Mercedes4321

On Land and at Sea
  • Content count

    4,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

2,355 Outstanding

6 Followers

About Mercedes4321

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    War Machines in general.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,043 profile views
  1. If it has Commonwealth vehicles how is it not a Commonwealth tech tree yet?
  2. It means now more planes can be represented on a single map iirc.
  3. I would not mind a Leopard AS1 or C1, maybe as event vehicles.
  4. The BAC Strikemaster is a jet, not a piston driven plane.
  5. The title is rather self explanatory.
  6. Isn't that the same 105mm on the Sherman though?
  7. I would not expect it any higher than tier 2, maybe tier 3 if you gave it some of the experimental rounds for the 105mm.
  8. My one issue with the British Expanded Tree getting moved is that a new update was in the works for it with several new fascinating vehicles (such as an L7 armed armoured car from South Africa).
  9. The Italian and French projects got sent to Documented Suggestions as well
  10. A whole bunch of tech tree projects got moved this time.
  11. I wonder why.
  12. This meme is quite real, in that the Type 87 has a form of NERA
  13. ground vehicles

    There are options for some trees to have top tier cannon armed TDs to go along with the ATGMs though.
  14. There is already a new one
  15. This? From memory its a 17 pounder.
  16. It is indeed the Mk 3.
  17. Don't forget the APFSDS round.
  18. The Scorpion 90 uses the 90mm Cockerill Mk 3 M-A1, so it has access to numerous ammunition types like APFSDS, HEAT and HESH. Also, where did you hear that the 30mm RARDEN never used its APDS round? That was one of its main shells.
  19. I wonder what its top tiers will be, if you look at the Rooikat contenders there are 3 options, then you have the Vickers Mk 5 and Mk 11, then the Scorpion 90, etc.
  20. I've been waiting for it for awhile, plenty of amazing material to choose from.
  21. It would be overkill for premium, this vehicle is pretty much a British light tank version of the Leopard. Vickers also developed an armoured car with its turret called the Vickers Mk 11 Long Range Patrol Vehicle. I have also seen a South African armoured car from 1982 that is an armoured car version of the Leopard. That thing is a monster.
  22. Most likely, meant for the export market. No orders were made though, unfortunately.
  23. Vickers Mk 5 Light Tank.
  24. Even better
  25. But if you must go Sanic fast I expect that specific version to be at a higher battle rating than 6.7 though.
  26. The FV4211 "Aluminium Chieftain" had Chobham with its added on armour packs. The base armour was just aluminium though.
  27. tanks/vehicles

    There was an American extending arm ATGM platform by the way. It was based on the M113
  28. tanks/vehicles

    There was also a Leopard version
  29. Are you referring to the SPIC and the Beglietpanzer 57? Also, what do you mean by certain TDs? This kind of TD?
  30. tanks/vehicles

    It was cancelled due to the Cold War ending. The extending arm was considered an unnecessary extra weight for an IFV with the threat of the Cold War going hot evaporating.
  31. tanks/vehicles

    Now if we want to get ridiculous with the Marder I'm reasonably sure that would cause the ATGM haters to have an aneurysm from sheer rage.
  32. tanks/vehicles

    German Marder IFV armed with an extending arm with MILAN ATGMs for the sole purpose of firing from cover. This sketch illustrates how they planned to use this kind of vehicle in the field
  33. tanks/vehicles

    No, this is
  34. I don't mind export vehicles, I think some would be good editions. Like the post-war series of Vickers export tanks (excluding the Mk 4 and Mk 7).
  35. Sounds similar to the Marksman AA system. That might have been offered to the British army, I'd have to check.
  36. I don't see much of a point to discussing that in this thread when there are threads made for it.
  37. The Vickers Mk 11 Long Range Patrol Vehicle
  38. I'm pretty sure there are suggestion threads for all of these vehicles, besides the Mk 5 Chieftain (all the suggesters seemed to have skipped straight past it and gone to the FV4030/2, Mk 5/4 or Mk 10). Why don't you take your idea there?
  39. ground vehicles

    I realize now that I meant "can't depress or elevate, only turn, their guns". I probably should not be writing comments in the wee hours of the morning.
  40. I think it is unlikely that something with the RM 120mm L/44 smoothbore will be added. Finding accurate statistics on its ammunition is incredibly difficult.
  41. Does the timeline cutoff even exist anymore in ground forces? We have a vehicle with tech from the 90s there.
  42. Or one of the Vickers MBTs that could receive L7 APFSDS, mainly the Mk 3 (or a Mk 5 if you want a light tank version). I would actually like them right now normally without APFSDS, but you could add them with the APFSDS round to fight the T-64 if that was added.
  43. It is that thing. That Sherman is new to me though, never seen it before
  44. Lump all of the British Commonwealth together, that would be a nice, historical grouping.
  45. Allowing in towed mounts would get pretty interesting, though it would open up the door to some rather extreme weapons like the Green Mace and this
  46. tanks/vehicles

    There have been a few such suggestions, but they are rather vehicle specific. Like this one for an engine deck mounted mg for the Jagdtiger
  47. What makes you think the RM 120mm has a long reload? Do you have a direct source on the RPM of the RM 120mm in the TH301?
  48. tanks/vehicles

    No SPIC? No Begleitpanzer 57?
  49. I don't know why some people seem to think that it is, its designation is literally its name.
  50. Which 120mm are you talking about? If its a RM 120mm smoothbore its too strong for this game at the moment. The L7 armed version should be fine firepower wise, and if the Germans get it (for whatever reason) than I think the British should get something like the VFM 5/Vickers Mk 5
  51. That is probably because it is a medium tank and not a light tank.
  52. I think the 4 inch Gun Mobile, which was literally a 4 inch naval gun on a truck, should work fine as well.
  53. I imagine that something with a HESH round that has similar performance to the Chieftain's would be a bit higher than the current flak trucks. There is an Albion YB truck with a 12 pounder AA gun that can fit the role better.
  54. ground vehicles

    Its actually the Bosvark, Zumlac is what the captured AA mounts are called.
  55. ground vehicles

    I wonder if anyone here would mistake this for a Russian SPAA because of its guns as well
  56. balance

    You would think that Britain would fall under this tank gap as well as by your quick look they have exactly one more vehicle than Germany does.
  57. Well the Soviet's have a few options for that, including jet floatplanes
  58. It was designed to only protect against autocannons in the 30mm range, so most certainly not the sort of composite you would expect on a MBT.
  59. German tech tree?
  60. Don't forget that rather nice suspension
  61. Yeah, both were mentioned quite awhile ago iirc.
  62. The Strv 74
  63. Radpanzer 90, its an 80s prototype. It was basically a Leopard 1A3 turret on wheels.
  64. Well he does apparently have a source . . . from all the way back in 2015. I wouldn't mind something mostly built like the Hamilton Bridge/Ford Wheeled Tank . . .
  65. Typos say hi.
  66. Which is why you go for the one that survived a nuke for a premium. The Mk 5/1 can be a regular vehicle with the other two Mk 5s.
  67. Even better, make that Mk 5/1 the Australian Atomic Centurion that survived a nuke for maximum marketing potential.
  68. That is what I refer to as "normal Gaijin business practices"
  69. At least Gaijin have stated that they modeled the M4A5 off of how "the RAM was accepted into service with the US Army" (the model they chose for this was not the one that was marked down under M4A5 by the way, but Gaijin ignores this) and they say that a RAM for the British is entirely possible.
  70. But the Centurion Mk VAT is from a different nation though, Canada.
  71. I would have preferred getting a Centurion Mk VAT over the Strv 81, but Gaijin works in mysterious ways.
  72. If the H warrants a battle rating of 8.0 that that is what br it should get.
  73. I still don't know why the Strv. 81 was added, the Centurion Mk VAT would have been a better choice.
  74. ground vehicles

    Looks nice, I want one.
  75. What is the H-O anyway?
  76. What I always find annoying about that question is how it gets some of the parts of the Shir wrong, such as the statement about the APFSDS round. It did not have the capability of stowing the L23 APFSDS round and existed several years before that was a thing.
  77. Yes, this is why he usually got out, but his job didn't actually require him to. The loader also technically didn't need to get out, but he would have had to contort his body awkwardly to reach the ammo positions directly below him. Not like reloading animations that would require the vehicle to stop or otherwise do something otherwise different from usual are at all modeled in game, mind you.
  78. What evidence is for that?
  79. Not all the crew needed to dismount
  80. AB Maus says high.
  81. I'm pretty sure that first one is listed in the TD line as the "CMP Chevrolet 2 pdr Portee". Its not currently marked as Australian, though it should be. That one with the 2 Polstens is new though, as far as I can tell.
  82. Gaijin have talked about ACs in the past, I hope that a future Q&A asks about their current situation. There are many great options to choose from for most nations (Japan is rather lacking in that regard, only having 1 or 2 that would be of any use in game).
  83. What is with everyone advocating a medium tank be added to a light vehicle line? This is more along the lines of something I would expect in a light vehicle line
  84. What do you mean by not really finished? Looks quite finished to me.
  85. tanks/vehicles

    That was me showing agreement towards what you were saying.
  86. You do get a much greater arc of fire over the M56, which is your trade off for even less armour.
  87. Something being 80s tech has not stopped vehicles from being added.
  88. tanks/vehicles

    Did you not understand the statement you were responding to? Koty is very clearly talking about how we have vehicles right now that can technically fight a T-64 or T-72, but as it is only certain vehicles and would require teams to coordinate to get the right vehicles fighting specific threats it would not be a tenable situation due to the current lack of any major kind of teamwork in the average match. In the case of a match up with more modern vehicles with more modern ammunition in a new br bracket that that is entirely fine.
  89. Why would it not have a place in game?
  90. No M40 armed jeep?
  91. tanks/vehicles

    If a T-64 or T-72 appears on the battlefield can you guarantee that a Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT will be there to fight it? If one is not there what will stop the German team from getting face-rolled?
  92. Mate if you want the Super M60AX then you might as well just suggest it right now with all the necessary information.
  93. They were indeed just prototypes, much like the Strv. 81 variant we have in game.
  94. There is a suggestion for the M60A2 I don't think anyone has suggested the Super M60AX. You can do that if you want.
  95. They had a M113 with SS.11s actually There was also this M48 with SS.11s
  96. That is still a wish list, just because you changed the title does not change what it is.
  97. Maus says high
  98. I don't know if you read this but . . .
  99. The MBT/Kpz-70's armour was a mixture of steel, aluminium and fiberglass according to Pavlov, and Hunnicutt says the same for steel and aluminium and makes mention of a thick radiation liner that could be the fiberglass layer.
  100. Do you have documents on those rounds performance?
  101. tanks/vehicles

    Was it built? Nope.
  102. Can you guess why they should not be added?
  103. Well first off what vehicles are you having trouble penetrating and where are you shooting them?
  104. He was referring to the T-72 Ural, which just had a normal, very thick turret. Unlike the T-64, which had stuff like this
  105. Hard to say, I don't know if anyone has checked yet.
  106. The Vickers MBT variants would be nice, but I don't think the devs have ever mentioned them.
  107. If you're referring to the Westland Whirlwind, it was on the British aircraft release tree from awhile ago. The devs haven't really talked about it though.
  108. Not even the Humber Hornet with its unique 203mm Malkara HESH ATGMs?
  109. Now if you want to talk about a Conqueror upgrade, I have one for you. There were a few Conquerors armed with early production L11s while they were testing them http://overlord-wot.blogspot.com/2015/09/paper-work.html
  110. Where did you get that list?
  111. I'm not sure the FV4030/2 would be the equal of all these others you are proposing. It does not have the ability to stow the L23 APFSDS round that something like the Mk 10 would have, and so would have difficulty penetrating some of these vehicles frontally while being peeled open by them at long ranges. And even then trying to find precise information on everything for all of these vehicles (including L23 APFSDS info) is next to impossible . . .
  112. ground vehicles

    I would expect somewhere in the 4.0 br range for it.
  113. ground vehicles

    The forums work in strange ways.
  114. Yep, Gaijin physics. Considering the Conqueror is one of the heaviest production tanks in game (64 tons) and the sides are lightly armoured, pretty sure you have to fill it with lead to weight that much without a floor! Also, the Conqueror is supposed to get the spaced armour if Cold War gets hot. That is 13mm extra RHA on all sides. Will at least stop Kugelblitz from slaughtering you from the sides. The only thing Gaijins gets right on this tank is its mobility - it is more mobile off-road than Centurion thanks to the super-wide tracks. Looks like someone confused the ballistics test version for what was intended for war, only the stuff on the front hull was meant to be used on a service Conqueror
  115. ground vehicles

    A rather unknown field mod of an APC that only appears in 1 image is admittedly not the most interesting thing you can find in this suggestion section.
  116. Yes, about 15 were made. 5 used the 77mm HV from the Comet.
  117. It appears that it actually is underperforming And missing ammunition
  118. ground vehicles

    I don't see why not. And the Canadian version for the British tree
  119. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
  120. Sure, why not?
  121. ground vehicles

    Actually if zoom in on the image he provides you can see the gun shield around the .50 cal.
  122. Well that comment about it being a solution to the issue was more of a joke than a legitimate proposal. Now I wouldn't mind those vehicles being added to the British tree, as the British Commonwealth used them, but I wouldn't do it for the specific reason I put forward in that comment.
  123. ground vehicles

    Its a nice vehicle, but I would expect something with 250mm of penetration to be at a higher br than 2.0. Even if the shell is slow flying.
  124. I'm hoping for the T-55 to get added. When it does I get to ask for an Indian T-55 for the British tree
  125. tanks/vehicles

    If it was available I see no reason not to add it.
  126. Worried about Gaijin unnecessarily nerfing UK vehicles? Well I have a potential solution to this woe, ask the Commonwealth for some of their copy vehicles from other nations. Such as an Indian T-55 Or an Australian Leopard AS1 There are many more examples I can go through, but I think you can understand the gist of it. Under this method, any nerf done to these UK vehicles will apply across the board, creating a universal issue that Gaijin would have a hard time ignoring.
  127. This discussion does not belong here, take it elsewhere please.
  128. I'm pretty sure they are not.
  129. Can I get the 120mm smoothbore version of the Vickers Mk IV Valiant while we're at it?
  130. What does any part of this conversation on APHE have to do with 1.69? Take it to the proper sections for that.
  131. The only source I have seen for the whole "heavy bombers being worked on" came from that War Thunder VK blog and didn't mention any specifics. Probably just wish listing.
  132. That one has been on these rumour roundups for numerous iterations. No new info has been revealed for it in all that time. It came from here as far as I know https://vk.com/wtblog?w=page-13137988_51972229
  133. A Canadian crewman on top of a captured T-62 Some Canadian tank crews were trained on it to familiarize them with Soviet equipment.
  134. In real life the AP round was about 883m/s, as shown in this chart 2900f/s is about 883m/s.
  135. Considering how the denial of the Chieftain Mk 5 is from almost 2 years ago I'm not sure if it's even a thing anymore, especially when a more recent Q&A says that it could be a possibility.
  136. Copy and pasted from somewhere with a yellow background.
  137. Well the BTR-152A was an official variant of the BTR-152 with a 14.5mm AA mount.
  138. That was nearly a year before my Q&A post that states that all Chieftains besides the FV4030/2 Shir 1 are possible.
  139. I would assume that you are referring the Strv 103.
  140. Do you actually have a quote or time code from this stream specifically about the Mk 5 Chieftain? So far I have seen you provide no evidence that this source you presented has anything to do with the Mk 5 Chieftain other than your assumption that it does.