• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

989 Excellent

1 Follower

About *MiseryIndex556

  • Rank
    Flight lieutenant
  • Birthday 04/01/1990

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. Tanks/Vehicles

    I have been looking around for more information on the development of this tank but there isn't much. I'm really surprised this isn't getting any more support.
  2. Sure, you can pen if you hit the exact apex of the turret. If you hit just high or just low, it will bounce every time. The 75 is more than capable of penning the lower plate and one shotting the T29/T34.
  3. Either way, a medium tank a full BR lower should struggle against a heavy. Try facing a Tiger II P in an M4A3 76 W.
  4. A medium tank struggles to fight a heavy tank a full BR higher? That is absolutely not fair. /s Your APCR can go right through the mantlet. Just play smarter.
  5. Germans still used a soft cap. The difference is the PzGr39 had a much harder nose than most APCBC and that increased the penetration.
  6. M103 is still wrong, especially the 60 degree pen. It shouldn't take 3 or 4 bug reports to fix an issue.
  7. Sh*t happens in game. I have had Leos bounce M358s from my M103 in game.
  8. True, so it didn't really apply in the majority of cases but I would hate for it to happen to me.
  9. The biggest issue is overcoming the belief that US equipment was just inferior.
  10. US shot/shell had hardness issues. German shells generally did not, so they performed more consistently in combat.
  11. You're not sure the T33 could pen a Panther's glacis? They literally shot Panthers to see how it would work. US military testing showed its AP design was the most effective at penning all under matching armor and overmatching armor above 45 degrees slope.
  12. Its very similar to the T33.
  13. Because, US AP all had similar ogives. Here's M358.
  14. The M358 is not flat nosed. The M358 uses a similar ogive to all US APBC. The T14 is not APBC. It is in fact APCBC, just like the 105mm T32, which Gaijin also has wrong. Here is a cross section of the 90mm T33 APBC.
  15. The Russian tanks that are hard to pen from the front have heavily sloped plates or thick castings, neither of which applies to the Tiger I. And that only applies to 7.0+ Russians.
  16. Tanks/Vehicles

    Could be. Army made a lot of poor decisions, like requiring tank guns to have a 2000 round life span, which limited velocity and penetration.
  17. Tanks/Vehicles

    I'll have to track it down again but I was reading something about the M4A3 90mm and the writer discussed 90mm production. They showed the numbers and there was only enough for the M36 and M26 with spares for repair.
  18. Tanks/Vehicles

    Interesting. I never cared much for the T25 in game, so I never read into it. Either way, the shortage of 90mm guns was a problem. I'd still like to see the M4A3 90 HVSS in game.
  19. Tanks/Vehicles

    I was responding to you calling it a test bed. If there were enough 90mm guns, it would have been sent overseas. I thought the T25 was developed into the T26?
  20. Tanks/Vehicles

    From what I have seen, it was going to make it into production, but there weren't enough 90mm M3 guns and they didn't want to slow down M36 production and M26 development.
  21. Tanks/Vehicles

    Yeah, I just saw the date. Either way, this needs to be added to the game. Try tagging a mod and see if they will merge the threads and move it to further discussions. I think 3 years is long enough.
  22. Tanks/Vehicles

    The most tested version, built on an M4A3E8 hull with HVSS and the T26 turret, was driven for over 2000 miles. There is already another thread on this tank but it has been stuck in suggestions for a while. I would love to see this as a 5.7 medium.
  23. I know. It's unreal that Gaijin leaves German tanks at BRs with other competitive tanks. Each German tank needs a k/d of at least 5-1. It's historically accurate.
  24. Wrong, because the Jumbo can't angle and basically be immune to the tanks it faces.
  25. The (broken) HEAT on the M46 does not make a big enough difference to justify a higher BR. I generally don't use the HEAT.
  26. Yes, a tank that is basically immune to the majority of vehicles it can face when properly angled, with one of the best guns at its BR, is also the worst tank in the game.
  27. Yeah, those 3 or 4 days after the T32 was lowered were fun. I can't remember ever seeing that many T32s at once. Then, it went right back to being parked because Gaijin has no interest in fixing it. There are multiple bug reports and suggestions on the T32 that would greatly increase its potential and they are just sitting on them. The T32E1 would do a lot to balance out the IS6, which is probably why they don't want to add it. Can't kill the cash cow.
  28. Sure, if the player thinks their Krupp stahl box will bounce everything, while driving straight ahead. Even a remotely aware player will angle their tank, and bounce most shots they know are coming.
  29. The US tree isn't a priority, which is why it takes so damn long for even the most simple of fixes to get made.
  30. I submitted a bug report and it is "being investigated", which should take all of 5 minutes. I gave them the technical manual that lists the filler weight. All they have to do is convert it to grams from pounds.
  31. I don't know. I haven't played it in a while. I would rather play the M26 than the Jumbo. It has no business sitting at 6.0.
  32. Then the 76mm Jumbo should go to 5.0, since its not any better than the IS1 or Tiger I,.
  33. If it gets APCR, it should go up in BR, just like US tanks that get APCR.
  34. Yeah... no. If the T34 is a 7.3 minimum, then the Tiger II H should be at least 7.0.
  35. I look forward to the T34 getting its T98 APDS.
  36. First off, no it won't. Second, it's still wrong.
  37. M348 is HEATFS. Gaijin screwed up and made it just standard HEAT.
  38. And the Tiger can just point and click, no flanking needed.
  39. All the Tiger has to do is go diamond and nothing will pen it.
  40. I'll look around but Conraire posted this in the OP. "US HVAP 76mm M93 has a 38.1mm Core diameter 3.95lb core, exactly 1/2 of the bore diameter.. Compare this to the 29mm 2.01lb core of Arrowhead German 75mm APCR. Or the 35.7mm 4.25lb core of 88mm pzrgr 40. I couldn't find exact Core info for M304/T30e16, but my understanding from internet searches is 45-48mm core weighing about 8lbs. Which is where the difference in performance comes in for the 90mm HVAP at 3350ft/s, and 88mm APCR at 3050ft/s. The 90mm is throwing about twice the core mass at a higher velocity, when compared to the 88/L56, its the same story for the 88L71 vs the 90L73. For those wondering, this is the main reason why American HVAP of a similar caliber performs so much better than German or Russian APCR of the same era. Russian APCR rounds are very similar in core diameter ratio and weight to German APCR rounds from what I can find." So, as you can see, US APCR used roughly twice the tungsten as German and Russian APCR.
  41. Harmless? Right... The Jumbo is only good if you are pointing straight at the enemy and still has the wrong front plate. If they fix it, 5.7 should work since it would be immune to the 88mm and 85mm. Compare the Super Pershing to the IS2, IS2 mod 44 and Tiger II P, then try to come up with a good reason why the Super Pershing wouldn't fit at 6.0. Why shouldn't the M26 be at 6.0? The Kwk42 can pen it frontally, anywhere. The M3 cannot do the same to the Panther. The M46 is a faster M26. The HEAT is a joke, and wrong. If they fix it, 6.7 is fine. Since you have never given me a good reason why those BRs don't work, I'll just assume you don't have any.
  42. Yes, wait casually for them to bounce a shot off the mantlet and one shot the tank. That is a perfectly good technique. 33mm < 100mm US APCR used a massive amount of tungsten compared to German and Russian APCR. It should do better against slopes.
  43. The only thing I can think of is the T33 report has been shelved for the time being. It's pretty well documented that it could punch through the front of a Panther out to 1,100 yards but it can't in game. Maybe they are avoiding it to not have to rebalance the BRs.
  44. Yeah, that really drives home how much more tungsten the US used.
  45. The reason there is no solid shot fix is simple, the two pet trees don't rely on solid shot.
  46. You act like the turret face is massive. Sure, it's an easy shot at close range, if the player isn't wiggling their turret. I've had Tiger IIs literally slap M82s out of the air, while playing my T32. Or, they just angle it slightly and bounce everything. Whether or not the 270 can penetrate is irrelevant. The T44 should be penning 375mm at point blank. That would be like Gaijin gutting PzGr 39/43 pen to 169mm and US tankers telling you to deal with it because it can pen the side of a T29.
  47. We just listed all the known problems with the T32 and you think we're whining?
  48. Except for the fact that Russia and Germany have tanks with over 200mm of penetration with APHE at 5.7 and 6.3 respectively. The US doesn't get that until 6.7. The best gun the US has at that BR range is the short 90mm with 165mm of penetration on easily penned tanks. The Super Pershing is much more comparable to the IS2, IS2 mod 44 and the Tiger II P than the Tiger II H, T29 and T34. It has no business sitting at 6.7. It wouldn't club any harder at 6.3 than the Tiger II P does.
  49. I'm not sure. I was likely armor plate of differing hardness.
  50. I'm not so sure. I was reading a US report on 1/4" plates and their effect on AP rounds. A 1/4" plate laid back at 60 degrees would cause a T33 AP to shatter and strip the AP cap of a T50 APCBC.
  51. Cast steel should have a modifier, up to a certain thickness. Cast armor above a certain thickness behaved basically the same as rolled armor. That is not how the game works, though. Gaijin has said they have no intent to remove the modifiers from cast sections that are thick enough.
  52. Soinds a lot like the T95, which happens to be a 6.7.
  53. The APCR and T43 AP are probably never going to get fixed. Gaijin nerfed APCR to make APDS look better and they just don't like US AP. Either way, 7.3 isn't going to work for the T32 with the current meta, even if they apply those fixes.
  54. Well, its M82 is missing about 12mm of penetration. It's T44 APCR is missing about 100mm of penetration. Its T43 is missing a ton of penetration against slopes. I forgot the exact number, I'll have to look at my bug report. It's missing its 5" track end links. The lower plate should be laid back at 59 degrees, not the 46 degrees it is now. The turret sides should be 192mm. The T32 was further developed into the T32E1, which removed the hull machine gun, was made from rolled plates, and had a thicker hull roof to eliminate the shot trap. So, there is a lot wrong with the T32 and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Oh, yeah it's missing the T50E1 APC, which was an improved M82 and should have around 235mm of penetration.
  55. ATGMs shouldn't be free. They should cost 2-3x HEATFS.
  56. The biggest issue is the T33 and APCR are massively under performing. All 90mm guns should be able to knock out Panthers beyond 1km with the T33. Other than that, I'm not a fan of the T25. It's a difficult tank to use well.
  57. How is a slower firing gun with less pen and a softer chassis going to be better? It is much easier to kill the Super Pershing in the Tiger II P than the reverse.
  58. Yep, I got a warning for saying cancer in reference to a vehicle.
  59. Either way, the long 88 has no problem going right through, while the T15 cannot pen the Tiger IIs upper plate.
  60. Yeah, it can pen the bulge on the front plate. It should be 140mm thick but is only 102mm thick, like the rest of the plate.
  61. Oh, so those times a Panther has penned the front of my Super Pershing through the front plate never happened? I could have sworn that when the Panther penned my front plate and killed me, it penned the front plate and killed me.
  62. I just penned the side of a Tiger II P with an M82 and wounded two crew. The ammo rack the shell went through turned orange. WTF Gaijin.
  63. Tanks of equal BR should have equal capabilities. That's what the BR range is for. The Panther D can pen the front plate of a Super Pershing. The T25 cannot pen the front plate of a Tiger II.
  64. Well, sure, the APCR pens more than what the Kwk43 can do but no one uses APCR. It's garbage. The long 88 can pen the Super Pershing anywhere. The T15 cannot pen the Tiger II P anywhere. You have to snipe the turret cheeks.
  65. Thats a bunch of crap. The Super Pershing is inferior to the Tiger II P. Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me the Super Pershing is a better heavy tank than the Tiger II P, and is on par with the H? Medium tanks that face the Super Pershing can punch through its upper plate, with faster reloads. The T15 is inferior to the Kwk43 is pen, velocity and reload. Put the 75mm Jumbo at 5.0 and the 76mm Jumbo at 5.3.
  66. I was playing my M26 and shot a Tiger II P in the turret cheek. The round barely penned and turned the breech yellow. That's all. The definitely went too far.
  67. I've never penned a Tiger II with the M46s HEAT in an actual match. I took it out to test drive last night and fired all 18 shots at the Tiger II, only two penned.
  68. The 75mm shell overmatches the plate, which reduces its slope modifier, allowing it to penetrate. The 50mm shell does not overmatch the plate enough to allow it to penetrate.
  69. You can't compare the effective thickness of a sloped plate to vertical penetration of the shell. The angling of the plate will reduce the penetration of the shell. Xmm effective thickness at 60 degrees is more effective than Xmm vertical.
  70. No, they just nerf the vertical penetration of US APBC to match the shatter gap, and then reduce it according to its ballistics. Oh, but they don't do the same for Soviet shells.
  71. The M46 has HEAT, not HEATFS. It's supposed to be HEATFS but Gaijin screwed it up. In all the games I've played the M46, I have yet to pen the front slope of a Tiger II with the HEAT. I either fail to pen it or bounce.
  72. Well, no, because the Easy 8 is a medium tank and the Jumbo is a heavy tank. The Panther II is a higher BR than either the Tiger II P and Tiger II H. Yes, do you need clarification? Well, again, the Super Pershing is a heavy, the M26 is a medium. They aren't equal. The Super Pershing is not immune to the Panthers, Tigers or any 85mm Russians. You can't honestly believe the Super Pershing is on par with the Tiger II P. How do you figure? It's not great but it shouldn't be any lower. The R251 has no business being 6.7.
  73. I don't see how the T32 shot trap is realistic. The bottom of the mantlet is around 80 degrees. No way a shell should hit that and bounce straight down through the hull roof.
  74. APCR won't be fixed because the nation that has the best APCR isn't Germany or Russia.
  75. US APCR is heavily nerfed, more so than any other nations. US APCR used a lot of tungsten in the core, generally twice as much. The M304 fired by the short 90mm had as much penetration as the PzGr 40/43 fired by the long 88.
  76. M4A3E2 76 W should go to 5.3. Super Pershing should go to 6.0 M26 Pershing should go to 6.0 M46 should go to 6.3 if they keep the HEAT wrong. If they correct it to HEATFS, it should stay at 6.7. M47 is terrible. I just avoid it at all costs. In reality, I don't play any US medium higher than the M26. You can't touch the enemies, while they can punch through your armor at just about any range.
  77. Yeah, I mean Jagdpanther. I should finish my morning coffee before posting. How is 6.3 fair? The Super Pershing is not as good as the Tiger II P, so it should be a 6.0. It splits the difference between the IS2 and Tiger II P pretty well.
  78. How can you say that when the Tiger II P, Jagdpanther and Ferdinand are all 6.3, with a much better gun? If those three tanks can sit at 6.3, the Super Pershing is a 6.0.
  79. I think he means ghost cannon. The gun barrel is not physically modeled, so it doesn't hit things like trees, rocks or buildings.
  80. Are you saying 5.3 M4A3 76 Ws aren't completely outclassed by 6.3 Tiger II Ps, Jagdtigers or Ferdinands? Why is it American tanks are the only ones that have to be kept at a higher BR because they would be strong in a full down tier? The Super Pershing can be knocked out by a 5.7 Panther, through the front plate at just about any range we see in game.
  81. Would it be possible for Gaijin to ask the bug report poster for clarification or assistance on the bug? The T33 is a great example. It has been a known issue for 2 years, with no fix in sight.
  82. Yeah, well fighting in your backyard has its benefits. If the US wasn't forced to ship its equipment thousands of miles, there probably would have been US heavies fielded.
  83. Would be nice to just see any progress on US ammo fixes.
  84. They were worried the 90mm Sherman would slow down M26 and M36 production, so it was canceled. Once the M26 was operational, I'm sure they had no plans of upgunning the M4.
  85. I want the 90mm Sherman, as well as the M50. The Army dropped a T26 turret on an M4A3 HVSS and drove it around for 2,000 miles. If there were enough 90mm guns around, it would have been put into production.
  86. The only real advantage the US has is 6.7. Everywhere else, the US is lacking compared to the Russian and German team.
  87. 36831 This is the oldest T33 report I can find from 2015. The issue is when the bugs cover an entire shell type, such as the slope modifiers for US AP or the massively underperforming APCR, making individual bug reports is time consuming and fills up the bug forum.
  88. So, in the end, the performance data was never submitted? There are only two report IDs, and if they both refer to the naming, the priority of the report was ignored.
  89. Well, it's still referred to as AP, not APBC in game. Here's the ID for the performance, the part that actually matters. 0032470
  90. How can it have been fixed if the T33 still cannot pen the glacis of a Panther?
  91. I've already discussed it with Smin. The issue is conflicting data. Instead of asking for clarification, they just leave the investigation open for 2 years while the T33 is still unable to do anything. Meanwhile Germans and Russians are able to punch through the front of every US tank they face. Funny how the BR412D not being in WWII ballistics wasn't an issue when they used WWII Ballistics to "fix" it's penetration.
  92. Give @Smin1080p the IDs and lets see the status of the reports.
  93. Have their been any bug reports made for these issues?
  94. In the future, would it be possible for us to see the sources Gaijin uses to make adjustments? If they have data that shows a certain performance, but that disagrees with what we have, it would be helpful to us when we make reports. The issue we have is the data we have shows US APCR under performing by a wide margin. Certain rounds were performing closer to what the data shows before the "adjustment" but still not exact.
  95. Just because it hasn't been changed doesn't mean they didn't reduce the penetration before adding it to the game, which they did by a lot.
  96. @Smin1080p It was introduced nerfed already. Ever since 1.53, APCR has been wrong across the board and has been reported. I can't recall the IDs so I will have to find them. Edit: Also, I believe it was reduced from the dev server to the live server.
  97. And APCR is one of those rounds. The APCR nerf effects the T34 as well as most other US tanks.
  98. So the fact that every single APCR shot was nerfed in patch 1.53 is just coincidental? No information was shown as to why every single APCR was nerfed. How can you say it wasn't a decided nerf when every single APCR was hammered in a single patch? It's just another one of those things Gaijin is still "investigating".
  99. Except for APCR, which Gaijin has decided will not perform as it should.
  100. It's because map designs force players into alleys and, if you know you are going to get hit, why not take something out that can take a few rounds before dying?
  101. The penetration is still wrong, which is what I'm guessing the OP is talking about.
  102. They've been "verifying" the T33 bug report for 2 years.
  103. So far, I've had two clear videos of the problem with the IS6's mantlet, both in my T32. The first shot was an M82 at an IS6, which either failed to penetrate the inner mantlet or something and the result was just a yellowed optic. The second example was the T44 APCR and it just failed to penetrate all together. Both shots were from within 100 meters and almost no angle.