On Land and at Sea
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal medal

Community Reputation

2,564 Outstanding


About Mercedes4321

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    War Machines in general.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,189 profile views
  1. So what is this thread about at this point?
  2. misc/other

    There was no actual distinction between various Cruiser tanks outside of a group specifically known as the Heavy Cruisers. Not very many of them existed, and their role was to be Cruiser tanks that could fit the role of an infantry tank when need be. They tended to not be very good in either role, so most of those projects were failures. Labels such as "Light Cruiser" or "Medium Cruiser" didn't actually exist, they were all just Cruisers.
  3. I guess you could do a Sherman II unhistorical APCR scenario, where the UK never used the APCR on that tank but it got it anyways.
  4. HESH was abandoned with the adoption of 120mm smoothbores, so I doubt it.
  5. Well, there were a few Albion BY series 3 ton trucks with 12 pounder AA guns.
  6. 4 inch Gun Mobile.
  7. Yes, and some a bunch of stuff based on armoured cars.
  8. And a bunch of stuff based on the Loyd Carrier, and one on a snow mobile.
  9. Well they could be referring to either the dual or quad 14.5mm mount
  10. There was mention of Gaijin considering some BTR-152 based SPAA iirc.
  11. The Valiant, a tank so bad it was used as an example of how not to design a tank.
  12. Ahem, a 95mm howitzer actually.
  13. Because it was ludicrously OP at its initial br that it got hit with a massive nerfbat. Its a typical example of Gaijin's less than stellar track record in balancing.
  14. Rage of the Heavens?
  15. Might as well add the B-36 while you're at it . . .
  16. tanks/vehicles

    A closer image to a real life mount might be of use in this situation
  17. tanks/vehicles

    Is your point that you think it will be not all that useful if the mount can't traverse to zero degrees? I have seen no evidence either way on whether or not it could traverse down to zero degrees, do you have some sources about that?
  18. tanks/vehicles

    Note that the bolded part is how that non-AA vehicle got in game, if it had only LMGs it would never had been added. That is quite different form the 4M Gaz, which was put into game anyway inspite of only having LMGs because as an SPAAG its ability to fight ground vehicles doesn't matter so long as it was designed to engage aircraft.
  19. tanks/vehicles

    As far as I have been able to see AA vehicles have different requirements for entry into the game than normal vehicles. As their entire purpose is to fight aircrraft, they don't have to meet any of the requirements needed for fighting ground vehicles. Such as how we have an AA vehicle with only LMGs, even though no non-AA vehicle would ever be allowed into the game with only those as armaments. I don't see why the same couldn't apply to an AA vehicle who could only point its cannon up towards the sky at aircraft.
  20. tanks/vehicles

    The Loyd Carrier also came in a variety of flavors, which included a 40mm Bofors armed one.
  21. Thank you. While researching I actually found references to a 40mm AA Bantam in the National Archives at Kew. Too bad I'm in no position to pay the National Archives a visit to look into it.
  22. tanks/vehicles

    So according to that guy at the bottom this is a 40mm SP AA Gun (Tracked)?
  23. Someone can probably make a suggestion to add the T14 to the British tree as well.
  24. I'm trying to figure out what gun that is and who used this particular vehicle. Anyone know?
  25. tanks/vehicles

    Why would that be a requirement for an AA weapon?
  26. tanks/vehicles

    The Ford F60L was one of the many generic trucks used by the British and the rest of the Commonwealth, which is why I expected it to come from there. I have seen the plate with the acronym on it, and it appears to be referring to Royal Ordnance Factory 10 over in Hooton.
  27. tanks/vehicles

    I doubt the USA would have used it, I would place my bets on Canada.
  28. tanks/vehicles

    There was also a Ford F60L truck mounted version iirc.
  29. Well there is an M113 with the M47 Dragon, an M113 with 4 SS.11s, an M113 with a TOW launcher on top and I gave even seen an M113 with an extending arm that has an ATGM on top (I forget which one though). As you may have noticed, they are pretty much all M113 based.
  30. Yes. Some of them get . . . interesting.
  31. That is one of them, yes.
  32. Well there are some cold war ATGM TDs that can be placed in the TD line, Gaijin just haven't added them yet.
  33. I don't think its all that pretty. I like the looks of River-class frigates a bit more Also, if you want to go U-boat hunting Gaijin has to add them first.
  34. I'd be at least a little satisfied if we started off with them adding destroyers or light cruisers and building up from there. Though battlships is my ultimate end goal.
  35. Botswana used the SK-105, I don't think anyone bought this version but I could be wrong on that.
  36. I can see the T17 and the T17E3 appearing in potentially both. The T17E3 is probably both, the T17 maybe both.
  37. Tanks/Vehicles

    Depends on what you want to use it for. If you want to describe a vehicle in game as historically accurate than that is based entirely on how well it represents the real life vehicle it was based on. This is how Gaijin uses this term. You appear to be using it to describe how historically accurate the trees in game are to real life armies. Gaijin does not follow this principle very much so there is no point in defining vehicles this way for this game.
  38. Tanks/Vehicles

    Less German actually, the SK-105 does not use a German chassis nor was it built by a German firm. I just found it rather odd that you thought the SK-105 would be the better of the two for the German tree seeing as how the SK-105 had zero to do with Germany while the Marder based one was a joint German-French attempt at an export vehicle. We must define historically accurate tanks differently then, as I view any tank modeled off of how it was in reality is historically accurate to its real life version. You seem to define it purely off of what was in service.
  39. The Ki-109 was mentioned in the last Q&A.
  40. Tanks/Vehicles

    Asks for Austrian vehicle never used by German army, calls it a "German autoloader tank". I see nothing wrong here . . . I'm not trying to force the Marder into game, its a decent platform that has had many weapons placed on it that would make it useful in game. Why would it not be added at some point?
  41. Tanks/Vehicles

    SK-105 makes more sense for what?
  42. Built for export. Also, why is there no regular tech tree option on the poll? It would be nice to at least have the option available.
  43. Tanks/Vehicles

    I think a light tank turret on a light IFV chassis is a bit more a light tank than a purpose built MBT.
  44. Tanks/Vehicles

    Its essentially a light tank.
  45. Tanks/Vehicles

    The German tree can also receive this vehicle based on the Marder chassis.
  46. Well you can also fit the Kurassier in the British tree as 52 were used by the Commonwealth nation of Botswana. You can't say the same for this vehicle, which I fully support for the German tree.
  47. Tanks/Vehicles

    Bovington notes that the 75mm may not have been the original gun on the tank, and could have just been a retrospective replacement for the original 6 pounder.
  48. Would I like Capital ships to be added to War Thunder? Yes.
  49. Tanks/Vehicles

    Seems a bit overkill with over a 100m/s climb rate.
  50. Tanks/Vehicles

    What about Britain?
  51. I know, but its the best I can offer at the moment.
  52. If anyone wants to try their hand at modelling the Supermarine Walrus, I'd be rather grateful.
  53. Well I would expect something more like this to happen if you hit it with an APDS round
  54. I would have gone for the Supermarine Walrus myself
  55. Why is this thread even still a thing? The whole issue it was based on has been fixed.
  56. chieftain mk11

    Nope, the SIDs upgrades were all focused on stealth. No Chobham was added to it.
  57. chieftain mk11

    Its a stealth Chieftain Mk 11 with the Stillbrew removed as far as I know.
  58. chieftain mk11

    No Chieftain SID?
  59. I think we have gathered enough info on the Saladin 90 that you can add it to the poll. Its a Saladin chassis and turret with the MECAR 90mm KENERGA cannon (AKA the MECAR 90/46).
  60. The gun barrel says MECAR 90mm KENERGA if you read it, by the way. Its a bit hard to make out though due to the low resolution.
  61. I think they just misspelled one of the other names for the 90mm MECAR 90/46, the KEnerga.
  62. The Saladin 90 was indeed meant for the export market. The image actually comes from an arms fair in the late 80s when it was first unveiled.
  63. This one? It was from the 80s and used the 90mm MECAR 90/46 as far as I am aware. It was called the Saladin 90.
  64. Want to see the full report?
  65. chieftain mk11

    The Mk 11 comes with Stillbrew, which was designed to resist everything currently in game. In a hulldown position it would be near untouchable.
  66. The FV601A used the Pipsqueak, which was a post-war improved version of the 2 pounder. Its main purpose was to fire an APDS round that could penetrate 85mm at 30 degrees at 1000 yards, the round had a muzzle velocity of 4250 f/s (1295m/s).
  67. New Q&A
  68. chieftain mk11

    And your remedy for this is an overkill vehicle like the Mk 11?
  69. chieftain mk11

    If you want another 8.0 MBT, the Mk 5 would be just fine. The Mk 11 is rather overkill for the competition at the moment.
  70. Woops, I meant the tracks.
  71. Something of note, the Excelsior currently in the event appears to be based off of the only one currently still in existence at Bovington, which was the prototype with a different suspension and enlarged Cromwell tracks.
  72. Then both trees should have it then.
  73. Here are two variants of the Saladin The FV601A And a Saladin prototype with Swingfires
  74. I can tell you for a fact that 120mm HESH is underperforming at several angles.
  75. The T17E3 was not given to the British as the British got tired of the numerous delays that the project went through and lost interest. I don't know why you would give a vehicle to the American tree if the Americans had no interest in the design from the very beginning while a tree in game already exists for the country that the vehicle was designed and built for. Also, the Staghound Mk II used the exact same turret as the normal T17E1s, or are you calling that the British designed turret?
  76. The entire reason the T17E3 even existed and continued to be worked on was due to British interest in a T17 model with a more potent HE round, its why they released the specification in the first place. The US army wanted nothing to do with the T17E3, cancelling the project immediately after British interest was lost.
  77. The 3.7 inch AA gun was mounted on a tank. The Canadians tried it out on a Ram chassis As for a 29K competitor, allow me to point you towards an Albion BY series 3-ton truck with a 12 pounder AA gun
  78. You're welcome.
  79. Yeah, unfortunately Lucy was unable to dig up anything about it when writing his book. On the plus side, there were some other gun truck projects the British and Commonwealth made that would fulfill the same role.
  80. I always wince whenever I see the optics on the Arjun Mk I, its such a blatant weakspot its painful. Unfortunately, the Arjun MK II did not improve that
  81. That was for the 25 pounder APDS project, those two issues were what killed the project. The vehicle in the image was a 25 pounder portee on an uparmoured Mack 10-ton truck. Little to no information is available on the project outside of that.
  82. You're welcome.
  83. The prototype LIW turret that was meant for the Olifant Mk 2 has a similar design philosophy
  84. The British were initially interested in the T17E3, as they released the initial specifications for it. This started to peter out as several delays were encountered until all interest was gone. Only a single pilot had been built by that time.
  85. I guess I should have specified US military, but that is what I meant. Only the military police used any variant, and that was just because they had a surplus of a few hundred of the original Deerhound that nobody wanted anything to with. Their version had the turret removed and would be useless in game.
  86. I would expect a normal T-55 or T-55A first.
  87. Considering how little information is available on it, I don't think it is possible to judge how well it did during trials.
  88. The Type 59G ain't exactly a winner armour wise either Its a Type 96 turret on a Type 59 chassis whose only hull armour upgrade has been some ERA blocks.
  89. I literally don't care where you are getting your questions from, I just wanted to know what vetting process you were using to ensure you had this broad array of question topics when you presented your list of questions to the devs. Do you put a large number of questions in a list and have someone pick them out from there based on topic? Do you do something else? That is all I have ever been asking you.
  90. Let me be more clear. Once you have a question in front of you that you think would be a question for a Dev Q&A session, regardless of its source, what do you then do? What process do you go through?
  91. So you do actually have a vetting process for these questions then?
  92. So your process is randomly grabbing whatever questions you see from various outlets until you have a certain amount then?
  93. Can I get an answer to my question?
  94. If only Canada's 25 pounder APDS round actually worked . . .
  95. I understand where you collect them from, I want to know what process you use to decide what questions to pick.
  96. So what process do you use to do this collecting?
  97. The British did try it out for themselves as well I don't see why all of them can't be in the British tree. As for why Canada should be with the rest of the Commonwealth, as with most Commonwealth countries during WWII, they actively maintained very close political and military ties with each other, often to the point where their military units would be directly attached to each others and they would follow the same military doctrine. That's why I want the British tree to fully become the British Commonwealth tree.
  98. Events/Maps/Missions

    Some images of said crash
  99. Also, you do realize that US never used a single variant of the T17 operationally right? They built them entirely just for the Lend Lease program.
  100. It was designed to a British specification specifically for the British. I don't see why it would be in the US tree only. I would much rather not continue that nonsensical precedent. Also, British involvement in that was minimal? The whole reason why it was dropped was due to the British telling them that it was unsuitable for air rockets to be used in the ground role. That advice was why the Canadians switched to Land Mattress rockets on their second attempt.
  101. It was passed to development as a US tank, though anyone reading that thread would know that very few people wanted it to have anything to do with the US outside of the thread creator.
  102. Isn't there only two Canadian premiums at the moment, one of which is supposed to be an American version of a Canadian vehicle instead of the actual Canadian vehicle?
  103. I love the Staghounds. I hope to see them in a recon vehicle line soon. I don't know why anyone would want the rocket equipped ones as US premiums though, they were Canadian conversions, both of which the British tested, and the US took no interest in either of them.
  104. You would think they would be trying to test something like that on something like a test server instead of unceremoniously dropping it on the normal server. That and actually tell someone their doing that.
  105. tanks/vehicles

    I was responding to him saying that it was invalidated due to the date. Also, our current Swingfire is a hodge-podge, it has the later variants SACLOS, but the earliest version's warhead instead of the later improved one.
  106. I don't understand why you have a bunch of Cruiser tanks in your British SPAT line. They seem rather out of place there. That and why the Tetrarch starts off the Heavy Tank line, I would have expected something like the A10 Heavy Cruiser there.
  107. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Not like the US would ever need it anyways with stuff like this
  108. Aircraft/Loadouts

    You mean the Centurion Mk VAT from Canada? Its actually better than the Strv 81.
  109. It would make sense if it had a round like that, as the main point of this vehicle was anti-tank duties.
  110. I think we might be able to set up a suggestiom for the 4 inch Gun Mobile soon. Anyone have info on the specific shells fired by the BL 4 inch Mk VII it used?
  111. Well I found this so far Also, as far as I can tell it used the Gardner 6LW engine and had 4 forward and 1 reverse gear.
  112. Its a default value of 10%, which leads to those values. Its a bit crappy.
  113. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Everyone seems to fight Russia around here.
  114. Well that depends on which 10-ton lorry they based it off of.
  115. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Just hope you don't get those magical HESH bounces that only seem to happen in War Thunder land.
  116. RNG has been present in a large amount of things in ground forces for a rather large amount of time, Gaijin just hasn't bothered to mention it publicly to anyone. Like how for awhile now shell penetration has been the subject of RNG.
  117. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Is of balance comrade!
  118. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Any particular reason?
  119. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Which nation would Sweden get put in though?
  120. Ground vehicles

    With the 120mm smoothbore? That is some powercreep right there.
  121. Tanks/Vehicles

    Want to make a suggestion to add all Austrian vehicles to the German tech tree based on that then? I know someone who wants to do something similar but with Swedish vehicles and the British tech tree.
  122. Ground vehicles

    Well that is the only Mk 5 version that matched your description so I was wondering if that is what you were referring to.
  123. Ground vehicles

    You mean the Mk 5/4?
  124. Get some more Commonwealth planes in there!
  125. Tanks/Vehicles

    You asked for alternates. I happen to find that while tech is not a particularly good reason, its better than the reason being that two countries are geographically near each other. Well I think the Brit tree should already be that.
  126. Tanks/Vehicles

    Have you not read previous posts I've made? I have already brought up how if you went with tech it fits best in a French tree, or if you go on other users than Austria, you can fit it into the Commonwealth tree as Botwana used 52 of them.
  127. Tanks/Vehicles

    Would you please stop assuming my position is to not have this tank in game? Whenever I say I don't see a reason for it to be in specifically the German tree, you straw man me to not want it to be in game at all. I can assure that that is simply not the case.
  128. Probably. Yep.
  129. There was also an Albion YB truck with a 12 pounder AA gun. Not as powerful as the 4 inch gun though. The Canadians also had a RAM fitted with a 3.7 inch AA gun.
  130. When I get home tomorrow I'll track down the link to it, its buried deep in one of my PMs.
  131. There was some Australian trucks with 2 pounders, would make for some nice tier 1 TDs.
  132. I actually found out about it on a blog online with a bunch of other really obscure British and Commonwealth stuff, like a 25 pounder armed Archer.
  133. There was also the Fox with the Scorpion turret I posted in a previous thread of yours.
  134. Tanks/Vehicles

    I wanted to know why you thought it would fit in the German tree as I saw no reason for it.
  135. There are also more Ferrets available, ain't there?
  136. ground vehicles

    Well only the Vickers Mk 5 was a light tank, the Mk 11 was an AC with the Mk 5s turret.
  137. ground vehicles

    Now back on ropic, I think the early Vickers MBTs would help flesh out British tier 5 well. There was also the Vickers Mk 5 Light Tank and the Vickers Mk 11 LRPV, but if that were added it would be top tiers of a recon vehicle line.
  138. I know of several people that want a 7.0/7.3 battle rating for the RU-251 as well.
  139. Define performing bad off road, from memory it was actually quite decent. A lot of vehicles can't take a hit, and that won't change no matter what battle rating you put it at.
  140. I mean light reconnaissance cars with 6 pounder Molins autolaoders.
  141. ground vehicles

    During the war the British had much, much more to do with Canadian military development then the Americans did in any way. The Canadians would often change their design philosophy to match whatever the design philosophy in the Btitish Army was at the time. This is actually quite obvious throughout the development of vehicles like the Skink, which had its armament changed twice based entirely on what the British wanted at the time. That and Canadian units were often directly attached to British units.