• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sirchby last won the day on February 25

Sirchby had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,137 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

3,158 profile views
  1. Well, most of those, yes, I think. But some do make a very common sense. Not to mention about the Nashorn which is at 5.3... What makes up for its performance that it can be said to be comparable to Tiger II (P)? Well, I, for instance, can tell you that Super Pershing: -is less armored than Tiger II even by turret armor (turret front sides are only 101 mm which even 85 mm can strike it goodbye) -is less mobile than Tiger II (a very serious issue coming from a heavy tank with medium tank engine while damped with scrap armor) -has awful 90 mm gun performance (all including by velocity, penetration, & even rate of fire) substantially when compared to 88 mm gun If those 3 main aspect of a tank is beaten in every way, what makes it worthy for 6.3 rank, may I ask? It's obvious. Sherman Jumbo is a lower class heavy tank when directly compared to both Tiger I @ IS-2, especially concerning about its firepower. Same reason for why the IS-1 is downtiered to 5.3 not so long time ago even though you can say it's also comparable to Tiger I & Sherman Jumbo. Well, to be frank it can be a good 7.0 light tank with APCR removed. But I do want that. Gaijin Devs want that. Almost every American tankman want that. On top of that it with M82-hardened T50E1 AP can outgun the Panther's PzGr 39/42 at top notch 194 mm penetration from PB. It can sit alone by itself at 6.3 replacing the Super Pershing. Never forget that the T29E3 is still around the Dev's desk to reinforce its premium version at the same 6.7 BR. Oh, now you're seeing the whole plan. Yes. it can be roughly said that the American tech tree will have more or less a nation full of prototypes. & that's the plan all along. The borderline between prototype & production does not exist anymore. No, it should be 7.0. Armed with HEP, it can be too nasty for 6.3 or 6.7. More or less not a problem. Although 7.3 is advised. But it will be the one which is nemesis instead of the Tiger II 105 with all of its weaponry unlocked (that including its primary APDS round) 7.0 with added weight & rearranged turret plate. I have a feeling that it should be 7.7 due to its insane mobility & firepower of a modern light tank. The existence of T-54-47 is already a mess in the first place, though. Fair enough. As a premium, I suppose? Turretless Panther but with better gun. Right... That's a 8,8cm PaK 43 on an armored hull you're talking about. It goes sniping while flanking, it's all over for low tier tanks. Well, this is a borderline of hard position & insanity. Or both. More like never go lower than 6.3. Agree. Agree. More or less it should be a good fight for PT-85. The Japanese tanks are screwed up, at least by its current status.
  2. I got my hopes up for T32E1 & T30 heavy tanks, especially considering the American medium tanks, 2 regular medium tanks has been added recently.
  3. Japan also has one, it seems.
  4. Maybe. The gun is not. The shell is.
  5. KPz Keiler's opponent would be the T95E8. T95 armor with 120 mm Delta (LASH) smoothbore gun & equipped with laser rangefinder. The predecessor of Keiler's 120 mm gun.
  6. I honestly don't understand why it the info is struck by NDA when bringing O-I into the game is systematically just like suggesting any other tank in the forum. Even if it's under NDA, the tank released by Gaijin will (hopefully) have the same specification as given under the NDA. It seems that Japanese archive is so sacred, including a Pre-WWII military tank. kek
  7. Tanks/Vehicles

    Because Object 704 was not a part of high powered 152 mm gun program. It didn't have 152 mm BL-10 as the ISU-152BM-2.
  8. Tanks/Vehicles

    First thing, I haven't heard of any reports about installation of 152 mm BL-10 into Object 704. Second, where would you locate it if Object 268 is already in the game? On par to Jagdtiger at 7.0, maybe? Remember that it was a WWII tank.
  9. Tanks/Vehicles

    Necromancy is allowed as long as it's a suggestion.
  10. And why are you bringing NVA T-55 into T95E1 topic? Please take your NVA tank away from here
  11. I know, that's why I'm searching for more references.
  12. I'm on my way looking for each of documents from AFVDB describing M26 with gun stabilizer. There should be another reference that can be used.
  13. Everything on Dev Server is final. Just like many other major updates.
  14. Yes. Exactly.
  15. It's cast on the server, actually.
  16. YES Historical accuracy over everything that sounds artificial. We prefer historical accuracy which states that its lower plate is 95 mm at 59° with risk of BR increase rather than balance by purposely nerfing its lower plate to 46° while staying at its current BR.
  17. MIL-HDBK-799(AR) Found by @Yukari___Akiyama
  18. The most airheaded troll you'll find in the forum.
  19. aircraft/loadouts

  20. There are some basic problem with that mechanic: -That would increase its default BR while being outgunned if 90 mm M3A1 is not researched yet, then leaving 90 mm M3 useless after researched with a new one -No tanks in the game have switchable gun -The whole point of the M36B2 introduction is to extend the US tank destroyer line, as a new vehicle to research after the M36. Having a high tier M36 Jackson while armed with new HEAT-FS -Also, M36B2 is using diesel engine (General Motors Mod. 6046 - From M4A2 GMC / M10 GMC), while M36 is using gasoline engine (Ford GAA - From M4A3 Sherman / M10A1 GMC), which is impossible to have one of those researched in a single tank
  21. Still perfect as it is.
  22. So what is your intention by saying that German needs a post-WWII tank when the topic you've started is "T34 American Heavy Tank shot my Jagdtiger to oblivion through lower plate" in the first place?
  23. Yes. I know that.
  24. Fair enough.
  25. I repeat, The nerf does not decrease the damage point of 120 mm AP. It's still 700 pts. Only the blast zone is made slightly smaller.
  26. Yeah, the report, it is. But I need a photographic record or any surviving parts of the Ho-Ri, if there's any.
  27. Looking forward to it.
  28. Incoming another low quality meme
  29. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Some people are just finding it creepy to see an actual combat pragmatist Sherman with hammered armor against their tanks which couldn't penetrate A Sherman like a butter just as usual. In other word, SNAFU
  30. I still need more actual photograph of its prototype being built & running. As for O-I, I'm sure it was built since a block of its track is still remain. But I'm skeptical for this one.
  31. So, to put the data in: 150 mm Type 95 APHE Projectile Mass: 36.1 kg Muzzle Velocity: ? m/s Explosive Type: TNT Explosive Mass: 2.3 kg Fuze Type: B.D., Type 95 Penetration: ? 150 mm Type 92 HE Projectile Mass: 36 kg Muzzle Velocity: ? m/s Explosive Type: TNT Explosive Mass: 5 kg Fuze Type: P.D., Type 88 Fuse Delay: 0.1 m Fuse Sensitivity: 0.5 mm Penetration: ? Seems you're still missing their muzzle velocity & penetration number. Also HEAT shell (if there's any).
  32. +1
  33. m4a3e2 (76) w

    1.6 times thicker. So everyone agrees that Tiger I is better armored than Sherman Jumbo when angling.
  34. Poor German meme quality
  35. It's not a plain nerf. Only its angle & distance are nerfed. In fact, it's a slight buff. The damage point is still solid 700 pt. Smaller blast zone + 700 pt damage = 120 mm Slug Shotgun
  36. If you say so, ^All I can see to every (German) players disagreeing with Solid AP buff without even understanding the reason behind it.
  37. IS-6 can't kill Jagdtiger's UFP with a shot because BR-471 APHE shell will be destroyed right after its HE fuse is active. Here's what you need to know: 1. APHE explodes after hitting a hard module (such as transmission) ingame In reality, its behavior is not different than solid AP. Only its HE filler goes off & explodes, while the AP is still continuing its flight path into the compartment. 2. T34's T14E3 AP(CBC) is the most damaging full caliber solid AP in the game, along with M103's M358 AP(BC) It's 23 kg heavy, a full 120 mm caliber bullet, flying at 944 m/s (should have been 960 m/s). 3. APHE is overperforming Say no more APHE during WWII only makes average kill of 1-2 crew per tank (if the tank doesn't pop off). But because the game can't accept the basic rule of WWII which a tank is rendered knocked out even if only 1-2 crews are killed, With regards to overperforming APHE, 4. So as a countermeasure of this "hard-to-knock-out tank" & "too high explosive AP", solid AP is made powerful It has to be made powerful to prevent APHE-only nation such as Soviet & German from ROFLstomping American & British tanks. 5. Another reason to buff solid AP is to reflect common solid AP's powerful kinetic energy effect, even though it's not properly introduced with such system yet (M103 is known with the highest kinetic energy produced than any single tank in history, which is based from T34's gun) TL;DR: >APHE can't kill Jagdtiger's UFP because APHE shell explodes after the fuze goes off >Realistically-speaking, common APHE (75 mm - 100 mm) only killed 1-2 crew during WWII >Due to such nature is game-breaking, so, >APHE is made overperforming as an alternative way to knock out a tank >Instead of dealing small damage to crew which will take long time to kill due to damage system >Solid AP is still left with its underperforming damage (lower than realistic) >Instead of slightly buffing it to the point of being realistic, Devs decided to buff it with similar reason to APHE: >To kill the crew with a lot of damage instead of dealing small damage like in WWII >Also to prevent APHE dominance (Soviet & German) against solid AP (American & British) One crew dead = tank knocked out realism doesn't exist in game. To negate this, all 3 aspects threshold are increased at the same time: Crew resistance increased APHE performance increased Solid AP performance increased (comes last, so I pardon your concern with "OP Solid AP" because you don't fully understand the cause of its buff yet) In reality Both AP & APHE will deal small damage to kill 1-2 crew / explode ammo / burn fuel tank then the tank is knocked out In game: Both AP & APHE will deal heavy damage to kill 4-5 crew / explode ammo / burn fuel tank then the tank is knocked out
  38. Well, the penetration number is okay (if it's correct in the first place). But thing's still a thing: Someone still has to find its specification to DeMarre its 150 mm shells penetration, SOP for anything related to WT Suggestion & Bug Report rule about tank shell. I suggest to use format like this to give additional information about its primary armament (knowing that it has different 150 mm Type 96 than Ho-Ro's 150 mm Type 38, so it's more of a new gun with new performance currently unavailable in the game) to match the ingame requirement for shell specification, such as: 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: Not only it completes your report for O-I suggestion, but it would also be helpful for anyone that might be wondering about how its shell would be. 155 mm M101 has 7.58 kg TNT. Sorry, my suggestion escapes me.
  39. It has APHE? Anyway, I need more specification of it, since you've already told the penetration. With format like this: 150 mm HEAT (Designation?) Projectile Mass: ? kg Muzzle Velocity: ? m/s Explosive Type: ? Explosive Mass: ? g Fuze Type: ? 150 mm APHE (Designation?) Projectile Mass: ? kg Muzzle Velocity: ? m/s Explosive Type: ? Explosive Mass: ? g Fuze Type: ? Would help identifying the shell better.
  40. How is the performance of its 150 mm shells? Any available shells.
  41. heavy tank

    More chance that it will replace the T32 rather than reinforcing the T32.
  42. aircraft/loadouts

    To make it clear: B-17G can load 2x AN-M56 with hardpoint. B-29A can load 4x AN-M56 in its bomb bay.
  43. Small tips: Use 12.7 mm MG ballistic trajectory to guide the 152 mm M409A1 HEAT. After some battles with Sheridan, I praised its performance of it being able to creeps me out with its HEAT. -It's easily controllable by using MG spotting rifle (I managed to snipe a T-10M from 800 m away in Kursk ) -Almost everyone expects it to fire missile on first strike while exposing itself -152 mm HEAT is extremely good at destroying enemy gun, Sheridan can reload faster than the enemy -Destroying ammo rack & crew is so far not a slightest problem (well, I usually knocked out 2-3 crew at once)
  44. Non-rotating radar such as those on Shilka & VADS should be limited to where their radar is pointed at, shouldn't it?
  45. Ground vehicles

    At what BR, though? It has a 152 mm big red brick launched up to 850 m/s of an ISU-152 hull.
  46. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Your joke escapes me, Jumbo 76 is superior to the Tiger I With what? 4 mm less side armor & much worse angling ability. Right. Tiger I, for instance, has stable 102 mm whole front armor, 80 mm upper side armor, & 60 mm lower side armor. While Sherman Jumbo, in practice, has buggy 38 mm + 63 mm upper front armor, 139 mm lower front armor, 76 mm upper side armor, & 38 mm lower side armor. Angling it can increase its overall armor effectiveness than M4A3E2 drastically. Unless you put an M2 charge into Jumbo 76's AP round, Don't even think to survive a direct gunfight against IS-2 & Tiger E.
  47. Besides, US Navy still needs its independent 6.7 naval fighter.
  48. 76 mm M1A2 gun was tested with high capacity propellant M2 for its shell which was a standard propelling charge for 3-inch M7 gun during WWII. ADA800118 - Work on Sabot-Projectiles and Supplements The comparison between M62 at 2600 ft/s vs M62 at 2800 ft/s fired from 76 mm M1A2: Do remind that It was tested using 76 mm M1A2, which has slightly better ballistic performance than basic 76 mm M1 / M1A1 at range, due to better rifling from 1:40 to 1:32 caliber. A reminder: 3-inch M7 uses M2 propellant as its standard. 76 mm M1 uses M26 propellant as its standard. Charge weight: 4.87 lbs for 3-inch (M2) 3.75 lbs for 76 mm (M26) As for the propellant, M2 was significantly bigger than M26, thus shells fired from 3-inch M7 (M10 GMC) has better ballistic than 76 mm M1 (M4(76) Sherman) (2800 ft/s vs 2600 ft/s). To make it clear of the difference between cartridge used for 76 mm & 3-inch: My suggestion is to arm any tanks in game with 76 mm M1A2 using 3-inch propellant charge to increase the shell's ballistic performance & penetration. Tanks armed with 76 mm M1A2 in game: M4A3(76)W Sherman Medium Tank M18 Hellcat GMC M18 Black Cat GMC After it's armed with bigger charge, the performance would go like this: Muzzle velocity: M62 APCBC from 792 m/s to 853 m/s M79 AP from 792 m/s to 853 m/s M42A1 HE from 800 m/s to 853 m/s Penetration: M62 APCBC (2600 ft/s): Angle 10m 0° 127mm 30° 100mm 60° 56mm | to | M62 APCBC (2800 ft/s): Angle 10m 0° 141mm 30° 123mm 60° 62mm M79 AP (2600 ft/s): Angle 10m 0° 155mm 30° 118mm 60° 56mm | to | M79 AP (2800 ft/s): Angle 10m 0° 172mm 30° 131mm 60° 62mm Thanks in advance.
  49. Remember it has 6x AN/M3 20 mm. Gone Overkill against anything other than 30 mm MK 103 + set of 5 more 20 mm cannons (German fighter gunship).
  50. Primary source: TM-9-2350-230-12 - Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle M551 Sheridan Listed combat weight: 33,460 lb, or 15.17 metric ton. 1.13 ton lighter than in-game weight, which is using US ton instead universal metric ton.
  51. Someone who doesn't know slightest about historical accuracy strikes again
  52. M36B2 is the latest variant of the M36 Jackson tank destroyer. First produced in March 1945, due to continuing demand for 90 mm gun motor carriages, there were not enough M10A1 hull to be converted into M36. So the solution was to use the remaining M10 hull, designated as T71E1. it was later classified as the Substitute Standard 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B2, & additional 52 were converted at the Montreal Locomotive Works by the end of the year. M36B2 is based from M10, which is from M4A2 (with diesel engine) M36 is based from M10A1, which is from M4A3 (with gasoline engine) 724 M36B2 were built from WWII - Post-WWII. Primarily used by America, South Korea, & France during Korean War. Specification: Weight: 29.93 ton (66,000 lbs) Crew: 5 men (commander, driver, radio operator, gunner, loader) Engine: General Motors Series 71, Mod. 6046 twin diesel Engine power (net): 375 hp at 2100 rpm Engine power (gross): 410 hp at 2900 rpm Power-to-weight: 12.68 hp/ton Transmission: Synchromesh, 5-speed forward, 1 reverse Suspension: VVSS with spaced out "E9" suspension for extender end connectors "duckbill" Pivot: n/a Max speed: 40 km/h Turret rotation speed: 24°/s Vertical guidance: -10 / 20° Hull armor: Front Upper: 38.1 mm (55°) Lower: 50.8 - 108 mm (0 - 56°) Sides Upper: 19.05 mm (38°) Lower: 25.4 mm (0°) Rear Upper: 19.05 mm (38°) Lower: 19.05 mm (0°) Top Front: 19.05 mm Rear: 9.5 mm Floor Bottom: 12.7 mm Turret armor: Mantlet: 76.2 mm Front: 31.75 mm Sides: 31.75 mm Rear: 44.45 mm - 127 mm (counterweight) Top: 9.5 - 25.4 mm Main gun: 90 mm M3A1 L/53 (47 rounds) Muzzle velocity: 853 m/s Standard/sustained rate of fire: 8 RPM (7.5 seconds) Maximum rate of fire: 15 RPM (4 seconds) Secondary gun: 12.7 mm M2HB (flexible AA mount) (1000 rounds) Additional gun: 7.62 mm M1919A4 (flexible AA mount) (3000 rounds) Here's French RBCEO M36B2 with additional .30 cal MG The variant to be introduced in the game is not going to be the original M36B2 with 90 mm M3 L/53. But its modernized version, armed with 90 mm M3A1 L/53 gun, with noticeable difference being installed with bore evacuator & single-baffle muzzle brake. Since both M36B2 & M46 have the same gun with the same munitions during Korean War, it had 90 mm M348A1 (T108E46) HEAT-FS shell, primarily purposed to destroy Soviet-made tanks in Korea, especially the M36B2 is classified as tank destroyer. 90 mm M3A1 ammunition: M82 APCBC-HE Late (140 gr Exp. D) M71 HE M318 APBC M304 APCR M332 APCR T108E46 / M348A1 HEAT-FS (latest mod of T108 HEAT in service) TM 9-718 - Medium Tanks M46 and M46A1 Service ammunition: Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Weapon datasheet: Primary Sources: TM 9-718 - Medium Tanks M46 and M46A1 (1951) TM 9-745 - 90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B2 (1945) Secondary Sources: M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-1953 (Steven Zaloga, 2002) Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank (R.P. Hunnicutt, 1971) Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank (R.P. Hunnicutt, 1984) Compilation Sources: AFV Database - 90 mm GMC M36