• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

795 Excellent

1 Follower

About *MiseryIndex556

  • Rank
    Flying officer
  • Birthday 04/01/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    California, USA
  • Interests
    guns, cars, beer, women

Recent Profile Visitors

657 profile views
  1. I think it was around 500mm at point blank.
  2. If the IS-3 goes to 7.0, then the T34 gets its APDS.
  3. Hey OP, they have your event going on right now. WWII US and UK vs Ger.
  4. All modes, but at least the planes in AB only last for a few seconds.
  5. I'm not talking about how planes behave, I'm talking about planes, as a whole, versus tanks, as a whole. It is much easier for planes to kill tanks than for tanks to kill planes. Ground forces should be about ground vehicles. The way planes are integrated needs to be heavily reworked. I would prefer removing planes altogether.
  6. No, the problem is planes in GF are completely unbalanced. The only way to effectively fight planes in GF is with other planes. They need to be changed.
  7. I don't think planes are OP. I think planes are unbalanced. It's difficult to kill tanks with planes. It's nearly impossible to kill planes with tanks. I was playing my T34, which has 3 .50 BMG machine guns, and I was firing at a plane that was flying straight at me. I was pumping rounds into this guy and barely managed to cause any damage.
  8. If it's fixed, sure but that's a big if. It's hard enough to get US ammo bugs fixed.
  9. The T32, as it sits currently, is much closer to the Tiger II H than the IS3.
  10. They just need to treat teams with only aircraft left as having lost all vehicles. I can't count the number of games I've had recently where the last 4 or 5 enemies were all in planes, so everyone in tanks just sat around for 10 minutes, waiting for the game to end.
  11. If the IS-3 goes to 7.0, the T32 goes to 6.7.
  12. I haven't played enough 6.7 UK/US vs Rus/Ger to make any kind of comparison but I do know 7.0 Rus/Ger vs US is much more difficult. The IS-6 is very strong, frontally. Add in the RU251 flanking and its a lot of work to keep them in check.
  13. I want historical accuracy. You only get 3 Shermans per Tiger. Leave it to the Tigger pilots.
  14. Tanks/Vehicles

    It did? I'll need to look into it more. Either way, I want the M4A3 90 W HVSS in game.
  15. Ground vehicles

    Hull down only works if Gaijin doesn't make your barrel out of glass. The T32 loses its gun barrel if you look at it funny. Throw in the shot trap and going hull down isn't all that effective.
  16. You don't get to arbitrarily limit the Shermans to 75mm. 76mm Shermans were used at the end of the war. Don't forget, the M26 and M36 can pen the Panther's glacis out to 1100 yards with T33, both of which saw combat in WWII. They could pen the Tiger I at most combat ranges. 10x Shermans, backed up with M26s, M18s and M36s would fair pretty well against Tiger Is and IIs, Panthers, Jagdpanthers and Jagdtigers.
  17. I feel like the T32E1 with T50E1 could work at 7.3. The T32 is an excellent balance of armor, firepower and mobility. The issue then becomes getting dragged up to face Leos, T62s, T10M, Rjpz and IT1s. The T32 is a WWII era tank, but a very well rounded one and it is hard to balance in terms of the game.
  18. Tanks/Vehicles

    I'd rather see the M4 90mm over the M6 90mm. The M6 is a heavy tank but the armor isn't great. It's mobility isn't great, so you are going to take a lot of shots. The 90mm puts you in a BR range, that any tank you face can knock you out easily. The M4 may not be more durable, but its more maneuverable and has medium tank spawn costs.
  19. I wish SB GF was more populated. I would only play SB if that was the case.
  20. The T32 is at 7.0. When it is remodeled to the E1 version, along with the T50E1 being added, it will be a very competitive 7.0. I don't see it going any higher.
  21. I've never been a fan of close quarters combat. I play heavy tanks and want to use them as heavy tanks. I like longer range engagements. Unfortunately, it seems the game is removing spots where you can shoot long range or just squeezing the maps down even smaller.
  22. I'm sure he didn't mean a literal IS-6, just that the actual performance of the T17 APCR was enough to knock out an IS-6, through the front plate. Unfortunately, we get a heavily nerfed version of all APCR in game. US APCR used a larger core and substantially more tungsten than Russian or German APCR and was fired at higher velocities, which translated to greater performance.
  23. It's not that shocking. The US really didn't place a priority on heavy tank development, the Germans were getting pounded in 44 and who else had the capacity to build any serious heavy tanks?
  24. balance

    Quantity does not mean quality. The only tanks in that list that are actually competitive are the T29, T34 and maybe the T92. I've never played it, so I can't say if its any good. The M46 can be frontally one shot by Panthers. Same for the M26. The T95 is rarely played. The T26E1-1 is inferior to the Tiger II P, which sits at 6.3. M26E1 is a decent tank. M56 can be killed by machine gun fire. Meanwhile, the M26 T99 and M46 have less pen than the 5.7 Panthers, unless you use the HEAT, which isn't good and should be HEATFS. When is the last time you actually saw anyone playing the M26 T99? I don' think I've ever seen one in game.
  25. The T34 can pen the mantlet of the IS-6 but it's far from easy. The radius is small, so if you hit just too high or low, it bounces. Also, it only works if they aren't wiggling the their turret, which most people do.
  26. I didn't realize US APCR had so much more tungsten than German or Russian APCR. I was discussing it with someone and they asked why US APCR penned so much more and I couldn't answer. Well, now I know.
  27. I've yet to get anything I actually wanted from the big daily log in rewards. It's almost always test drives for planes, which I don't use because I'm not a fan of flying in this game, or some kind of wager or something. I really wish the big reward was something actually rewarding.
  28. So, this is the best I can do right now. According to AD301343, the T33 could penetrate 3 inches of 280 bnh rolled armor at 55 degree at a velocity of 2370 fps. The T43 could penetrate the same thickness and slope of armor at 300 bnh at 2398 fps. The harder armor will require a higher velocity to penetrate. According to Hunnicutt's Firepower, the T43 AP and T33 AP are identical weight and type. Unfortunately, I only have the data as a PDF for AD301343 and Hunnicutt, so I can't post them right now. ADA954868 shows the T33 fired at 3200 fps. The same report also shows the T50 APC fired at 3200 fps. The T50 APC was specifically developed for the T15E2, so the T33 had to have been fired from the T15E2 to gather the necessary data. The M304 HVAP was also fired from the T15E2 for the same report. The M304 was the standardized name for the T30E16 HVAP. So, as you can see, the T50 as designed for the T15E2 gun. The T15 could fire the T50 and T33 at 3200 fps. T43 and T33 have identical ballistic limits when fired against 3 inches of rolled armor at 55 degrees. That's the best proof I can get for the T43 and T33 being the same round.
  29. The T43 was the AP fired at 3200 fps from the T15 series and T54 series. As far as I can tell, none of those guns were ever put on a production tank, so the ammunition was never standardized. I believe T43 is just T33 ap fired at 3200 fps, but I cannot find any documentation to support it. The T43 was never standardized so it never got an M designation. M318 is the standardized designation for T33E7, which is an improved T33, which was an improved M77. T33 was a stopgap measure to improve the penetration ability of the M77. The military took the M77, retreated the shot to reduce shattering and added a ballistic cap. After the war, the T33E7 was produced, which was the same basic shot but heat treated properly from the beginning and with a ballistic cap added. The T33E7 was adopted as the M318.
  30. Except for the fact the mods are arguing over whether or not US ap is sharp nose, round nose or blunt nose, instead of if the performance is wrong. I seriously think they are doing it on purpose. There have been multiple reports on the T33 AP and nothing has been fixed. I've seen some going back to mid 2015 and still nothing.
  31. If they want to give the T50 265mm of pen, I won't complain.
  32. I calculated 235mm. It could pen 104mm at 60 degrees. Applying Gaijins slope modifiers, that worked out to 265mm at point blank and 0 degrees.
  33. The fragmentation of US 120mm is awesome now. They need to scale it based on round diameter and kinetic energy at Impact for all solid shot.
  34. @KnightoftheAbyss @FryingTigerWT Whether or not the AP is sharp nose really isn't the point. The point of this report is US ap is not performing correctly. Look at the numbers I posted in my first post and you will realize US ap is under performing by a good margin. That's all I'm trying to get fixed.
  35. I have the T34 and have played it. I still want its armor penetration corrected.
  36. I know the difference between a spitzer and wad cutter. I wasn't sure if the mods and devs did, so I called it sharp nose to make sure it was understood. I removed sharp nose from my post to get around the nomenclature issue. The performance needs to be fixed, no matter what the shot is called. The fact is, US ap is under performing. M77 could penetrate a Panther's glacis out to 600 yards, while it can't at any range in game. T33 could penetrate a Panther's glacis out to 1100 yards, while it can't in game. As for the bounce chances, there are ballistic limits for some of these rounds at 70 or 75 degrees obliquity. If the shape cause it to have higher bounce chances at high obliquity, how would they get ballistic limits at 75 degrees?
  37. So, we can't tell them to fix crappy models because other models are crappy too?
  38. So we can't tell them to fix the T34 because the JT can be killed by MGs?
  39. They need to apply the same post pen damage to all solid shot. Make it based on shot diameter and kinetic energy.
  40. Wasn't it correctly reported earlier, but they were told to wait until after the dev server opened, which showed the T34 with completely wrong ammo performance that still hasn't been fixed?
  41. I'm pretty sure Gaijin makes new models from scratch, even if the vehicle is based on an existing vehicle in game.
  42. I am well aware of the M77, T33 and T33E7/M318. I know what the designation is. The M26 Pershing was issued the T33. There was a suggestion to replace the M77 with the T33, in game. The T33 was a stopgap measure and never formally adopted. After the war, the T33 was further developed into the T33E7, which was then standardized as the M318. This is the T33 AP, that I'm referring to as sharp nose AP. This is Russian blunt nose APBC. We were told in one of the original M358 bug reports that the M358 didn't perform as well as Russian APBC because it had the sharp nose, not the blunt nose like the Russian shot. Are they changing their story again? The game increased the bounce chances of US APBC because it is not blunt nose, like the Russian AP. If they want to designate US AP as blunt nose and give it the reduced bounce chances, that's fine by me. Either way, the US AP is not performing correctly in game. It isn't a suggestion, because it is about incorrect performance. The name or type of AP doesn't change that fact.
  43. T32E1 is probably a year or more out. Look how long it took to get the T29 and T34 in game. I was hoping the T32's lower plate would be corrected for 1.67. I guess our next chance is 1.69.
  44. The T32 can be penned where the front plate curves to the hull roof. That radius isn't as thick, so it can be penned. I've been killed through there a few times. The T32E1 will take care of that.
  45. Ok, well if they don't have anything, I do have a document showing the T15 series guns shooting the T33E7/M318.
  46. The people that complain the most are Tiger II drivers. The Tiger II H had very little competition until the T29 came along and they don't like it.
  47. Why is this question only ever applied to the T29? What is a T25 supposed to do against a Tiger II H? What is a Jumbo 76 supposed to do against a Tiger II H? You can't nerf a 6.7 heavy because 5.7 tanks struggle against it. You might as well start the whining threads about the T34 now, because we all know they are coming.
  48. The issue is there were documents that detailed what the T34 should be firing. People were told to wait until after the dev server before submitting the documents. The initial load out for the T34 was hilariously wrong. It's been partially fixed, but is still a ways off from being right. Throw in the fact that Gaijin arbitrarily nerfs APCR to make APDS look better and the T34 is substantially weaker than it should be. Gaijin needs to undo the nerfs to APCR but I don't see them doing that any time soon. And yes, it's a nerf, not a bug. They cut APCR performance across the board by 10-15% back in 1.53 and will not fix it, no matter the bug reports filed.
  49. I haven't found any document that specifically lists the T43 as T33 AP, but my understanding is T43 AP was T33 for the T15 guns. T44 HVAP was T30 HVAP fired at the higher velocity. T30 was standardized as M304 HVAP. Besides, the only guns capable of firing the T33 at 3200 fps, like the ballistic limits in ADA954868, are the T15E1, T15E2 and T54. What is the status of 0036831 if you happen to know?
  50. Funny how Tigger pilots fail to apply their arguments to the Super Pershing.
  51. It happens all the time with the Tiger II H. I can't keep track of the times I've put an M82 through the front of a Tiger II H, just for him to swap crew, repair and reload faster than I can reload my T32.
  52. It's called balance. If a tank is strong frontally, they add a BS balance point. That's what the shot trap is. The T32 suffers from it. Add in the fact the T32s barrel is made from glass and the hull down "monster" isn't a monster. Breath on its barrel and it can't return fire. Hit the shot trap and it magically blows up the tank.
  53. You move the T29 to 7.0 and what does the US have at 6.7? I guarantee you the whining about the T34 will begin shortly. German players just whine about every US tank. Hellcat too fast. Gets nerfed. M82 too powerful. Gets nerfed. T32 too strong. Gets bumped to 7.3. Finally dropped back down. M62 too strong. Gets nerfed. T29 too strong. Probably won't get nerfed because its a cash cow. Turns out people are willing to cough up real money to not get curb stomped anymore. T34 too strong. Lets see how fast this one gets nerfed. Clock starts tomorrow.
  54. The difference is the SLA is a slightly more mobile version of a main tree tank. The T29 is the only 6.7 tank that can pen the enemies it sees and take shots in return. Germans have 3 tree tanks and a premium from 6.3 to 7.0 that are worth playing. The US has 1 tree tank and 1 premium that are worth playing.
  55. If stats show how tanks compare, why is the Tiger II H spammed when the Super Pershing is not? Stats wise, the two are pretty similar, yet the Tiger II H shows up all over the place, but the Super Pershing does not. Thunder Skill stats for RB last month Super Pershing Win Rate: 59.14% Ground Frags per Death: 1.6 Tiger II H Win Rate: 44.76% Ground Frags per Death: 1.6 Wow, would you look at that, identical GF/D but better win rate. I had no idea the Super Pershing was so much better than the Tiger II H. It's almost OP. /s Lets look at the number of battles. Super Pershing: 4372 Tiger II H: 11986 And that is why Thunderskill stats are bogus. The Tiger II H had 3 times the battles the Super Pershing did.
  56. Oh no, I have 245 games in the T29. Its obviously my favorite and I don't want it to be nerfed... Did you see the part where I have more realistic games in my M26 and M4A3 76 W? Or how about the part where I have 4 times as many games in my T32? I bought the T29 because the US had nothing to compete with the Germans at 6.7 but I'm not all that fond of using it. The T32 is a better tank in my opinion. More mobile, better armor and a flatter shooting gun. Instead of using straw mans, how about making an actual argument.
  57. The Tiger II H isn't on the same level as the T29, but the Super Pershing isn't on the same level as the Tiger II H and I don't see any Tigger pilots volunteering to go to 7.0 in that situation.
  58. Exactly. The performance should be as close to reality as they can get. Whether or not certain shells outperform others isn't relevant.
  59. Yeah, for instance the T33 could pen the Panthers glacis out to 1km, but can't in game. To get that kind of penetration using game modifiers, it would be 252 mm of vertical penetration at point blank. It has 189 mm now. The T43 fired by the T32 could pen 108mm at 60 degrees at point blank. To do so with current modifiers, it would need 346mm. It has 217 now. M318 is wrong too but I can't remember how much off the top of my head.
  60. I started a report to show under performance against slopes. To get the correct performance, using current slope modifiers, vertical penetration would have to be increased by 70mm.
  61. Should we ask Gaijin to give those slope modifiers to all US sharp nose AP? I calculated 108mm at 60 degrees point blank for 1:1 over match for the T43 AP. With your modifiers, it works out to 214mm at point blank, which makes a lot of sense. Not the 346mm I got with Gaijin's slope modifiers.
  62. I'm sure there will be more, because most US AP was sharp nose. I just don't want to fill up the bug report section with reports.
  63. I considered doing multiple threads but I think this has more to do with the sharp nose AP performance as a whole, instead of just the individual rounds. I simply added the performance of multiple rounds to demonstrate that this was not a singular occurrence. I can make a thread for each round if you would prefer it that way.
  64. US AP and APBC is under performing by quite a bit in game. I believe this is due to the the lack of a penetrating cap on the AP, so it either shatters against heavy vertical plates or is less effective against heavy vertical plates. This lowers the vertical penetration, and, when the in game slope modifiers are applied to the lowered vertical penetration, we get an incorrect performance against slopes. Tanks effected: All US tanks that fire AP and APBC. The ballistic cap from later shot has no bearing on penetration, other that reducing the drag and maintaining velocity over greater range. The first example of this is the T33 AP. The T33 APBC was able to penetrate the front glacis of a Panther out to 1100 yards. The front glacis of a Panther is 80 mm at 55 degrees. Using the in game slope modifier tables for 1:1 overmatch at 35 degrees from the horizontal, we get a modifier of 2.7x for AP. 2.7x80 mm is 216 mm of vertical armor. The velocity of the T33 at 1100 yards is 2510 feet per second. Using the DeMarre equation, bringing 216 mm at 2510 fps, or 765 m/s, to the muzzle velocity of 2800 fps, or 853 m/s, we get a penetration of 252 mm of vertical armor. In game, the penetration of the T33 is 189 mm. 63 mm is quite a difference and really brings down the performance against slopes. Here is how the vertical penetration should look in game, using the current slope modifiers: 0 m 853 m/s 252 mm 100 m 844 m/s 248 mm 500 m 812 m/s 235 mm 1000 m 772 m/s 219 mm 1500 m 733 m/s 203 mm 2000 m 696 m/s 188 mm 2500 m 660 m/s 175 mm 3000 m 625 m/s 162 mm This information was taken from the manual Armor Piercing Ammunition for the gun, 90 mm, M3. For 90 mm T33 AP, this is what the document says: SHOT, FIXED, A.P.-T., 90mm, T33. DESCRIPTION. The 90 mm Armor Piercing Shot T33 is issued as a fixed complete round for the Gun, 90 mm, M3 mounted in Heavy Tank, T26E3 and Gun Motor Carriages, M36 and M36B1. The shot is a modification of the standard AP, M77 which has been reheat-treated and to which a ballistic windshield has been attached. Length: Shot 14.78 in. Complete Round 37.53 in. Weight: Shot 24.06 lb. Complete Round 43.82 lb. Muzzle Velocity 2,800 f/s PURPOSE. This is the most effective shot for the defeat of high obliquity caliber thickness homogeneous armor plate. The shot will defeat all plates of the German Pz Kpfw V "Panther" Tank except the gun mantlet. IT WILL PENETRATE THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" TANK UP TO 1,100 YARDS RANGE. The next example is the T43 AP, which is the T33 AP fired at 3200 FPS from the T15 and T54 90 mm guns. According to the report ADA954868 Comparative Effectiveness of Armor Defeating Ammunition, T43, here labled as T33, was able to penetrate 4" (102 mm) of 60 degree armor at 3079 fps, or 938 m/s. DeMarring this to its muzzle velocity of 3200 fps, or 975 m/s, we get a penetration of 108 mm. Using the slope modifiers in game for 1:1 overmatch at 30 degrees, we get a modifier of 3.2x. 3.2x108 mm is 346 mm at point blank against vertical armor. In game, the penetration is currently 217. mm. 129 mm is quite a difference. Here is how the vertical penetration should look, using current in game slope modifiers: 0 m 975 m/s 346 mm 100 m 966 m/s 341 mm 500 m 929 m/s 323 mm 1000 m 884 m/s 301 mm 1500 m 841 m/s 280 mm 2000 m 799 m/s 260 mm 2500 m 758 m/s 241 mm 3000 m 718 m/s 224 mm The next round I will be looking at is the T33E7/M318. They are the same round. T33E7 was standardized as M318. According to AD301343 An Analytical Study of Data on Armor Penetration by Tank Fired Kinetic Energy Projectiles, the T33E7 could penetrate 3 inches (76mm) of 60 degree armor at 2733 fps or 833 m/s. Using the 1:1 overmatch ratio at 30 degrees for the in game slope modifiers, we get a modifier of 3.2x. 3.2x76 mm is 243 mm of vertical armor. Demarring that to muzzle velocity of 3000 fps or 914 m/s gets you 277 mm of armor at point blank. In game, it is currently penetrating 207 mm of vertical armor at point blank. So, again, its about 70mm short. The penetration of vertical armor using the in game modifiers should look like this: 0 m 914 m/s 277 mm 100 m 905 m/s 273 mm 500 m 870 m/s 258 mm 1000 m 826 m/s 240 mm 1500 m 784 m/s 222 mm 2000 m 744 m/s 206 mm 2500 m 704 m/s 191 mm 3000 m 666 m/s 176 mm I need to work on the other AP shots. I had plenty of 90 mm data on hand, so I started with the easier part for me. I think it is pretty clear that US AP is under performing heavily. I will continue to work on the other caliber APs and add them to this report. I know Godman_82 also has some data to add, likely on the M358 AP. The solution would be to either give US AP the higher vertical penetration needed to get the correct sloped performance or to create slope modifiers capable of resulting in the correct sloped performance.