• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

medal medal medal

RohmMohc last won the day on May 28 2016

RohmMohc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,142 Outstanding

1 Follower

About RohmMohc

  • Rank
    Straight from the Arkham Asylum
  • Birthday 06/28/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bayern, Deutschland
  • Interests
    Metal, Irish Folk, Tanks, Mangas, Video Games, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Pro-Wrestling etc.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,313 profile views
  1. I was simply refering to the overall "just flank" trend which often enough seems to be a valid argument only if it suits the position of the guy posting
  2. ah... now it's a valid argument again... as it was when King Tigers were expected toflank floods of T-54s in the good ol' times of 2014 and iirc parts of 2015... But the moment when it's about "just flank the Tiger" "just flank the Maus, that 20 km/h behemoth you can see from nearly every part of the map"... than it's only a meaningless meme...
  3. tbh... shattering is a bit more... "reliable" to model than fuze Problems for a game imho... Shattering basically comes from: W Range, X Velocity, Y Shell hardness Z Armour (Hardness) Fuze problems would be complete RNG... first you'd need actual studies, for each nation that used APHE because of different fuzes, with an average failure rate and then you'd have to implement these averages as RNG chances for each Nation differently... though... if we'd ever get WW1 big ships... germany were the only once with reliable fuzes until the Green Boy shells... British APHE Battleship rounds either exploded on impact or not at all
  4. and the Maus could go down 7.0... fair and balanceed tovarish...
  5. The TU-4 is a russian copy of the B29... the russians captured a B29, evaluated it and used the design to build their own bomber... which does not equal the Tu-4 being a captured B29...
  6. I still remember facing Banshees, IL-28s, B-57s and Canberras with my D-13... the horror....
  7. yeah... while the Wonderbolt doesn't have the bombs and rockets but while we're at it....
  8. yeah, it could mount either two additional MK 108s in the outer wings or two additional MK 103s under the outer wings what would be useful would be that the Wing Fuel tanks would disappear when you take under a certain amount of fuel with you. The Wing tanks were fuel bags that could be inserted into the wing when necessary. IF the Plane would've been filled with fuel for 20 mins, the bags wouldnt even be in the wings
  9. Terribly sorry about your Dark Trooper project.

  10. while I hadn't been completely sarcastic, I just added it because it'd have been the logical next step^^
  11. how about we also limit APCR on most tanks? Btw, from what I've read I've never found APCR ammo on the Gepard...only APDS ammo (And F-APDS which is a multipurpose ammo... the core fragmentates on impact, making it useful VS Planes and lightly armoured Vehicles while using APDS VS heavier armored vehicles) The closest describtion I've seen to HVAP is HAVAPDS-T for the Gepard unfortunatly i've only found stuff on Wikipedia... "The guns are 90 calibres (3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)) long, with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) (FAPDS—Frangible Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds), giving an effective range of 5,500 m. The KDA autocannon can take two different ammunition types; the usual loading is a mix of 320 AA and 20 AP rounds per gun. Combined rate of fire is 1,100 rounds/min. " and on the german one: Die verwendete Gefechtsmunition hat das Kaliber 35 × 228 mm und ist im Endlos-Zerfallgurt (Typ: DM70) gegurtet. Die Munition gegen Flug- und leichte Bodenziele ist in zwei nach Waffen getrennten Munitionsbehältern in dem Turmbereich gelagert, der sich innerhalb der Wanne befindet und daher gut geschützt ist. Die beiden Munitionsbunker sind mit Dichtungen versehenen, abnehmbaren Deckeln vom Kampfraum abgetrennt und nehmen die Munition in S-förmigen Schlaufen auf. Sie fassen je 320 Schuss Flugzielmunition, die normalerweise für die Bekämpfung von mehr als 25 Flugzielen ausreicht. Die HVAPDS-T-Munition (High-Velocity Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot-Tracer) gegen gepanzerte Bodenziele befindet sich dagegen in einem ungepanzerten Magazin an der Außenseite jeder Waffe und nehmen je 20 Schuss auf. Sie wird beim Aufmunitionieren spiralförmig eingerollt. Da beim Aufmunitionieren das Öffnen der Munitionsstränge mit je acht Patronen und das neue Verbinden der Gurtglieder zum Endlosgurt notwendig ist, benötigt eine eingespielte Mannschaft dafür rund 15 Minuten. Eine unerfahrene Besatzung hingegen benötigt für das vollständige Aufmunitionieren etwa eine Stunde. Das Umschalten der Munition zwischen Flugziel- und Bodenzielmunition übernimmt der Richtschütze. Mittels eines einfachen Kippschalters wird die Munitionszuführung in der Waffe elektromechanisch umgeschaltet. Dies dauert weniger als eine Sekunde. Als Gefechtsmix gegen Flugziele wurde bei der Bundeswehr einschließlich der Version B2L ein Mix von Sprengbrandmunition (High-Explosiv Incendiary, HEI) und Panzersprengbrandmunition (Semi-Armor-Piercing High-Explosiv Incendiary, SAPHEI) 3 zu 1 gegurtet. Diese Munitionstypen hatten eine Mündungsgeschwindigkeit von 1175 Metern pro Sekunde (m/s) und einen kombinierten Aufschlag-Verzögerungszünder mit Selbstzerlegung zur Vermeidung von Kollateralschäden, das heißt, die Munition explodierte automatisch nach einer voreingestellten Zeit, wenn der Zünder nicht anderweitig ausgelöst wurde. Die Kampfentfernung lag bei 3500 Metern. Zum Zeitpunkt der Außerdienststellung verwendete der deutsche Gepard 1A2 die neue FAPDS-Munition (Frangible Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot), die eine v0 von mindestens 1400 m/s erreicht. Die effektive Reichweite gegen Flugziele wurde so erheblich vergrößert und betrug bis zu 5000 Meter Entfernung und 3500 Meter Höhe. Die in der Bundeswehr verwendeten Munitionstypen sind in der Liste von Bundeswehrmunition ersichtlich. also: no HVAP anywhere aside the HVAPDS
  12. it is amusing that hte T-V is 5.7 VS 6.0 of the Panther A... meanwhile the Ger Tempest WITHOUT the actually Performance effecting 150 octane fuel sits at the same BR as the british Tempest V... meanwhile the Russian D-9, which sits at the same BR as the German D-9 uses the same values as the german one... while historically the Russian D-9s run on far worse fuel...
  13. "actual primary source"... D-Prüf Nr 13 If somebody goes to Kubinka and does an ultrasonice measurement on the turret and it says less 220mm I'll start believing it... until then... Because seemingly, after bending, the turret face was between 230 and 236mm thick from what I've read
  14. especially since the source they used (atleast they first told us they used), WGs Maus book, was said by WG ITSELF to be wrong on the turret armour
  15. the Maus turret weights nearly as much as the Tiger II hull... i doubt that this would've worked The Tiger Maus was more or less one of the predecessors of the E-100 iirc
  16. hey, I have Spielbergers Spezial-Panzerfahrzeuge des Deutschen Heeres and Panzerkampfwagen Maus - Der Überschwere Panzer Porsche Typ 205 by Michael Fröhlich here
  17. Oh, Gaijin is now claiming that it's the "intended Maus", building it after one of the many, many, many... did i mention MANY? designs that had been created between the original ordering of the Porsche Typ 205 and the final Prototype
  18. it can take many heat fs hits... unless they blow up the Diesel tank... 0.3 points difference between the IS-7 and the Maus? not enough....
  19. the difference is that the IS-7 has a higher ROF, is vastly more mobile and roughly a meter or so smaller... also: HEAT FS can also Pen the Maus frontal armour... and I think some suggested that the IS-7s Pike would be immune....
  20. Doesnt the T-55 have the ABC protection thing that doubles up as spall liner, reducing the usefullness of HESH VS the UFP? Side note: If I see one more person arguing that the IS-7 would be fine because of and should be tiered alongside the Maus: do some more reading on that stuff... the IS-7 is equal to the Maus in the same way as the T-55 is equal to the Panzer IV....
  21. considering that there had been instances in which He 51 killed Sabres... head on... without much maneurving... and please... the US players do their own share to this... for example trying to turnfight a Zero with the Thunderbolt....
  22. the joke is, in WT the Zero might actually win... knowing some players
  23. "Overwhelming armament!"
  24. Personally I think that one problem with the Leos is that... just look at what comes before them... nearly no tank, aside some Tier I and II and the RU, of the german tree is built around the Leopards gameplay... til then the tanks are either "only" decently fast or decently fast and comparably well armoured... and then with Tier V you either have RakJaPas. KaJaPas (the less said about that semi-useless thing the better... or did it finaly become useable since I've last read about it?), Maus or Leopards... only the KaJaPa really shares some gameplay similiarity with the Leopard since (i have no idea how the Rocket stuff plays)... so the best of the german Tier V tanks demand a playstyle that was nearly never seen in the german tank line... Imagine an Aircraft Tree where you play Zero-like planes the whole time (and nearly only them) and in Tier V fly a Sabre
  25. how about Suum cuique? To each his own? Jedem das seine?
  26. The G7es Zaunkönig was used solely by the U-Boats afaik
  27. it can take more penetrating hits (unless they blow up the ammo or the engine). But the IS-7 is less likely to be hit (far smaller and more mobile) and is less likely to get penetrated. Then it also has 8 MGs, two of which are 14,5mm... which means it will be quite nasty VS anything with only small amounts of armour even without using the main gun... i think the 14,5mm are also capable of penning hte Leo from the side?
  28. I'll give you a hint
  29. and the Porsche Typ 205 should be automatically atleast 0.3 BR points lower
  30. *Schürzen also these were slightly problematic since, atleast the Skirts of the Panzer IV had a tendency to fall off or getting ripped off when traversing through, for example, Hedgerows
  31. that makes the Tiger II H a 6.0 the Maus makes 20 km/h and there are tanks capable of penetrating it's side armour with good mobility at the BR range
  32. the use of a heavy tank would've been (intended) breakthrough...
  33. no it was not... it's only if you go with the soviet classification using only weigth as decisive factor. The germans classified it in this regard also according to (intended) use. The Panther originated from a Medium Tank project and was used as a Medium tank, not a heavy tank.
  34. M46 Patton: Medium, weight: 44 tons M26 Pershing: Medium,weight: 41.7 tons Soviet classifications are interesting only for the soviets... they do not apply to other nations... The Panther was built and used as a Medium tank, not as a heavy tank also if we go by weight: Char b1 heavy tank: Weight 28 tons... so everything around this weight = heavy tank... the T-34 isnt much lighter...
  35. no it was not... it was a medium tank...
  36. knowing Gaijin it would most likely be around 1 to 2 minutes
  37. there is a difference between trusting in authority and trusting every random guy with tinfoil on his head just because he's blabbering about the lizardmen that controle your mind with chemtrails
  38. Who'm am i more likely to trust? The CIA or "Random Guy on the Internet who does nothign to actually properly debunk the source"? If you can give us the "actual soviet assessment" you might have a point... but as long as you don't prove anything you don't and only appear as somebody who doesn't like any source that doesn't agree with him
  39. So... it would be completely OK for soviet tanks to be frontally nearly immune to most weapons ingame while offering good to excellent mobility and firepower... but as soon as the Maus is a tough nut to crack, even with an underperforming gun and underperforming TURRET FACE "OMG... Maus unfair!!! Maus OP! Can'z pen it frontally! Don't buff hte turret face! Also i can't flank a 20 km/h behemoth!" Dito Tigers... not that it didn't happen against the T29 and other tanks aswell... but KT and Maus are the once I recall the complaints the most, followed by the Tiger I, T32 and T29 Even if you add ammunition to the Leo 1A1A1 (or whatever number it was), the later M60 etc. to deal with it, if the Soviets get the T-64 and the T-72 they will have 2 Tanks in each players line up with these strengths while hte Germans, US etc. have only 1 tank (ignoring ATGMs) with the ammo to deal with em frontally properly... tanks that are easier killed by "lesser" Soviet tanks... IS-7 > Maus... similiar firepower (especially thanks to the underperfomring PAk 44) with a higher ROF, comparable or even better armour and far better mobility... so... if the IS-7 is 7.7 the Maus is 7.3.... or 7.0
  40. but please not at any place that's less than 1.0 away from the Maus... the poor thing already suffers enough...
  41. tbf, this is comparing a heavy to a med... not saying that this is completely wrong (or right) but still...
  42. they are using the quotes for the POST KWK 40 time frame also, I think the KWK 39 ended up being quite nasty VS the T-34... even with the less adequate guns the T-34s and KVs suffered quite the casualties
  43. 've seen that already I mean i've even seen people use quotes from the early stages of Barbarossa about the T-34 (or atleast pre-KWK 40, Tigers and Panthers) about how "T-34/76 were massive threats even late in the war and the best tanks ever!"
  44. i know... if it'd have said: T-34/85 and Is-2 bestest tenks evar they would have showed it around everywhere
  45. so the actual soviet estimation of combat effectiveness of tanks is rubbish...
  46. i'm rather sure it was not quickest, for example here, we jump from a Thread about "German players are bad!" to "EE Fan goes mental and a lot of guys try to tell him he's wrong"... roughly after page 4
  47. for what? How quick or how slow?
  48. amusingly Panzergranate literally translates into "(Anti) Tank Grenade" since "Granate" in german also is used for Shells.