• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Neutral

About Sparkbox

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Exotic teas.

Recent Profile Visitors

189 profile views
  1. Is this a case of it was designed to be and the prototypes concentrated on just mounted this enormous gun on a Centurion hull, or has the surviving prototype's turret fused with rust?
  2. Best Churchill of WW2 to put into the game would be the Churchill Mk. X. Upgraded Mk. VIs to Mk. VII standard which were originally upgraded Mk. IVs with improved Mk. V 6pdr guns. 4 -> 6 -> 10 = 7 + 6pdr
  3. Off the top of my head there was a Churchill 7 armed with 6pdr gun for every so many 75mm armed Chruchills, even the British realised it'd be a good idea to have some extra anti-tank potential. Drop the current Churchill 7 to 4.3 and add one with a 6pdr in a drop doodah at 4.7. Less post-pen damage but at least it'll pen most tanks it'll face. My experience when fighting equal Br Germans is that they never pack any APCR for their medium 7.5cm guns. Which is a crying shame because the Churchill 7 is flat out immune to their APHE. At least until they hit a weak spot or try flanking. At 4.7 the only Germans I don't like facing are driving flat panzers, the 75mm can't pen them frontally. Russians... Ehh. Go for the turrets of the T-34s and try to hit KVs flat broadside, straight in the gun, or my favourite tactic: Charge them face first and bully them into submission. Facing 5.7s? Welp, flat out of luck. Into your Sherman Firefly and hope you don't get spotted until you've racked up enough damage to bring out a Fairey Firefly with 16 rockets.
  4. 26.6 reduction?! Plus final drive reduction... The only explanation I can think of is that the designers were expecting tanks to be driving left, right, and centre into buildings and would need the engine grunt to be able to back out with three fallen floors plus furnishings piled on top of the tank.
  5. I imagine that if the Sabre has the same guns as the Falcon the Sabre will carry more ammunition plus have radar however that's implemented.
  6. I'm well aware of how dodgy Wikipedia is to use as a source but I found this penetration chart on the performance of the 17pdr. Penetration figures (90 degrees) uses American and British 50% success criteria, and allowing direct comparison to foreign gun performance. Gun type Ammunition type Muzzle velocity (m/s) Penetration (mm) 100 m 250 m 500 m 750 m 1000 m 1250 m 1500 m 1750 m 2000 m 2500 m 3000 m QF 77 mm APCBC 785 m/s (2,580 ft/s) 147 143 137 131 126 121 116 111 106 98 90 QF 77 mm APCBC FH 785 m/s (2,580 ft/s) 157 153 147 141 135 130 124 119 114 105 96 QF 17 pdr AP 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 200 190 175 160 147 135 124 114 105 88 74 QF 17 pdr AP FH 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 164 156 144 132 121 112 103 94 87 73 62 QF 17 pdr APCBC 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 174 170 163 156 150 143 137 132 126 116 107 QF 17 pdr APCBC FH 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 187 182 175 167 161 154 148 141 136 125 115 QF 17 pdr APDS 1,204 m/s (3,950 ft/s) 275 268 256 244 233 223 213 204 194 178 162 FH marks the performance against face hardened armour (FHA), as opposed to rolled homogeneous armour (RHA). The source given is: Bird, Lorrin Rexford; Livingston, Robert D. (2001). WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Overmatch Press. p. 60. Is anyone in a position to prove this? Because if it's right then the stock AP round is monstrously under-performing against flat armour. It'd be missing 40mm of penetration at 100m and 37mm at 500m. APDS is also missing 40mm of penetration at 100m, 49mm at 500m.
  7. - Reduce the Br spread to 0.7. - Fix all the longstanding bugs, errors, and outright broken vehicles. - Make solid shot as competitive as APHE.
  8. Chieftain Sabre:
  9. That's why it'd never be Br 3.7, British aren't allowed to have fun. Instead it'd probably be thrown in at 4.7 as a replacement for the Crusader AA Mk1 which joins the Mk2 in a drop menu at 3.7. Having said it'd be 4.7, Gaijin will read this and only this and stick it at 5.3.
  10. Tier 1-3 tanks all have the same zoom level. Could be to make it easier for new players and/or because Gaijin couldn't be bothered to find every tank's optics.
  11. So supposedly it's a shortened Centurion hull, which would imply Centurion transmission and that all important reverse speed. I'd guess Gaijin guessed it was a converted Comet...
  12. I shall amend my statement! The Excelsior trades a little speed for more armour but Gaijin can't be bothered to correctly model Western Allied tanks.
  13. Might be the Cromwell 7 which would be 100mm thick at the front. But do not quote me.
  14. From what I've read and my experience with the 75mm 3.7 sounds about right. The Cromwell V, also armed with the 75 lies at 3.3 Br. The Excelsior trades a little speed for more armour and fatter tracks.
  15. While we're on the subject of Cromwell armour, here's some details on what's going on with the side armour: Skip to 26:10 where they remove the outer layer and thou shall see the middle layer is full of suspension and structural steel.
  16. That would be due to all the newbies flashing their credit card and dragging the average down on the IS-6. Same story as the old KV-1S in World of Tanks.
  17. Ground through British 6.7 and I'm faced with either going straight for the Conway, or grinding through the Cent 3 so that I can grind the Cent 10. Given that I just want to derp King Tigers and IS-6s with hesh full-face, which is better at it?
  18. When this happened to me it's because RMB was bound to both 'zoom' and 'look to target'. Given the wrong target it'd throw my aim way off and even against the right target it'd twitch my aim to centre mass.
  19. And another video, slightly better view of the gunner's position. Inside view begins at 5:10.
  20. Check 3:11, shows a slow sweep of the interior with the gunner's optics visible. No detail but perhaps someone could recognise it? Also check 2:44, the machine guns in the turret whipping up and down. Need to check if that's implemented in game...
  21. Difficult to say, there're no sources that I could find in a quick search that mention the Tortoise's optics. Posted a topic along these lines back in March:
  22. And that's not even taking the guns into account...
  23. The Tortoise originally was 6.3, but too many people cried that they couldn't one-shot it on the forums so it got nerfed to 6.7.
  24. Certainly the rule of thumb that used by many at University in my year.
  25. I understand how Wikipedia is best taken with your daily allowance of salt but Tanks Encyclopedia? Is this Gaijin not considering it reliable or would your everyday tank expert consider it dodgy in places?
  26. The Tortoise is dubious at best... It does have superb armour, in places, but it also has tons of weak-spots that enemies firing APHE will exploit. It's gun is good for slapping 5.7 Br tanks but it suffers badly when facing the horde of King Tigers and IS-6s. It's still only a 90mm gun and it only fires basic solid shot rounds.
  27. Off the top of my head the only HE rounds Tiger and Panther crews were scared of were 300mm+ fired by battleships during coastal barrages. Accounts of tanks being tossed over are mentioned in the book Forgotten Voices but don't go into detail.
  28. So basically, "Don't call us, we'll call you"? Oh! While we're talking about Cromwell armour values, don't forget to fix the Comet and Charioteer hull armour whilst you're at it Gaijin. Basically the same hulls.
  29. There was an armoured bulkhead between the driving and fight compartment to. Gaijin probably found the Centaur armour values and didn't bother looking at Wiki. Admittedly telling the Centaur apart from the Cromwell is tricky at best and impossible at worst. The flat hull plate thickness is 76mm according to: The same source suggests that the Mk5 should have wider tracks, an upgrade that the Mk2 had which probably carried over. I have to ask though, do Gaijin even read bug reports concerning British tanks? That report was posted 6th January last year.
  30. Stick it at Br 1.0 and try to ram enemies to death.
  31. American 1.3 Stuarts. Superb little packages of kickass with good everything.
  32. It can rain in WarThunder? I thought that was only for test driving! I have had two night battles which was fun at the start because everyone started firing tracer into the sky. Quite the light show.
  33. If it weren't for the fact it cooked its crew in hot weather the Covenanter would have been a pretty good tank. Even if the designers got everything right for the wrong reason. Had they decided screw it, 'we don't need gun depression over the rear of the tank', and stuck the radiators on the rear deck... Still. Would have needed sweeping changes to the suspension if it was to be upgraded much. But 40mm of sloped armour at the front would be pretty damn sweet at <Br 2.0
  34. Why use bushes in arcade? Because my tank wants to be Bob Ross and who're you to tell them they can't live their dreams? Anyway. Checked through all the tech trees and not including default or standard winter camo. Because the former you start with, and the latter every nation can unlock with kills. - British have 7 camos, 2 of which don't need GE. Hope you like desert camo in forests! - Americans have 8 camos, ALL don't need GE. Or at least the Hellcat and M24 do, I don't have any later American tanks. Regardless, all early American tanks can unlock ALL their camos with kills. - Ze Germans have many camos which are historically accurate for the tanks that can have them. Again regardless, ALL camos can be unlocked with kills. - Vodka United actually surprised me, I was writing this post as I was researching and was well prepared to start typing very loudly but then found that Russians have camos locked behind GE as well. Admittedly I don't know anything about the post-war tanks as the furthest I've got is the T-34-85(D5T) but: 5 camos to unlock, 2 of which don't need GE. I'm not including the Japanese because I haven't even gotten past tier 1 and tier 1 tanks don't seem to get as many camos as later tiers. Unless you're British, in which case you can unlock all the available camos for your nation if you have the GE. All 4 of them.
  35. It does seem to be a lose-lose problem. Resetting the loading progress doesn't make sense and is enormously frustrating for the tank being shot especially if they were almost reloaded. At the same time for the tank doing the shooting, shooting the other guy's loader has to mean something. At the moment in game you can have the gunner on their own; hand cranking the turret with one hand, loading a shell with the other, aiming the gun with a third(?), whilst firing the coaxial machine gun presumably with their teeth. If you wanted more realism you could make it so that the gun's only reloaded by your last man standing in the turret when the turret and gun aren't moving. But that just further encourages players to just ditch their crippled tank and find another match. I for one when left with a tank held together with nought but hopes and dreams, will drive it around the corner where half of both teams are playing a very slow game of chicken to bait the baddies into finishing me off. Allowing for my supposed allies to poke the corner finally and get on with the game.