• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sirchby last won the day on February 25

Sirchby had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,877 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

2,884 profile views
  1. Now you've fully acknowledged a comparable German bomber of ze mighty U.S. Bomber to intoduce. Both
  2. Bump You can have this shell working in order for M45 Pershing. 5" / 127 mm penetration against RHA.
  3. Maybe T1E2 / M6 at 4.3 with 76 mm frontal armor is good? Wait. Was M6 overall front turret armor only 101 mm thick (50.1 + 50.1)? I thought it was supposed to be thicker than that.
  4. I think the only time the British used American 57 mm M1 with full American shells was the T18E2 they used during African campaign.
  5. Added flying wings.
  6. Because that is the new rule. M348 HEAT-FS is out of context here... British didn't use M86 AP for their 6-pounder. Only America & Soviet did with 57 mm M1.
  7. Doesn't stop any chances from entering the game. Your point is?
  8. T58: M103 hull T30 gun mod. T54E1 turret mod. The resemblance is close.
  9. Would you seriously stop & focus on one tank, which is the T25?
  10. I'm waiting for increasing the IS-6 weight here. It's too light for a heavy tank.
  11. How come a heavy tank can accelerate even faster than a Bulldog.
  12. Read the whole 3 pages first.
  13. On top of that, there's still a lot of U.S. tank destroyers to enter the game.
  14. Barely someone play it because its exploding mine cupola. I assure you 8/10 will play T95 again with its cupola "automatic bounce mechanical weakspot" removed. This kind of problem is getting way out of my reach, & I will only focus on passing this tank destroyer first. "BR / Period issues" comes last.
  15. A new BR range must be available for these super-experimental tanks, might be somewhere around the border of late WWII - late CW.
  16. That if it indeed has 305 mm penetration. If not? That M36B2 (M3) - 6.3 slot will be replaced with M36B2 (M3A1) to support the M46 at lower BR. But if M348 is repaired as it actually is, both M36B2 & M46 are safe to enter 6.7 & 7.0 respectively. M36B2 (M3) doesn't offer any advantages over M36 to be placed in 6.3 which will only repeat another M36 BR 6.3 problem. Also, it's redundant, again. (Maybe downtiering T95 to Ferdinand level at 6.3 is a better choice. Damn slow 13 km/h gun carriage doesn't do any good at 6.7. Just look at the T28.) T95 should not be in heavy tank branch as there are already some important heavy tanks slot entering 6.0 - 7.0 without T95 to disrupt the research progress.
  17. Except T17E3. It was never given, not even close to use by British.
  18. Tanks/Vehicles

    Might also because Army Ordnance (McNair) didn't like to arm their Sherman with anti-tank gun which leads to tank vs tank warfare. Just adding some more details.
  19. Then I assume you forgot the current status of Patton with M348 *HEAT* in game.
  20. Tanks/Vehicles

    Yes & no. First, there is no known official designation "M4 90V". It's authentically made by Wargaming. Only proper designation of it would be M4A3(90)W. M36B1 production began when M10(90) was used as a test bed to rearm 90 mm M3 on it. Then it was decided to use M4A3 late hull as a supplemental variant of the M36 due to short supply on M10A1 hull. There is no connection of M36 development with M4(90) whatsoever. Both M4A3(90) were M4A3 VVSS & M4A3 HVSS. Only M4A3 VVSS was photographed. Only M4A3 HVSS was reported running active trials.
  21. 00°: 305 mm 30°: 261 mm 60°: 152 mm
  22. Tanks/Vehicles

    Which sources? Well, there is no backing reference stating that 90 mm gun was mounted on M4A3E2. M4A3E8 & M4A3 were indeed armed with 90 mm gun. Only tank with well documented trial is the M4A3E8(90). I don't think 90 mm shortage was a problem, given the project to upgun the M4 with 90 mm was already underway since late 1942.
  23. No. As I said, the HEAT-FS is from the M46 (M348 / M348A1). In fact, M47 historically used M348A1 & not M431.
  24. Tanks/Vehicles

    More 40x T25E1 were produced after the first T25 pilot was experimented. Had U.S. Army Ordnance approved the whole project for service production, both T25E1 & T26E3 would have been the main force of U.S. as medium & heavy respectively from armor standard.
  25. Hence the "modernization" specified from the main post to differ between WWII M36B2 (M3) & KW M36B2 (M3A1).
  26. Actually, no. All 90 mm L/53 gun tracked vehicles have well-known sustained RoF at 8 RPM & maximum RoF at 15 RPM. That means Patton & Jackson have the same RoF. I will recall PT-76 is a post-war light tank which has 5.3 BR slinging high velocity 76 mm HEAT-FS. "late war post war BR stuff" is out of context at the moment here. Don't forget as a TD, it has a specialized rule that the vehicle must effectively carry its order as tank destroyer (which means, easily destroy tank) than medium / heavy tanks carrying the same gun at effective BR range. Since the Patton is fast, capable of withstanding some shots, & able to do anything the Jackson can't do, the Jackson must reflect its tank destroying supremacy over the Patton by placing it at lower BR, thus justifying its role into major / primary tank destroyer instead of being merely minor / secondary spawn, disposable last resort spawn with inferior performance at the same BR. I'm well aware about this.
  27. Tanks/Vehicles

    Doesn't offer really useful advantage compared to basic M4A3 tank.
  28. Tanks/Vehicles

    That's where T25 (& much more produced T25E1) comes in.
  29. Almost. It is indeed almost. It's still a high powered HEAT-FS. It's supposed to incinerate anything ahead of its blast zone, regardless of thickness causing "less blast damage". Do we really have to solve an unhistorical issue with more unhistorical issue? My only concern is highly artificial parameters from most vehicles in game. I suspect the M348 HEAT-FS is nerfed to fit 6.7 when it can just go up to 7.0 easily.
  30. Yea, I know. Many tank guns were based from AA gun, but when it's this big...
  31. Wouldn't place an inferior tank destroyer with the same armament of the medium tank at the same BR. TD rule: Lower BR than tanks carrying the same gun if all-around performance is unsatisfactory.
  32. Tanks/Vehicles

    This is M4A3 VVSS. For The Record, this particular vehicle, called the M4 90V by WG. More like T-34-85. It's very inappopriate, in fact. U.S. tank designation didn't use "V" designation. U.K. did. That source is indeed sketchy. Sherman Pershing is a testbed vehicle intended to test the M4 with 90 mm M3 gun. While "Sherman-Jackson" you talked about is the M36B1 Jackson, an M4A3 VVSS installed with Jackson turret which was approved for production in late 44 as a supplemental variant of the M10A1 hull M36. It will most likely be M36B1 as regular tank destroyer after M36 while M4A3(90) as premium medium tank reinforcing the T25.
  33. Since when was 155 mm M1 an AA gun?
  34. Technically, it's the base gun (155 mm M1) which had HEP, not the tank. 155 mm T7 is just a variant of it which can also fire all shells the M1 have.
  35. M10(90) was a testbed to arm tank destroyer with 90 mm gun. A precusor of the M36. M36B2 (M3) is still redundant for the tech tree, but should be convenient for, say, event tank or bundle tank (especially given U.S. has 2 Tier 4 premium tank destroyers with this to add more).
  36. I recall, the muzzle velocity is 3800 ft/s, right. Because it was too early to begin with the T34. Those shells were available to M103 as an experimental shell. And maximum.
  37. The only exact difference will be the engine. I mean, what makes it special compared to M36 if it's a premium? or Rare? Well, at least M10(90) is different which makes it good premium version of 5.7 M36 instead of M36B2. 1 variant of the latest build of M36B2 is suffice.
  38. Taking it to 7.3 with all perfect performing ammo will only make it even better.
  39. B1 has already been suggested. So I take the B2 instead since no one started it yet. (Rushed this so no one will ever suggest the M36B2 with 90 mm M3, which is basically going to be exactly similar to M36 if someone doesn't point out it has 90 mm M3A1 from modernization)
  40. Added new source indicating the penetration of T35E1 HVAP from 155 mm T7. Thanks for the source, @JohnGR
  41. I know. But I'm just showing the historical version of the shell, which is what a suggestion is supposed to do.
  42. I was expecting this one for in game. Unfortunately it's the other way around.
  43. Because it was the origin of its creation. It's like saying the American M4A2(76)W VVSS is not supposed to be in American Tech tree but lend-leased to Canada & Soviet because the American only used HVSS variant of M4A2(76)W. Looks like I missed one more I on its mark. I mean the Staghound Mk. III. They adopted Crusader turret (instead of M8 turret) & used their own OQF 75 mm gun.
  44. British converted T17E1 with 3" howitzer with its own unique British designed turret as a replacement for T17E3. Although American indeed had zero interest with T17E3, it was not given to British & still kept in Erie Proving Ground for trial by American's own purpose.
  45. T17E3 was still in U.S. since its final specification is still based from U.S. standard specification. Same goes to M6 which the British also wrote its own specification for M6, but rejected in the end. U.S. only used their own standard. Well, guess what? British doesn't have M6 in its tech tree. Instead, it has Excelsior using M6 suspension. Especially given the M8 turret is unique to U.S. inventory.
  46. Tanks/Vehicles

    This is M36 & M36B1 Jackson. This is a very preliminary design for M4 tank with D50878 turret. Not exactly a good performing tank compared to M4A3 with T26 turret which is more spacial. Most American tanks applied 69" turret ring during WWII. Means you can switch M4 / M6 / M26 turret interchangeably. It was a successful test, whatsoever. In fact, this project continued up to installing M6 tank with T26 turret. +1 Definitely a good substitute to T25 but lighter & faster. @Whelmy might have a photograph of M4A3(90)W HVSS during trials.
  47. Well, I forgot to replace T33 with T33E7. Going to write down track model as a part of modernization feature. Should be good now. Thanks for reminding.
  48. 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
  49. Which version of armor do you think would be fair & square for ingame M6A1 & all possible upcoming M6 variants (except A2E1)?
  50. Which is wrong. The right one.
  51. You're overestimating what I said... I'm talking about what makes the "common" difference between M3 & M3A1. I wouldn't mind about the performance difference for actual purpose. But "200 ft/s difference is negligible" is not right as it makes up the "common" difference of both guns. Understand now? Shooting Tiger II's side ammo rack from 150 mm thick frontal armor doesn't seem to blow it quite easily. Using M431 of the Scorpion, by the way. That's one thing. It might be fired from M3 from firing trials, but it won't stop the fact that each tank in service (M26, M46, M47, M48, & M56) already has its own standard ammunition loadout for historical purpose. That's why I have to remind you why this thread is still exist: So shell distrbution is accurate per each tank's standard loadout.
  52. . My point? Simple. As simple as Misery said: He's right. What you call "good 6.3 gun" is already exist way below that.. Remember Nashorn, or IS-2, or maybe ISU-122 perhaps? Remember. until 6.7 Which makes up for every thread critizing for rather high BR for a subpar heavy tank.
  53. If we come to "problematic vehicle with no place in current BR", then it's emphasized: Every tanks in the game has problematic BR position since it's no longer "vehicle BR based on performance", but "vehicle BR based from set amount of balance" Low tier tanks when uptiered are supposed to suffer if they don't overcome the performance disadvantage against high tier tank with skill. There's nothing wrong with that. BUT when you have to do the same as what to be called a low tier tank... against tank of similar tier, it's both nonsense & imbalanced. As someone has already explained: Pick, T29 T34 T32 Tiger II (P) Tiger II (H) IS-2 1943 IS-2 1944 IS-6 Black Prince Caernarvon You will only know that Super Pershing is: Only slightly superior to both IS-2 (6.3) & Black Prince (6.0) Slightly inferior to Tiger II (P) (6.3) While ridiculously overmatched by the rest.
  54. To an extent of extreme fictional issue.
  55. Although it's still kind of misleading, considering the blueprint design of the T34 taken by Chieftain. More or less it should be detailed like this (for near-accurate armor thickness).
  56. What your so-called source is also including this: And this is the actual penetration chart. See the underlined ammo there? 12" / 305 mm penetration for T108E40 HEAT. Still remember what arczer said? Now get into the confusion: 1. M348 is only a HEAT & only penetrates 210 mm 2. T49 ammunition according to "source" is a HEAT-FS ammunition & far penetrates 305 mm 3. If you carefully read it thoroughly from arczer's post, the HEAT-FS ammunition is called "T108E40 / Early M348" -T108E40 "HEAT-FS" is actually the M348 "HEAT". -Now you know that M348 in game is actually underperforming & misidentified without fin-stabilizer -Both T49 & M46 have the same HEAT-FS shell. So, yeah. Unless the ingame M348 HEAT"-FS" is fixed, the current T49 will also have the same "210 mm penetrating HEAT".
  57. What do you think now?
  58. 1. The M348 has a cone tube extension which is not present in the M348A1. The fin cross-section of the M348 is rectangular while that of the M348A1 is T-shaped. But performance-wise, it penetrates similar. 2. I believe you can understand better by visiting this thread,
  59. I have to remind you that currently the M348 HEAT-FS is heavily underperforming. While in game stat card says: 00°: 210 mm 30°: 181 mm 60°: 104 mm Its actual performance says: 00°: 305 mm 30°: 261 mm 60°: 152 mm Bug Report:
  60. Why even bother about the performance difference importance in the first place? Refer to some differences in general. It's still the same M3 gun with slightly increased muzzle velocity & added bore evacuator. Are we talking about performance effect on penetration? No. All HEAT has been useless since day 1 unless hitting ammo rack. What HEAT? You mean M348 HEAT? In game: Yes, it's underperforming. While actually It has penetration of 6" against 60° RHA. T-54-1947 hull is butter by comparison. While you're just referring to M3 gun ammunition by broad term, someone else has already posted all Patton tanks with historical ammo loadout. I'll just make this short as I already said: M431 & M348 are not the same shell. Period See this "M431 / T300" designation up here? See this "M348 / T108" designation up here?" These are like, actual documents from US testing lol.
  61. No. This thing has smoothbore 90 mm T132E3 gun. Doesn't fire conventional AP (M318) shell. Has HEAT-FS (M348) round from Patton, not Patton 3 / Type 61 (M431). Has HEP (T142E3) round from Patton 3 & Scorpion.
  62. There is a known bug where its boiler armor is completely rendered ineffective after 4 consecutive HESH shots.
  63. Panther hull plate on Pershing mantlet = RHA Boiler plate on Pershing hull = Structural steel
  64. Right... M348 was designated as T108E40 (or T108E46 as M348A1) during development in 1950. M431 was designated as T300 during development in 1955. These are not even the same shell at all. 5 years difference either is also too far. You might want to look up for T108E40 & T300 development report since these are like, actual documents from US testing lol. Of course I posted after you did. I'm actually answering your reply. 200 ft/s difference is important to differ M3A1/M36/M41 over M3. Negligible is relative. It's still a different performing gun of the same variant.
  65. I know. They forget to turn off the spalling damage of 120 mm solid shot at the same time they nerfed APHE (either intentionally or accidentally). I have 2 reasons: 1. Bail out / combat incapable / knocked out after a tank is penetrated is off from game's structural feature. That's why they inverted the way to completely knock out a tank by increasing the damage threshold as an alternative to "crew out of action". Although realistically-speaking, the "explosion" shouldn't be as spherical big as blowing a C4 inside a tank. 2. By game balance, crew also need to have "health" (white, yellow, orange, red, black). Making the crew completely unable to do anything after receiving a slight scratch from spalling won't do any good to current game system. The current performance reduction depending on crew color is already present. 2a. Although completely crew combat incapable is certainly a good feature for a game mode which need specialized "realism" such as SB.
  66. Well, seems the T34's full caliber 120 mm solid AP is doing more significant damage over any APHE.
  67. Sometimes.
  68. Although that's not my issue at best. The penetration is. And muzzle velocity.
  69. It is. All my bounces are only hitting the IS-6.
  70. One tank wont simply judge one tank's BR. "unjustified"? Black Prince is fine at 6.0.
  71. Define bad.
  72. Too bad I hit many King Tiger's turret very well from 800 m during Sinai clash.
  73. @Smin1080p, how so? We still have many bugs to resolve. Simple way.
  74. Precisely. Patton 2 & 3 have improved ammo over Patton 1. M318A1 APBC. No M304, it doesn't use M304. The APCR is M332A1. Patton 2 didn't have M431 HEAT-FS. It also uses M348 from Patton 1. T50E1 is only for T32 & T32E1. Patton 3 with gun option is out of my reach. It wouldn't. But it's unhistorical & will remove their identity as WWII-era tanks. These tanks which are supposed to fight against Tiger II & Jagdtiger on equal foot with conventional AP now will be marked as CW-era tank against T-10M & IT-1 due to one single unconventional shell for additional firepower (at the same time while being unhistorical). Definitely bad idea. Although you can use a much harder T32 APC designated as T182 AP fired at 3500 ft/s for T5 gun. 105 mm Full caliber Solid shot at 1067 m/s It will in time. No, those tanks are good enough to defend themselves against 7.0 - 7.3 tanks. Every other nations are also getting frequently uptiered. T29 & T95 are already balanced even without HEP shell. Don't. We don't even know the APDS actual muzzle velocity yet. Same like T17E1 HVAP is 3550 ft/s from 1949 but it is 4150 ft/s from 1958 (600 ft/s difference). No records of the T98 APDS from 1958. But it can be assumed if T98 APDS also has increased MV by 600, then it's increased from 3800 ft/s to 4400 ft/s. T32 needs T50E1 because it did have T50E1 listed on its weapon loadout. That wouldn't be necessary. It's the other tanks which should be tweaked, not the T29 & T95. King Tiger is at tFS same situation as the T29 is. More like: HEAT - no FS
  75. Ground vehicles

  76. As you can see, it's a penetration table for T116 APBC. The T14E3 is an APCBC. Has better vertical penetration but worse sloped penetration.
  77. The problem is, while being redundant, these rounds are also power creep from already-powerful M82 (which is a must-load shell upon flanking), therefore effectively making it a whole frontline tank capable of kiss a tank goodbye & will only encourages more players to fight head on instead of being a dedicated flanker for the team. Also, arming T50E1 APC-HE & T142E3 is strictly unhistorical for whatever the reason is. I see a lot of reason to seclude these shells for Patton, even if it will be a 7.0 tank someday. Will only encourages more players to go straight head on which I personally don't like. More players gone rushing to front, only to die from enemy medium tanks it was supposed to counter-flank. Has enough reason to jump it at 7.0 while still powerful without any unnecessary shells. Only to become a power creep & foreshadowing the M82. A shell that is, & only supposed to be able to engage specific weak points with effort (M82), noT50E kill many tank's front armor with ease (T50E1), combined with shaped charge (M348). Using the Patton is just like playing the Scorpion: You only engage front weakspot / side / rear armor with M82 for effective result. You load M431 HEAT-FS to kill a tank's frontal armor from dead ahead if flanking is not possible. M348 HEAT-FS itself, combined with already-efficient M82 APC-HE are more than enough to send it at 7.0. Having T50E1 & T142E3 will only cause 5 more problems for 1 solution... -Redundant -Unhistorical -Power creep -Encourages Patton to fire head on -Possible Patton Spam outgunning every other nations since Panther II +Offers vast array of powerful firepower The difference is that the Patton doesn't need those due to firepower issue, unlike the IS-2 1944.
  78. No. Its only firepower is & will only be from M348 HEAT-FS & M82 APC-HE for historical reason. AP M318 only. I said The Patton did not have & is not supposed to have the Patton III's HEP sell. APCR M304. APCR M332. M348 HEAT-FS. Now, see, if M348 HEAT-FS is already potent enough to kill even an 8.0 tank, why do you still put the T142E3 HEP & T50E1, which are both redundant & unhistorical? No. Only howitzer-armed vehicles ever used this shell during Cold War. T29 & T95, although planned, didn't actually have this shell. The situation back in there was just: "I have a idea. Let's arm 105 mm T5 gun with this shell." But then it went like: "But T5 development is already terminated before the shell is even planned." And finally: "Alright, let's continue to arm this for 105 mm howitzers already in service instead."
  79. Ehm, The only place it will go is 7.0. Provided it has its sustained RoF at 8 RPM & proper M348 HEAT-FS. "This" 90 mm T142E3 everyone keeps talking about was only issued to Patton 3 & Scorpion during its service. It is indeed equal to both of them, if its gun is capable of being rapid firing shaped charge launcher. This way, it will be both an armor nullifier & deterrence against tanks at the same class. Panther II & T-44-100 can penetrate each other with APHE. Patton can penetrate anything with HEAT-FS. Centurion can make use of APDS & (recently nerfed) HESH. Although mobility-wise, it's not as agile as T-44-100 nor as accelerating as Panther II (heh, a Maybach HL 234). But it turns & rotates the best. Wot in tarnation is all of these overwhelming amount of dashes... Refer to my post from: Some basic corrections for Patton's turret, "90 mm HEP", T50E1, & few things. 294 mm penetration sounds promising though. The actual penetration of M332 HVAP. Yes. T50E1 fired from 90 mm M3A1 has estimated penetration at 210 mm at 0°. No. This shell is an experimental shell based from hardened M82. Listed as primary ammunition for service in T32 heavy tank based from Situation Report No. 34. First, HEAT-FS from M3A1 is exactly not the same shell from M36 & M41 ones. Second, I already put the penetration number above: 305 mm (12") from 0°, not 320 mm. It has high penetration standard for an early HEAT-FS fired at relatively low muzzle velocity (2800 ft/s, same as any other standard shell of M3A1) Third, M3A1 (2800 ft/s) has increased muzze velocity over M3 (2600 ft/s). Basically the L/53 derivaties starting from M3A1 has increased muzzle velocity over the original M3.
  80. Nah, the only American tanks that will have HEP at such BR will be the M56 Scorpion (I already said the cause above this post). But in my personal view the Scorpion should be at least 7.0. Add 1 more loader & HEP, it will gun down faster than even the Flakbus. Indeed. It's a tier 4 tank in comparison to T-44-100 & Panther II. I forgot to mention that this penetration value is only achieved at 3200 ft/s (975 m/s), which is shot from 90 mm T15 L/73 based guns. At 2800 ft/s (853 m/s), T50E1 fired from 90 mm M3A1 L/53 will penetrate around 210 mm at 0°. It should. 00°: 305 mm 30°: 261 mm 60°: 152 mm As I said, it doesn't have HEP shell. Yes, the performance is identical to DM 502 (90 mm). 4" (102 mm) penetration against all surfaces. Nope. (Already explained)
  81. That 101 mm turret bulge for the mantlet was unhistorically bigger than the actual bulge, which is correct for now. Only thing that's right is that it might have another mantlet inside the mantet. The only consequence of arming Patton with its proper M348 HEAT-FS is that it will be justified with Panther II & T-44-100 due to its firepower of 90 mm shaped charge. That upgraded APHE is T50E1, which is not armed & will not be armed for Patton for historical reason (it didn't really had that shell based from its manuals), even if the gun is indeed capable of firing it. Neither was the T142E3 HEP armed to Patton. It was only issued to Patton 3 & Scorpion. That is less of an issue than having to gun down low tier tanks with "cut down shells". You need to find more information of a shell in common instead of merely assuming giving x shell which looks similar to Ru 251 shell (becaus it's actually not) will not fix it & instead only making it OP then sent to high tier, which is what it was supposed to be from beginning. It's not called Historical correction without reason.
  82. Anyway, how does the actual internal cutout around the gun look like?
  83. It's nerfed to the point that it's only performing like a historically accurate M304, which is a 90 mm instead of 120 mm.
  84. As expected.
  85. T17E1 should be able to penetrate T-54's front plate, if I recall correctly at 4150 ft/s.
  86. At 6.3 you have exponentially stonger T26E5.
  87. What redesignation? 5.3 for really generous change. You angle it a little, someone is gonna blow your lower side plate with 85 mm gun. Add as premium. Or even event tank. I don't want the goliath from being a common sight in battle. Well, at least the T26E5 & T29 are based from standardized design. So far so good. Seems you win your bet this time, Fulvien. Perfect. I take my word. I made a big mistake by suggesting to arm T28/T95/T29, conventional AP-powered, WWII-era tanks with superpowered HESH round of 1958. No, it shouldn't have it. The shell was not being tested for 105 mm T5 L/65 gun yet. Let this be a special round for M45 Pershing. Make the T29E3 have the same BR as the T29 for justification purpose. You can have a much higher performing 105 mm AP T182, of course.
  88. Well, if it's still classified, it wouldn't be as easy as examining US WWII declassified records... So how about the Block 2?
  89. You mean Jagdpanther.
  90. Ru 251 would like to say something at 6.7. I've seen the Block 2. Although its hulldown ability is the best, do remind that it still uses Sheridan hull (which is notoriously known with very high structure for a light tank) & not every time its gun with raised position & hull-down ability comes in handy. Although Block 1 is doing fairly good with low overall structure as a light tank, for sure. Also, do you know what shell designation did it use with its performance?
  91. No need to. Fulvien has already made one (one of which due to us arguing a bit of it whether it was supposed to be a heavy tank or medium tank...) Anyway,
  92. I'm growing Stalin's moustache seeing a damn hexagonal heavy tank hovers around the map like a true Soviet light tank.
  93. It isn't. At least compared to Bulldog with an M464 APFSDS or even T49. 75 mm LT broke above 8.0 until BR expansion by scout role (Hello Leopard) & firepower role (Pretty much puny gun with solid shots. About comparable to ZSU-57-2 in a different way).
  94. I remember this one. The APBC shell which has lower vertical penetration but higher sloped penetration than typical APCBC. This is a good shell to take down IS-6... & King Tiger frontally. New BR placement is required, though I don't mind at all.
  95. Perfect +1. Wouldn't it be good to have a transition from Bulldog series to Sheridan series (starting from M551 hull with 75 mm) with Block 1 & Block 2?
  96. No, all of them wouldn't just be packed as 1 that easily, of course... But as Hunternz said, 1 report will identify any known bugs for only 1 subject with known issues. As for naming, this is not quite right. For years, many bug reporters who pointed out incorrect shell don't "only want to change its shell name". They actually pointed out to "incorrect shell usage". This name-and-performance report split will only lead to new sub issue which is now the shell has required name, but still has wrong performance, then there goes another report restart when the very first report already explained about performance difference. Hence most of them still question the T33 performance as it's only renamed from M77 instead of completely replaced with a whole new shell. T20E3-to-T14E3 "renaming only" also caused this thread to remain active as it's questionable why it already has correct name but wrong performance. If it's performance issue, it's one report, but only for known bugs with respective performance issue on how to fix. Example: Title: T14E3 incorrect performance 1: Incorrect designation 2: Incorrect muzzle velocity 3: Incorrect penetration It's so much manageable to write down one shell's problems into one as index than having to split each report one by one. It's still the same shell with wrong performance. Just as what I suggest above... 10/10 of us agree that this report index is far easier to recognize & find than split bug reports, as recognizing through many pieces of T33 shells report for years is not as easy as only having to find 1 piece of T14E3 shell report.
  97. Yes, a lot of tanks have spall shield, actually. As far as I know, there are M26/M46, M4(T23), M8/M8A1, & T29/T34. T32 might also have spall shield, but I'm not sure.
  98. I'm not referring to turret ring. But mantlet gun ring. It's 254 mm (base mantlet gun ring) + 25.4 mm (spall shield) = 279.4 mm / 11". Precisely 11 inches. There is no other known military records of T29 mantlet describing different area thickness. All of those give number at 8" / 203 mm. Except Hunnicutt, which might have taken the number from his own measurement from its strong point (which is mantlet gun ring) + added with spall shield as its overall mantlet protection at 11" / 279.4 mm.
  99. Yes, hence the mantlet gun ring.
  100. It's not entirely wrong, though. That thickness is based from its mantlet gun ring + spall shield. So technically it's 254 mm + 25.4 mm = 279.4 mm.
  101. Needs what?
  102. Yes, it has. Although incorrect by thickness. It should be exactly 1 inches by US imperial measurement standard, which is 25.4 mm. Not 20 mm. Although multiple questions came arise when Chieftain said it can be around its minimum thickness (25.4 mm / 1 inches) to maximum thickness (50.8 mm / 2 inches) when he measured the T29 armor himself.
  103. We are very happy to do so in favor for a single, concentrated thread.
  104. Systematically, it should be similar as this case: one subject (M103 turret / T14E3 shell) one issue (M103 incorrect turret armor specification / T14E3 incorrect performance) one report multiple bugs, specifications, references, & solutions approved with multiple tracking ID Isn't this more logical & much easily manageable than having to "split multiple issues of a single subject with different reports"? That's my suggestion.
  105. Why does it have to be premium?
  106. This. Didn't we find out that 1 issue = 1 shell = multiple performances in the end? Smin hasn't replied yet, either.
  107. Alright. But did T25E1 also have it, maybe?
  108. Guess someone forgot to compare a tank with an equivalent tank from another nation.
  109. I thought I already said something similar, In this case what I said earlier about the 105 mm T32: Shell performance.
  110. Which is what I've been trying to come up for since half an hour ago? Single performance report with up to 3 solution in which will fix "3 bugs".
  111. Then how about this? It has every solution which this thread is been after for.
  112. This is only heading to one shell. The "one issue" is this "one shell". Splitting shell specification for different reports will make it worse as every bits of its specification is connected, & separating each known incorrect specification for different report will be a rhetorical question when reversed. One shell has both incorrect penetration & muzzle velocity bug. One report pertains shell penetration (without listing muzzle velocity) One report pertains shell muzzle velocity (without listing penetration) This only makes the report less coordinated than a single bug report for a single shell with complete specification to describe the issue better.. Will always happen when someone reports incorrect muzzle velocity. The second reply from Tech Mod will always be: "This muzzle velocity doesn't match the established penetration currently in the game". When we all know that the penetration itself is also incorrect.
  113. No, no no. The issue is in 1 piece designated "T33 incorrect performance & characteristics: To rename M77 as T33, and to fix the performance from M77 to T33". To think it logically, "1 shell specification = 1 bug report". If this is the case, then each part of it will be sent as different report: Shell weight = 1 bug report Muzzle velocity = 1 bug report Penetration = 1 bug report Example: Whole incorrect specifications for a single shell as a single bug report is not allowed: But another different story where Whole incorrect specifications for a single shell as a single bug report was allowed: (This one issue was also to rename M77 as T33, and to fix the performance from M77 to T33). "one specification for one bug report" is redundant, very redundant, when it only concerns "one shell" which follows the rule for "one issue per thread". In which the issue is this one shell again. This still has connection with this thread as this kind of bug is due to another mishandle of the same issue being "T20E3 renamed as T14E3" which is exactly the same case as "M77 renamed as T33".
  114. I know. Hence the APCR value decrease to the point of being unhistorical. Might want to ask @BVV_d. Directly.
  115. M3 Lee has gun stabilizer. Based from very recent search, M26 is confirmed to have gun stabilizer as well (including the M46). T25E1 (not T25) also has gun stabilizer. M47 (based from T42) possibly installed gun stabilizer.
  116. Exactly. Because it is just a renamed T20E3 APBC (you know the rule_US_APBC again) as T14E3 while retaining its T20E3 performance since 1.67 DEV Server.
  117. Don't compare "overlooked" with "confused". Because I do believe the Devs confused Soviet shells type with American shells type. Based from BVV_d's own answer regarding M103 "APBC intentionally changed as AP due to difference than some Soviet design looks like this etc. etc. etc." It's still somewhat relatable if it's from APBC-to-AP. But T34 "APCBC" overlooked as "AP"? This is not pure coincidental, or a mere overlook. I think no one in here would know its actual performance unless you actually show them one...
  118. Speaking of its performance, what penetration does it achieve at 4150 ft/s (Form Factor)? (Not by Detroit weapon sheet 3550 ft/s) By procedural, I agree it has to be followed. But isn't that supposed to be out-of-the-book where it's explicitly detailed as a reference for a bug fix?
  119. Didn't @Godman_82 & @JohnGR already provide enough information of its shells (T14E3 penetrates 286 mm PB, T17E1 penetrates way over 400 mm, T15 HE shell was used instead of M73 from Form Factor) back during 1.67 DEV Server period? The data were sent before 1.67 intentionally to prevent a bug like this from occurring during release, but didn't expect it's still bugged. I don't know how to interpret already bugged since day one release. We've had this kind of problem for each patch & each patch. That would be very questionable for Dev's development performance progress when it comes to data.
  120. No. Its actual thickness is at minimum 25.4 mm. Although Chieftain hinted that it can be somewhere from its minimum to maximum (either 38.1 mm or 50.8 mm). The point is, someone has to measure it again to know its actual spall shield thickness. 1 spall shield armor result from 1 U.S. tank = 1 spall shield armor for all U.S. tanks.
  121. As I said, Whom you're talking to has no any regards to historical matter of the game. Only "plays" the game, over, repeat. Period.
  122. Oh, you do? Then explain this:
  123. What 20 mm?
  124. Half-baked. Unfortunately you have to get onions, salad, tomatoes, & cheese through bug report which takes month to arrive... or years.
  125. In fact its HE is also wrong. M73 HE is for AA gun 120 mm M1. T15 HE is now for tank gun 120 mm T53. But its current shells are wildly unhistorical... T17E1 APCR, especially. If these 3 shells got their historical performance, BR jump is already the only natural outcome for it that even adding another shells won't make any effect.
  126. No, I'm just pointing out specifically. Nothing serious
  127. So, when will you bug report this?
  128. Sequentially, it's already incorrect. It' supposed to be: T - Test M - Model A - Advancement (Designated i.e. M103A1) E - Experimental / Enhancement (i.e. T32E1, M6E1, M4A3E2, T43E2)
  129. 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.