Time4Tea

Member
  • Content count

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

190 Neutral

About Time4Tea

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Blighty
  • Interests
    Tea & Crumpets

Recent Profile Visitors

1,621 profile views
  1. I didn't say I was. I was trying to make you see the failure in your logic that only those who have bought the tank have an opinion while the opinions of those that have fought it in the lower end of it's BR range are invalid. I can see I failed. What evidence, the past few pages have been about how easy it is to kill (how easy something is to kill is entirely subjective) and that my opinions are invalid. This tank gets downtiered a lot as do a lot of other 6.7 tanks due to the popularity of those 6.7 tanks and the more favourable tanks such as the Tiger 1. I am not floundering for an argument either, your first argument was to insult the intelligience and sensory ability of people with an opinion that conflicts with yours and when that failed you kept telling us how easy it was to kill from your experience with the STRV-81. Except 5.7 to 6.7 is different in the case that seeing the latter is a lot more frequent than seeing the former or below. Reload rate is not a balancing factor. It was the assumption that it was which led to tanks being increased in BR such as the Cromwell I (Where it faces late model Panzer IV's which out range it). The object 906 is only 0.3 higher in BR with less penetration, mobility, gun depression and turret turn rate. You've let me have my opinion by telling me that my opinion is wrong because yours is right? I call back to your argument because there are others here making the same points. I'm not saying that we should simply take different directions but I'm asking you not to call people "Deaf" or "Blind" just because they don't accept your opinion as fact. You can have your opinion but you can't use it as an excuse to take away others. When have I invalidated your opinion? You can use player statistics as an argument but that doesn't mean people have to accept that argument absolute fact. You have directly discriminated people from having an opinion just because they have fought it but have not bought it.
  2. So I wanted to go to bed (Was 3am here) but I didn't want to just stop replying so I only wrote a bit and that's lazy? Haven't you just been complaining about the long texts? Oh and what about my post was oozing with pride? The part where I said I wanted to correct his post? I meant that he hadn't asserting things that I either haven't said or didn't mean. Also, sometimes you have to milk the cow yourself. The farmer might not be lazy but instead might be from a different part of the world where it could be night time.
  3. The Churchill proved itself before the the excelsior was given the go ahead for production and the T14 wasn't wanted by the Brits for the same reason. I think the Americans discarded the T14 because the Shermans were performing the same if not better than it would have. Not to mention the T20 was in development aswell and we know what that led to.
  4. Yeah, it used the suspension of the US M6 heavy we have in-game but more armour (flat but boxy so angling isn't a problem). One had a 6 pounder (I imagine the Mk V by the date) and the other had new side skirts, wider track and the QF 75mm. There are also plenty of other Cromwell variants to add. The Cromwell was equivalent to the German Panzer IV, US Sherman and Soviet T-34. Some had the better 6 Pounder or the 95mm, others more armour etc.
  5. Wow, this is going to be interesting.
  6. A bunch of Cromwells would be nice.
  7. ^This. Most of the light tanks at this tier have similar stats. That doesn't mean that their ability is the same.
  8. In what way did I stretch my argument? I still think the RU-251 shouldnt face 5.7. I haven't ignored your experience I'm just asking how you can say I'm inexperienced when you haven't played much in the way of later British tanks apart from the STRV-81? This is while you say that people who haven't played the RU-251 can't have an opinion. If I'm clutching at straws it's because you have barely provided any evidence for your case. All I have heard so far for all intents and purposes is that "it is easy to kill. I know because I killed it in my 6.3/6.7 medium British medium tank". I have not changed my argument, why would I want this tank put up to 7.0 (something I made clear since starting to comment on this thread) if I didn't want it to face 5.7. You seem to be of the strange opinion that it is natural that a 6.7 light tank is going to be OP to 5.7s and that it is okay. Of couse the Tiger 2 clubs 5.7 and that i's because it is a 6.7 heavy with 6.7 armour. No the uptier isn't the RU-251s fault but it doesn't help either. My outlandish claims aren't so outlandish to me since it has been a constant since the RU-251 was introduced. Who knows? This could just be a string of bad luck but that is my "Experience", something which you have invalidated constantly throughout this post while telling everyone that your opinion is fact because you fought it in one of your other premiums. I didn't forget the T92 but the RU-251, M56 and Object 906 have 100+ more penetration with HEAT-FS. I'm going to suggest that we simply let each other have our opinions and leave it at that. I argue, you argue, I share my experience, you invalidate it, I protest and you tell me my argument against the invalidation of my opinion is invalid. I don't see us getting anywhere anytime soon and I don't think it's because Im "deaf" or "blind" to your opinion being fact. They might be easy to handle after APDS due to the better post-pen but the RU-251 is making stock syndrome worse for me. I have tried to use my APDS on the challenger against it so far but as it was the Challenger I usually got nuked before I could get anywhere.
  9. It's too late to respond to and correct your entire post from mobile now so I'll wait until morning to do that. All Il'l say here is that you have no experience fighting it at 5.7 or 6.0 British tanks (maybe 6.3 because the STRV-81 is a 6.3 tank with ATGMs) and only a 6.7 premium so perhaps you should be denied of an opinion on having to fight it. British 5.7 gets uptiered a lot because of the lack of German 4.7 vehicles and the popularity of the Tiger H and E at 5.7. This means I am fighting RU-251s a lot. Ah, the "L2P" argument. I was waiting for that one, "you are getting one Shotted from ranges where the RU-251 becomes a rather hard target to hit with Solid shot or APDS in a pinch. This is obviously a L2P issue". Perhaps I should sit in my spawn or perhaps do the flanking (that your supposed German Flanker doesn't need to) and then I will have learned how to play? Correct? I don't believe this vehicle is naturally "overly powerful" but it is when against 5.7 (still mostly WW2 tanks). It's Russian equivalent is at 7.0, the American equivalent has exposed crew and limited traverse so it can be somewhat forgiven for being at 6.7. If Britain gets the 90mm scorpion light tank I will fully expect that to be 7.0 as well.
  10. According to Thunderskill (Which *AceArchangel seems to take as gospel) you barely have any British/American 5.7 tanks. How can RU-251 owners say they are the only ones allowed to judge whether it should have a BR increase or not when they haven't fought against it at the lowest end of it's BR range (Arguably the most affected). German players often campaign for vehicles at 6.7 being increased in BR because that render the Tiger 1 variants comepletely helpless against it. Can we not use the same argument? I have never suggested the T29 or T34 be kept at 6.7 as this thread is about the RU-251; if those tanks perform well at 7.0 and are prooving too much for German 5.7 tanks then by all means increase their BR. If you look at those stats, the RU-251 one has similar stats to the Object 906 and T92. Could this not be a common occurance among light tanks at this BR? Light tanks die fast but do people deserve to come out of their spawn and be OHK'd by a light tank (that has raced across the map to your spawn) before it dies? This is a horrible experience when you have no hope of defending against it if you don't have the armour (not something found at 5.7) as it will have the first shot.
  11. By that same logic someone could become infuriated when someone saying it is not OP hasn't fought against it in say..a Challenger, FV4202, T25 or a Sherman 76mm Jumbo. As you can see this sort of logic just doesn't work.
  12. Didn't help that you kept invalidating people's opinions because they hadn't bought and played it now did it? Or that you kept using "It's easy too kill" as a response you people saying it was wrong for it to stay at it's BR with HEAT-FS. My Comet is easy to kill frontally by most early German Panzer models but that doesn't mean that it should be at that level does it? Also, what expert opinion can you provide? You haven't fought it at 5.7 with British tanks and yet you have told me how easy it is to do so. Why should someone who hasn't fought it in 5.7-6.3 British be able to tell someone who has how easy it is to deal with the RU-251? This is not my opinion but your own logic here mate. "People don't take my opinion as fact so there must be something wrong with them". Have you considered that perhaps we didn't want to be dealing with HEAT-FS while we are "plagued" by overperforming and unrealistic APHE. The RU-251 is one of many problems facing British and American tanks at this BR, we won't ignore it because we supposedly have bigger fish to fry. I refer to my comparison to the Comet. It also has a unique playstyle similar to that of the RU-251: manuever, snipe, repeat. This does not mean that the Comet should be facing early 50mm Panzer III's and 75mm IV's simply because they can easily deal with it. No one here said that someone who does not own the tank has more say than those who do; it was said that our opinions are not invalid because we do not own the vehicle, it is rather that our experience is just one side of the argument: those who have fought it versus those who have used it.
  13. Hull rear should also be as thick as the sides (38mm). The Centurion Mk 2 was the first to have the 51mm side and rear armour.
  14. I think they need to remove the AP and APC rounds for it. Still won't be able take on KT's with the APCBC round but at least it would remove stock syndrome.
  15. Britain would have to get a "Stillbrew" equipped Chieftain.
  16. I normally don't get penetrated frontal if I angle. The only time it does bother me is when a shot to my turret nukes my entire crew. Being at 3.7 would make no difference now that the Panzer F2 is at 3.3.
  17. Depends, I've frequently had my solid shot rounds simply turn all of those modules a funny shade of yellow.
  18. What kind of round?
  19. HEAT-FS seems to create more spall (from what I have seen than) solid AP rounds. Mobility was a factor behind the Cromwell I getting a BR raise (Which would have been fine if solid AP hadn't been nerfed) to a BR of 4.0! Imagine using the Cromwell I at 4.0. Then lets increase it's BR just like the Hellcat
  20. Your argument has been entirely circular aswell mate. You've gone from "Great Flanker" to "So what if it can kill everything frontally" (Paraphrasing here). You're only getting aggravated because you can't grasp that some people have an opinion that differs from yours, you have no experience fighting it at 5.7 and yet you claim that you have to have played it to have an opinion (You haven't played against it so your opinion is invalid by your own logic). If you think it is perfectly fine where it is then create a post titled "Why the RU-251 is not OP" with a clear and constructed opinion on why it is not; please don't just put: -Easy to kill -Easy to kill -Easy to kill As you have made this your general go-to for this post. You have insulted people's intelligience and generally behaved in a condescending manner whilst I have tried to have a calm discussion with you but instead you invalidated my opinion with comments about my level of experience (only indicated by the level on this account). Quite frankly I'm glad you're not going to bother in this thread anymore.
  21. 7.3 could also work, the higher it goes the less agile the allied tanks get.
  22. Exactly, the RU-251 could be moved to 7.0 and still be perfectly fine just like the Churchill III was when they moved it from 3.7 to 4.0.
  23. There is no reason why it would ruin 8.0 games, it's a premium while the Leopard is a regular. The IS-6 doesn't ruin the Russian 8.0 lineup does it?
  24. I have also asked many people in-game. Usually at the start people will say " *Get's OHK'd by HEAT-FS from accross the map*. Easy to kill doesn't mean it's not OP, the FV4005 can be destroyed by anything in game but that doesn't mean it needs to be at a BR of 1.0 does it?
  25. Darkshadow86, you said this in your "Ru 251 - Questions, Information, Gameplay" post. Why are you resistant to a BR raise to 7.0 if you said this would be great in a 7.0 lineup?
  26. When did I say it wasn't a grenade? Regular AP rounds shotgunned the crew with the amount of spall they produced, the explosive just made it more deadly and more concentrated. I doubt it was medical science that allowed some crewmembers to walk away from a tank hit by an 88mm with burns and lacerations. There is a reason why covering a grenade with your body can save people around you just as a driver taking most of the explosive force and fragments from an 88mm can save the rest of the crew.
  27. The 6 Pounder APDS was 177mm actually and the 2 Pounder APCNR was 129mm but my point was we shouldn't have light tanks that can outrange most tanks around it's BR like the RU-251 does.
  28. So you'd be fine with the Crusader Mk II outranging every tank around it's BR. That APCNR isn't like normal APCR, it's basically a sabot round with out the discarding bit.
  29. It's a shame that couldn't have happened with most of the tanks on the British tree. Most of the calls that stuff is OP got answered and now we have the Cromwell I at 3.7 while the Panzer F2 sits at 3.3.
  30. When did I say that I knew everything about this tank? And I'm sorry but what experience do you have at playing British tanks in the 5.7 to 6.7 range? Just the STRV-81? Again you are just using anecdotal sources as absolute justification that this tank is not OP. Again, what would be wrong about moving this tank to 7.0 or 7.3? Like you say, it is a flanker so it doesn't matter what BR past 6.7 it is at really does it? I'll ask again, how would you respond if the Crusader Mk III in the British tree got APDS and stayed where it is? Or perhaps if the Crusader II got it's APCNR rounds and stayed where it is?
  31. I'm not saying my armour should be impenetrable but the fact that I have to worry more frontally about this thing than a King Tiger is a bit of a concern. I have some chance to survive the long 88 but every time i have been shot by one of these from the front it has been an OHK.
  32. Maybe but the reason I am concerned about it being able to penetrate most of my tanks from great distances is because I now have to worry about it more than Panthers or Tiger 1's.
  33. No need to watch my flanks when it can pen my front.
  34. The STRV-81 has a 20 pounder and the Centurion Mk 1 has a 17 Pounder. Those are two different guns...
  35. Oh, I guess your experience with a 20 Pounder armed, Cast 170mm mantlet turret and ATGM equipped STRV-81 supersedes needing to have experience with the 17 Pounder armed and 128mm mantlet Centurion Mk 1?
  36. So you just browsing through a few player profiles and looking up people on thunderskill constitutes "the average player". Okay then. Here we go again with the condescending attitude. This is my new account after wanting a clean slate (Old account was before British tanks and had spent too much time in Russian tanks. Didn't want the temptation) but if you want to focus on that, go ahead. As said before, not just one match, multiple matches. By the looks of of your Thunderskill page, you haven't played the Centurion Mk 1 so by your own logic you have no opinion on whether the Centurion Mk 1 can fight the RU-251 well or not. I suppose this could work. The HESH is a pain to deal with since it still wrecks everything but at least it takes more skill to aim than HEAT-FS considering the shell drop. Maybe it will encourage users to flank instead of sit on the other side of the map and OHK everything.
  37. Source? It was said that people who haven't use it have no opinion on the matter, I think it's a pretty apt metaphor. Two* 5.7 tanks after starting a new account. Got to 7.0 on the old one. Isn't the lowest in the BR range most affected? Afterall, a Caernarvon (6.7) will have an easier time fighting a Tiger 2 (H) than a Challenger (5.7). Also, it was not just one match, I am constantly seeing multiple RU-251's in matches. The only "compelling proof" you've provided so far is that if you haven't payed for and played it then you have no opinion. 1A. How does this link back to your car metaphor? How many road cars are game changingly effective? Forgive me if I'm not understanding your point. 2A. That is exactly my point, the opinion of those school kids would matter and so should the opinions of the people who have had to fight this tank. If only allied tanks could shoot with absolute precision from stock and hit a small turret peeking over a hill before they are dispatched with a HESH or HEAT-FS round.
  38. Face value yes but we aren't comparing vehicles on the way they look. If you find that your team is being put at a disadvantage by a particular enemy tank frequently then why shouldn't you have a say in how that tank is balanced? A better comparison would be allowing a professional football player into a school football match on the playground. Should the school kids not have a say on whether that player should be allowed to participate or not just because they don't know what it is like to be him?
  39. Except a car is a mode of transport. It's not competing in any way. No one is telling anyone how to treat the RU-251.
  40. So only someone who has paid real money for it, probably enjoys clubbing and might not be wanting it to be increased in BR can decide whether it should be in increased in BR or not?
  41. I'm going around in circles? You say Germany now has a vehicle that can flank but justify it being able to punch through the front of almost any tank it sees? If it is a flanker then surely you have no problem with it going to 7.0 or 7.3? How do you know certain youtubers have an unbiased opinion? Because they say so? If you don't want to fight your corner anymore that is fine but don't chalk it up to your opinion being "reason" whilst everyone else's is "garbage". It looks like you were going to just resort to insulting everyone anyway as you seem like a very easily aggravated individual. Perhaps when you've calmed down you can come back to this thread and debate some more-in a more civilised manner.
  42. -from the air, these American light vehicles can have a bad day when hit with a co-ax. You were talking about how other vehicles had HESH at 6.7. The FV4005 is the only one with HESH and like you say they're not meant to be equal so you can't compare the RU-251 to it. Um, why would I have to own to vehicle to know whether APDS can bounce off of it or not. I have fired APDS and had it bounce off of the overlap between mantlet and turret, this could be a bug but neverless it has happened frequently. I wasn't talking about what it can pen, I was talking about what it can OHK. HESH has a high frequency in regards to how much it OHKs when compared to the solid shots and APCR of the US/UK tanks. Also that 100mm is at any angle/distance which means it can pen most allied mediums so if you're okay with that we can put the KV-2 at 3.3 with it's 54mm pen HE round? Look at my sentence again. "At this point" means it negates the armour and slope of all tanks below it or around it in BR. Type-62? You mean the tank that we almost never see because it was part of an event compared to the RU-251 that you can see plenty of because it is available to buy. "You guys". So you're just going to generalise all of us? When did I say that it was a cash grab? I'd say with that statement you are being even more rude. He only spits hot fire because he can't seem to understand my cold reason.
  43. T-95 is something that the RU-251 can flank though, like light tanks are supposed too. The 6.3 M41 can't pen the 6.3 Tiger 2 (P) frontal armour and so it flanks.
  44. Oh you mean the light tanks that can be penetrated by machine gun fire? On the US team? Or the FV4005 with it's large "Shoot me here" 14mm turret? The RU-251 can bounce sabot rounds and even if they do pen they don't always do enough damage to kill the crew. The RU-251 HESH wipes out almost every 5.7 tank on the British or US tree with one hit (You might say the FV4005 can do this too but it has a 43.3 second reload compared to the RU-251's 9.8 second reload) and failing that the HEAT-FS negates any armour or slope at this point. Also, you might want simmer down. It really doesn't help your position if you start behaving in a condescending manner to insult a person's position on the matter. You have your opinion and others have theirs.
  45. A vehicle that can flank but doesn't need to because it can penetrate everything frontally without fail*. If you gave the Crusader Mk III the APDS for the 6 Pounder gun (177mm of Penetration) and kept at at 2.7 you can bet Germans, Russians and Japanese tank players would be complaining.
  46. Just came back from a game where I was trying to take out an (SU-6? Can't remember the name) with the Crusader AA Mk 1. It was heading straight for me so I fired into his path, the problem was that the RoF from the Bofors was so low that he was able to move side to side dodging my shots. I died and respawned in the Crusader AA Mk 2, this time I couldn't hit anything either because they were too high or moving to fast. This is just my personal experience but I think British AA needs a general decrease in BR; the Germans get their Gepard at 2.0 which is comparable to the Crusader AA Mk 2 but with one less 20mm but the same RoF and it gets HVAP.
  47. Yeah, those people should watch stuff like this:
  48. The exploding shells was just to make spall more effective iirc. That's the only thing. It's why most of these APHE shells only have as much explosive content as a frag grenade.
  49. You mean this?
  50. I just remembered that what you were saying has been put in a suggestion that's all. Yeah, there was an account of a Cromwell being hit frontally by an 88mm but at least half of the crew survived.
  51. balance

    It does fall under the "Tank" gap since the other non-premiums are TD's but that's just being technical. Does Germany really need another 6.7 tank? surely the Ferdinand and Tiger II (P) work as backup vehicles.
  52. (P) still has APCR, so even more reason to be at 6.7.
  53. Similar APDS shot on a faster lighter chassis. It's a light tank that is designed to flank whilst the Centurion is a universal tank (not really a light, medium or heavy) that is supposed to engage targets head on. Also, why does the Panther get to have the inpenetrable front hull? APDS on 17 Pounder armed tanks like the Challenger, Firefly, Achilles and Archer were knocking out Panthers from the front during the war so why does the Panther have to be immune in game? Not sure why Gaijin even put it there in the first place. Sure the turret is weaker than the (H) but when facing a King Tiger isn't everyone always aiming for the turret anyway?
  54. The Panther's round can go through 83mm at 30 degrees from horizontal and the Centurion Mk 1's upper glacis is 76.2mm at 32 degrees from horizontal while the lower glacis is 76.2mm at 46 degrees from horizontal. The Panther's round should be able to go through both upper and lower while the 85mm can go through the lower.
  55. Yes, something like this was mentioned in a highly detailed suggestion about improving the realism and balance of solid shot and APHE. I can't seem to find it but it was quite good.
  56. Exactly, grinding shells is one of the worst parts of War Thunder and that is why the Cent Mk 1 shouldn't be uptiered yet. You have to unlock two useless shots before you can get to the APDS, useless in the sense that you find yourself having to aim at weak spots like the mantlet on the Panther because you can't penetrate it's hull. The Panther's default round cuts through the Centurion's turret at about 1km and the hull at about 500m and is almost guaranteed to cause a kill because of it's APHE. The black prince can angle and become immune to the Panther's gun but if you angle a Centurion Mk 1 they just shoot at the lower glacis (Where the ammo rack is). The T44 is faster, can accelarate better, has better armour (immune to panther apart from turret), can't be penetrated in the side by a Wirblewind or even the Ostwind and has APHE. The Cent Mk 1 is entirely worse than the T44.
  57. Panther's are immune from the Cent Mk 1's gun (apart from the turret) until APDS is unlocked while the Panther's gun has no problem going through the hull or turret of the Cent Mk 1. The Tiger can also bounce AP and APDS rounds from the Cent Mk 1 quite well. Yes, the Centurion Mk 2 would be a good gap filler with that new turret and 170mm mantlet but until then the Mk 1 should stay at 5.7. Perhaps we could have the 77mm variant of the Mk 1 as a 5.7 someday.
  58. How well a tank performs is entirely subjective. The Panther D (medium) often performs better than the Tiger H1 or Tiger E and yet it is the same BR. The Sherman Firefly is more mobile and can kill more tanks in it's BR range than the Churchill Mk VII but is at the same BR. Maybe the Centurion Mk 3 can survive at 6.7 (I don't like the idea of having to counter the Maus, IS-4, later T-54's and the ZSU-57 though) but that would leave a lack of tanks at 6.3 for the British (Only the Charioteer) and we have enough gaps as it is.
  59. True but it means you have to switch play style with each spawn, not that it's that much of a problem once you get used to it but it's not a problem other nations have.
  60. I think the problem with Brits around that BR is that we don't have enough tanks. USA can die in a Sherman and spawn in another one, same for Germany and the Panzer IV aswell as USSR with the T-34. The Brits have one Cromwell at 3.3 and another at 3.7 with entirely different weapons whilst the tanks of the other countries generally have the same weapon. Once a Brit player dies in say a Cromwell V you have to respawn in either the AEC AA, Crusader III, Matilda or whatever you have in your lineup.
  61. Was just kidding KE rounds are of course far more superior when it comes to penetrating armour. For an APDSFS round with HE filler to be as effective in penetration it would need to be a pretty big round and by that point there would be no advantage of having HE filler.
  62. Well you don't see any APDSFS-HE nowadays do you?
  63. I think it might be something to do with British ground forces not being a moneymaker anymore. I mean when was the last time Britain got a premium ground vehicle?
  64. I agree that directly insulting Gaijin like this is wrong (A little satire is acceptable imo). Though it is a bit suspicious that this tank relies entirely on HESH before unlocking HEAT-FS and only now HESH has recieved a damage buff. I think that the RU-251 is probably easy to deal with if you have APHE, the only time it has been "OP" for me is when I'm trying to fight it in my Challenger (5.7) having to take out each of it's crew by which time I'm usually dead from a HESH round or HEAT-FS round. It's not OP for everyone and I think it could be put up to 7.0 or 7.3 and still work
  65. We should ask Gaijin to provide one primary source or two secondary sources before they make changes.
  66. Yeah, 17 Pounder AP should be causeing a hell of a lot of spall considering it's velocity and size. Same for the 20 Pounder.
  67. UK would have it too, plenty of photos around featuring Challengers, Cromwells and other Churchill variants.
  68. Tier 1 seems to be the only place solid shot works properly, I see more spall shooting Panzer III's with my 2 Pounder than I do shooting Panzer III's with my 17 Pounder.
  69. I don't know about those other tanks but the Centurion's stabilizer seems fine to me:
  70. Protection was for face-hardened armour iirc, normal AP tended to shatter against it so some of the allies used "capped" rounds, the cap absorbed the impact of hitting the armour and allowed the shot to go through without shattering. "Ballistic Caps" were developed because normal capped rounds were less aerodynamic and actually penetrated less armour, a ballistic cap was added to give the shot it's aerodynamics back. the Russians seem to have gone straight to the ballistic cap for some reason.
  71. Yeah, Russian tests were a bit iffy In terms of criteria. The ballistic cap is just a "Windshield" right to make the shot more aerodynamic?
  72. Wow, that's more like it. Afterall, it was a gun that Britain picked for it's anti-tank capabilities; I doubt they'd go for a gun inferior to the 6 pounder then in use. I had no idea about the S.A.P round but it would be great to have it considering the current APHE meta. Though considering the 3 Inch GC's reputation I'd say this bug report isn't high up on Gaijin's fix list
  73. I thought about that but the T-34's F34 76mm gun has a solid shot round that weighs more than the British/US 75mm round and has more muzzle velocity but still does worse, even worse than the 3 Inch GC's 76mm.
  74. Hi, can anyone confirm that the penetration for the 3 Inch GC's 76mm is correct? It has a higher muzzle velocity than either the US 75mm m3 or the QF 75mm and a similarly sized shell but performs worse than both guns.
  75. Got to agree here, I've seen the Comet's APDS bounce of a slightly angled Tiger I front hull. In contrast, the Comet's APDS seems to have no problem with angled (to a degree-no pun intended) Panther hulls despite them already being sloped and only being 20mm thinner than the Tiger I's front hull.
  76. Gaijin, uh, finds a way.. But seriously, I tried to use the Challenger and Comet to grind for the Centurion Mk 1 but i found myself getting a kill and then dying after being spotted (damn that APHE). Spawned in the Comet, got a few kills and ended up being annihilated by a T-34-85 that managed to turn and shoot me after my APDS missed his gunners head by a centremeter; thats when i decided to grind for the Centurion Mk 1 with lower tier tanks. I'm looking forward to playing the Centurion Mk 1 so I can experience what it is like to have armour, firepower and a reverse speed worth the name but I think Gaijin will probably find a way to nerf it, some German, Russian or Japanese tank players will not bother to learn how to kill it and will simply shout "OP" until something is done.
  77. Yes, still getting less spall going through more armour, APHE got buffed a while ago and now kills even more crew with one shot, HESH just got nerfed with the 105mm L7 doing 127mm of pen instead of 150 and APDS still costs a fortune to use.
  78. Ah I see, though without APDS the AA gun is more effective than the Challenger imo
  79. I can't speak for not being able to grind top tier because I'm going for the Cent Mk 1 but I will say it was a bit pointless to move the Challenger down a tier anyway right now, it has the same BR so it does nothing for those who play it. They should allow people had already progressed through a tier to continue progressing instead of sticking another tank in there way that they have to go back and unlock.
  80. I'm not sure they met in 1941, the F2 was a temporary name for the Ausf G that went into production in 1942 as far as I know but the Matildas were very low in number then and there were more American tanks about than British.
  81. I suppose if the Centurion Mk 3 fighting the Tiger 2 is time travel then the same could be said for the Panzer F2 fighting the Matilda.
  82. I heard there was a prototype time travelling universal carrier during the war as part of an experiment to see if they could make the UC faster. Trials showed that the vehicle could only travel backwards in time (backwards was something not focused upon by the British as you can see by our reverse gears) and thus it was abandoned in favour of a little more engine tuning.
  83. Can you see the problem with this?
  84. ground vehicles

    +1, more material for if/when we get Armoured cars one day
  85. Yup, having BR's based on the year rather than performance would be crazy, Sherman 75's and Churchill III's facing Tigers and early Panzer III's and IV's facing Matildas and T-34's.
  86. Reminded me of the Morris Firefly:
  87. Found another secondary source, due to the image limits for this kind of topic I can only provide this one but when you make a suggestion I can add more. This source has a lot more detail: Kinnear, James (2000). Russian Armored Cars 1930-2000. Darlington Productions. p. 182. ISBN 1-892848-05-8.
  88. No luck on a primary source, but I have another secondary for you. Not much detail on this one though: Source:Zaloga, Steven J; Grandsen, James (1984). Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. Arms and Armour Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-85368-606-8.
  89. This looks like armoured car territory. If it were added, armoured cars for other countries might have to be added too. So +1 for if/when armoured cars becomes a thing.
  90. +1, this and an armour fix for the one we already have would be great.
  91. One shot to the turret being an OHK? I wish! Most of time I see Tiger II players wiggling their turrets to deflect shells. It's a good tank and the German players are lucky to have it at and decent BR. My only problem with the Tiger II as a Brit player is usually that there are too many to deal with.
  92. I was talking about the fact that AraMacao wants the Hummel but not the Abbot (and the M109).
  93. Yeah, I hope it's not because the Abbot and M109 aren't German.
  94. So you're fine with the hummel because it has a "big gun that can shoot stuff with HE" but the Abbot with its big gun that can shoot stuff with HESH is boring?
  95. After having a play on the Dev server I decided to check out the Centurion Mk 1. It has no APDS.
  96. Tanks/Vehicles

    Reminds me of this
  97. Tanks/Vehicles

    I think they should be in the main tree but then I also hope that the "British" tree becomes the "British Commonwealth" tree.
  98. Could possibly be a general speed that Gaijin has used for all T-34's.
  99. I think Mercedes means this bit: "there was however a proposed conversion to the sherman's 75mm, which is paper"
  100. Hello, I'd like to report that the penetration figures for the Cromwell I's 6 pounder are incorrect. I have made a seperate report about the stat card details for the gun in comparison to the shown model here: The 6 pounder shown on the Cromwell I model is a Mk V variant and not a Mk III like listed in the stat card. The Mk V had a longer appearance and larger muzzle break than the Mk III with superior velocity and penetration thanks to the increased calibre of the gun. Here are two picture from "British and American Tanks of World War 2" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis. One is showing a Mk V 6 pounder fitted to a Centaur and the other is showing the same gun fitted to a Churchill: We do have an example of the Mk III 6 pounder in-game and it is used on the Crusader Mk III: Notice the longer appearance and the larger muzzle break of the Mk V when compared to the Mk III. The Mk V was the 50 calibre version of the 6 pounder, the Mk III was 43 calibres long, the Mk III is the one we have listed in the stat card and the one we have the penetration values for. The correct penetration values are listed in "WWII Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery" by Lorin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston and I have highlighted them in red: "British and American Tanks of World War 2" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis also lists an example of the difference in penetration figures for the Mk 3 and Mk 5 I know that websites are not generally accepted but this page has it's sources and there are a couple there that I can't get to: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/penetration-tables.asp . Here is a table from that page: You might also notice that these values are similar to those of the Churchill Mk III we have in-game; this is because the Churchill has the 6 Pounder Mk V (though it has the wrong model too but thats another bug report.). The 6 pounder variants listed in the above picture both have an extra 2 calibres but I assume this is because of the added counterweight to the end of the barrel because "British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-1945" by Chris Henry lists the calibres of each variant: What I propose is for the correct penetration values to be given to his gun which should be either the ones listed in "Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery" or at least the ones used for the Churchill Mk III. I feel this would improve the Cromwell's survivability when fighting tanks higher up in it's BR range and put it on par with other medium tanks of it's BR like the Panzer 4's with the long 75mm guns and the T-34's. Please see the post I linked earlier to see the report about the stat card change. Sources: "World War II Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery“ by L.R. Bird and R.D. Livingston, Overmatch Press, page 60. "British and American Tanks of World War 2" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Pages (in order of sources used) 38, 41 and 203. ISBN 0-304-35529-1. "British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-1945" by Chris Henry, Page 13. ISBN·l0; 1·84176-63IHI, ISBN-13: 978_1_84176-638-6. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/penetration-tables.asp