• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

30 Neutral

About Ebeneezer_Goode

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

769 profile views
  1. Sorry, that's not true. They fall with the same initial acceleration, but as soon as they are moving, the lead ball will have higher acceleration, and higher velocity. (Acceleration will be greatest amd equal at the start and then reduce as they get faster, up to terminal velocity where they will have no acceleration. The heavier ball will have higher terminal velocity and have a lower decrease in acceleration). With your high engine power and high mass.. Try to keep your speed up and go for shallow dives. Here is where you will have the most benefit.
  2. If it really could carry a 10,000 Kg bomb, then why the hell not, if the Russians get the 5000Kg bomb on the Pe8.. at BR 4.3. The Lincoln should have that bomb at 6.0 BR. Its a heavy bomber.
  3. The British didn't fight StuGs or PzIIIs in Russia.. AP shells will not shatter if they are too soft. They will shatter if they are too brittle, which can be because they are too hard. Getting the right hardness profile over the shell, and using the right alloy is key. Every AP shell will have some sort of hardening treatment. The piercing tip will be hardest, and the rest of the shell will be softer (less hard), but tougher. If any part of the shell is too hard, it may shatter. If the tip is not hard enough it may deform. Germany was the most compromised when it comes to having enough rare elements to alloy their steel, either for making armour or AP shells, even if they knew very well how to use these elements to make tough steel. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/
  4. Spawncamping within 20 seconds of the start more like. I recently joined a join in progress game on Karelia, not long after the game had started. Immediately shot in spawn by a Panther from the ridge before I even knew what was going on. If they want games to not be gragged out when they are lost, deal with games like that by e.g. meaning all caps taken wins the game faster, or aircraft can't drag out a game. But making spawncamping as easy as it is just adds more frustration.
  5. Very good point.. It would mean there is a real advantage to owning all the caps.
  6. A Lot of players at 3.7 might be playing through tanks, or in the process of spading them, so they might well not have it unlocked, being at the end of the unlock path. It's not often I've had the luxury of using arty.. mainly I use it in the AA that always get spawned at some point in the match that's already spaded.
  7. It seems the only time the RU 251 does real work is when its being used to spawncamp. I hope people learn how to use it properly so they don't have to do this all the time. 7.0 would make sense for both.
  8. Yes that's the one, cheers
  9. How can we go about trying to get them to fix this? It also affects other vehicles with two piece innert ammunition like the tortoise, do we have to keep creating loads of bug reports?
  10. I did see a bug report on this regarding the Chieftain .. The only rounds kept in the turret were APDS, HESH and charges were kept in armoured storage in the bottom of the tank. I'm not sure what's going to be done, if anything though. All tanks with 2 piece ammo and inert shells should be protected from this.
  11. To be honest im not sure about this, but I don't think G affects the fuel system much like piston engined fighters.. from wikipedia.. "Turbine engines burn fuel faster than reciprocating engines do. Because fuel needs to be injected in to a combustor, the injection system of a turbine aircraft must provide fuel at higher pressure and flow compared to that for a piston engine aircraft" In other words it's already pushing fuel into the combustion chamber which is at 3 bar (Junkers Jumo) or 8 bar (Avon).. so G forces on the fuel in the system will be negligible compared to pushing fuel into this high pressure, which is unlike piston engined which work at atmospheric pressure and don't have to work against a large pressure difference.. but I don't know how early jets pumped fuel, so it might be a factor on some jets.
  12. I'm for this in general of done carefully with the right characteristics of each jet. On the topic of what a compressor stall is.. the blades of the compressor do not stop in a compressor stall. The blades of the compressor rotor are directly connected to the blades of the turbine rotor, in the back of the jet, driving the compressor to turn. The problem is that the air stops moving through the compressor, and just moves around with it in the moving part (compressor rotor) and stays still in the compressor stator, rather than through it while being compressed. It's like putting your hand over a computer fan - you're asking the fan to produce more pressure than it can give to continue moving air through it, so the air just spins with it. The air in the fan is then "stalled", but still turning. Nothing is damaged because of this though. If you increase the fuel flow too quickly in a jet you will increase the pressure in the centre of the engine. This requires the compressor to do more work, and if this happens quickly while at low rpm, (before the increase in pressure drives rpm higher after driving the turbine faster) it might be too much for the compressor, and it stalls. Increasing the pressure at the compressor intake will help it, so this might be better at low altitude, (or low temperature air will help, so high altitude might be better for some jets). Different jets will have different compressor and turbine characteristics so will have hugely different characteristics with rpm, altitude, outside air temp, and rate of increase of throttle. I don't think negative-g, or any g-force affects it at all. Jets don't care if they are upside-down or not. But it could be made so the rate of increase in throttle must be kept low, especially at low rpm, and hot air temp (like you can never just hit the throttle all the way open). . This would make throttle control in some jets more skillful. I've also heard ADEN cannon firing near the jet inlet can produce hot air that is harder to compress - and cause a compressor stall.
  13. Could you post a link to this thread? I saw something a few days ago but I'm not sure where now.
  14. I do support the APHE rework.. in principle, but there's not much I can do about it when I know little about HE and shrapnel etc.. I'm not sure what my stats are in British aircraft but I know if Germany wants to clear the skies a Wirbelwind will often mean the aircraft will have to take evasive action like no other AA at that tier.. I don't get shot down by Wirbelwinds that much now, but it takes about 3 aircraft to focus it before it's safe enough to attack.. while their tanks win the game. I'm not saying anyone in particular looks to club new players.. I just play through stuff as I unlock it too, (with a few staple vehicles like AA or some aircraft, so it's understandable these get taken out alot) but it does seem to be true that no experienced player goes back to play allied vehicles at 3.7, but Germany there will be many. So in general new players on allied teams will be clubbed by experienced players on German teams.
  15. I actually used it recently and I was surprised by how.. not too bad it was. It's a Cromwell with a 17pdr. Went straight for the ammo upgrades as the APCBC really is the best shell (most pen, but also the cap means ricochets are much less likely). Haven't even got parts or FPE as one shot and you're dead anyway, but with the good shell you can do OK. It's got good gun depression too.
  16. Honourable mentions go to the So-Ki with 2*20 mm and 520 rounds at 3.3, less armour and crew, the Crusader AA with 600 rounds of 2*20mm at 3.7 .. but 3200 rounds and 4*20 mm will be the death of any possible balancing factor, along with Japanese aircraft. Your summary is quite good flieslikeabrick.
  17. If you were wondering why the Brits don't use the Churchill at 4.0.. if only we could use it against allied teams it would be fantastic. It's excellent against solid shot. Against German or Russian teams.. not so much, 1 hit and it's game over. Also regarding the air power, getting shot down by a Wirbelwind is certainly not nessesarily the fault of the pilot. It has already been established that the Wirbelwind is exceptional compared to all other AA up to BR 6.0 at shooting down aircraft, and a strike run on a tank nearby will lead to death if the Wirbelwind driver is even semicompetent. And it's as I suspected, German players who want good win rates, SL.. easy kills are at the BR, so if you play through it you'll get to higher BRs and have near the same at higher tier.. at least somewhere near. Pretty bad game design, and very unfriendly to new players, but it seems Germany gets to club the new players atm.
  18. You'd think the best course of action would be to increase the competitiveness of German tanks at 6.7, and increase Allied tanks at 3.7, but the opposite seems to be happening. Either way, the imbalance at 3.7 is much greater.. 30/70 win rates would not last a few days if it was at 6.7 so I don't see why gaijin aren't doing anything for about 6 months now at 3.7.
  19. The biggest problem Britain has at low tier.. the tanks are not great, but the aircraft are generally the best you can offer your team, but with the Wirbelwind still at 3.7 even this becomes futile.
  20. Often the teams are bad.. who wants to play and get a 30% win rate.. ? Only new players, and German stat padders at 3.7.
  21. discussion

    I vote for player manned antitank positions like bazookas or stationary AT guns at the spawn, with notification that "your base is under attack" so you can defend it. With about the same Spawn Points as an AA currently has.
  22. they should allow you to move at least 10 m or so, so TDs can at least shoot protected.
  23. And the problems it causes for other nations at 2.7 is not irrelevant. It's ability to function as an AA is excellent for even 6.0 games, so there is no reason for to keep it ruining 3 nations 2.7 or even 3.7 lineups. And against the ground it also happens to be better than a Shilka in more situations.
  24. You might want to know that AA stands for Anti-Aircraft. You might want to compare it to other Anti-Aircraft vehicles is what I meant. This has already been done and counter the points you made.
  25. Also people have explained why it's not a good vehicle to spawn first. Later in the match is when you can use it to execute people before they have help to knock your turret out, or use it against the aircraft that killed you. Any Pz IV is better at the start of a match. Compare it to other AA. 3.7 is rediculous.
  26. Having played the Wirbelwind, sometimes you get upteired, and it's not so good. If you actually use it in a 3.7 lineup and not a 4.3 or 4.7 it is very good alot of the time, and that's just against ground. No-one said it's a super TD. But it is better than the Shilka against ground. The other point is it's ability against air. The Crusader AA is the only thing that comes close to it for AA and with 600 rounds it's a lot worse. A Wirbelwind can do AA duties as well as tank duties for an entire match without rearming. I have 5 times as many air kills per match in the Wirbelwind as the Crusader, and that is not without trying in the Crusader. The problem it causes is to anyone playing at 2.7 BR on Russian, UK or US teams. So few actually play these teams at this tier (because of facing German guns) that you very often face German 3.7 lineups. It is quite rare for this to happen playing Germany, but playing 2.7 allies is impossible. I will not play these tiers anymore - I'd rather face them in 5.3 vehicles. If only 2.7 was playable. Interesting you bring up the thundershow, shows what happens when alot of people at the same tier ignore a Crusader AA, giving it their sides vs what happens when you frontally approach a Wirbelwind in 6.7 well armoured tanks. I think gaijin may be listening.
  27. There is the Cromwell RP3, but it is useless at any range other than that of the test range.. presumably to make you think it's useful. Rarely is it actually useful. If they allowed you think select it's vertical alignment before the match it might be useful. It would be good to see landmatress on something.
  28. But yes, I know what you mean about stability, and other aspects of realism.
  29. Logistics are the reason behind the nature of realistic tank battles, the same way tank engineering & breakdowns are, its all the same effect on tank combat. So just pointing out what would happen with realistic matchups.. Everyones going to want to play the tanks that take 20 times the man hours to make, why would anyone play the cheap numerous, slaughtered tanks, unless this assault mode is what that's for. But yes, drivey drivey shooty shooty is the best PVP will be.. albeit a good looking drivey shooty. Apparently SB events are better for matchups, haven't played SB myself.
  30. Seeing as War Thunder also includes "tankers wet deam tanks" like the Maus, and tanks that were also next to useless in battle like Jagdtigers, then puts them in their ideal location 1 on 1 vs other tanks, and the other tanks of the day were so comparably cheap 20 of them could be built for the same price, and no infantry, it is somewhat fair. If a Tiger II has to face an army of never ending Shermans, Hellcats, T-34-85's and the odd IS-2 to shoot at (tanks mainly designed for infantry support with the exception of Hellcat) yes it would be fun to play the Tiger II, but the economics of actual tank battles would also have to be simulated, and he would be against 20 other players.. have fun waiting your turn for the Tiger II. Would you want breakdowns, and no tank repair too? War Thunder do do events now and again (I liked the one a lot in Tunisia where only 2 Tigers could spawn against mostly Shermans, Matildas, and Hurricanes etc) that are more like reality, but otherwise they go for neutral game balance.. but keep an eye out for events.
  31. The Germans and whoever they used it against would have soon been able to work out why it happened, and how to fix it.. Manganese alloy for all I know would have been OK if they had chose the correct hardness to go for, but someone made a bad batch of 88s when the molybdenum got too expensive. It was actually Germany that first used molybdenum for gun steel in WWI (they needed so much that Krupp bought a US mine and called the subsidiary "American Metals" to hide what they were doing until the US joined the war, realised what was going on and stopped them), but tungsten and molybdenum were short in WWII. All of these can be used for alloying high strength steel.
  32. You can fix the flooding it causes by sectioning off affected areas of the ship, and the shells are so massive vs the relatively thin mild steel of a ship it would be a waste to not stick some HE in the shell.
  33. If you knew about materials you'd know that shattering does not happen to soft metal. AP rounds might fail if they are not tough enough (brittle) - and shatter, or too weak (soft) - and deform. They will not do both. If they are tough and strong, and fast enough, they will penetrate. Generally neither the AP shell nor the armour will be brittle, and whichever is harder between the shell or armour will deform. As tank armour is generally quite hard (rolled armour is harder) AP shells need to be even harder. As a metal is made harder, it can become too hard, to a point where is can no longer plastically deform at all and becomes brittle, and can shatter. Depending on the alloying of the steel and hardening done to it (heat treatment, work hardening e.g. rolling) different steels can be made hard up to a certain point before any increase in hardness leads to them becoming brittle. This is where selecting the right alloy and treatment becomes key to get the hardest shell that is also not brittle, as you have to be harder than the tank armour while not shattering. This is toughness. Also I think you may be regurgitating German WWII propaganda. Britain had more than adequate metal and arms industries to manufacture adequate AP shells, or APHE if it was required with their experience from the navy. It is generally not difficult to make steel for AP shells that is tougher than that of tank armour. The only nation that suffered from brittle AP shells is Germany during WWII as they used silicon-manganese-chromium steel, which was more easily made brittle than nickel-chromium-molybdenum steel, because they did not have access to enough molybdenum. There was only a limit to how hard this steel could be before it became brittle, and it was worked to be as hard as the molybdenum steel which it could not do without risking being brittle. I guess they would have reduced the hardness and it would have been OK to use anyway - probably still harder than tank armour, but no other nation had this problem. It would also only be a problem against particularly hard armour like rolled armour, as it can be brittle and still penetrate if the armour is soft enough.. sometimes anyway, defects in the shell still might cause it to shatter, depending on how hard the armour is. This is why you may have heard this myth that "the British and other nations had this problem too", when it was down to a lack of this element, and only against certain armour. APCR could shatter as it contains a ceramic core (tungsten carbide), which is very strong, but very hard (therefore brittle) and therefore can shatter under extreme force (e.g. without a cap - hence the cap), but in general it is not difficult to produce tough steel.
  34. In terms of air power, to me the Wirbelwind is stronger. it might have a reload but aircraft have to turn around and the Wirbel will win most heads up engagements (more crew than an aircraft and a critical hit doesn't mean death), and seems to be better against fighters that are trying to dodge it. The Ostwind is a one hit kill on fighters but it is possible to dodge the shots.. perhaps not in an attacker, but I get killed by the Ost less in the air. Maybe because I haven't played at that tier as much, and maybe because people use Wirbel as the air AA and the Ost as the ground AA. I'd be in favour of putting the Wirbel at a higher BR mainly because of its dominance over air. It should not see machine gun only armed fighters - they do not stand a chance to take it out and to shoot at a Wirbelwind is simply to announce your presence. In terms of ground power, my suggestion would be any of the following - Increase the BR so Tier 1 tanks cannot see it - Less APCR in the AP belt (1/4, or even 1/20 might be somewhere close to reality, if any) - More SP to chose TD belts the same as fighter bombers have more SP for their loadouts. Could be applied to any AA. - Increase the Silver Lion cost of TD belts, APCR is incredibly useful on a 20mm afterall, and very expensive in wartime. This could apply to any AA with APCR. I do wonder if a Wirbelwind ever fired an APCR round. The rounds existed, but as far as I know these were rounds developed for 20mm antitank rifles that used the same cartridge as the Flak 38, the commanders may have had a few handy but it would only have been used in moderation, if at all. Another interesting point, the C/30L gun on the He 112 A-0 is basically a single Flak 30 gun, so has a lower rate of fire than the Flak 38 but should have about the same penetration for the AP, but it seems to be lower.. . This might also give Germany a low tier Flak gun that people wouldn't mind seeing used against tanks.. I know I wouldn't, I'd use it myself. It would at least have be historical.
  35. What premium planes? What were you flying?