Time4Tea

Member
  • Content count

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

621 Excellent

About Time4Tea

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Blighty
  • Interests
    Tea & Crumpets

Recent Profile Visitors

3,908 profile views
  1. I'd like to see a "France 1940" event, with the Matilda and A13 Cruisers on one side and the Panzer III Bs and Short 75mm Panzer IV Cs on the other side. 1940 to possibly mid-1942 is were where axis and allied tanks were roughly on par (at least as far as UK and US go anyway).
  2. True but Gaijin needs one primary or two secondary sources, not logic . *edit* I just found this bug report: It would seem this wasn't considered a bug.
  3. He did say "with smoke". 16 Shermans constantly lobbing smoke at the Tiger II might make it hard for the Tiger to see yet alone take out those shermans.
  4. True, though if they hung around up high waiting for the allied CAS to turn up they might be more effective.
  5. I thinking giving the side of the slat it's own armour value would be the easiest course to take. This tank was a test-bed so it's hard to find data on armour construction.
  6. I have noticed that during my CAS runs, BFs and FWs seem to spend more time trying to take out TDs and AAs on the ground before turning to engage me, by which time I've already launched a salvo of rockets.
  7. In how many of those games were you paired with USSR?
  8. Yeah that was it, the FV4202 being added was a really odd decision on Gaijin's part.
  9. I don't even know why it was put in the main tree, there are plenty of other tanks that can go between 5.7 and 6.7. Centurion Mk 1 for 6.0, Centurion Mk 2 for 6.3. FV4202 should have either been a premium or gift tank since it was just a test-bed for new armouring techniques and technologies (hence the weak spots everywhere). I don't even think it had actual AP rounds for testing come to think of it because it was a new 20 lber barrel design .
  10. This looks fine, gives those lower BR German tanks some breathing room. 6.0 Panthers should never face 105mm HESH, thats just overkill . The Centurion Mk 3 has roughly the same abilities as the Caernarvon but just less hull armour and it doesn't have that terrible 50mm driver hatch, 6.7 is good.
  11. I usually have to hit centre mass for my AP shots to do that. APHE can hit close to the edge of a front plate and still annihilate most if not all of the crew inside. Also, I've never seen fragments from AP sprinkling down into the driver/hull gunner compartment from a hit to the turret face unlike APHE. APHE would still be better (apart from reduced penetration in comparison to similar calibres) since fuse failures aren't a thing. It would not overperform though, since it would not a shell with the same amount of HE filler as in most hand grenades (we know hand grenade explosions can prevented from creating an area of effect by someone placing themselves upon it) producing a perfectly spherical explosion reaching to every corner of the tank.
  12. I was just trying to think of things the allies could ask for if shattering were added but German shells weren't affected (as they weren't for the most part historically). What, no solid AP only for the British ship guns?
  13. Wow, I've only been able to do that with AP lately, haven't experienced an OHK (besides ammo or tanks with already reduced crew) with APDS yet on a Panther or Tiger I for that matter.
  14. Yeah, modelling shatter for allied guns would lead to calls to model fuze failure or pre-detonation on German rounds (which would affect American and Russian HE filled rounds as well).
  15. The T-44 is quite cramped compared to German tanks and I didn't say that APDS isn't good but that it isn't as good as APHE for post-penetration damage (unless of course it is a really cramped vehicle like the T-34 and T-44).
  16. Here is all the stuff "WWII Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery" has on shatter gap (Warning, pictures inbound): From what I can tell, shatter happened to high velocity shots at closer ranges while those same shots penetrated at longer ranges (the "Shatter Gap" was somewhere between these ranges). Its why the British stuck a cap (and ballistic cap) on the end of the 2 lber shot in 1942. Early German rounds suffered from shatter gap but it would seem their round's noses were made harder later to counter this.
  17. I think it's supposed to be a slat connecting the two armour pieces, the problem is that from above the metal slat is a thin 31mm but from the front it should be thicker because the slat is wider than it is tall.
  18. At spawn?
  19. If it could make it to the battle before its over
  20. Doesn't the T-44 have 120mm turret face armour? Tiger II APHE should go through that and deal significant damage shouldn't it? My 17 Pounder AP has gone through it easily most of the time, APHE should be even more effective.
  21. True, I have been saved by overpen sometimes as well as HEAT hitting the lower spaced armour. I'd still like the Cromwell to have it's actual armour though . Just tried Japanese tier 1, got some kills on a few A13 cruisers but then all hell broke loose when the M3s and T-60s turned up
  22. I suggested that he should "if he hasn't already" so that he could see what I mean about APDS. I meant that APHE does not need to be able to penetrate a tank's UFP to kill it where as APDS does because it needs to kill gunner, loader, driver and co-driver on tanks that have 5 crewmembers. "At the moment APDS is just an APCR round that is better at slopes in terms of post-penetration" is the full quote, don't take parts of it out of context. APDS is an APCR round that is better at slopes but shares the same post-penetration. I didn't say a Tiger II should angle his turret, I said he could hide his gunner and angle his hull (as I have seen many do); that way APDS will only be able to kill the loader and maybe the co-driver if the APDS has enough penetration. Angling your hull against Brits should be easy if HEAT-FS is your trouble since Britain has no HEAT-FS .
  23. Perhaps but I've never thought of the Cromwell V as a good match against the Panzer IV F2, sure it has the speed advantage but it has even thinner side armour and only medium velocity solid shot. The M4A1 is slightly better off as it has the sloped armour and some APHE. The Cromwell I doesn't fair much better against the Panzer IV G either (K/D of 1.1 for the Cromwell I vs 1.9 for the Panzer IV G). I'd like to grind other trees after I've finished the British one. The reason I only play British is because I'm trying to focus all of my efforts into grinding it's tanks. Not to mention, I'm British so there is a bit of "tea bias" in my choice of nation there . Is it as bad as Britain was for a while? As in pre-solid shot buff? If so I might have the patience to play Japanese but if it's worse then a won't bother
  24. If you mean tanks to grind through, then I somewhat envy you. I wish Britain had a lot more Cromwells, Valentines, Churchills and Centaurs to grind through . I'm not arguing that German 5.7 to 6.7 isn't an issue by the way, I'm just saying that other nations have their issues too.
  25. Not that well, the Panzer IV F2 compared to the Cromwell V and M4A1 is a good example, it has a similar RB win rate (about 7% better than Cromwell V and around 10% better than the M4A1) but it's K/D in RB is just under the Centurion Mk 3's at 1.8 compared to 1.4 for the M4A1 and 1 for the Cromwell V while all sharing the same RB BR.
  26. And an unbalance in a certain BR bracket is a German only issue? Lots of nations have BR brackets where the tanks are outmatched. Isn't "win rate" just a correlation between battles won and whether a particular vehicle was in that battle or not?
  27. It was AP that was recently buffed, not APDS. Some say APDS was nerfed as well to make APDS-FS look better. APHE barely needs to go through slopes like the UFPs of many tanks when you can destroy a tank by aiming at the turret faces, turret rings, turret roofs and cupolas. At the moment APDS is just an APCR round that is better at slopes in terms of post-penetration. Unless you can get crewmembers in the enemy tank lined up it is still a matter of sniping crew members. Many difficult situations are created by tanks hiding certain crew members behind cover, for example the Tiger II can hide the left (?) side of it's turret and angle it's hull while all APDS can do is snipe the loader or hope to graze the gun breach.
  28. The copy that is in the first book was probably obtained through means other than downloading given the original print date of the book being 1995. I've edited the post to add another source and make it clearer as to which screenshots are from which source .
  29. Ughh, makes me wonder if the guys who designed the Churchill actually just fired AP shells at the turret ring to lift the turret of it's mounting for repairs .
  30. There are a lot of posts about German 5.7-6.7 struggling, should we call that a meme? Calling one nation's problem a "meme" to make them seem less important that another nation's problems just invites the same trivialisation for that nation. Perhaps you could grind your way to the higher tier tanks of the British tree if you haven't already done so and try out the APDS for yourself, I'd like to hear if you think that APDS's post-penetration damage is better or on par with APHE or even AP now that it has been buffed?
  31. It's only because a lot of people aim for the hull, one shot to the turret face of the Mk 3 from an APHE round can kill all the crew inside and possibly even those down below in the driver's compartment.
  32. Hello, I recently came across a book called "Crusader Cruiser Tank 1939-1945" detailing the specifications of the Crusader Mk III and found some inconsistancies when compared to the model we have in game. This is the model we have in-game: Now here is a diagram that is used in the book but it sourced from here which I believe makes it a primary source (?): Highlighted in red is a detail which describes that additional armour of 14mm plates were welded onto the frontal area of the vehicle. The particular locations of these additions are also described in the book: There is also a picture showing some of these plates: And another found online showing the rest: Having these 14mm plates would increase armour in the following areas: Hull nose: 20mm to 34mm Upper Glacis: 20mm to 34mm Plate next to driver cab: 20mm to 34mm Another discrepency I'd like to point it is the construction of the turret armour, specifically the turret face which as shown in the diagram as being composed of one 1.25" plate (31.75mm) and one .75 inch plate (19.05mm) which is mostly accurate in-game as shown in the screenshots earlier in this post apart from the 19.05mm plate being made from "Stuctural Steel". This book describes the front of the Crusader Mk III turret being "50mm standard": Another book called "AFV Weapons Profile 08 Crusader-Cruiser Mk VI" also points towards around 50mm of armour and says that the "inner skin" of welded armour (the 19.05mm inner plate) was made of "hardened steel": Here is another book called "British and American Tanks of World War Two" giving a figure of 51mm for the maximum armour on the Crusader: Vehicle affected: Crusader Mk III Problem: In-game armour inconstantant with historical armour. Solution: Correct Crusader Mk III armour as per the diagram shown in this post including additional 14mm plates. Sources: Fletcher, David; Sarson, Peter (2000). Crusader and Covenanter Cruiser Tank 1939–1945. New Vanguard. 14. Botley: Osprey. ISBN 1-85532-512-8. Bingham, James. Crusader: Cruiser Mark VI. AFV Profile. 8. Windsor: Profile. OCLC 54349416 Chamberlain, P and Ellis, C British and American Tanks of World War II 1981 Arco publishing. ISBN 0-304-35529-1 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2193074 If this post is not accepted for any reason and if it isn't too much trouble could I please be told as to what about the post caused it to be denied as it will be easier to improve and resubmit.
  33. I took a look at your replay file, it would seem that the T-34-85 did not penetrate your lower turret but rather a slat of hull armour in front of it: This slat: As you can see, the slat is an easily penetrated flat 31mm. No bias here, just good old armour inaccuracies.
  34. Yeah, the armour looks as strong as a KV-1's but in actuality without the ability to angle it is much worse. The guns on the Churchill Mk 1 and 3" GC are different, the Churchill's 3 Inch is a howitzer while the 3" on the 3" GC is an AA gun. The Churchill's howitzer did use smoke though which should help if added. Yeah, APHE explosiong reaching from a turret penetration down to the Churchill Mk 3's driver and co-driver is frustrating. It's trolly for newer players at that tier. Most kills while hull down seem to come from the turret roof getting overmatched and most kills while brawling or sitting in the open come from the lower plate getting penetrated or the 50mm driver hatch getting penetrated. Don't get me started on how easily that side armour is overmatched.
  35. Not just Germany, Britain's only heavy that can't be penetrated easily frontally (angling of course) is the Churchill Mk VII. The Matilda, Churchill Mk I, Churchill Mk III and Caernarvon are pretty easily destroyed frontally in my experience.
  36. Why not just back up to a more reasonable range for a tank destroyer after the Centurion's APDS only kills one or two crewmembers?
  37. Ah, there seems to have been some confusion here . I was agreeing with you that there are multiple tanks with ammo storage that was present in real life and often provided an advantage but is a disadvantage in-game. The racks at the front of the T54, Leopard and Centurion were there in real life for more storage but in-game they provide an easy way to destroy the tank from the front. It would be nice if we could chose where to store ammo.
  38. tanks/vehicles

    Thanks for the +1, I think maybe if they made it's default engine sound quieter like it was in real-life it might have an advantage at least in RB.
  39. The racks are behind a major weakspot which is a disadvantage, they also have ammo racks stored along side the turret ring for accessibility. FV4005? All it's ammo is in the turret with none in the hull.
  40. It's the same for the Centurions/Caernarvon, you have to take a ridiculously low amount of ammo to get rid of that front ammo rack.
  41. The mantlet on the M60 is a smaller target though and that 127mm to 105mm of turret face armour looks well curved/sloped. Is flat 152mm better? The Centurion Mk 10 may not have the silly cupola but it does have an unprotected 14mm turret ring.
  42. The only place I can see on the Centurion Mk 10 turret armour is stronger is on the flat 200mm mantlet if I'm not mistaken, the rest of the turret front is 152mm flat. I was saying in another thread that it could go to 7.3 to spare the Panthers (apart from the Panther II). The Centurion Action X I think would make a good 7.7 assuming it has the uparmoured Centurion Mk 7 hull:
  43. Couldn't they just be nested, sharing the same tab?
  44. tanks/vehicles

    Just thinking with current BRs in mind. I'd personally like to see the Cromwell I taken down to 3.3 since it's basically a Panzer III with a higher top speed.
  45. I think that's what you meant .
  46. I'd like to see the Vickers MBT Mk 2 and 3, I think the Mk 2 is like the Mk 1 but faster and the Mk 3 is faster than both with a new turret design. It would be nice to see the FV300 but I think only a chassis was built.
  47. A lot of British players won't mind the Centurion Mk 3 being put at 6.7. It's an Strv 81 without ATGMs (which are useless in RB anyway).
  48. I guess when told to back up all arguments with statistics, inset_judgement thought they meant theirs.
  49. It happens with the Centurion Mk 3 too, it was bug reported here.
  50. You know it
  51. I'm suprised this thread hasn't been smudged into this one yet to be honest.
  52. Well he did say "a mile out" the first time and that he was angled the second. From the looks of the Ferdinand if you can hide that corner while angling you can bounce.
  53. tanks/vehicles

    +1 Always good to have more British cruisers.
  54. There are ways to make it work in-game, one being firing a few shots slowly at an attacker aircraft to make it think you're a tank taking pot shots which then makes you a target. Planes are much easier to hit with a single bofors when they're flying straight at you . It's better as an SPG though which is what I imagine it is popular for since it has 76mm of penetration, great for the sides of those Panthers, T-34s and even Tigers if you hit them above the tracks.
  55. Isn't US 6.7 quite popular now as well, recently due to the M46 getting HEAT-FS or something?
  56. Is it just UK 6.7 or USA/USSR 6.7 as well because I haven't had many strictly UK vs GER games in the past week.
  57. True, that APDS needs to have a perfect line of sight to the gunner to kill him but that's why APDS needs a buff. The problem is which would come first, a buff for APDS or Semi-historical BRs? I can't decide which is more likely .
  58. The Panther A may have APHE but it can't penetrate the Centurion Mk 1's upper hull. An APHE shot to the turret mantlet of the Centurion Mk 1 will often OHK it but this is somewhat balanced by the ability to penetrate the Panther anywhere with APDS and the Centurion Mk 1's superior reverse speed.
  59. The armour doesn't mean much (hull break) except for resisting MGs but I suppose the 102mm penetration is handier to have.
  60. I've only ever seen the Ferdinand being labelled as a tank destroyer or "Tank Hunter". The lack of a hull MG in the first Ferdinands seems to point to that function. I've even read that the Ferdinand was given to artillery units instead of armoured units until Guderian stepped in.
  61. It may not be making up most of the numbers but look at British tier III in your screenshot. Many have been saying that British 4.7 is quite strong now and yet there are only 6 queing there. It should at least be considered when looking at the numbers for tier IV. Also, isn't bringing the ZIS-12 as an AA vehicle usually a Russian tactic? It's speedy enough to cap points first. Not to mention they already have the ZSU-37's gun on the ZIS-43 which I would have thought would make taking the higher tier ZSU-37 instead redundant?
  62. The British tree needs the later Cromwell's, 100mm of frontal armour will make it a much better tank than the Sherman II (Solid shot not withstanding). I think the Centurion Mk 1 should just be put at wherever the later Panther models are with it's APCBC as it's normal round and APDS as it's only unlock ammo-wise. Yeah, it may have high-pen but it's still just a fancy APCR shot in terms of post-penetration.
  63. Spawn camping after the enemy team has capped all the points I can accept but not purposefully driving all the way round to the back of a teams spawn to get some cheap kills.
  64. I wasn't trying to say that the Crusader AA Mk 1 usage was making up most of the numbers but rather that it should be considered when looking at the que numbers for tier IV. It's the same for the Crusader AA Mk 2 at tier 3, it has a BR of 3.7 to match late tier 2 tanks but putting it in your line up can put you in the tier III que. No doubt British tier IV is popular right now but so is British tier III now that the 4.7 line-up is quite popular.
  65. Not for tank busting.
  66. A few things I noticed in your British line, historically the Matilda faced tanks from 1939 to early 1942. The Churchill Mk 1 faced tanks from 1941 to late 1942 which is when the Churchill Mk 3 came about. I'd say the Churchill Mk 3 should be serving alongside the Sherman II and Valentine 9. Panzer 3s may find the Matilda and Churchill Mk 1 tough but they are slow. Also, the FV4202 couldn't actually fire APDS. The 20 Pounder it uses was of a different type for which an APDS shot hadn't been made. Yes the Centurion would have had to fight T-54s if it came down to it but the T-54's appearance was what made the British design the 105mm L7 because the 20 Pounder wasn't enough.
  67. The problem is, not everyone is going to want to play those counters. It's the same story with AA. People use AA to rush tanks and get killed before enemy planes turn up and the team has no AA to defend when those planes do turn up. Medium tank players can be just as bad, when they discover that their medium tank has a bit of speed, some of them like to flank round to the enemy spawn which hinders paper SPGs from finding a good ambush position. I have a feeling the stuff you are suggesting would work if teams played properly but sadly that is not the case.
  68. Matilda and Churchill mostly, there have been some complaints about the KV-1 but I'm on the fence with that one. The heavy tanks were just an example, the Cromwells could use some BR adjustments as well as some armour corrections. I know that some find a couple of the 75mm Shermans to be too high in BR as well.
  69. Same thing is at earlier tiers for the allies. Heavy tanks that should be strong are not because of German long 75mm APHE. BRs need adjusting in a lot of places and not just for the German 5.7 to 6.7 matchmaking.
  70. It's an excellent TD for side shots with 76mm of penetration . Also British 4.7 has become very popular, why aren't there a lot of people there? Because they have the 4.7 Crusader AA in their line-up.
  71. Nope, not a good candidate for this thread, definitely belongs at 6.7))))
  72. Now load up the Crusader AA Mk 1 as a part of that line-up and you'll become a part of the Tier IV que.
  73. This is what I mean, Jadgtigers should hang back like a TD while the heavies and mediums go agressive. A lot of people have been complaining that even British 6.7 vehicles are too op for their BR. That was what I was responding to. Just stick the Centurion Mk 1 at 6.0, Centurion Mk 3 at 6.7 like the Strv 81 and put the Centurion Mk 10 at 7.3. Bring the Panther II back down to 6.7 to give allow the Germans to be as aggressive as they were in that game but at 6.7. This seemed like a good idea to some but got invalidated because I don't play German tanks (Even the Panther II part ).
  74. Most of those strv 81 deaths seem to have been one shots from those Tiger IIs, Panther IIs and Jadgtigers though when they went to cap the points as medium tanks do. The only reason I came first is because I had enough armour (Tortoise) to resist those APHE shells. Twice, but that was also facing Jagdtigers and Panther IIs while the rest of the games were Tiger IIs and regular Panthers or Tiger Is. Like I said, British tanks can be moved up in BR but not as extremely as some people suggest.
  75. It's usually used as a back-up, I don't see anyone spawning with it first. The 3.7 Crusader AA Mk 2 is superior for AA anyway but doesn't hurt to carry two AA vehicles.
  76. Shouldn't those poor Jadgtigers, Panther IIs and Tiger IIs be succumbing to the might of Strv 81s, Centurion Mk 10s and Caernarvons though? Surely the player level (maybe some put the Strv 81 in their linup because it's basically an improved Centurion Mk 3 at 6.7 but IDK) shouldn't matter because Strv 81 (Centurion Mk 3) tanks are just so OP? Of course this is still all anecdotal but it at least shows that German tanks can sometimes be quite capable where they're at as opposed to the anecdotal evidence of German tanks being wrecked most of the time.
  77. Of course they influence but can you honestly tell me, without being biased how many of those people queing are using Crusader AA Mk 1s and how many are using Centurions, Caernarvons and FVs? Also what is auto-pen? I don't recall the penetration of a round being manual. Are you trying to tell me that British APDS and HESH is going through more armour than it should? If so, then you should make a bug report.
  78. Isn't that where the line between Assault tanks and Tank Destroyers comes in though? The Ferdinand being a heavy tank destroyer and vehicles like the T95 and Tortoise being assault tanks designed to smash defenses like the Seigfried Line whilst the Ferdinand was built for taking out Russian tanks at range.
  79. Just had a lovely game in my 6.7 British lineup against 7.3(?) Germans. As you can see, us with our superior cold war technology gave the Germans no hope for victory
  80. Britain's 4.7 AA is at Tier IV. People with that in their 4.7 line-up (Firefly, Churchill Mk VII and Avenger. All tier III tanks) are probably influencing the amount of people queing for Tier IV.
  81. Perhaps they'd decided that 76mm hull howitzers weren't enough for indirect fire .
  82. I wonder if they'd heard about the KV-2 and wanted to do something similar?
  83. Yes, I think that's the one. It was the same gun that was considered when evaluating the Russian T-34 and KV-1. If I remember correctly, it was proposed that the T-34 could be fitted with a 17 Pounder and the KV-1 with a 6 Inch Howitzer.
  84. I think they chose the Bishop simply because of it's armament, the 25 Pounder. The other project beside the 6 Inch Churchill was apparently the 3 Inch GC that we all know and love.
  85. It was apparently one of the proposed ideas for a self propelled gun. The Bishop won out of the lot though.
  86. They probably would have been better off with the 6 inch howitzer Churchill.
  87. True, though the Bishop at least was bad because it was produced out of urgency.
  88. Most of these ludicrous lowered BR requests seem to be a disguise for the "Seperate cold war from WW2" movement.
  89. From one of the books I have about the Valentine it says that one Archer was equpped with a 25 Pounder but dropped in favour of the Sexton.
  90. tanks/vehicles

    True, it would be a nice continuation of the Cromwell line to the Comet. In my opinion, the Sherman II should be nested with the equivalent Cromwell as an alternative.
  91. tanks/vehicles

    If he did mean that, it would be worse than the Firefly, 4.0-4.3 material.
  92. tanks/vehicles

    I think he means the A30 Challenger Stage I.
  93. tanks/vehicles

    Being an experiment and similar to the T-34-85E, it would probably be a premium.
  94. tanks/vehicles

    I've edited the post to include the value at 60°.
  95. tanks/vehicles

    Ah I see now, so my calculations from the Armour and Gunnery table were correct. They'll probably round it down to 63 given that the 105mm does 64mm at 60°.
  96. tanks/vehicles

    I think calculator is only useful for calculating how effective a piece of angled armour is and not for how effective a round is against angled armour.
  97. tanks/vehicles

    I'm not sure, I've heard people say they do and some say they don't. Here are the performances for the US 105mm, German 105mm and Russian 122mm: I'm thinking that QF 95mm Penetration at 60° (30° in War Thunder) will be perhaps 63mm judging by the US 105mm which has 3mm more pen at 0° and 2mm more pen at 30° so I think it will have only 1mm more pen at 60°. *edit* I found this in WWII Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery: Now you'll have to excuse me if I get this entirely wrong as it is pretty late but 127 divided by 1 gives 127mm at 0°, 127mm divided by 1.15 gives 110.4 at 30° and 127mm divided by 2.0 gives 63.5mm at 60°.
  98. tanks/vehicles

    The shell would have to be bigger on the inside . I wonder what the performance of the HEAT round would be at 60 degrees from vertical? 127mm to 110mm isn't that big a loss for 30 degrees.
  99. Yeah, that's the only way I seem to get OHK's with APDS, if the tank is angled it seems to make spalling less effective than A.P.
  100. tanks/vehicles

    127mm at 0 degrees and 110mm at 30 degrees for HEAT, I imagine HE performance will be similar to the 105mm on the Sherman.
  101. tanks/vehicles

    It's all in the armament section of my post, HE, HEAT and Smoke.
  102. If you're referring to the video in the original post it isn't Wingman's. APDS barely causing any spall is what that video shows.
  103. I didn't say APDS needs a buff, I said APHE needs to be corrected historically (which would sort of mean a nerf).
  104. Sure, they can be removed. They can correct/nerf APHE while they're at it. Its not fair for British tanks to have to play surgeon simulator with their AP (yes it was buffed but it still pales in post-penetration damage to APHE) and APDS (which wasn't buffed)
  105. Okay, well two people who play Germans seemed to agree with some of my ideas but I'll retract them because you say so. As for the Caernarvon is not my fault you can't aim for its lower hull, driver's hatch or turret roof but because you can't penetrate it through the mantlet or UFP it must be OP. What do you suggest be done to balance tier 4? I imagine it's something like put all British post-war tanks past 7.0 but I'll let you enlighten me.
  106. Depends, you can have more bounces from it sometimes compared to the later hulls because of the random angles of the cast hull.
  107. Sherman Vc and the Grizzly tanks had it too I believe. Ah I see, I did wonder if it had been reported already. Would be nice to get that protection on the Vc Firefly too.
  108. Seems like a pretty good excuse to ignore someone's argument. Right up there next to "You haven't played with *insert vehicle here* so you have no opinion on it"
  109. About that 88mm extra armour on the turret cheeks of some Shermans, I think it the original plate behind it isn't modelled. I remember shooting it in a test drive map from War Thunder Live with a 17 Pounder base A.P (165mm pen I think) at 100m and having it go straight through.
  110. Who me? Because if it is me, then I will simply say it does not take playing with a Jadgtiger to know that it should sit back and snipe (It's a TD afterall) and that it can easily penetrate Centurion Mk 3's. It also doesn't take playing Panthers to know that it is overkill to have them facing Centurion Mk 10's. I would ask you to provide some insight but according to your signature you don't play War Thunder anymore.
  111. Glad to hear it, It's been a good debate
  112. Centurion Mk 1 to 6.0, Centurion Mk 3 to 6.7 and Panther II to 6.7. Centurion Mk 10 to 7.3 to spare the 6.0 Panthers. Later the British tree can be supplimented with Vickers MBT Mk 2 and Mk 3 at 7.7 whilst Centurion Mk 2 and Caernarvon Mk 1 can be inserted at 6.3. Does that sound good?
  113. These days I like to use my 2 Pounder to *knock* *Knock* on the hatches of the enemy tanks, once the enemy commander pops his head out to see who it is I politely ask them to J out providing me with a kill. That is how you distpatch enemy tanks with the 2 Pounder .
  114. As almost all armoured SPG's are killed. The key is to hide the lower front plate. As I've said the Panther II can come down now to give the Germans an effective medium. Tank destoyers are supposed to destroy tanks not cap objectives and heavy tanks are supposed to support the mediums. The solution isn't mess with other vehicle's BRs but to push for the Panther II to come down. I'd also say the Tiger is more capable of pushing due to it being closer to a medium with it's rotating turret and what-not. In my sentence I didn't mean that it was bad for British players (well it is but that is another discussion) but I did mean that it might be more frustrating for the opposition. It might be worse to be slowly picked apart by APDS than to be swiftly dispatched by APHE. Actually even the Centurion Mk 1 is an MBT, first of it's kind . You realise I am in support of the Centurion Mk 3 being moved to 6.7? My problem was the gap left, which could be solved with the addition of the Centurion Mk 2 with 17 Pounder APDS as default. I have had my APDS bounce at close range on El Alamein, literally 200m away. It is a suprisly effective tactic, even if it does look a bit silly. Good, let's have the Centurion Mk 3 at 6.7 too then. I just hope that we get the Centurion Mk 2 and Caernarvon Mk 1 in-game soon. Churchill at 4.7 to Caernarvon at 6.7 is a bit of a gap. What about how much crew each shot kills? I hit your Gunner and possibly Commander with my first shot and then you reverse into cover because that is 2 out 5 of your crew. You hit my Gunner, Loader and Commander and I am toast because that is 3 of my 4 crew.
  115. What is even more unfair is when there are no sweets in said pinata. Tank visibility should work like plane visibility, if the crew of your tank cannot physically see the enemy tank then the enemy tank's model should not be rendered.
  116. Lets have the Panther II at 6.7 again then. My only gripe with it before was that German players were constantly using it to rush spawn points instead of playing objectives like they are doing with the RU-251. My Centurion was too slow to counter them in time before being nuked. However now that the Centurions are equipped with smoke it will be easier to evade the Panther II spawncampers and start to perform surgery on their tank.
  117. Are you saying that the Jadgtiger can't shoot and penetrate the Centurion Mk 3 anywhere? The Maus' inner track armour is at the side, the Tortoise's frontally penetrable spots are similar to the Jadgtiger's. You aren't supposed to be helping from the frontlines, you are supposed to sit back and snipe from a distance. Your gun has the range to be able to knock out targets while sitting at a distance which will enable your armour to resist return fire. Most of the American complaining was about the Cupola, I'm sure that the more reasonable American tankers will see the logic in increasing the T95's BR now that the Cupola is fixed. So what if I manage to get your gunner and then start to surgically remove your crew members one by one, how would it be better to get the crew completely wiped out by APHE? I can understand that loosing crew one by one is more frustrating to watch but that is what Britain is forced to do. APDS doesn't negate the Tiger II's armour if the Tiger II player is properly angling, the same goes for the IS-2 1944. The Centurion tanks were designed to take hits from German 88s but I don't complain if I get outplayed and someone penetrates my turret roof or lower hull. Also, you realise that the Centurion historically is a main battle tank and not a medium? It was it's job to fight and defeat all enemy tanks, only the Conqueror heavy tank was developed to fight the Russian tanks that the Centurion could not. Britain pretty much scrapped the idea of SPGs after the war. You only need to sit at range and wiggle your turret slightly from side to side while reloading to bounce APDS. It may be only 80mm but at a sharp angle it can exceed 200mm. All the Tiger player needs to do is wiggle the turret until you take a shot and it bounces, then they will proceed to aim at you while you reload and nuke you with shot to the turret roof, upper hull or lower hull. Then aren't they kind of balanced then? Britain has better gun handling and penetration, Germany has better armour and more destructive power. If it can be penetrated by a wirblewind then it can be penetrated by anything with superior penetration, which brings up another weakspot on the Caernarvon and Centurion Mk 3, next time you see one, aim for the MG port, you won't regret it . The turret roof seems to take up about half of the seen turret when the Centurion is hull down. Even covered with bushes that is a 50/50 chance that the shot will hit the mantlet or the turret roof. Besides, not everyone can afford those bushes (or at least enough to cover the entire turret) and even then there is still the bug that doesn't allow for bushes to be placed.
  118. I could ask you the same for the Panther D and Tortoise, the Panther D at 5.7 (1 BR below the Tortoise) can penetrate that nice flat 152mm of armour right of the gun at 500m or that 100mm MG turret from 2000m. Isn't that more of a team problem than a vehicle problem? If the enemy team has steamrolled yours, does it matter what vehicle you are in when they close on you? Now that the T95 has had it's cupola fixed I imagine it could go up in BR anyway. Sounds almost as bad as "but muh British APDS pens too much, muh better APHE post-pen doesn't matter" 50mm weakspots? AA can go through 50mm weakspots, I don't think they can go through a Tiger II's turret face though. It's that turret wiggle that experienced Tiger II players do, the shape of the turret causes all manner of strange bounces when wiggled. No APHE, multitude of weakspots, slow or unarmoured. I'd say they are different. I'd put a bush on my Centurion's 50mm roof but I think it would be the equivalent of a "Shoot Here" sign.
  119. Yes, a penetrating hit to anywhere on the front of a tank using APHE is a possible OHK. Using stablisers doesn't negate the fact that the first thing that users of APDS/APCR/A.P have to shoot is the gunner of an enemy tank. If that first shot misses or bounces then the enemy tank will come to a stop anyway to shoot you. Since when does the Jagdtiger need mobility anyway? It should be sniping from further away that 500m. I always assumed that APCR prices were high to reflect IRL rarity. The Centurion Mk 3 and Charioteer often had APDS as their main round.
  120. The Coelian was a 1944 concept whilst the Kugelblitz was produced in 1945, as far as I am aware.
  121. tanks/vehicles

    I wish I could find some more data on how much explosive was packed into the 95mm shell. The velocity is relatively low which I'm assuming should allow for more explosive content?
  122. tanks/vehicles

    The third and fouth pictures in the armament section of my post are taken from the original Churchill Mk VII and VIII manual so yes, the 95mm HEAT was a service round. Regarding the HE, I'm note sure how much explosive is packed into it but I'd imagine it would be similar to the Sherman 105's HE round in performance.
  123. Tortoise needs it's APDS first before it startes seeing more of the Jadgtiger. As far as I knew the Coelian came before the Kugelblitz historically. What do you mean? My example of the Cromwell I being after the V wasn't historical, the Cromwell V came after and was equipped with a worse gun against tanks but better against infantry and yet it is placed before the Cromwell I in the tree because of it's worse anti-tank performance.
  124. Gaijin was asked about that before, I think they said it would increase que times or something.
  125. It's special when the TD line jumps from the 4.7 avenger to the 6.3 Charioteer which would be the only vehicle at 6.3 if the Centurion gets moved up. Depends on the individual using the vehicle, the faster and more mobile Charioteer can be more useful than the Centurion Mk 3 on certain maps. I didn't say the Centurion Mk 3 wouldn't be fine at 6.7, I said it would leave a gap. 400mm of pen at any range is still 400mm of pen at any range. British players will be used to having poor post-penetration effects by now. Only from the front, 50mm of side armour and a 76mm LFP doesn't work with angling at 5.7 yet alone 7.0. It's not just slow, it mobility is poor for a medium. The stabilisers are only really useful for getting the first shot off, you still have to calculate shots for hitting moving targets while on the move and with only solid A.P and APDS (HESH later) then you still have to aim for gunners with the first shot otherwise one APHE round will critically damage or destroy your tank. As I have said before in other threads, I would gladly trade my ability to get the first shot off with the ability to have almost every first shot be a kill. Precisely, at high tiers like 7.0-8.3, you either have speed (German/Japanese) or you have armour (Russians/Americans). The Centurion Mk 10 is between those factors because you have the frontal armour (minus the LFP) but you can't angle because of the side armour and the turret face and mantlet is not as bouncy as other nation's tanks. Like I said, the later Vickers MBT series of tanks would be better suited for 7.7 because of their increased speed and mobility.
  126. The UK tree is full of stuff like that because BR's are made based on performance and not dates. The Cromwell I comes after the V because of it's better gun, the Valentine Mk XI and IX are the same as are the Crusader AA Mk 2 and Crusader AA Mk 1.
  127. We can at least try to get as close to realism as we can while maintaining the fact that this is a game. If APHE is allowed to perform completely differently to how it did historicaly then who is to say that solid shouldn't be as well? Imagine if they buffed solid shot to have the round produce a thick cloud of white hot steel fragments that bounced around the crew compartment in an almost comical manner and killing all the crew?
  128. tanks/vehicles

    I was thinking perhaps a BR of 5.0, 127mm of penetration is enough to deal with Tigers and Panthers. The low muzzle velocity is somewhat balanced by the amount of armour on the Churchill Mk VIII giving time to aim.
  129. The problem I have against Russians at 4.7 to 5.7 (and against Germans from 3.3-4.3) while playing UK is that we can't bring enough of the same or similar tank to the battlefield. It would be nice to have multiple Fireflies and Churchills to counter those multiple T-34 85s and KV/IS tanks and multiple Cromwells and Centaurs to combat the tirade of Panzer III and IV variants .
  130. In response to the OP, perhaps a benchmark could be introduced (of course force closing all open windows, don't want anyone deliberately slowing down the game) that could calculate average FPS for normal modes and unlock ULQ if the average FPS is too low on lowest normal settings?
  131. The Pershing can angle unlike the Centurion, 50mm side armour gets overmatched easily compared to 76.2mm. The Centurion Mk 1 is also slower than the Pershing and has an inferior gun until 17 Pounder ammo is corrected (1 Year and 6 months since bug report) which I don't imagine it will be. 6.0 would be fine for the Centurion Mk 1. There would be no reason to play the FV4202 over the Centurion Mk 1 without APDS. The frontal turret armour seems strong but has a big 50mm weak spot around the gun and the roof armour is easily overmatched. I suppose it could do fine at 6.7. Though it would leave a gap at 6.3. 7.3 maybe but they both are no Leopard or T-54. 7.7 is for the Vickers Mk 2 and/or Vickers Mk 3 IMO.
  132. 2.7 would be fine for the Matilda, 3.0 for the Churchill Mk 1 (which should be getting smoke for it's howitzer soon). If the ammunition ever gets corrected on the Churchill GMC it will have the same A.P penetration as the 6 Pounder Mk V on the Churchill Mk III but with a bigger round. It's S.A.P round will be on par with the 75mm M3's APHE round.
  133. Some might have a problem with that at 4.7. It can penetrate a Panther upper glacis from less than 900m in my experience. The Panzer IV/70(V) can penetrate the Comet almost anywhere from even further away. I'd say that were true and that I could just flank it but remember that with APHE, the Ferdinand only needs to neutral steer and get the gun on target to critically damage the Comet or kill it; it doesn't need to aim at specific points like the Comet does. Churchill Mk VII is in a spot where it has too much armour to go lower and not a good enough gun to go higher. Solid shot buff didn't affect APDS I'm afraid. The solid shot for the 20 lber was affected but has worse penetration than 17 Pounder sabot, it stops penetrating the Ferdinand from around 600m (which the Ferdinand does and should be sitting at a greater distance from). The Centurion is too slow to flank. Doesn't the Panther and Panzer IV/70(V) counter the Centurion? If not what heavily armoured tank destroyer does the UK get to counter the Panther and Tiger spam?
  134. I suppose the King Tiger H does even worse at 6.7 with a gun that does nothing .
  135. It'll be a shame for those Churchill Mk VIIs, Fireflies, Avengers and Comets if the Ferdinand player found a nice hill to go hull down behind, as they do at the moment.
  136. tanks/vehicles

    Most websites seem to say 200 were built. 200 seems like a small number but compared to the 1,400 VII's produced and the fact that the VIII is a specialised tank I'd say 200 is pretty good .
  137. Tanks/Vehicles

    There is always one .
  138. tanks/vehicles

    Ah yes the Churchill Mk V, I was thinking of making a suggestion for that later, perhaps it could be nested with either the Churchill Mk IV (if added) or maybe even with this Churchill Mk VIII. I'm not sure about the Ram, I also saw that it was proposed but I haven't seen any pictures.
  139. Unfortunately it would seem most players just want to point and click instead of using tactics--the APHE meta doesn't help. Rarely seems to happen these days. One can only dream.
  140. tanks/vehicles

    I just noticed that, not sure why it was like that. Perhaps i absent mindedly put gameplay in as a tag. I've changed it to "tanks/vehicles" now though.
  141. The Churchill doesn't have the 38mm side weak spot like the Jumbo does. It's side armour is 95mm and the rear is 50mm. The Churchill Mk VII can also neutral steer so getting behind it isn't easy, many a time I have sent Panzer tankers back to the hangar for trying to sneak up on me. With 50mm rear armour and 95mm side armour it can still bounce shots from behind. I can just about fight Tigers with the Churchill by aiming for the turret ring or the 60 something millimeter lower side armour when angled. Panthers are suprisingly even easier due to the 100mm mantlet and easily over matched sides. As for avoiding the Churchill, that's easy if it's just one. What happens when 4 Churchills are bearing down on the enemy team (as I have joined in with multiple times)?
  142. tanks/vehicles

    Yeah, Centaur CS, Centurion Mk 4 (I think that's the CS variant) and the Alecto with QF 95mm spring to mind.
  143. tanks/vehicles

    Hello, I'd like to suggest a new hulking British behemoth for the Heavy/Infantry tank line. I checked here and I couldn't see a similar suggestion listed (to my disbelief) so if this has been suggested before then I apologise. The Churchill Mk VIII. The Churchill Mk VIII was designed and produced as a close-support variant of the Churchill Mk VII (as had been done with the Churchill Mk IV and it's "CS" counterpart, the Churchill Mk V). The Mk VIII was equipped with the same armour and secondary weapons as the Mk VII (Including a 2" Bomb Thrower for smoke and two Besa Machine Guns). However, it's main armament was not the QF 75mm but rather the larger QF 95mm Howitzer. The QF 95mm Howitzer could fire High-Explosive and Smoke at a velocity of 1075 feet per second (327 meters per second) as well as HEAT at a velocity of 1650 feet per second (503 meters per second). The Armour: As stated before, the Churchill Mk VIII is clad in the same armour as the Churchill Mk VII as seen below. The Speed and Mobility: The Mk VIII uses exactly the same powertrain and running gear as the Mk VII due to them being virtually the same tank (minus armament). Armament: I am unsure as to the exact amount of explosive in the H.E round for the 95mm Howitzer so I don't know what kind of performance it would have in-game. The HEAT round however has some impressive performance (127mm at 0­­°, 110mm at 30° and 63mm at 60°) especially when compared to it's contemporaries, the 105 mm Howitzer M2A1, 10.5 cm leFH 18 and M-30 Howitzer. Sources: "Churchill Tank - Vehicle History and Specification." Published by H.M.S.O. / The Tank Museum., London, 1983. ISBN 10: 0112904041 / ISBN 13: 9780112904045 "Fire and Movement" Published by Tank Museum,The (Dec. 1975). ISBN-10: 0903503042. ISBN-13: 978-0903503044 "British and American Tanks of World War II: The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-45" Published by W&N; New edition edition (3 Aug. 2000). ISBN-10: 0304355291. ISBN-13: 978-0304355297 I hope that this suggestion is fit to be posted and that people will support this tank being added to the game .
  144. I wouldn't want to impose my 152mm of frontal armour and 95mm of side armour on those poor T-34 L11's, Chi-nu's and late Panzer III's though
  145. People aren't suggesting that the IS-6 shouldn't be increased in BR, they are however suggesting that this is not the reason for it.
  146. 6.0 maybe but not 5.7. I don't want my Churchill Mk VII to have to face this and I doubt many others will either.