EE51555

Member
  • Content count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

102 Neutral

About EE51555

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,288 profile views
  1. I'll trade you the rockets for the German AA lineup.. Bare in mind, if you die with only an assist you have to use 1 40mm bofors cannon - not safe from planes, and mostly inadequate up to BR7.3, that only "hits" aircraft if you hit them with HE.. And lets be honest, we'll be doing this every other game if you spawn a heavy, no AA-TD, but now and again you will get lucky, and get enough spawn points for something else. As someone that does use rockets, they require about as much skill as bombs, if not more. Each aircraft has different lead characteristics, you generally require a direct hit for a kill, and you almost always have the best AA in the game shooting at you, or very capable fighters. Every strike run will bring you into range of some of these AA, also with mouse aim, if there are no dedicated fighters up. Yes I'm in favour of giving Germany a balanced option, but there is also the AA balance question, with SP being "the food of champions" according to one youtuber .. and AA wins the SP game, give this to an entire team, and they have a good chance of defending against fighter bombers, and win the game, spawning whatever is needed more easily. You can't spawn an aircraft loaded with ordinance if you're low on SP.. I am in favour of balancing the game though. As annoying as the Horten can be on the receiving end - Germany needs better air options. the WG 210s are the best rockets in the game bar tiny tims.. give the 410 more, Pb 2s need a buff, they currently can't kill ZSU-37s, and I've hear mention of Pb 3s.. not that I know about them.. and balance AA trees. (Skink)
  2. Cromwell V with 75 OQF should be 2.7, it's a downgrade over the Crusader with 6pdr, while it's armour is incorrectly modelled. Cromwell I should be 3.3 to counter the Pz IV F2. Pz IV F1 with 100 m of pen at any range and 75mm autocannon reload with Hull break on its side is crazy OP at 2.3, was for me anyway. Caernarvon is currently the most underperforming 6.7 heavy tank. Have you tried to play this thing recently? I've had far more success fighting against it frontally in a Panther at 5.7 than using it. Shots just glide in through the side at any angle with any gun it can see, or through the turret/lower plate. The most it can do is crit someone. About the Ferdinand.. a tank should not have competitive advantage all the way up to maximum uptier.. if only British tank tanks could get that.. Charioteer, Avenger, Challenger, Caernarvon.. The Ferdinand is a very strong TD for 6.3 with good gun and armour. It even doesn't get 1 shotted by FV4005 (survived 2 shots last time I tried). Long 88 APHE firing armoured tank destroyers should have no problems at 6.3, or 6.0 at very least. The Black Prince is just as unmaneuverable, OK it has a turret, but it's slower and has significantly less armour (150-200 make alot of difference, more than 0.3 BR), no APHE, and less penetration. Black Prince should be at 5.7 if the Ferdinand is lowered at all.
  3. Aah yes, it is there at least for the suspension.. on the I and V, but strangely I cannot see it on the Cromwell RP3. Also I found this thread: With this image for the Centaur, after the Cromwell I was apparently renamed it.. but you can see they're pretty much identical. It also has a good quality pic for the Cromwell V
  4. Also, thinking about it... there's no way a tank with 32mm rear armour would be given 25mm side armour.. more evidence of sort that the side armour is incorrect. The Excelsior's inner plate is about right for a Cromwell at 39mm, not much surprise.
  5. After looking at the current model and the diagram, they have the two plates for the side turret as a single plate, 2" + 0.5" = 63.5mm. So they could just make the front turret plate 76.2mm, the rear 57.2mm, and the sides, they wouldn't be far off from just adding the sides of the Challenger, like the Comet has. To me it looks like the plate goes over almost all of the side including under the 1.25" (31.75mm) upper side plate at the front, and 25mm mid side plate at the back. They seem to have cut it slightly short on the Comet. (you can see the plate on the comet by looking at it right at the back side of the tank). They seem to have got the front hull right. I added some notes to the diagram pointing out missing stuff in red, and the correct stuff in green.
  6. They could at least just have a small red dot or something outside 3-4km.. That only indicates a small plane or large plane. (Something like single engine vs 2 or 4 engine marker) And remove names.. There's no point in having names displayed, unless within 100 m, where unique markings/pilots face may have been distinguishable. Also estimation or range being to nearest 10m inside 200m or nearest 100m inside 2km would be good.. Something like that but I agree too much information is displayed atm for everyone, and it hurts the realism. Any steps to allow people to fly more tactically would be good. It not just flight models that should be the difference with arcade.
  7. I haven't flown Air RB anywhere near as much as I used to, but from the games I have played for Britain, the simultaneous decreases to German Aircraft BR, along with increases to Spits hasn't helped. Generally it was only the Spits on allied teams that would win the race to space, to give allies a fair chance of winning with so more bombers.. Now that there are FW 190s that climb similarly as fast, and Ta 152s blasting anything out of the skies with their airspawn and 30mm cannon, supported by these much more capable 190s against lesser spits.. By the time the P-51s turn up there is not much they can do. http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/ta-152h-1 2.8 k/d..
  8. Yes, Manganese steel can be very hard without being brittle, and the potential therefore for high toughness, which would mean at least being in the same toughness region as any RHA.. Some doesn't have good heat treatment and/or alloying so gets bad steel modifiers (I only know King Tigers get this though due to the marked bad quality of armour at the end of the war, also from what I gather it being poor heat treatment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour.. when you click through to the modern equivalent SAE 4340.. which suggests "RHA" is thought in this case to be a Molybdenum steel... in other words it looks like they are both high toughness steels. (Molybdenum steel has slightly better potential for toughness, but they can both be very tough) I think war thunder only looks at what's commonly called mild steel (soft, cheap and machinable) as "constructional steel", cast high hardness steel alloy that has been heat treated as "cast homogenous armour" but not work hardened (not that this matters if the heat treatment is adequate), and RHA is a high hardness steel alloy that has been rolled (therefore work hardened) into flat plate, and probably also heat treated. .. in other words it's the high hardness stuff, like most armour ingame is made from, but definately not easily machinable mild steel.. whether it would show as RHA or cast homogenous armour I guess would only be down to if it was rolled at some point, or cast.. and being flat plate, my guess would be rolled, and so .. It would be like any other RHA (a term that is probably used quite liberally when you look at all the tanks / nations / factories / alloys and the armour they made during WWII) Also, from what I gather about face hardening, the Germans treated the surface by "zapping" the plates with a high current, heat treating the face.. thing is, if you heat treat the whole plate, you then get the whole thing at it's best hardness, and all tough, hence homogenous armour as opposed to face hardened. I guess there is the potential to go "too hard" into the brittle zone and it still be OK if it's only the face of the plate, and only suffers compression in impacts so the brittleness isn't an issue, so maybe that's how it worked.. I was looking at the M18 (working out why they get set on fire by Yak 3T.. 8mm of top amour vs 8mm pen HE.. ) and it's pretty much all 12.7mm on the front, back and sides.. so the Cromwell should pretty much have a hellcats armour underneath, over which the current ingame armour is placed.
  9. Nice work, proper tank meta, awsome vehicle.
  10. Yes this is Ground RB. You can have as many spawns as crew/reserves you have.. Sometimes you need all 5/6 crew slots in a match, and need a 5/6 vehicle strong lineup, all with potential reserves.. Tbf it can also happen in a non-AA if your AA is dead, and you next lowest SP vehicle is available, as a reserve if it's 1st spawn is also destroyed. As mentioned I will make a bug report/suggestion when I get on my PC and can read the rules etc properly.
  11. I guess it's a bug only for ground forces.. It happens when the game is still going, and you can spawn (only, in the case I am talking about) a backup ground vehicle. I'll make a bug report/suggestion. Probably so few see it because you would only notice this with backup AA
  12. See that's a fair point.. Glad you think it's worth a suggestion
  13. Also, by the way, we're not talking about chickening out and not spawning something to save repair costs or spawncamping with normal spawns. I've personally never done that. I'll take my chances over spawn campers every time. I've waited 20-30 seconds for the game to end, but mainly when were winning. This is about saving backups... they have no repair costs..
  14. Tbh, it's pretty low to argue the toss about whether to change the game for the better, when you have an equivalent call for game change in your signature.. and for what reason?? Man up and take responsibility for your camouflage?? The dropdown is there for you to select camo before each match? Both of these lines of reasoning are fatuous.
  15. Abandoning the future teams that you play on has an unarguably bigger drawback, as we can use our judgement to decide when the backup will be most useful to the team. There are only limited backups that come a players way, each has the potential to be very valuable to a team, yet wasted in lost games, or on an inappropriate map for the vehicle, or both. I hope I only get to play with players that use backups at the most useful time.. ones that throw them away casually will always be worse teammates, with no backups to use!
  16. If "manning up" is defined as sitting there like a dumb*ss for 3 minutes because you chose to save a valuable backup for a more worthwhile game, or wasting a backup to feed kills to the enemy team.. You're definition of "man" is not something I recognise. As it happens my definition of "man" includes using those 3 minutes to make a whiny post of the forums in the hope they always allow people to use backups when they want, with no penalty on that choice. Man up and take responsibility for your camouflage?? (something I support btw)
  17. I don't even mind spawning AA when its full on spawn camp time.. You can often get kills depending on the vehicles. But there was only 1 cap, it was out in the open, and they had Cent Mk 1s, Comets and jumbos sniping and overrunning T-34-85s, and most of the T34-85s were dead. There was no way they'd push up to the spawn. I did my AA duty and got only "hits" with 37mm HE, and there was no way I could ZSU anyone from 1km out. It would be a waste.. and backups should be a free choice of when to use always anyway. It seems you can..
  18. I didn't bail, I died with 1 assist.. only enough for a ZSU-37. The game was very much being lost, but anyway I then proceeded to use the ZSU-37, and got 2 "hits" firing HE at an AD-2... and he bombed me. I then had the option of 1. wasting a backup ZSU-37 on a game that was being lost, on a sniper map against US and UK.. or 2. I could save it for a map and game where it would be useful, and I would be very grateful of the backup.. I chose, save the backup. I don't think you should be punished for that. I am generally careful to best use my backups at the best available time.
  19. Do crews really need to be locked, when deciding to save a backup AA vehicle for another game with more chance of winning, and being effective to the team?
  20. I haven't played this tank, but the last 3 times I have been shot by it, they have all been 1 shots frontally in a Panther.
  21. The "QF 3-inch 20 cwt".. a cartridge case that powers the Comets gun.. and the 3 in Gun Carrier.. not that you would expect it from it's performance in game.
  22. It could be just that the 76.2 overmatches slightly more stuff like japanese 75mm armour, (though I was mainly thinking of the 50mm armour tanks), and the higher pen of the KwK 40 means less non-pens due to hitting a trolly part of the tank.. Either way I find the AP more useful than the APCBC, just be careful against slope.
  23. They might be different guns, but ingame all that matter is the projectile mechanics. 1. its penetration (and at different angles) 2. its chance of ricochet 3. armour interaction rules based on Caliber 4. normalisation (all capped AP has -4 degrees, pure AP 0) Muzzle velocity in the way you have shown it only matter to take into account lead due to shell drop. If the points I mentioned are about equal, they should behave similarly. All APCBC ingame has the same basic chance of ricochet (before overmatch mechanics) due to angle, and all APCBC of the same caliber also has the same overmatch mechanic, and having a cap they have the same normalisation. The APCBC of the 75mm OQF has pretty much the same characteristics as the russian 76.2 for penetration (the one with 98mm pen) but overmatches very slightly thicker plates.. all in all you would not expect it to be as much that you would notice against these targets. But from what most people say, they do notice, which IS not quite right. (it could be however that even a bad penetration with APHE leads to a kill, but a bad penetration by the OQF does not do very much, so may give the impression of a non pen) The APCBC of the OQF should have exactly the same chance of ricochet of the KwK 40.. and all other capped shells of 75mm. The only difference is what thickness they will pen if they don't ricochet. Here the OQF of course loses out in pen, but it seems to be happening when firing at plates that the APCBC should easily have the pen to go through, which indicates a ricochet. If this were happening against KV-1s sure, no surprise as it would be due to a non-pen, but Pz IVs and Japanese tanks of the tier is a bit unusual. These tanks (and stuff like Cromwells) are mainly saved by ricochets which is based on chance, and all of these guns have the same chance of ricochet due to angle... except the OQF AP which should have a higher chance, and be worse against slope due to no normalisation.. but I find the OQF APCBC seems to have a ricochet change as bad as an AP shell.. What is it about the stats you posted that would make you think it should ricochet more?
  24. Tbh, if there was APFSDS available for a Mk 5.. and it went into combat against T10Ms... I somehow doubt they would have not used any APFSDS because of the ammo stowage, especially after they discovered some Russian company had hacked their APDS and changed is so it couldn't pen the T10Ms front plate.. If they do go for this accuracy based on what ammo stowage was available on the tank, they could at least make inert APDS ammo unexplodable.
  25. Is that true, that the Chieftain wasn't given APFSDS because its pen is... too high?? With HEAT-FS (edit.. and APFSDS) flying around .. Could anyone say, did the Mk 5 use APFSDS, or is it the Mk 5/4 only that did?
  26. Also.. I don't think its a case of just not showing.. it's plain not there! 0.5 inches of carbon manganese steel Gaijin missed to begin with, and have done nothing about for over a year! When many on German teams drive round in AA vehicles with 64mm of pen, that shreds Cromwells currently, totally unrealistically.. this ain't good.
  27. For me the 75 bounces a lot more than other guns of that caliber. A Russian 76.2 I can click anywhere near any Pz IV and it next to never bounces.. I don't even have to aim, other than being somewhere on the tank and it penetrates, same with the 75mm on Pz IV G. The 75mm OQF regularly seems to bounce, even when using the APCBC. Using AP is more understandable as it has higher chance of ricochet against angled armour, but the APCBC seems about as bad. I switch between the two, but tbh the AP is better as it has more pen.. they seem to bounce as much as each other. This is just my impression though, I don't have evidence. Against flat plate it works as expected, but always seems to find an angled surface to bounce off on Chi-stuff and Pz IVs
  28. I assume you mean the flakbus. I hate it when the flak 88's ammo gets hit and does nothing.. that's BS. Bare in mind this is the "nerfed" state of the flakbus, it used to be even more OP, at least now it should be possible to hull break it.. but its an almost impossible to understand mechanic, so I don't know why it didn't happen here.
  29. Seeing as it spends most of its time chasing jets that are faster than it as the highest BR'd prop in the game... Is this really such an issue?
  30. http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/ta-152h-1 Nearly a 3.0 k/d ratio. If that isn't clubby, I don't know what is. Something tells me the simultaneous BR nerfs to British aircraft and buffs to German aircraft went a bit too far.. Is there a single even mediocre German prop now?
  31. They would do well to make brown/muddy snow in towns.. or muddy tank tracks. As far as brightness goes, I always use F.lux to keep everything low in certain frequencies of light that e.g. keep you awake when playing late. Helps alot to reduce eye strain too. F.lux is very good.
  32. Bearcats might be postwar, but Griffon Spits were not.. Also most of Germany T4 is protected from seeing the Mk24, which is in starter jet land. Most annoying aircraft for me is the Ta 152, with airspawn and can nuke anything it chooses.
  33. Sure.. I'm just saying in the meantime, while a British player at BR 6.0 to 6.7 has no hope in hell against an IS 6, other than from the air. I've never killed an IS6 frontally, only one crit through the turret pointblank range as he was face hugging me, while his T54 helped him kill me.. that's the best I've done from the ground. (other than killing them from side shots when they weren't focussed on me). I am very in favour of putting the IS-6 at a propper BR. I also don't get how people think "its got a bad gun".. penetration matters little when you fire 122mm nuke rounds. It overmatches most stuff it's shot at, anything it penetrates is dead, and it has the best reload of a 122mm.. During the Chronicles the T-35-85s were regularly taking out king tigers/jagdpanthers/panthers 1 on 1 aided by their mobility. Low pen nuke rounds can always be effective. The IS-6 has similar mobility and untouchable frontal armour. The matilda is a heavy with a bad gun, the IS-6 is not. Give it APCR to deal with a Maus (lol) and stick it as 7.7.. or tell them to trick shot it with HE.. edit: also I'm not the one saying git gud and shoot it with ammo only certain nations and BR's have in weakspots.
  34. True, it is more useful than a Katyusha, but I'm happy with the Katyusha as it is, it's a free premium that was only ever going to be a novelty. It does seem very susceptible to MG fire.. if ever there was a vehicle that should survive on 1 crew member, the Katyusha is it, bit otherwise it's a good novelty derp. The Cromwell RP3 was decided by some bright spark to have rockets that are devastating at close range.. aim 500m ahead in elevation, with no way of changing the elevation, that would in real life be able to be set before battle, especially if expecting tank on tank combat. And costs 1600 GE. No magic suspension fix here. And all Cromwell's should have 76mm frontal armour too.. which means alot when many in German teams they face will be in AA vehicles, spamming APCR like they had a way of turning concrete into tungsten.. and unfixed for over a year. They could give the Katyusha the ability to fight with 1 crew member, I don't see why not.
  35. Yup, same with many things in ground forces.. the answer is DO NOT feel guilty about using air power to kill this stuff. Enjoy it.
  36. Funny how the Katyusha gets magically fixed suspension so it has "gun depression" in mere hours.. But the Cromwell RP3 has been as useless as a normal Cromwell V, because its rockets are set to 500m vertical alignment.. so next to nobody plays it as a result, even those that wasted 1600 GE on it. Why not allow people to set the vertical angle in the loading screen? .. and it's armour, same with all the Cromwells, still has a "documented", error where an entire 0.5 inches is missing, with AP ammo that is next to useless.. And nothing gets fixed for years. 1600 GE to get Britain's least played and most useless tank! Or get a Russian Katyusha for free and have Gaijin change history to make it useful.
  37. So.. what's a Cent Mk 3 or Caernarvon going to do to with IS-6's cupola? Or Black Prince?
  38. 5.3 seems balanced, rarely max uptiered, and good air and ground options.
  39. I find you get very good games at BR 5.3, at least for an RU lineup. Rarely are you max uptiered, and you get good air and ground options. 5.7 any nation seems to almost always get uptiered to 6.7, and 6.7 always seems to go to 7.0 or 7.3, which means you face much more dangerous beasts. 6.3 on the other hand is manageable in 5.3 vehicles.
  40. Are you suggesting that there is in fact a 14 mm plate behind the 63mm for the tank ingame? I can't seem to get it to display at all anyway..
  41. I was playing Germany just yesterday, thinking to myself.. is there nothing I can do that means I can't spawn.. Spawn in a Jagdpanthers, get only 1 kill, Spawn in and Ostwind, get numerous assists, and aircraft kills, spawn in a FW190 A8.. Or 410/219 with MK103s.. No nation has such a balanced lineup, with SPAA being the basis for getting back into the game. Low on SP? Spawn SPAA, and help your team win, and get back into the match.. The Kugel is unmatched for AA against props. It has amazing muzzle velocity, firerate and damage, so can take out air targets 2km away regularly. Yes it has not excellent turret rotation, but it's the best long range SPAA. If this isn't good enough, the Wirbelwind is available at BR 3.7 and is unsurpassed for tank and aircraft killing up to BR 7.7 for most nations. The British get the Crusader AA Mk II.. 1 Bofors 40mm that often only "hits" aircraft even when firing HE. You simply don't have the option to get back in the game. German tankers have ample change for this. If your team does not have air superiority, well, yes you need to be careful where you drive your tank. But it doesn't have to be like this for your team.. If you do have air superiority, the enemy has to be careful where they drive their tanks. Japanese planes make some of the best dogfighters too, by a fair margin.
  42. The Center Mk 1 is a better tank for its BR.. I do badly in the Cearnarvon, I think it's because it's called a heavy tank, you think it can be used as such.. (a common error I know) ..it can't. It's not just the lower plate that's a weak spot. Any side shot can kill you, no matter how slim the angle. Shells seem to glide right in through the top of the side at even 5°. It's overrated, takes patience, but it's a medium tank. For me it's worse than all the competition, but it's certainly not a bad tank, but it does take a fair amount of learning how to play. It's on par with the other in potential. It seems to be faster than the other Cents, I find that's the key to not sucking.. always flank and try to keep your distance.
  43. I love how Gaijin took the **** out of British tankers for complaining so much and then gives them another steaming t*rd for a top tier premium, where the Russian Lower tier vehicle is more effective.. And they wonder why British tankers get annoyed. You could stick this thing at 3.3, what would struggle with it?.. what "stomping" would it actually do? One or two tanks frontally?.. For a heavy tank?
  44. There is a fair amount of bland army green, but some look.. OK like the A13 cruisers. There is one similar to this http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/A13_Cruiser_MkIII.php, the "European Camoflage" available only with GE.. This is the one I think would be most fair to give through kills, inline with other nations.. and the "Standard Homeland Camouflage" of the Valentine http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/Tank_Infantry_MkIII_Valentine.php looks OK. The blander ones remind me of "British Racing Green" I.e. the most readily available paint after WWII, the army green that conveniently became British Racing Green.
  45. What information does this give us? From what I can see it shows that there was 2.5 inches of "IT80", and 0.5 inches of "IT110".. which at a guess would translate to 2.5 inches of rolled homogenous armour, and 0.5 inches of structural steel..? With a further 0.75 inches of "IT110" in places for the front of the turret? More evidence the armour model is incorrect?
  46. It is a good desert camo.. Especially when combined with huge shark jaws and RAF roundels for eyes. Thats how I run my Sherman II all the time anyway.. no really.. But seriously, I have no idea what the Brits actually used in Europe in WWII.. it's just odd its the only nation to have no directly grindable native camos.
  47. Fair enough.. British people buying Camos anyway,, "buying" camos I mean.
  48. Ok.. I've just played my first battle in the tortoise.. Its adequate.. at very best. It has armour that works (with bushes and at range). It's reload (and armour ofc) is the main thing that saves it. It's playable. So far of course.. I also played a game in the glorious Russian Matilda II.. Earlier in the match I came across 2 Cromwell Vs in a T-34 1941. Lol.. no issue, one dead. the other crippled saved only by an M10 appearing. It took 3 tanks to even scratch me.. only finished by APHE. No surprises. Respawned in a Russian Matilda II, and saw an Excelsior at 500ish m. First shot crippled him in the turret. Then all his friends appeared around me. Almost all of their solid shots just bouncing off my Matilda., except breech knocked out twice. Killed one of them (it was by our spawn so my spawning allies took care of them).. all the time bouncing shot after shot from the now repaired Excelsior. He bounced two more shots from me, and then the fourth finished him. As I said, the Russian Matilda II is a more effective tank. Every shot he fired had no hope of penning my BR 3.3 tank (would have been similar in any T-34), the best chance he had was to make something a bit yellow.. or red if he was a very lucky boy. It took 4 shots to kill him, with good aim it would have been 2 or 1. The 75mm ROQF is next to useless in War Thunder. The whole situation for low tier british tanks is a joke.
  49. Why not.. make it a skippable item, or premium/event vehicle. People would know what they're getting just from its name. I would find it humorous to see people trying to bait other fighters onto their tail.. schrage musik has a showing in game, can't see why this can't.
  50. Can anyone shed some light on whether any Cromwell tank had 63mm of flat frontal hull, or turret armour? According to all the sources I've seen, it had 76.7 mm (3in) of front turret, and flat hull armour on the front, and more elsewhere, inline with this report: (Also the Mk VII having 100mm.. not that we have this version) It seems to be a "documented" bug, and relatively clear what to do, and this is a pretty major bug to have been unchanged for so long.. is there anything gaijin are sitting on with regard to leaving this unchanged? I keep hearing rumours that the M60s armour is also nerfed (presumably by mistake) too.. so is this just something that happens and doesn't get fixed on certain tanks?
  51. Could someone tell me.. If we do "spend" GE on a camo (I hope I'm using the right terminology.. apparently you cannot "pay" for something in GE.. although I swear being called "Golden" and a type of currency this would make sense.. maybe i need to "think" about it some more.. ), are those Camos available on every tank of that nation, or just that tank? .. maybe any currency is just a capitalist invention.. OK I'll stop.
  52. Yes there is the gun, armour, mobility thing.. .. but the other two are only ways to enable .. the gun. If you have a tank with no armour, mobility, and a gun, you have a Nashorn, or Marder.. or Katyusha (has the same effect as a gun).. it has a use in WT. If you have a tank with armour, no mobility, and a gun, you have a IS-3 turret as a pillbox.. it would have a use in WT. (Black Prince is the closest we have to this) If you have a tank with good armour, good mobility and no gun, you have an armoured truck, and this has no use in War Thunder. The T-34 1941 beats this tank in almost all regards.. any "penetrable" plate on the T-34 1941 you find, I can show you similar on the Excelsior. But the gun is the biggest difference. I would rather use the T-34 1940 in almost all situations. I haven't played the Tortoise, but the gun looks adequate.. but from what I've seen, it's main use is bouncing shells to get SP to spawn something else, or absorb fire while teammates get you assists. The same can be said for the Churchill VII, and the Matilda at least has ROF and insane gun depression.. though is a lot of the time uncompetitive. Yes the Excelsior has a use, but there is no way a russian top tier reward tank would be this gimped. I assume you're one of those people that thought the M103's AP shell didn't need a buff? I guess some that only want hangar queens.. I want averagely useful tanks.
  53. I've had on so many occasion the spall making things only yellow.. if it just misses them. Spall from a projectile travelling at Mach 2 whose only purpose is to waste a reload and notify the enemy you are there. Meanwhile 0.023 Kg of TNT filler "explodes" a hardened steel penetrator in a way that nukes a fighting compartment. I could go on.. but when will this be fixed???
  54. http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/ussr_a_12_mk_2_matilda_2A_F96 Matilda.. 3 k/d.. It is a more effective tank than the Excelsior, even at BR 4.0. Tanks are just ways of hauling a gun around, and if that gun is almost useless against other tanks, the tank is almost useless in War Thunder. Anything with the 75mm gun is not a tank that was meant to fight other tanks. Putting it one on one vs other tanks that were doesn't work. The version with the 6 pdr would be semi adequate. With the 6 pdr APDS, and you may have an adequate tank. I think the developers only take into account penetration and armour values because these are the only things that matter on low tier Russian tanks.. This is not how tanks with solid shot work! The Cromwells are less useful than the Pz IV F1 at BR 2.3.. Low tier UK are all BR'd this way it seems, by comparing their ability to fight T-34s, and they're all ****ed as a result.
  55. Also 20 pdr (and 17 pdr) APC and AP does nothing when shooting through a panther from the side, if it only just misses the ammo rack, or crew. Challenger, Charioteer, Avenger, FV4202, Centurion Mk 1 and Centurion Mk 3 all have this problem using these rounds. They will do absolutely nothing half the time when not aimed very well from the side.. At least you have APHE with its "grenade explosion".
  56. I find it humorous that people expect a Medium tank at 5.7 to be impenetrable to a 6.7 Medium tank, that uses it excess penetration to create enough spalling to be effective.. No.. just no.
  57. Yup I made the mistake of thinking it would be the NS-37.. (afterall I was described as being "like the 9Ts".. A bit disappointing.. You can only set distance on certain rockets, mainly German and Russian rockets, US and UK dont have time fuses, only impact fuses.
  58. TOG I would be the only interesting one of the TOGs with multiple guns, Britain doesn't have anything like that currently. (the independents machineguns are useless unless there is a game mode where they face only marders) Also it's Alecto, not Alectro, they weren't listening to kraftwerk at the time.
  59. And regardless of how we come about GE if these camos were the number one thing in our entire existence, of course we could find some way to afford them, or grind out GE wagers (just not playing at BR 3.7 where our ammo is still broken.. win rates confirm this) but GE is useful through the the game. Why only British tankers have to spend it to get camo that is useful in their native country, and European maps?
  60. The main point here is.. For normal European maps, the only camo available to UK tanks is the stock camo. Germans get any camo available, US any camo, Russian get some very nice Forrest camo, available through kills, and the UK get only the stock camo. So.. a European nation, who are also used to seeing their tanks drive around in European-Forrest camo, are the only ones to see these camos hidden behind a GE wall... Why? Similar to what someone else said.. I hope you like snow/desert camo on e.g Normandy.
  61. The Matilda is fine, anyone can make it work.. especially when paired with the double gun SMK, and especially against US/UK teams. Russia against UK/US is always a steamroll at that tier. One shotting Cromwell's from any range/angle isn't hard, nor is bouncing their shots. Tha Matilda can't be complained about as it fits into the current meta. The excelsior can be complained about.. as it also fits right into the current meta. The Type-62, has a playstyle that is well recognised, the KV-220 is just drive and shoot, but the excelsior is just painful to the vast majority of players, most of whom don't squad. When will Gaijin wake up and realise that solid shot at this tier is still the same gimped shells the M103 used to equivalently have?. 23g of APHE still nukes tanks from so many other guns at that tier, and it completely ruins solid shot vehicles at this tier. A comparable buff to solid shot is needed and would fix this. The excelsior is a another joke with a broken gun, and broken armour. It does nothing well other than bounce a few Russian shells on certain plates.
  62. This thing should be invulnerable to certain types of APHE from the side like the MD-5 fuse for the Russian 76.2mm.. it has a fuse delay of 0.15m.. so should detonate after the track armour and the hull armour would absorb all fragments, according the to current "grenade explosion" implementation if APHE. Once everyone learns its weak spot by the front sprocket, the side armour becomes useless.. and not only are you praying to only face certain nations, and be top tier, but also face inexperienced players... There are so many tanks at BRs down to 3.3 I'd rather take into battle at 4.0. It's basically a Sherman.. with no APHE, no gun stabilization, less penetration.. but more armour on the flat surfaces so the enemies have to be the "aim carefully" ones too, except they only need this once. You have to do this 4 times while they stay still at a bad angle for you to knock out each crewmember. Obviously not as glorious an idea as the KV-220.
  63. I assume it's BR has changed since you posted this.. It's now 5.0 for RB. I was hoping it came with the NS-37.. the good 37mm that the Yak 9T comes with. After all the article gaijin posted about it said "it has a 37mm similar to the Yak 9T".. but alas its the "weak" 37mm, the N-37 with only 40mm of pen rather than the 60mm of pen on the NS-37. In other words.. its a Yak 9P. Except you can't change the big gun to a 20mm or a 23mm. I have used the N-37 countless times on the Yak-9P and Yak 9-UT in ground forces.. and it's 26mm of pen at 500m is not enough to do the work that the 9T does. All in all I'm a bit disappointed it didn't come with the high pen 37.. it at least has a better turn time on the stack card than the 9P, but I can't say I've noticed too much. It does eat hellcats (M18s) nicely though. It is better than the 9P, only for turn time, but it does seem to bleed more energy in a turn.. I guess if you like energy fighting go for the 9P.. and dogfighting, the 3T. Dogfights are more often what happens most in ground RB so.. for that its good.