EE51555

Member
  • Content count

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

157 Neutral

About EE51555

  • Rank
    Officer cadet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,532 profile views
  1. I was happy to see jingles enjoy his one kill in it in the phly video.
  2. When I play Germany, I understand it is my job to bring as much air power as the enemy will throw against my team. I bring 2 fighters, and an attacker.. just like many on allied teams will. I get between 1 and 5 air kills per game, and often this is not enough. But it feels good for every fully loaded P-47 that you take out has saves 3-4 players on your team. If only more people did this. Until people start matching air power with equivalent air power, many games will be lost to this air power. That is even before you look at the best in game AA as a backup. The problem is the air options for allies are significantly better, so most of the good aircraft players tend to play allied teams, or even good air players on German teams are not as incentivised to use their aircraft because they can do less damage to enemy tanks. This inevitably means air superiority is rarely achieved on German teams, and this is the problem at the moment. I'd say it could be fixed by allowing pure fighters to spawn at the start, or reduce the SP for spawning pure fighters, and increase further the SP for taking ordinance, along with giving German aircraft better anti-ground options. This would allow people to defend themselves with air power. SPAA won't always protect your team, and using SPAA means you had to have your tank killed. The combined arms aspect of the game will never go away.. it was the Germans that first put it to good effect after all, every country used it, and it was the defining nature of WWII combat. Edit: in some of the recent avants, air could spawn straight from the start, even ground pounders. The IL-2s were soon taken down, and the air game could start from the beginning. Allowing pure fighters from the start would be a good way to fix the current problem.
  3. It's had this flight model for a few months now. At least it stops you pulling G that rips your wings.. which is somewhat more realistic than just being able to pull 12 G. Spits (or any prop) weren't exactly known for ripping their wings off because of a simple turn. They could somewhat reduce the control lock though, it's pretty severe.
  4. That's what sim is.
  5. I had a game on the new, very forested map where I drove through all the cap points capping them, killed a few, then was in the cap point near their spawn. A long line of enemies were then just driving past me.. I was driving with them. At no point did I stop fighting them, there were so many of them around, they assumed I was an ally. Only when my allies came close/they respawned did they realise I was an enemy.. it was weird just driving among them as they thought they were driving to the front line. Doesn't help the map is completely covered in forest of course.
  6. I made the same comment a few weeks back. I even made a suggestion with voting options to see if there was support for removing crew lock for choosing to save backups.. it was deleted with no comment. So backups, which can be bought with GE that can then be used to punish you for simply having them available.. and discussion as a suggestion is simply removed with no comment? That's needlessly being difficult to people that may have spent actual money on the game.. because of spending that money. (tbh not that I ever have, but some people will buy backups) It sucks, guess you have to just live with it.
  7. It seemed like a good idea to me, UK gets more vehicles marked "Commonwealth". Whether the whole tree gets called "Commonwealth" or "Britain" would be up to Gaijin, but I'm pretty sure everyone would be OK with the whole tree being renamed "Commonwealth". The vehicles looked interesting.. there's a place for them at some point in the future I'm sure, regardless of what happens to this thread.
  8. I guess Britain has too many good low tier tanks so they though they'd add a bad one for a change.. Again another tank to try to just get SP to spawn an aircraft to finish the job you started.
  9. Its average at best. It's not a heavy tank, but gets heavy tank SP. The weak points are.. the sides, rear and front of the tank. Other than a few places on the turret. The upper front plate has a 50mm weak spot, the lower plate is a weak spot, and any angling whatsoever means overmatched side armour. You have to play against total scrubs to hope to be effective. This was true before the turret change.. I haven't played it since the change so it may be somewhat better now.
  10. You mean this video? That isn't HESH.. that's APDS, which is why he went to the test range to see why it wasn't penning. No "handholding" accusations required either. Yes questionable bounces happen with AP, that happens to everyone. Centurion turrets are trolly, just like Panther and Tiger I turrets. Overlapping armour, and armour seams can lead to very high armour values and angles in some areas. Also the lower plate of a Cent 3 at 20m.. If there was any extra angle (lower plate is 42 degrees from horizontal) it goes past the 0% ricochet chance for APCBC which is also 42 degrees.. so if you shoot down at any angle, it might bounce the shell. So you have 0 degrees from the horizontal to play with - and being only 20m away you're probably shooting down by more than 0 degrees. For the Cearnarvon the lower plate is 46 degrees from the horizontal so you can shoot down by 2 degrees before risking a ricochet. With the HESH, it can bounce at any angle lower than 15 degrees and will always bounce under 10 degrees. The front plate of an IS-6 is 25 degrees from the horizontal. It even has a rounded front so there is always a good part of the front of the tank so the lateral angle is always minimal. The angle will almost never be under 15 degrees, so it should almost never (depending on additional lateral angle, or shooting up and the UFP), or outright never bounce (I haven't checked all the angles as you spin the tank), especially as the IS-6 has no gun depression so you are often shooting down at the tank. The only thing that might explain this is this part of the Phly video It appears as though the HESH detonated on the wheel arch.. which might well happen, it wouldn't have ricocheted off the wheel arch as it would be completely overmatched by the HESH as it's only 10mm, so is very unlikely to ricochet off and then hit the front plate, it would just detonate, where an AP shell would pen this wheel arch. HESH should always work against an IS-6, unless you hit a wheel arch, which counts as spaced armour..
  11. Personally I've not seen anyone say that if you can't kill an IS-6 frontally with AP you need to L2P. The only thing like that was a guy who made a thread that basically said shoot it in the cupola, and with APHE (something only some tanks get). I don't see how L2P applies at all when if you had learned about the game, you would have found out that 105mm HESH will cause 100-110mm plate to spall, and knock out at least some crew, regardless of the RNG penetration variance. It literally does not apply.. it is a topic worth discussing in case something has changed. No-one like the IS-6, and everyone wants it's optics or BR fixed.. being petty about who needs to L2P won't help anything.
  12. Maybe they save downtiers for bad players..?
  13. I think 5,7 in general is unplayable.. 90 % of games are 6.7.
  14. Because apparently some people want their guns to do something.
  15. With the Cromwell V 75mm use the AP shell. It doesn't seem to bounce as bad as the statistics show, and you need the extra pen. It makes the difference many more times than the APCBC and saves your *ss.. (He's talking about the Excelsior but it has the same gun) With the Cromwell I, make sure you have expert crew and a good reloading skill. Getting the reload down very low saves this vehicle and enables you to get enough shots off to kill stuff before they get behind cover/supported by friendlies/one shot in return. They're not beginner friendly tanks. You can use the -12 gun depression in good locations where you have a good view of the enemy.. but it takes a while to figure out the good locations. Tbh they're best used as flag rushers for cap and fly, or as a later spawn when the fighting is less dense and you can use your speed to sweep the map of enemies and you are less likely to run into a hoard of them.
  16. So. after reading up on planetary gears and wondering why it took so long for tanks to get planetary systems working.. I realise it's just War Thunder doesn't recognise them.. yet.. This is the bug report that seems to deal with this issue, so they are at least aware and working on it. I know Gaijin have a huge number of things to work on at any time.. but I hope they do this some time this soon(TM), or eventually... This is a pretty huge inaccuracy, and disappointing they've not implemented yet. I saw a video on the Chieftain Mk 5, and as much as some people are disappointed with this vehicle, the biggest killer to its competitiveness seems to be its clutch braking - which it never had, and negates the extra engine power. Same with even the Churchills. Does anyone know when it might be implemented?
  17. Usually 5.3 is a good BR to play. If you can get a good lineup. The aircraft options for Germany at 5.3 are at least excellent, but the tank lineup is somewhat lacking. The captured KV 1 + tank destroyers and aircraft does quite well. The best part is it avoids frequent uptiers to 6.7.. but you have to forgo the Tigers and Panther D. But with a choice of Me 410 B6/R3.. FW190 A8/F8, KV1B, Panzer IV/70, Nashorn, Brummbar. and Ostwind/Wirbel, it's pretty strong.. especially as you are often top tier.
  18. Hispanos are probably underperforming when it comes to pen.. US AN/M2 Hispanos have 33mm pen on their API-T, from 97kj, but Hispano II gets only 26mm from AP with 95kj. MG151 gets 23mm from AP-I with 58kj. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PZK5ysLUmL5Kg0tCD9zmpgcHrMhnDbedkw7U4V3Ce-I/pubchart?oid=1367043968&format=interactive In other words the US 20mm is a lot better for killing tanks. Hispanos are worse than ShVAKs despite having nearly double the muzzle energy. At least they changed the ShVAK and B20 pen from what it used to be at 37mm, despite only having 54kj energy to something a little more realistic. Also, there's no reason all japanese 20mm should be the same pen.. they're vastly different guns. The Type 97/Ho-3 should have pretty powerful AP-T rounds. I noticed the C/30L has got 46mm pen now.. need to give it a go.
  19. It seems on the US server the problem is twice as bad. The teams always just melt away. And next to no-one brings aircraft. This is the problem.
  20. From playing at 6.3, the problem seems to be the biggest on the US server. German teams have no confidence.. there is no aggression. Not enough people use the best in game SPAA, or take out fighters. There is next to never air superiority. That and the T29 outclasses the Tiger II H.
  21. Spitfire LF Mk.IX does not have rockets. The P47 is by far their best pay to ground pound aircraft. Do.335 has 3 MK 103s with 95mm pen in addition to bombs. He 219 has excellent array of cannons. All nations have similar premium ground pounders, but the UK/US probably have the best. I find it strange that people don't grind planes, Air RB has not been in such a good state for ages with the gun buffs. It's a lot of fun again.
  22. The Cromwell RP3 that we have ingame is a Cromwell V, but with added RP3 rockets on the turret. This is why the Cromwell RP3 is called the "Cromwell V RP3" here : https://warthunder.com/en/news/3738-development-cromwell-v-rp3-en/ This report is only on the Cromwell RP3 vehicle. There has been no report on the Cromwell RP3's incorrect armour. No previous report has referred to, or lead to a change in the Cromwell RP3 whatsoever. This is the armour diagram for the Cromwell V from the original British "Armoured Fighting Vehicle Development Board" Technical Document, which can also be found in the book Cromwell Tank: Vehicle History and Specification Figure 1 - Cromwell RP3 armour (Cromwell V armour) Highlighted are the values that are incorrect ingame: Figure 2. Incorrect values Note: The "Additional Armour Welded On" is not part of this report, but could be included as an additional researchable module in the future. A summary of the differences of from ingame to the diagram in Figure 2 are below: Area - Ingame - Cromwell V (Cromwell RP3) diagram (Figure 2). Turret Front - 63.5mm - 76.2mm Turret Rear - 44mm - 57.1mm Top front side - 25.4mm - 44mm Bottom front side – 25.4mm - 46mm Top rear side - 25.4mm - 32mm Mid rear side - 25.4mm - 38mm Bottom rear side - 25.4mm - 39mm Top suspension covering - 25.4mm - 12.7mm Hull top front - 14mm - 20mm Hull top rear - 14mm - 14mm, but with 2*14mm over engine Detailed armour changes required Change 1: Add 14mm inner suspension plate (currently missing) Change 2: Reduce current side plates to only this size (currently covers the whole side) Change 3: Add 32mm front outer suspension cover, & rear top plate (currently 25.4mm) Change 4: Add 44mm side armour (currently 25.4mm) Change 5: Add 38mm rear side armour (currently 25.4mm) Change 6: Add 12.7mm top suspension cover (currently 25.4mm) Change 7: Change hull top 14mm plate to only this size and add secondary 14mm engine cover (currently covers the whole top of the tank, and missing second 14mm plate) Change 8: Add 20mm hull top (currently 14mm) Change 9: Change turret front and rear thickness to 76.2mm and 57.1mm (currently 63.5mm front and 44mm rear) Additional References Further correct armour values can be seen here: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:cromwell-cruiser-tank-a27m&catid=37:cruiser-tanks&Itemid=56 in the table named "Armour Configurations". Cromwell turret front 76mm Leland Ness, Janes WWII Tanks and Armoured Fighthing Vehicles p. 36 John Buckley, British Armour in the Normandy Campaign p. 169 He states the Cromwell's turret front armour thickness is 76mm https://books.google.com/books?id=e82PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=cromwell+tank+side+armour&source=bl&ots=Uz8NUSvIet&sig=UDS4ZoUH1yEIyfl2dP2FTHwuHZs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLnr6pl5jKAhXSPB4KHQNFCMI4FBDoAQhJMAc#v=onepage&q=cromwell%20tank%20side%20armour&f=false Additional note: If this report is not accepted for some reason, could you please not lock it, I am 100% confident I can find whatever required information that would be needed that proves the armour model ingame is incorrect, and the changes described here are correct.