EE51555

Member
  • Content count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

65 Neutral

About EE51555

  • Rank
    Warrant officer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,045 profile views
  1. When using the Sherman II and the Hurricane IIB/Trop in the event "Africa: Landing of the Allies", when I ended the match, the Hurricane IIB page popped up, showing I has researched "Default", with about 450 research points to spare. but the Hurricane was fully researched about 8 months ago. When I closed the page saying I had researched "Default" for the Hurricane IIB/Trop, a page showed for the Sherman II (which I am doing modification research), and had "Parts" now researched, but with 0 research points for the next modification. It looks like a bug where the extra research points for the Sherman II were somehow put on the Hurricane IIB/Trop (fully researched) and lost. I think this has happened numerous times, and on other vehicles, where there is 0 research points for the next modification, which is very unlikely. It is making researching the Sherman II.. slow. Attached is the client log, and replay. Server replay: http://wt-game-replays.warthunder.com/02861fa900060824/0000.wrpl Thanks 2017_04_23_23_39_32__15820.clog #2017.04.24 01.54.01.wrpl
  2. This is also happening for RP3s, HVARs, M8s.. any rocket that cannot self destruct is doing it. This is the same as my report here: It is also described here:
  3. As shown in this video (bare mind that RP3s should never self destruct): If you use any rocket with "Activation Distance", like the russian RS-82s for exploding mid air at 200m, and then use a rocket that has no self destruct "Activation Distance".. you will find any rocket will now "Activate" mid air. The only way to get around this is to take an aircraft with "Activation Distance" into a test flight with "Impact" fuse.. and now all your rockets will work normally. This is the only way to get them back to normal. You cannot correct this at the spawn in screen for these aircraft (e.g. with RP3s), as they have no "Activation Distance" dropdown. I have made a bug report, but this is as yet unfixed, so I'm letting people know what might happen if they use "Activation Distance", while this is unfixed.
  4. All I can say is.. if you haven't tried recently, try now. The G-14 and K-4 cannot see Mk 24s, and Mk 22s will be a rarity. I'm soon to play these fighters.. so I'll see.. but it was mainly just hoards of D13s, D9s, and Ta 152s chasing each other after A-26's.. and just about anything that came close.. the 109's were mainly distractions. If I saw a 109 I happily traded with it. Its the best we could hope for. The only time I saw Bearcats were on Hokkaido, all the games against Germany were at 5.7 max. The prop clubbing is now solidly at 5.7.. and there's no allied props clubbing that BR, other than the odd tempest that does well. Even the 109 K-4 shows a 2.0 k/d on thunderskill http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/bf-109k-4.. and all german tier 4 props are 60%+ winrate. Meanwhile the Griffon at 1.2 k/d.. http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/spitfire_mk18e Some are better than others I'm sure, but it's only been good news for German props recently, I can't imagine there has been a better time to play them.
  5. I just played some Air RB in the 5.7 Spit F Mk XVIIIe (one of the "bad" griffons with 2 cannons, 2 ticklers, and enough ammo for 1 kill if you are lucky), trying to spade it. Played about 10 games, and lost them all against Germany or Japan, with the whole German team racing each other to kill stuff, but it was pretty much the usual clubfest on Hokkaido.. Seriously the Fw 190 D9 at 5.3, Fw 190 D13 at 5.7, Ta 152s at 5.7 that are always the highest and can blast anything out of the skies 3 times as fast as any P-47.. mixed with the P-47M's that could be there but dive on the nearest ground target.. Air RB is heavily unbalanced at that tier.. with the Mk 22 and 24 going off to jet land, and 190s to club land at the same time. Aanyway so I joined in with everyone else.. why fight the clubfest? jumped into the UK ground forces at 5.7.. and it did not disappoint with many a clubfest against Germany.. which I did not feel guilty about enjoying. But will Gaijin ever get the balance right?
  6. I would add, don't be afraid to get in .. a dogfight. I went from flying spits to 190s no problem, and did far better in the 190s. The only difference is you cant expect to follow someone's maneuvers in a 190, but you can intercept them. Most German teams will climb together, as soon as the first few aircraft above you are engaged, get stuck in. Once they're taken care of.. its a decent to the deck taking out whoever you can on the way. People will try to turn out of your way when you come after them.. use your good maneuverability to intercept the turn. Air targets help a huge amount here. You can outspeed most people if you have to, but only in a shallow dive. Never reduce your throttle when diving away from someone, just go more shallow, else you are throwing away height needlessly. If all else fails, and you can't get away, your flaps work at high speed. Use them to force an overshoot.. and rolling scissors with flaps out managing throttle works very well. It's not a turn fight, but the 190 does make a capable dogfighter 1 on 1, especially as no-one expects it. Learn to control the aircraft with WASD, and you can look behind and defensive fly.. but this is applicable for any aircraft, and with some luck you can survive even if the enemy is above you to begin with, getting him into a rolling scissors type fight.
  7. Yer, all that "lack of balance" is really hurting the game.. All those British (and German) aircraft flying round with parts they can afford, killing those Mig-17s because they couldn't afford boosters but the Hunter or CL-13 could.. Or even worse, all those Mig-17s and F-86F-2s killing all those F-86F-30s because the Japanese Sabre's were more expensive and couldn't afford the booster, but the Mig-17s and F-86F-2s could. The only two top tier jets that are 1,750,000 are the F-86F-2 and the Mig 17. All others have different costs. Hunter - 990k CL-13 - 990k F-86F-2 - 1,750k Mig-17 - 1,750k F-86F30 - 1,970k It's not only the Hunter that needs to be balanced, if there is any logic behind every top tier jet having a different cost.. then some will have different costs. What the logic is behind plane costs, I have no idea however. But this is not a topic that belongs only in the British line.
  8. Large Sinai is the only good large map reliably in rotation.. it will not fail to be a good game. You can get to the enemy spawn, but only after the game is truly lost, not just 2 tanks managed to evade everyone on one flank, 2 minutes into the game.
  9. Sounds about right.. The Pz IV F1 is also a monster at 2.3, once you learn how to lob HEAT every 4.3 seconds. Pz IV G, I though I was good with a 3.3 k/d spading it but 5 is good going.. and the Wirbelwind will wreck aircraft and tanks 1 on 1 in mid/late game, just not on big maps. It's ability against air is unmatched up to the Kugel. The duck with 30mm is good fun, at 3.3 it's got the best ground pounding gun in the game, and even isn't that slow for 3.3. Good for about 2 tank kills. The Me-410 50 mm with APHE can sometimes 1 shot tanks.. but very tricky to use. Fun to try anyway. Combine that with a 109 with 500kg bomb and as many vehicle spawns as you have crew for, and you can't fail to do well. And yes it's a horrible time for players starting to play US/UK teams.
  10. So it seems Germany will never fight Japan. The UK will never be allied with Germany, and the UK will never be allied with Japan... The only one that makes sense is the Germany never fighting Japan, and perhaps the UK never allying with Japan, either way this shouldn't stop the UK never allying with Germany. What is the reason the US can fight with Germany? Allied after WWII, with a US administered sector of Berlin?.. what does that mean for the UK administered sector of Berlin?.. and NATO including West Germany. As for the UK and Japan.. there was some pre-war cooperation (not something were proud of regarding Japan's Navy..) and post war.. but we didn't administer Japan after the war like the US did, but they were allied soon after the war. Something you can't say for Russia/Japan relations. But if the US can ally with Germany, I see no reason the UK can't. The only reason Russia and Germany makes sense is pre Operation Barbarossa co-operation. If Russia "administering" parts of Germany after WWII is a reason, then it is more so for the UK, with West Germany, and full military alliance/cooperation, the same as it is for the US.
  11. All the top ground pounders have very skewed statistics.. They are taken out far more often in ground RB than air RB, because they are flown so often... I'm sure the P-47D-25 does just fine in air RB. Also Thunderskill doesn't differentiate between AI kills and player kills, any ground kills don't mean much.. at least for planes that aren't on this list, because of the ground ai in Air RB. Tbh, I don't see the Ru 251 as P2W.. at least if you shoot it, it will die, which its stats show.. The same cannot be said for the fast medium tank with heavies armour that is the IS-6. If it was as slow as the matilda, the crap penetration on the gun would keep it crap, but it can brawl and get the side of many tanks easily, negating its mediocre pen and so the 122 is easily be put to work. Yes its fast, but I think 7.0 - 7.3 max for the Ru-251. The IS-6 could go higher. I don't own it, but thats my experience seeing it in game. The best counter I find are AA vehicles. Especially fast ones like the Crusader AA. it will be in the cap/flanking spot at the same time or just after, and beats it one on one.
  12. APHE does not work like a grenade. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16205/#media All the tanks on this page of this report were successfully penetrated by APHE. 75 mm APHE killed 12% of the crew where there were no burn casualties (no fires).. so what does a bigger APHE round, with more spalling do? 88mm APHE killed 13 % of the crew where there were no burn casualties (no fires). And what about fires? 75mm APHE killed 22% of the crew where there were burn casualties. 88mm APHE killed 38% of the crew where there were burn casualties. In other words large APHE shells cause more deadly fires in ammo racks or fuel tanks, but that's about it. If this doesn't happen 12% die from 75mm APHE (something like the Panther gun), and 13% die from 88mm APHE. This can be explained by the fundamental difference between APHE and grenades. For reference to what the raw explosive power of 226g TNT will do, this is the MK3A2 concussion grenade : https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk3a2.htm It only causes casualties in a 2 m radius, and lethality would probably be only in direct contact, in fact I cannot find any evidence this grenade will be reliably lethal. The M67 uses 260g of TNT, and designed solely for fragmentation. Grenades designed for fragmentation are made with structurally compromised cases, this is not how a hardened steel penetrator like APHE is made. The only value these small bursting charges give to APHE are to help the shell fragment, which any AP shell can do.. APHE just does this more reliably, when the bursting charge goes off at the optimum time. (Sometimes it will be before or during penetration, sometimes afterward). When the shell fragments, it mostly contains the pressure wave of the small explosion, soaking up the energy to tear the shell apart.. But the raw explosion power will always lower than the MK3A2 or M67, even for equivalent explosive weight. Hardened steel penetrators are designed to penetrate, not fragment. They will fragment far less energetically than a similarly filled grenade, so some change is needed.. I hope they get it right eventually.
  13. If you are in a Spit, or P47 you can climb straight at the enemy, its the fastest way to get straight above them, you can get in a dogfight, and it can work. The whole enemy team will focus you, but if you started off highest, you will be fine and good bait for your teammates. Otherwise side climb, preferably with allies. Make sure you know the best climb speed of your aircraft (typically 240 kph). If the rest of your team are getting straight into the action, don't just leave them die - climb toward them, so you can work as a team. Don't be afraid of combat, be aggressive and when you can climb away from enemies, try to go toward teammates/your base. Its no use climbing away from someone into a load of enemy side climbers.
  14. No I didn't know about them. I noticed the runway in an aerial map, I imagine it must've been pretty busy in wartime, being close to Tokyo. It would also make a good 3D map, being two huge volcanoes.
  15. While I otherwise agree with you.. At 500m the Pz IV F2 has the same pen as the 85mm.. at BR 3.3, and has a similar effect at that tier.
  16. Fair point, I'm not sure what this was meant to simulate, if it was a random shatter, it'd be nice to know about it. Perhaps they were trying to balance APHE with respect to other types of AP that have to give away their position, incapacitating the driver/gunner numerous times to get the kill, a process often leading to death - but now APHE might fail for a shot, before one shotting the next.. Not sure if this is the right way to balance APHE as praying to RNGeesus will make the game frustrating as hell, if this is what's happening.
  17. First off.. Trump . Awsome. @LordMustang, have you been to Hachijo-Jima? I went there about 8 years ago, and it was goddam awesome. Spent every day camping, spearfishing, and going to a sauna now and again. Beautiful island.
  18. Tbh, I don't buy this "APHE is performing fine, its just AP is underperforming". Until we see tank crews bailing upon penetration - for all shell types, not just simulated for APHE at the moment, and now only sometimes, APHE is overperforming. If tank crews do fight on, over their "unconscious" comrades, each type of shell should have realistic effects.
  19. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16205/#media All the tanks on this page of this report were successfully penetrated by APHE. 75 mm APHE killed 12% of the crew where there were no burn casualties (no fires).. so what does a bigger APHE round, with more spalling do? 88mm APHE killed 13 % of the crew where there were no burn casualties (no fires). And what about fires? 75mm APHE killed 22% of the crew where there were burn casualties. 88mm APHE killed 38% of the crew where there were burn casualties. In other words large APHE shells cause more deadly fires in ammo racks or fuel tanks, but that's about it. If this doesn't happen 12% die from 75mm APHE (something like the Panther gun), and 13% die from 88mm APHE. APHE is not a grenade. Hardened steel penetrators are designed to penetrate, not fragment. They will fragment far less energetically than a similarly filled grenade, so some change is good.. I hope they get it right eventually.
  20. I am not doubting that he may have done this, or that it was possible, but that embellishment seems clear to be happening, so the accuracy of claims looks questionable.
  21. Yer, it can suck if the planes don't do anything. If they are effective at supporting the ground units, and killing where necessary it can be good.. if they get back in tanks. Once you get to the APDS on the Comet, things do look up, at least on that Comet. There are a few painful grinds (some I have barely started in tier III and IV) to APDS.. but I just chose to 1 laugh at the game 2 only focus on RP gained 3 screw whatever else happens 4 with spaded aircraft at that tier you can be effective in some lucky games (Firefly Mk V, Typhoon, or Firebrand/Tempest Vickers P if you are feeling.. extra lucky.. tbh they're not bad, or go to 5.7 to get better options like Sea Fury/Tempest)
  22. You're starting to get the idea. Exactly, its a useful place to start learning about the power of explosives though. Fragmentation is almost entirely the value the bursting charge gives to increasing deadliness to tankers. A fragmentation grenade is manufactured with a structurally compromised case, with maximum explosive filler to enable.. High energy fragmentation. APHE shells are manufactured with a hardened steel case to enable.. Penetration, and are filled with the smallest possible bursting charge that will reliably increase fragmentation so as not to trade too much loss in penetration. Penetration being the prerequisite for any meaningful fragmentation, and using the shell velocity to create high energy fragmentation. (Hardened steel penetrators will not fragment anywhere near as energetically as similarly filled grenades). Any AP shell can fragment upon penetration, all types will cause spall. 23 g of filler vs hardened steel shell... 57mm caliber, 3.1kg.. even if nearly stops by the time it penetrates, the secondary fragmentation effect is more deadly than spall from an 84mm shell, 9.1kg, fired at Mach 3, maybe going Mach 2 in the tank... That makes sense to you? "Because it's like a grenade"? Meaningless comparison, APHE is not a grenade. Out of interest, which standard defensive grenade is this? Can you name 1 APHE shell in War Thunder that is constructed like a grenade? On the subject of actual grenades, I presume this guy was only saved from the car? No-one said that. Its just a meaningless comparison. Check the facts on actual crew casualties.
  23. Sure, just the accuracy of the claim seems clouded by embellishment.
  24. You can reproduce this issue by using any aircraft that has rockets with a self destruct fuse "Activation distance" like the I-16 type 24 with RBS-82, and selecting 200 m. This can be done by taking the I-16 into a realistic test flight with 200m activation distance on the rockets. Quickly use the rockets (not sure if this is actually required as such, but notice the rockets blowing up after 200m). Then exit the rest flight. Now use e.g. the Hurricane Mk IV with 8 RP3 rockets, and take it into a realistic test flight. Fire the rockets, and note they too destruct after 200m, even though RP3s cannot self destruct. I believe this is carried over to any rockets that do not have the ability to select an "Activation distance" upon starting a mission, so may also happen with other nations and rockets. I will find the client replay of a game I was playing where the Hurricane IV I was using with 8 RP3s were self destructing after 200m and attach it later. Edit - Server Replay http://wt-game-replays.warthunder.com/027a7285003deb94/0000.wrpl Client Replay attached (Hurricane IV 200m rockets.wrpl) (This was just after flying the I-16 type 24 with rockets and 200m activation distance in the current realistic tank event, I-16 type 24 200m rockets client replay also attached) #2017.04.15 05.05.05 Hurricane IV 200m rockets.wrpl #2017.04.15 06.31.59 I-16 type 24 200m rockets.wrpl
  25. The only thing I notice is the 3000m kill on the T-34 in the WarThunder article, and 2000m kill on the suggestion. There is certainly some level of embellishment on his record, even in WarThunder land. I'm sure there were many great anecdotes from his actual record, but what this actually was looks hard to get to, with a book about him in historical fiction from Kurowski.
  26. When using rockets that have a "Rocket activation distance" setting, (e.g. the I-16 type 24 with RBS-82, and using a 200 m self destruct distance) in one game, and then in the next game using an aircraft where the rockets do not have "Rocket activation distance", because they cannot self destruct, the activation distance is carried over. (E.g. Hurricane Mk IV with RP3). I have attached a .clog of a game where I was using the RBS-82 at 200m, then the RP3s, which to my surprise now had a self destruct ability. Also this bug cannot be rectified on the spawn screen for these aircraft, as they have no "Rocket activation distance" dropdown, because these rockets (e.g. RP3s) cannot self destruct. This leads to behaviour like this test flight (note RP3s should not self destruct). Also related, I have had other ordinance settings carried over between planes - when taking out an aircraft with bombs, and selecting e.g. 2 second fuse, if you had previously used an aircraft that had the Assault Fuse setting, the aircraft now being taken out also has an Assault Fuse, despite selecting a 2 second fuse. This has not happened to me for a few months though, so this may have been fixed, but I include it anyway incase others report this bug. 2017_03_16_04_09_02__14880.clog DxDiag.txt
  27. Will that evidence be enough to work with? From what I gather it was the same issue as on the Ta 152 recently.
  28. As a reference to the oil being itself a coolant of the engine.. many aircraft have oil radiators, if there is not enough oil to fill the oil system, there will be no oil in the radiator, and this extra cooling method the engine has will be unavailable. On top of the increase in friction, and excess heat decomposing any remaining oil. A coolant leak should be more survivable in the short term, especially if you lower the revs and throttle, but an oil leak will guarantee the quick destruction of the engine.
  29. Yes, that's the one. I assume it's an exact copy of the LF flight model. Seems all merlin engined spits are affected.
  30. When using the Spitfires mentioned in this patch: http://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/646/ ..on WEP, the oil temperature quickly becomes hot, even when using a fully open radiator (The "Water Radiator" should cool the oil system and water system together on the left wing, and only the water system on the right wing), as these pictures show: Removing the ability to operate the "Oil Radiator" as a separate radiator seems to have have had an effect where the oil temperature is now no longer affected by any radiator. I did a test to confirm, and when using WEP, the oil temperature was unaffected by having the "Water Radiator" either fully open or fully closed, and quickly overheated. This did not happen before this change. I believe any Spitfires that had their ability removed to control the Oil Radiator separately all suffer from this problem (probably all Merlin engines) - it should have been tied to control from the "Water Radiator" not removed altogether. I have tested it on the LF Mk IX and Plagis LF Mk IX, but I assume there will be all spitfires that had their separate Oil Radiator control removed. I have heard this is also happening on lower BR'd spitfires.. The complete list will be all mentioned in this changelog http://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/646/ ("Spitfire / Seafire series - Thermodynamics have been corrected. Oil radiator control has been switched off, engine characteristics corrected, aerodynamics and weight balance have been changed towards neutral values, flight characteristics have been updated and now are more historically accurate"). I have not attached any client logs, but I could upload some of some tests if needed, but this can be tested by using WEP near sea level and the combined radiator fully open, and again with it fully closed. The Oil temperature is almost entirely unaffected. Before the patch the Oil and Water had similar overheat profiles with the separate Water Radiator and Oil Radiator fully open.
  31. Have they fixed this? I was flying Pendergast's LF Mk IX the other day, and the oil was overheating as if there was not only no different oil radiator control, but no oil radiator. Could barely use WEP.
  32. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16205/#media 12% tanker fatalities after 75mm APHE and 13% fatalities for 88mm APHE where there were no burn casualties (no ammo racks fires/explosions) in Shermans.. and compare to what we have now.. For reference to what the raw explosive power of 226g TNT will do, this is the MK3A2 concussion grenade : https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk3a2.htm Causes casualties in a 2 m radius, and lethality would probably be only in direct contact, in fact I cannot find any evidence this grenade will be reliably lethal. The only value these small bursting charges give to APHE are to help the shell fragment.. When the shell fragments, it mostly contains the pressure wave of the small explosion, soaking up the energy to tear the shell apart, hence the possibly deadly fragments.. But the raw explosion power will always lower than the MK3A2, even for equivalent explosive weight, and huge shells like on the PaK44 APHE need +700g to be able to rupture the large hardened shell. So I do laugh when 23g of filler in a 57mm shell from a T-34-57 nukes a tank better than 20 pdr AP. And you're telling me, this 23 g of filler to help the 57mm shell fragment.. is "like throwing a grenade down the hatch" hence why it looks like a Hollywood explosion currently, and taking out most of the crew, because of people saying "it's like a grenade".. Pull the other one.
  33. They are only mouse aimed if you control your mouse with WASD keys. And yes, they rarely one shot anything, but there is a trick to get them working at close range.. aim them very low to start with. IS-6 is the most P2W out of any of these. I can deal with all the other "succeeding", an RU251 will at least die if you shoot it, But every day, all the time people are praying to hit the tiny, tiny weak point on the turret and getting nothing, on a tank that is faster than theirs. And there is nothing close to it in the tech tree at that BR. Some KVs can't pen things frontally, same with the Matilda. But they are BR'd because of their armour. Why is the IS-6 not?
  34. .... This report http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16205/#media Is very clearly talking about 20% of casualties arising from the ammunition in the tank, which does not have to be APHE, exploding. Ammunition stored in the tank was in this case 1 piece ammo in Shermans which meant the ammo could explode regardless of being AP or APHE. It has nothing to do with the type of shot that penetrated it. Ammo racks burning caused 20% of casualties in Shermans in this study, so the armour was better on the front to save the crew rather than protecting them from secondary explosions. I.e. the tanks ammo exploding. It amazes me you keep defending your misuse of the figure "20%" which was mentioned in the same report happening to mention "APHE" too. Just accept you misread and then selectively edited the report. As you point out AP was very rarely even fired at Shermans so they weren't even looking to compared this, just how many of their men died from ammo racks, and where best to place the armour. 20% ammo rack casualties (explosion or.fire) means.. on the front of the tank! It is completely applicable, it is in fact the most applicable.situation when looking at which shells the British were deciding to use. They could have used AP, or APHE for any of their particular guns. For the same caliber AP will have more penetration, and be less likely to fail on impact, so it will be more reliable. I can't see it saying that clearly anywhere.. The only thing you can conclude is that where a tanker did suffer from a burn after the tank was penetrated, the 88 caused twice as many deaths. Most importantly only 12-13% of tankers died from 75mm APHE or 88mm APHE penetrations to Shermans where no burns were caused (no fire). This is hugely different than ingame currently.
  35. Tanks/Vehicles

    Yes the poor Germans with their heat firing light tanks never in production, Maus that was just Hitler's wet dream, Jagdtigers that were mostly ineffective in real life entered one on one into WT battles with tanks it was designed to kill, that were designed themselves for infantry support and ~1/4 the cost. In all seriousness I support making all MGs on the back of turrets/hulls operational or any that currently do not work (I see alot of these on Russian tanks) Attention to detail like this really makes the game good, same with airburst shells and sirens available for all Stukas.
  36. Does the gunner always have to reload after being replaced though? I thought it was only when the shell was being reloaded, then he died so the reload starts again.. if the shell was ready to go when he died, I don't think it has to be reloaded (as far as I know).. Also with tanks that have very short reloads like the 7.5cm howizer on the PzIV F1, that "patience" might well get you killed, or allow any tank to drive even e.g. a meter into cover. It's more to take the randomness out of it, and to make the game more realistic. No tanker would ever hold fire in real life to wait for crew replacement, or any reason other than allowing tankers to live as they escaped the penetrated tank, if they were nice. More incoming shots should always lead to a less functioning tank. At the moment, it's pure guesswork as to what crew replacement time the enemy has.
  37. The SU122P is still quite fun, the 500hp engine makes it pretty fast so you don't have to use the -2 gun depression when you've flanked the enemy. And it gets the good 122mm shell. The 75mm armour can pull off some lucky bounces, but otherwise unreliable. It's OK at BR 6.3, I see no reason to add something just because it's a beast in WoT (122 44). 122P is a derpy tank that can snipe if pushed.
  38. Have you actually played the Carnarvon? Or just shot it's turret alot, or UDP trying to get lucky? Trying to even grind it to its underperforming APDS is a massive ball ache.
  39. This suggestion will help tanks that shoot AP to stay alive, or be somewhat effective while fighting tanks that do have APHE. Any support would be much appreciated.
  40. Background When shooting a tank in War Thunder, it is often important to make sure the tank cannot fire back. To do this you have to make sure either the breech is knocked out, or failing that, the gunner is incapacitated (black). It is sometimes also important to make sure the tank cannot move (e.g. behind cover, to a better angle for its armour, or to an angle to return fire), so keeping the driver inoperable is also sometimes important. This is especially true for tanks that rely only on APCR, APDS, or other types of AP, to stay alive when shooting tanks that can hide their ammo racks at certain angles. Gunner and driver seats are guaranteed to have crew in if the tank is operational, but if the tank under fire is lucky, he may have only black crew in these positions, making him invulnerable to shots from these ammunition types in these vital positions. Similarly you can shoot an already black gunner, but e.g. 0.1 seconds later the crewmember in this position gets replaced and shoots you, sometimes taking you out in one shot, especially if that tank has APHE. This effect is increased by a lower agility of crewmembers, (i.e. a worse skilled crew) so one black gunner can absorb 2 shots instead of these shots taking out 2 crewmembers, and also affects tanks that have the benefit of high rate of fire to make up for having no APHE, where the rate of fire is countered by the fact that a black gunner or driver can absorb as many shots that hit during the replacement timer, whereas in reality, crew going to that position would also be killed/damaged or slowed down by these incoming shots if they did actually fight on and not evacuate the tank. When a crewmember is replacing a fallen comrade in a certain position, that position getting shot should not be completely harmless to him. Change The game could be changed so the crewmember in the process of switching positions, while moving his incapacitated ally and taking his place, could also be damaged by shooting this location, possibly with some effect on replacement time. This could be implemented in the most straightforward way (which is what I would suggest): 1. Damage to a black crewmember in a position that has crew being replaced would always lead to the crewmember on his way to that position taking that damage. The replacement timer resets if the new crewmember is also incapacitated, and the next available crew starts to take his place. Replacement timer is otherwise unaffected. Or by other ways: 2. The crewmember on his way to the seat is damaged (e.g. by half of the damage taken in that position). The replacement timer resets if the new crewmember is also incapacitated, and the next available crew starts to take his place. Any damage to that position increases the replacement timer even if the new crewmember is functioning. (replacing crew while under fire would in real life slow this job) 3. The crew going to the position is damaged by the same amount of damage done to the black crewmember, but with a percentage that the replacement timer is at (90% time complete means the new crew is now mostly in position so would damage him by 90% of the damage just done to the "black" crewmember, so likely incapacitated also, but 10% time complete means the new crewmember is still attending to his fallen comrade, and not fully in position, so is only damaged by 10% of the shot to his position, and might survive). The replacement timer resets or is increased. Benefits This could help tanks that do not have APHE that kills greater numbers of crew, and reduce the ability of every tank they face being like damage sponges that might shoot back if lucky, even though the gunner position was being shot, or drive away even though the driver position was being shot, so would make the game more realistic. It would still rely on the skill of a tanker to aim for these key crew positions to make sure the tank is inoperable, being guaranteed to do some crew damage in these key positions, rather than only further giving away their position, with black crewmembers absorbing these well aimed shots. It would also mean having a well skilled crew replacement time would always be an advantage.