aim You're referring to "aim-the-weakspot", which is the very opposite meaning of "point-n-shoot". >M26 Pershing has to aim 2 pixels small Tiger I (H) turret with M304 APCR just to penetrate it & knock out some handful crew Yes, most U.S. tanks one shot if they penetrate their shell, because they have higher-than-average warhead filler. But considering that these shells have lower-than-average penetration power, I think you know what that means.
  57. More common than you expected. Not to be proud, but I have high experience playing the Tigers just by commanding it for the first time, unlike most American tanks in which you will struggle without your top notch modification research installed. Also unlike most players having one-sided trouble with the T29, I'm actually capable of defending myself against the T29 quite well. Even when in fact that I mainly command the American tanks more than any other nations. But maybe because I've played it the same way as when I engaged the King Tiger (H) (6.7) with only my Pershing (6.7) regularly back in the old days.
  58. It's normal to fight the T29 in Tiger. Rhetoric answer.
  59. balance

    The T29E3 is so far the only APCR in the game which can penetrate T-54-3 turret easily when uptiered. Including Jagdtiger's superstructure, while being easier than any other APCR (except maybe for the T17E1).
  60. Are you referring to ricochet? Or completely blocked strike?
  61. My 76 mm M1 M72 AP shot still damages more than that in front of a Tiger I, still.
  62. Scissor maneuver. Works good against most fighters other than Fw-190.
  63. balance

    It's not what-if if it was built & armed on the vehicle. Assisted loading 75 mm APDS gun sounds reasonable for 6.7. If I recall correctly, there was a Panther which was welded with 85 mm frontal armor instead of 80 mm from most tanks. Was that hull used on Panther F project?
  64. Yeah. Actually, it's obvious. It's also normal to fight the King Tigers in T25.
  65. Right... I forgot to consider the game's current slope modifier.
  66. You will never stop me from achieving my goal to the T30 heavy tanks even if you give me warning & report, his imperial majesty mod & fellow Italiano supporter. :crazy:

  67. Boom
  68. IMO when there's a plane, there's also a tank. That happened to Japan. Bet the Devs are aware of it.
  69. Didn't expect the Italian to have a Pershing on their arsenal...
  70. Sorry, was confusing it for International. There are some who use it for International, & some who use it for Italian in the forum.
  71. Well, someone wants to start something with the ITT. 1.67 was just released, & most vehicles are mostly miscellaneous which are planned for each nation since long time ago. There is a chance that international tech tree will come up sooner than estimated.
  72. Fine then. Let's just talk about the ITT.
  73. Oh, yeah. I think we went too far... Let's start with something else, how about this hint?
  74. NOPE. Not that E-79 At least the E-50 sounds possible for me. But the E-79... Ugh. It's an April Fool tank... if Gaijin has the copyright from Enterbrain.
  75. balance

    It has something to do with the tank's speed instead of the stabilizer, though. Its stabilizer is still functioning well even after the tank goes up to 30 km/h.
  76. I think I've seen this kind of turret from WoT. That one turret with its rooftop slope sliding to back instead to front.
  77. Oh, alright. I'm just saying, if Panther II has a lot of problem physically hardly possible in real life, there's "more free space" E-50... If you don't mind.
  78. balance

    Yeah, I noticed I can keep my aim far easier than before when targeting a Pz IV in an M4. Too easy, I'd say.
  79. Hmm. Doesn't seem to fit for KwK 43, though. I think it was to be armed with KwK 42. Fine, then. Though these tanks had their guns built... in iron. Whether those are needed or not, it's up to German tankers.
  80. The Panther II is a half built tank, though. Or rather a Frankenstein as per in game specification. Oh, speaking about Panther II, What's the official answer from Devs about E-50 & E-75?
  81. balance

    I think the gun problem of the T32 & its BR can be solved by arming it with T50E1 APCBC. 235 mm penetration, about equal to PzGr. 39/43.
  82. I can see from suggestion polls difference between 2 years ago & today. Well, it's still relevant if the game apply the same rule for both fully built & half built vehicles, isn't it?
  83. Yet you're still supporting your project to 17 cm G.W. Tiger, aren't you? I think the tension for papers & prototypes have simmered down since the "Big Guns" Maus update... I think? There's should have been a limitation, planes with expected, or at least, projected performances & specifications. Not something like "This is a fighter drawing I found, & should be in game", simplistically saying. I think that problem can be solved by making 2 different game modes where there will be production vehicles only (& some relevant prototypes such as T26E1-1), & full-scale mode with papers, prototypes, & productions mixed up. But that would mean splitting the playerbase all over again...
  84. More papers & prototypes. Been waiting for it. :^)
  85. Even the country with the best quality of produced APCR are nerfed & couldn't be used effectively as those were in real life. The American HVAP. I expect the other nation's APCR to perform worse. But don't quote me on that. Perhaps for "balancing" reason since these kind of shell before armor sloping mechanics update can eliminate any tank's frontal armor by just touching them. But that was 2 years ago. Yet this "bug" is still exist & intentionally nerfed from time to time, such as the most recent newcomer, the T34 heavy tank, which lost its point blank APCR penetration by 196 mm (historically 520 mm, in game only 324 mm).
  86. How about full-caliber APDS? Right, John?
  87. Yes, I think there will be. Most prototypes / papers have very promising performance before getting to high-tech modern warfare (such as XF5U Flying Pancake, XP-47J, XP-72, & P-51H for very high tier props warfare). I think there are enough of them to make a whole 1 BR full of those.
  88. Alright. Because those can penetrate up to 495 mm armor from point blank & if those are using in-game APDS SM (which is at 2.47), those would penetrate up to 200 mm 60° armor. But with that SM for early APDS (3.5), those would penetrate up to 141 mm 60° armor.
  89. Do prototype APDS such as the ones armed on T34 (T98 APDS) & M103 (T102 APDS) count as early APDS or late APDS?
  90. Since plane's BR also affect the tank's BR too... or the other way around. To say something like P-47D's sudden BR jump to 4.3 due to 3.7 became a tank kill zone for the Thunderbolts on the American strike team. If tank gets extended to 10, so does with the plane. I think.
  91. Should be for planes too. Need more diversity.
  92. Wait for BR expansion to 10.0.
  93. Yeah, whatever the way it comes in the game.
  94. Waaait, I thought the jet-powered R2Y2 didn't fly? I think partially built is the lowest minimum requirement to fulfill, just as similar as the tank's lowest minimum requirement (that one being the King Tiger 105 or E-100). I still want to see the Flying Pancake, you know. Yeah, it was built. Gun-less. That's not kind of relevant opponents I'm expecting to...
  95. Fair enough. So let's put the fighters comparable to H-0 but with minimum requirement of being partially built & not completely paper.
  96. That's not armed. This one is armed. Just as correct as the design from the blueprint. The armed Ho 229.
  97. Most likely. T34 with correct ammo could be raised to 7.3.
  98. *Taking off from Berlin Tempelhoft Airport* Without relevant opponents, the long-planned P-51H Light Mustang (that might have been modeled & armed by Gaijin since way long time ago) will end up scrapped.
  99. *Draws paper plane projects
  100. It wasn't. I was intended to kill the King Tiger from well over 1000 yards. There were simply no T-54 nor T-10M at the time the T34 was in development. It was a WWII tank after all.
  101. Not by vast amount of maneuver superiority for a big change in BR, say, something like P-51-to-P-51D transition. 6.7 is indeed the lowest, & only suitable BR for H.
  102. It penetrates King Tiger's front plate from 200 mm with a test shot? Just wait until you see the actual combat shot of its gun.
  103. Up to Tier 3 actually, where my Sherman-76 can still brush T-34-85's front hull & turret wide clean with M72 AP. Although it's gone haywire when it comes to brushing Tiger's front hull due to raw thickness.
  104. Besides "APDS > APCR" game rule, I'm afraid the APCR / APDS nerf has something to do with current BR compression. No need for explanation, I think you understand.
  105. Wait, does T50E1 penetrate vertical 235 mm or 265 mm from point blank?
  106. Yeah, already reported it.
  107. Damn right it is.
  108. Then it will be no way better than Spitfire Mk. 24 with such handicapping limitation at only 7 minutes of boost, at 6.7 BR above. Remind you, it's still a P-51D-30 dragged up to high tier battle with only its boost as its only reason to come up.
  109. Then you're literally flying a 7-minute boosted P-51D-30 Mustang without its 20 minute 90" boost. At 6.7+ BR.
  110. Have you ever considered the historical accuracy of the T34? The same matter people are concerning about in this thread?
  111. I don't know, maybe Spitfire Mk. 24 - I-250 - Me-209HV1 - Ki-84 (1,800 hp)?
  112. There's always a plane to counterbalance it from other nations if it enters. Just a hot welcome in case the H-0 just enters the game first.
  113. Sounds cool Sounds fun Sounds OP Outclimbing every single props in the game while thundering them to death from 8 km away, coming down on full speed at its peak performance.
  114. Yeah, I'm still thinking about Devs extending the BR range so all tanks can have their historical handicap removed.
  115. H-0 with 90" boost for 20 minutes.
  116. Well, not me. I'm not into international business at all.
  117. T29/T30/T34's gun mount T123/T124/T125 are based from M26's gun mount T99. No clear info available on their thickness, but according to pictures these are exactly in 1" thick (25.4mm), as available on M8/M8A1 Scott's spall shield currently in game. Hunnicutt: Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank Original T99 gun mount used in T25 Secondary shield from different perspective. Photograph from M26 Pershing interior showing the same object in gun mount as marked red on upper picture. M26 with gun mount M67 (T99E2). TM 9-735 Pershing Heavy Tank T26E3 Technical Manual Cross section of the M26, again in marked are is similar object as above.
  118. The first primary source is from this document. It contains specific vehicle datasheet based from official military records, including the T34 heavy tank. The secondary source is from Hunnicut, Firepower: A HIstory of the American Heavy Tank. Although secondary source requires minimum of 2 unrelated sources, 1 primary source is enough to fulfill as 2 unrelated sources with agreeing result: T34 has 35 km/h top speed & 13 km/h reverse speed.
  119. There's something I have to consider first, The Conway (7.0) & Conqueror (7.3) with nerfed L1G APDS are already there. Don't you think it's too high for the T34 compared to those? But those tanks's APDS can also be fixed later, so I think let's just skip this one. Do remind that it's still a T29 hull. It won't survive as a heavy tank at 7.7 compared to M103 which is also already at 7.7. In this case, it will be another Tiger II P (6.7) - Tiger II H (6.7) power creep incident again. Also, what do you mean by turreted TD? I mean, its turret turn rate is actually exactly the same as the T29 (20°/s, in game only 18°/s).
  120. He somehow points it out right, you know. T29 has a gun optic armor at only 38.1 mm. T34 is missing its gun optic armor which is also only at 38.1 mm for a new tank. The IS-6 has 150 mm thick gun optic armor for a new tank with updated micro 3D modelling feature.
  121. Up to 3 puzzles of the T30 are also shown in the most recent BVV_d Q&A, T34 Devblog, & Shooting Range Ep. 36.
  122. Those BR placement also apply to the T34, originally.
  123. Let's just settle this, I want a calm convo of the T34, & only T34 & its "joke" a.k.a "bugs". First thing is, It should have been tiered up there & not 6.7. T34 at 6.7 would be the sole reason why its gun & ammo are nerfed to "fit" 6.7. Justified, it lost all of its proper ammo performance just to make it a 6.7 tank, starting from T20E3-renamed-T14E3 AP, poor quality of T17E1 APCR, & using M73 AAHE from stratosphere gun instead of T15 HE from its own T53 gun. It doesn't even have its T98 APDS yet.
  124. Further Suggestion "discussion" can be "discussed" "there" without shifting it "here". As the rule applies: We're only here in response of the Q&A & hints.
  125. Yeah.
  126. T14E3 with 247 mm penetration sounds like its number is taken from WoT (248). While it realistically penetrates well up to 286 mm, about slightly superior to T-10M's BR-472 instead of slightly superior to IS-2M's BR-471D. Want to know all the bugs of the T34?
  127. Use the latest Q&A.
  128. It plays straight more like a super prototype trope compared to M60, honestly.
  129. Nope. I'd rather have T54E2 in that case.
  130. Ground vehicles

    Wait, did M6A2 receive additional armor package?
  131. There is a possible error with T29/T34 spall shield inside the mantlet. In here, its thickness is 20 mm, or 0.7 inch in imperial measurement. But another tank in the game, which is M8/M8A1, also have a spall shield mounted on it, with thickness of 25.4 mm, or 1 inch in imperial measurement. I would like to know that most U.S. tanks protected with spall shield have exactly 1" / 25.4 mm thick spall shield. In this case, only M8/M8A1 have such spall shield armor thickness at 1 inch. While the other tanks have only around 0.4" / 10 mm (M26/M46) or 0.8" / 20 mm (T29/T34). As far as I concern, according to M26 Pershing gun mount data, it has exactly 25.4 mm / 1 inch. That means M8/M8A1 already have correct armor thickness while the other tanks don't. Possible fix: Increase the spall shield thickness from 20 (0.7") mm to 25.4 mm (1") standard. But I recommend this to be considered & discussed thoroughly first.
  132. The T34 heavy tank is missing its 38.1 mm cast armor in its gunner scope port. This caused a big hole weakspot appearing in there in which all shell can pass through without penetrating the gun scope armor first. The problem is, the T29 has it while the T34 doesn't. In here, the T29 has its gun scope port armored with 38.1 mm cast armor. Fix: Reinforce the T34's gun scope port with 38.1 mm cast armor in similar way as the T29's gun scope port.
  133. Duh... As expected, you use estimation for its mantlet. Again, "angled 120 mm mantlet" is another German mantlet design. It's not similar to T29 mantlet by design philosophy.
  134. Well, that's certainly interesting... But that doesn't look like a raised up cupola. That suggestion applies specifically for its ammo, not the tank in general, frankly...
  135. It's not similar to T29's mantlet, not even close. It has its own German mantlet design, which resembles more like Maus' mantlet than T29 mantlet.
  136. Yeah, that's what I mean.
  137. As per American shell designation standards, AP = APBC APC = APCBC That includes additional shell parameter that should have been implemented without even asking to repeat another bug report again. The bug report requirement didn't ask for "renaming", but "replacing". Right now it's only renamed as T14E3 with parameters from T20E3.
  138. There are 2 exactly same T-54 late with only difference is additional HEAT-FS. Why not replace the T-54-2 with T-54-3 to make an existing slot for T-55? That sounds more reasonable for me than having 2 tanks with only different ammo at the same BR. T-55 have additional improvements such as engine after the T-54-3 for example. How & where did they find that
  139. Which one? The APFSDS? None. The only clue to find it is that the head of the project sent the result of the APFSDS fire test to data redaction center for final report. Other than that, there is none.
  140. Yes, the T designation is indeed for test round. Is there any problem about that designation with the tank, may I ask? About making a Suggestion to separate the various rounds into their 'time-zone', We already made 2 suggestion based from that method, but unfortunately are now closed by @CokeSpray due to it has to be a bug report instead of suggestion as you said: T33 is an M77 with a ballistic windshield over the nose, it's partially true. The T33 is also a reheat-treated M77. Its ballistic windshield is also a thing that makes it designated as APBC, & not AP as it is currently in game. All U.S. late war armor-piercing rounds were made as sharp-nosed as per their shape & specifications. If we are to examine the difference between sharp-nosed & blunt-nosed AP: This is T33 APBC, as you can see it indeed has windshield / ballistic cap, so it should be classified as APBC, sharp-nosed, but in game, it's only designated as AP) Shell No. 1 is BR-350A & Shell No. 2 is BR-350B, both have windshield / ballistic cap, these are correctly modeled in game as APBC, blunt-nosed. I suspect BVV_d misidentified the American shell shape of sharp-nosed APBC as blunt-nosed AP after seeing his official answer Q&A years ago. As you can see, he misidentified the round: 1. Oversimplifying the issue by changing most American-standard sharp-nosed AP into Soviet-standard blunt-nosed AP 2. Removing the ballistic cap parameter from most American APBC rounds in game 3. Then he said: "the shell body shape under the ballistic cap is taken into account for the ricochet propreties, that's why it's listed as "AP" in game 4. APBC parameter in game only applies to blunt-nosed AP with windshield, which is the Soviet-standard blunt-nosed APBC 5. As a result, American APBC shells are now classified as blunt-nosed APBC without windshield, which is far from being historical
  141. I was planning to suggest T267 HEAT for the T30, but I'm afraid we haven't come across any specific records of its shell specification. I still have to find its HE warhead first. More importantly, every shells the T30 has must be available from 155 mm M1 Long Tom gun first for compatibility issue. (All of the T30 ammunition came from Long Tom since these are the same gun, just shortened by 5 calibers) It's still unknown whether the T267 HEAT was fired from Long Tom. But the T152E5 HEP was. That's why I decided to exclude the T267 & use the T152E5 instead. & yes, it fired APFSDS. Precisely, a 155 mm APFSDS.