*MiseryIndex556

Member
  • Content count

    1,244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,341 Outstanding

1 Follower

About *MiseryIndex556

  • Rank
    Squadron leader
  • Birthday 04/01/1990

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

920 profile views
  1. Super Pershing splits the IS2 and Tiger II P pretty well. 6.0 would be fine. The Jumbo Pershing would have the short 90mm. 6.7 is too high. 6.3 is better for it. If the T29 and T34 go to 7.0, then the T32 should come down to 6.7. The tank is basically dead, even with the recent BR reduction.
  2. The bug report is still open, at least last time I checked. The fixed lower plate is months out, probably not until next year.
  3. They would be, if Gaijin fixed the slope modifiers for all subcaliber rounds. It doesn't do any good to add them if they still under perform enough to not pen anything.
  4. heavy tank

    Who knows what the plan is. There have been few, if any, serious fixes to US that I can think of. Even the M358 is still wrong. They can add all the tanks they want, but even the new tanks are broken, it doesn't help the US tree at all.
  5. @Choogleblitz what should the 3BM25 actual pen be?
  6. Im not just talking about post pen damage. I'm talking about penetration and slope modifiers.
  7. APFSDS will never be OP. Solid shot is nerfed across the board.
  8. Because the siliceous core defeated HEAT better than regular steel of the same thickness.
  9. Then we should rage about them leaving out the only real reason to add the thing. The penetration of the APFSDS isn't anything to get excited about. The composite armor is really the only point for it being in the game. The point of the siliceous core was to improve its performance against HEAT, while still maintaining the KE resistance of a similar weight of homogeneous armor.
  10. The siliceous core decreased the weight of the armor. The total plate was 6.5 inches, but weighed about the same as a plate that was CHA 4.7 inches. It resisted AP like the 4.7 inch CHA plate but resisted HEAT better than a 6.5 inch plate.
  11. Sure, it can be made to work well but you already start 30mm of pen down from the Germans you generally face and the reload is almost twice as long. Plus, how often do you get maps where you can go hull down and effectively cover a decent area?
  12. It's Gaijin's practice to make any solid round under perform. APCBC, APBC, AP, APDS, and APFSDS.
  13. The E1 did not have the stabilizer. The T95 had no recoil system. The E1 received the recoil system and lost the stabilizer.
  14. So what other nation has an entire line of tanks that are full of major bugs? I'm not talking about the Maus turret being 20mm thinner, or the "bad armor" modifier on the Tiger II H turret face. I'm talking about the T32 lower plate being so wrong, most tanks it faces can pen it, instead of being immune to even the Kwk43. How about the M358 being "fixed" and still completely wrong. The T33 should be able to pen a Panther out to 1km, but can't even at point blank in game. How about the game wide nerf to APCR that hammers US HVAP? Yes, every nation has bugs to deal with but every single heavy tank in the US line up is broken to some extent. If Gaijin has no intention of fixing that any time soon, what's the point of us paying for premium to support the game and making reports? A lot of these reports took a lot of time and effort to make. I just want at least one US heavy with remotely close armor and gun performance, but I guess that's unreasonable.
  15. Added a few more issues. Quite a list that could really change the US tree if this stuff gets sorted out.
  16. Well, it would basically invalidate all armor in the game if proper monoblock APFSDS was added, not that HEATFS hasn't done that already.
  17. From what I read, the T95 did not have a recoil system, which allowed it to be stabilized. The T95E1 has the recoil system and no stabilizer.
  18. It should not have its BR raised, but yes I am. Like I said, the T32 is a dead tank. Very few people play it. I play it constantly, and am almost always the only one. I might see one or two others throughout the night.
  19. Not really, considering it has the pen of a 5.7 gun and HEATFS/APDS/APFSDS just goes right through it.
  20. I've had a bug report sitting unreviewed since this morning.
  21. The T95 front plate should have in excess of 13" effective thickness against HEAT.
  22. The siliceous layer is between the two layers of cast armor, it might not show up in the armor viewer. Honestly though, I wouldn't be surprised if they left it out.
  23. The plate in game is modeled wrong. The thickness is correct but the slope isn't. The plate in game is 95.25mm at 46 degrees. In reality, it was 95.25mm at 59 degrees. It should be immune to the Kwk 43 and Russian 122 mm.
  24. The APFSDS the US received is an early version that doesn't perform better than the M358. Well, it doesn't perform better than the actual M358. It performs better than the still broken War Thunder M358.
  25. Hahahahaha... Oh, Gaijin, how do you keep doing this?
  26. This is the preliminary list. The slim chance we have of US bug reports is better than the zero it was before.
  27. T95 is interesting. It had composite armor. Steel with a siliceous core. Though, it does look like the APFSDS is under performing. I'll need to make a report later.
  28. I'll add another 3. 1. Remove the arbitrary nerf to APCR. You can argue its not a nerf, but it is. 2. Better communication about bug reports. There are many critical bugs that are just open and we have no idea when they may be added. 3. Rework ground forces rewards so that the grind isn't so mind numbingly bad.
  29. Except War Thunder isn't an air combat game, they just happened to be the first things added.
  30. B-52. 1952 to present plus who knows how long into the future.
  31. No, I'm complaining that the weak spots on the T32, primarily the lower plate, are only weak spots because of Gaijin's poor modeling. Instead of being immune to APCBC, the lower plate can be penned by many tanks in the game. You can't hide the T32's weak spots. The bottom edge of the mantlet is an auto shot trap, guaranteed to kill the tank in one hit.
  32. Not when every US heavy in game is broken. We need at least one heavy that isn't full of bugs. I would prefer they don't add any new US vehicles and just work on the mountain of bug reports for US tanks.
  33. M60A3 with APFSDS M103A2 with actually fixed M358 T32E1 with T50E1 APCBC M26 with fixed upper front plate and correct early M82 and T33. There is plenty that I want and would play constantly. Starship was never going to be one of them.
  34. It should have been the M60A3 with M744 APFSDS. Because the US doesn't need another Shillelagh launcher.
  35. Every time I get told to make a bug report about IS-6 optics, I ask how many rounds fired I would need to show so my report isn't close. Never got an answer. Working as intended.
  36. I'm not blaming the IS-6. It's just another nail in the coffin for the T32. The M82 only has 204 mm of pen, which is wrong, but that's all it has. Gaijin has no incentive to fix any US tank. People just expect the US tanks to suck, so they accept any issues. The T32 should be one of the strongest heavies in the game, but its not because of bad modeling and broken ammo. Yeah, well, if things don't change, I won't renew my premium time and I'm not the only person saying that.
  37. Great, another Shillelagh launcher. So, both the US ATGM launchers fire the same lesser missile, that they have to pay for? Meanwhile, the IT1 and Rjpz 1 and 2 Hot get much better missiles that are free? Should have been a fixed US heavy. I guess asking for one US heavy that isn't mostly broken is too much.
  38. Yeah and I really don't care. I've never been great at video games but that doesn't mean the T32 isn't a broken tank. I mean, it literally doesn't have a single round that is correct. The M82 is missing 14 mm of penetration. The T43 is way off, especially against slopes, and the T44 is down about 100 mm at point blank and Gaijin is just leaving it there. Yeah, I know of the T50E1. I made the report.
  39. Which is being nerfed in the near future.
  40. Yeah, I know they are planning on the T32E1, but who knows when that will show up. With boats and Italian planes, probably not any time soon.
  41. Do you purposely troll or is that just how you come across? I never said no other tank can pen the hull MG. I just said the IS-6 does it far more often. I literally said that in the sentence before the one you highlighted.
  42. The T32 is one of my favorite tanks in the game, but even I have to admit that it is worthless. With so many things wrong, it just doesn't work at its BR. Even with the drop in BR, no one plays the tank. The lower plate is angled to shallow. The turret side armor is too thin. Every single round it fires is under performing by various amounts. What's even worse is, the one part of the tank that was supposed to be its saving grace is the mantlet and the decision to add HEATFS at lower BRs has taken that away from it. Add in the IS-6 and it just doesn't stand a chance any more. I have been penned more times through the hull MG by the IS-6 many times more than any tank. It's unreal how often an IS-6 punches through the hull MG. What's even worse is the T32 struggles to pen the supposed weak spot. I've even had shots bounce off the top cupolas. I used to be able to play the T32 well enough to actually enjoy it but now, it just seems to frustrate me more than anything. Before any of you show me a 12:1 KDR in this thing, I am fully aware that I am an average player. I never expected to have a huge KDR. I just want a tank that I can enjoy playing and the T32 used to be it. To be clear, all the issues I mentioned have been reported. Our only hope is that Gaijin actually implements them, though, I'm not holding my breath.
  43. Bug reports are supposed to convince the devs that something is wrong, however, the issue seems to be that US APBC does not follow the established slope modifiers that Gaijin uses. If the vertical penetration is correct, sloped penetration (especially at 60 degrees obliquity) is under performing. If 60 degree penetration is correct, vertical penetration is over performing. I showed in my US APBC bug report that, in order to get the correct sloped performance, vertical performance would have to be increased 60mm to 130mm, depending on which APBC round it was.
  44. I think, of all the bug reports I know of, the T33 would be probably the single biggest benefit to the US tree. There are 5 or 6 tanks that fire this shot, alone. Though, the issue is convincing the devs that this is correct and a necessary fix.
  45. Yeah, I generally see it while playing my T32. The T32's armor isn't that great, now that HEATFS is popping up at 6.7. The T32 is basically a dying tank. Few people play it, anymore, even after the BR drop.
  46. I've noticed multiple matches recently where my team had no top BR tanks and the enemy team had multiple. Something in MM is broken.
  47. special

    They can shoot whatever they want. It's not like SPAA is an effective counter to ground attackers now. Most of the time I see SPAA in game, they are shooting at tanks. Meanwhile, aircraft are bombing our tanks, unchallenged.
  48. special

    I hate planes in ground forces, too.
  49. I have no problem hitting the IS-3 and IS-4M shot trap. Penning the "weak spot" of the IS-6 is completely random and not consistent enough to be a valid shot.
  50. I have no interest in armored cars. I would much rather they actually fix some of the bug reports before they start a new line of ground vehicles. It's not like there isn't plenty to fix in the US tree alone.
  51. I want multiple sim sized maps for realistic and at least one fully fixed US heavy. I expect neither of these to happen.
  52. special

    I would be very happy to see all ATGMs go away.
  53. I'm more shocked by Gaijin bringing in monoblock APFSDS. The T55 better be above 8.0 with that round.
  54. special

    So problematic that it was abandoned is close enough to not working.
  55. special

    The 282T’s Topol FCS proved to be problematic and the vehicle never entered service but did go on to inspire other ideas. Only one other system was drawn up by Kirov factory OKTB; an improved version named Object 282K which was lower than the original by 10cm but heavier at 46.5 tons and equipped with two TRS-132 launchers with 20 missiles internally either side and two external launchers. As the 282K shared the same faulty Topol launcher as the 282T it never left the drawing board. Sure, but the Conqueror wouldn't be massively OP.
  56. special

    Sure, add it to the game, as long as the firing system doesn't work.
  57. I don't see the T32E1 being .6 BR better than the Tiger II H. The T32E1 should replace the T32 at 7.0. I'm aware of the T50E1, I made the bug report. Either way, there isn't much point talking about this. We have no idea when the T32E1 will be added and we have no idea when the T50E1 will be added. Gaijin is focusing on boats, Japanese ground forces and Italian air forces. US tanks are just there to be RP pinatas. It's pretty clear Gaijin isn't interested in making the US tree competitive. There is a lot wrong with US ground forces and almost nothing is being done to fix it.
  58. The T32 is never impossible to pen from the front. The shot trap, hull MG port, top corners of the front plate and the hull roof can all be penned from the front. Mean while, a lower front plate that should be immune to most AP and APCBC it faces, can be penned by just about any tank it faces. Sure, it's BR may need to be adjusted after the tank is fixed but we have to get the tank fixed first, and that's where Gaijin is dragging its feet.
  59. "Because of the incorrect lower plate, the T32 is limited to being effective on certain maps."
  60. Because Gaijin doesn't care.
  61. What mythical tank would that be? Germany got crushed in WWII. They don't have many post war options to choose from. The best case scenario would be for them to get the Patton series.
  62. Didn't Gaijin give APFSDS its own slope modifiers and damage profile?
  63. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Closer to 2 than 1, therefore almost. Now lets get back on the topic of people thinking the Jumbo 76 should be a higher BR than the Tiger. There's a reason few people use any of the US heavies. Overtiered, broken armor and under performing ammo but that's all good, as long as the wehraboos are happy.
  64. I said APFSDS, not APDS. US doesn't have APFSDS in game.
  65. So now that Soviet monoblock APFSDS is coming out, there are no arguments against US monoblock APFSDS.
  66. Give 76mm M464 and 105mm M774.
  67. US HVAP is nerfed into oblivion but Soviets get insanely high penning APFSDS.
  68. Depending on the date, we could then get NATO 105mm APFSDS.
  69. When was the 3B25 put into service?
  70. So, is APFSDS going to be the new thing or is that only for the Soviets?
  71. m4a3e2 (76) w

    62/38 is 1.6. I rounded up. I said almost, not is.
  72. No round has that power? How do you know? A 50 pound chunk of hardened steel flying at over 3000 feet per second is going to go through a lot of stuff before it gets stopped. The M358 is moving at 3500 feet per second. It's going to make a lot of extremely hot, fast moving shrapnel inside that tank.
  73. You can't just nerf the performance of one nation's guns, without applying the same nerfs to every other nation.
  74. Solid AP is massively under performing in game. AP needs a buff but because of wehraboos, US 120mm AP is getting nerfed. Thanks for ruining two US heavies.
  75. m4a3e2 (76) w

    You mean the Pz IV, which sits in the 4.X BR range and is a medium? Yeah, it's so great to have a US heavy with a comparable gun to a German medium 2 BRs lower... That's garbage because there are two Tiger Is at 5.7. Why should US tanks be forced to a higher BR?
  76. I like how they keep publicly denying capital ships, while then publicly stating they need to complete testing before they rule them out. So, which is it?
  77. Sure, this works when you play the Soviets. I don't see 75mm Shermans doing well against really any of the top tier Soviet tanks. Bouncing shells is only amusing for a short period of time.
  78. That's a completely different issue. That has more to do with the projectiles in this game being modeled as pixels. The T34 just has a gaping hole in the mantlet. I know you like the strawman argument but its getting old.
  79. m4a3e2 (76) w

    The Tiger I is just as mobile, has neutral steering and a great gun, yet it sits below it.
  80. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Hahaha that's a good one. The lower side armor is only 38 mm thick. That's where everyone shoots the Jumbos if you angle. The lower hull armor on the Tiger I is almost twice as thick. 127 mm is almost equal to 165 mm? I'll gladly switch 127 for 165.
  81. Well, those fixes are still wrong. The lower 1/3rd of the M103s turret cheeks are not right and the M358 is still under performing, especially against slopes. We shouldn't have to make 3 or 4 bug reports to get it right.
  82. The ultimate slap in the face is the T14 APCBC and M358 are still under performing. So, not only do we get nerfed armor penetration, we now get nerfed post penetration damage.
  83. From what I have read, it's only British AP. US 120mm AP got nerfed.
  84. Russian APCR was only nerfed a few percent because it was terrible in reality. It used very little tungsten, so it's performance lagged way behind. German APCR used a decent amount of tungsten, but US APCR used twice the tungsten of what everyone else was using. That's why US APCR performed so much better. They nerfed it to make APDS look good. They didn't want certain APDS rounds being outperformed by US APCR.
  85. If Brit AP gets buffed but not US AP, I'll be p*ssed. US 120mm nerfs are already coming.
  86. If we waited for official notes, this wouldn't be a rumor round up. It would be a patch discussion.
  87. Devs favor US tanks? There's more wrong with US tanks than right.
  88. That's what I meant. All APCR is heavily nerfed, well Russian APCR is only around 5%, last I checked. Short 90mm APCR should be low 300s. Long 90mm APCR should be 375mm. 105mm APCR should be low 400s and the 120mm APCR should be high 400s/low 500s.
  89. APCR was nerfed by 10-15% across the board so that APDS would out perform it. Gaijin just ignores bug reports about APCR, just like they do for US APBC, US armor, US missing rounds, basically most things US. But hey, they did give the M103 and T32 neutral steer.
  90. Can't have the US heavies performing too well*. People might actually want to play them. *only applies to free US heavies
  91. The M36 is a different gun than the M3, so it needs its own report. He mentioned the M3 report because the 90mm guns are based off the M3.
  92. They can pen the mantlet, right before getting absorbed by the black hole that is the gunner's optic. I have had more shells sucked into the black hole than pen and cause any damage. It's stopped APDS from my M60. It's stopped 120mm APCBC from my T34. It's stopped 120mm APBC from my M103. Stalinium optic is too stronk.
  93. Then introduce the M464 with the M41A3. It will basically be a high BR Ru251. Capable of killing any tank it faces but lacking the armor to take any shots in return.
  94. ground vehicles

    Fixed that for you.
  95. I've had multiple matches recently where I played my T32 and was not the high BR in the match but was the highest BR tank on my team.
  96. M4A3 90 HVSS. It was a potential upgrade to the M4A3 HVSS with the T26 turret and 90mm M3. One vehicle was tested for over 2000 miles and found to have no issues. The army decided against it because they feared it would slow M26 Pershing development and take the M3s away from the M36 GMC.
  97. m4a3e2 (76) w

    How do you figure? All it has is strong frontal armor. It's mobility is crap. The gun is mediocre. If it's a 6.7, the Tiger IIs should be 7.3 and 7.7.
  98. ground vehicles

    So... what you are saying, is for 3,000 meters, the Kwk42 is the better gun.
  99. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Except the Jumbo Pershing would be garbage compared to the T34, which is already at 6.7. The Super Pershing needs to come down to 6.3.
  100. m4a3e2 (76) w

    T26E5 is a Pershing with more armor, basically the Pershing version of the Jumbo Shermans. It would also be much slower and still easily flanked, with the same 90mm M3 as the regular M26. There is no reason for it to be the same BR as the Tiger II H.
  101. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Put the Jumbo 75 at 5.0, Jumbo 76 at 5.7, Jumbo Pershing at 6.0 and Super Pershing at 6.3.
  102. The Easy 8 is an excellent tank. I have it in my T32 line up because it can do well against Leos, and even Tiger IIs depending on the map.
  103. m4a3e2 (76) w

    The Jumbo has 50mm less pen than the Tiger and 90mm less pen than the IS-2. An angled Tiger is more effective than a front on Jumbo. At 6.0, you are more likely to see Tiger II Ps, Jagdpanthers and Ferdinands, all armed with the Kwk43 and all can go right through the front of a Jumbo. Its armor is worthless for most of the tanks it faces. It's gun is even more worthless.
  104. He can't one shot you anywhere. Solid shot through the front plate gives the shrapnel the best chance of hitting more crew. If you got that upset over this happening, you better hope Gaijin never bothers to fix US APBC. T33 and M318 could slide through a Panther's front plate at 1+ km.
  105. m4a3e2 (76) w

    Its no more OP than a 5.7 Tiger I and IS-2. So you're saying those 3 tanks should go to 6.0?
  106. I can understand entire trees but vehicles should be a little more solid.
  107. Is there a general time frame for when vehicles may show up? There were a few discussed in the January 20th Q&A that would help certain trees. I'm just curious when they may be added.
  108. Don't get too disappointed. It's just one of the perks of playing the US tree.
  109. heavy tank

    When Gaijin says soon, they don't actually mean soon. They say that to keep people from continuously asking for it. As with most thing related with US fixes, it's not a priority. Armor bugs, under performing ammo, missing rounds entirely, none of that is important enough to get corrected ASAP. And when they do "fix" it, it's still wrong. The M103's turret and M358 are perfect examples.
  110. ground vehicles

    You mean 6.0? The Kwk42 is a better gun than the Kwk36. There is no way this thing should be 5.3.
  111. You're joking right? What part of the 76mm is over performing? It would be easier to make a list of US rounds that are performing correctly. I don't know of any that are over performing. The majority are under performing, to some extent.
  112. We will probably get the APFSDS for the M41A3, which should be enough.
  113. Yeah, we all want it fixed. Gaijin just doesn't seem to want to bother. Yesterday, I was playing an tracked a Jagdpanther. He managed to turn towards me. If the T33 was working correctly, I would have been able to pen the front plate, because it's not, I got killed.
  114. The HVSS suspension on the M4A3 76 W HVSS is not animated. None of the suspension components move with the road wheels as the tank is driving. Other tanks with HVSS have the components animated. I made a video of the M4A3 76 HVSS and T25 to show the bug.
  115. So @Whelmy showed me a document from US testing that shows the Kwk 43 was capable of penning 85mm at 55* obliquity. The corrected T32 lower plate is 95mm at 59 degrees. Even with the cast modifier, the long 88 should not be able to pen the T32 lower plate at even point blank range. Top line says 3 3/8" homo plate (RHA) 241-263 BNH at 55 degrees with a ballistic limit of 3322 fps, which is just below the muzzle velocity of 3340 fps. That would massively increase the performance of the T32 in game. The T32E1, with RHA plate, would be even stronger.