• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

365 Good

About Slayer3XD

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Inside my tank
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

640 profile views
  1. British guns listen to The Cure, Soviet guns listen to this:
  2. Wanna know how bad of an idea is to bring down the BR of the Tiger I(H)? Play the US and UK on this date's WWII Chronicles in Tunisia, as soon as I spawned in a Tiger I'd curb stomp all those M4, M10 and Matildas with the 88mm, the only times I died on a Tiger was because of a Hurricane bombing my tank. Hell no, the 4.7 tanks already suffer when they are dragged to fight 5.7 tanks like the Tiger I and Panther D, making those two 5.3 would make the game insufferable for the 4.7 and 5.0 tanks. The long 75mm of the Panther D and the short 88mm of the Tiger I(H) can easily dispatch each and every one of those tanks, being at 5.3 would means that those two would spend a lot of time facing tanks that don't stand much of a chance against it, specially since the US doesn't get APCR with the 76mm until the M18 and M4A3. Meanwhile every other tank at between 5.0 and 4.3 would be facing Tigers regularly without a major advantage over either the Panther D and Tiger I(H) to make up for it. No it doesn't, since the overmatch rework the 88mm and 75mm have no problems going through the T-34-85 armor unless you hit the driver's hatch and the IS-1 and IS-2 are still easy to kill with the Tiger I. Also Gaijin uptiered the Hellcat to 5.3 and the T-34-85 to 5.7, even then the Tiger I only suffers when it is on a full uptier, there is nothing between 5.3 and 6.3 the Tiger I and Panther D can't easily dispatch or is too much of a threat to completely outclass it.
  3. Then I want my M56 and T92 on 6.0 if the RU is at 6.7. If I can still kill a decent number of IS-6 on a M56 then RU players have no excuse for not being able to deal with heavy tanks. Not really. Giving it APHE would kill everything in this game even faster, specially the US medium tanks, even then the M82 wouldn't solve the problem of RU 251 players rushing the cap or treating it like it should be taking out everything frontally and not flanking. The RU 251 HEAT-FS can dispatch most medium tanks it faces in RB with a UFP shot because of the spalling of the HEAT-FS rounds and the ammo and crew placement of medium tanks like the T-44s having 3 on the turret but an UFP shot can kill 3 or 4 crew because the turret is small, the Centurions having ammo on the front and the US Pattons having ammo on the bottom but the crew close together. Not to mention it is 200 SL cheaper than the HEAT-FS the M56, M57 and M48 has access to. The IS-6 can be reliably OHK'ed by shooting the ammo on that sloped plate on the front with HEAT-FS or two hits if you get the driver or gunner on a first hit, unlike the M56 the RU-251 doesn't have to be afraid of being machinegunned to death while reloading for the second shot and can shoot and scoot while keeping track of the target much better thanks to the turret. T29 and T34 is a matter of shooting the lower hulls or the UFP to get the ammo rack or quickly switching the areas you need to shoot in succession to kill it instead of repeatedly shooting the same spot.
  4. Since I need to dump as many rounds as I can in the Tiger II(H), Tiger 105, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, T-54, IS-3, IS-6, weak spots in order to fight them without getting blown to smithereens, if I end up facing them frontally, I definitely would love the short 90mm of the T25, M26, M36, M46, M47 and M48 to have their historical reloads. It would certainly make the solid AP stock shells be at least bearable, since you need to repeatedly shoot the same spots or multiple spots in a quick succession, the M82 not having enough penetration to deal with most threats frontally and quickly engaging multiple targets before they can react to flanking maneuvers using the M82 also benefit from the reload. Not to mention the long 90mm of the Super Pershing and T32 also reloads at a longer rate than the 88mm armed tanks and it is inferior in penetration.
  5. If you don't like the current state of the game you're welcome to leave it, it is not going back to your sweet old days, no one is going to miss you either. I've driven the Tiger I and the Panther D enough to know that Shermans and T-34s regardless of them being armed with the 76mm and 85mm guns are outclassed by the Tiger I and Panthers, let alone the Tiger II. I'd rather have some oddball tanks on this game rather than being fed to Tiger drivers who think this is a purely WWII simulator where I have to take out a bunch of Tiger I(H) with a 75mm armed M4A2 Sherman or a T-34 Mod 1942. It isn't exactly fun to see a team filled with Tiger Is fighting one filled mostly with 76mm Shermans and I've been on both ends to know how well it ends, not well for the Shermans because the Tiger I isn't that sluggish. The only thing you're doing is calling other people idiots, kids and flaunting how old you are on this game and calling everyone else newfags, no one cares and you're not convincing anyone of anything. Also the Tiger I doesn't face the IS-6 unless you put a 6.0 on your line up, at least not on RB anyway, and I've taken T29s and T34s with the Tiger I. It is tricky but not as much as having to fight a Tiger II(P) on a Sherman M4A3. Gaijin not putting new and different tanks on this game would have killed it anyway, you can fix imbalance but you can't fix stagnation.
  6. Since when War Thunder is a strictly WWII game or limited to tanks that saw service? What the hell is the Panther II, the Tiger 105, the experimental German Tank Destroyers and SPAAGs are doing in this game then? Also the T29 and T34 were made to counter Tiger IIs but the war ended before they could be fielded so they are still WWII tanks by all accounts. It isn't about ''hurr they never seen each other in WWII durr" this is about game balance, or are you thinking that having 75mm Shermans to fight Tiger I and Tiger II should be a thing in WT because it is ''historically corret"? The tanks BR and spread are spaced around tank performance, not historical opponents and introduction date. This is messed up at 6.7 to 7.3 but in no way Tiger II and Tiger I should be facing 75mm Shermans and short 76mm T-34s for the sake of "historical accuracy". It is historically correct to have German tanks catch fire and suffer break downs from wear and tear more often than Allied tanks, do you think that this should be modeled in the game too so all those Shermans and T-34s have a chance to fight them? Or how for the entirety of the War the amount of encounters between US tanks and Tiger I and Tiger IIs were very limited? How would you like if the German teams could have access to only one Tiger per 10 matches? Would you like to have half of the allied team having 3 times more players than the Germans per match? Or if the US and Russian teams could call artillery barrages and air strikes on your positions before you can leave the spawn area? The only deluded kid here is you, Wittman wannabe, thinking that German tanks should meet regularly opponents that are completely outclassed without having any sort of disadvantage on your side because ''muh historical accuracy 5 shermans for every tiger! muh 30:1 KDR!". On the subject of Mah Panther D can't kill T29! Here is a replay of me getting a few turret penetrations and a side hull kill on a T29 with some help of a Panther: USING A MARDER III H! So if you can't kill a T29 with a side hit using a Panther D, I'm sorry you suck and that is on you, not the game or the tank. *Removed Marder III H vs T29.wrpl
  7. [citation needed] Oh look the APHE is a frag grenade meme again, now with magic bouncing claims!
  8. I guess the real problem here is US heavy tanks treating German medium tanks like the German tanks treat most US tanks. How unfair! I guess the German Only players would rather roll back to when the T26E3 Super Pershing was the only US heavy tank at 6.7 and the T32 was at 7.3. It can kill T29 and T34s, shoot the optics and shoot the LFP or the MG port on the UFP, better yet stun lock the T34 because its gun breech can be disabled with MG fire if you hit the optics. The side cheeks can be penetrated by long 88 and long 75mm if it angles a bit to avoid fire. Also, the Jumbo does get to fight Tiger II(H) and Tiger 105, and it is nothing but an uparmored and slower M4 Sherman. Shooting the Tiger II(P) with the 76mm on its turret weak spot isn't trivial, thanks to the strip being fairly small and prone to bounce the 76mm shots, and shot traps are notoriously unreliable to the point that even if you manage to get the angle to do that you probably will have the shot absorbed by the optics. Meanwhile there isn't anything bellow 6.3 on the US tree the Tiger II(P) or anything with a long 88mm gun can't point and click to get a kill. He means the M4A3 ''Easy 8'' at 5.3 not the 76mm Jumbo at 6.0, which no one uses because it is garbage and has to fight Tiger II(H) all the time. How about having to sink a minimum of 3 APCR shots into the same spot, time it well to avoid not killing anyone because of crew replacement times, hope the gun breech has been damaged (which most times isn't) so when the crew replacement gets there you won't get instantly killed mid reloading, hope the Tiger II driver is dumb enough to not angle the turret and become impervious to your shots or doesn't back off out of reach and then see all the SL you made with the kill be gone because it costs 350 to 410 SL each APCR shot. That is if you have APCR instead of the stock solid shot that bounces out of anything, doesn't have enough penetration to go through the Tiger II(H) turret place except at close range and completely unagled turret front, has horrible post pen damage including to the point of having the slug only making the crew orange and the modules yellow on penetration and the only AP-HE shell being woefully limited to flanking shots only with a tank that struggles to go above 30 km/h on good terrain? Why this? Because that is exactly how driving the T25 and M26 is and those tanks don't even have the mobility to make up for their lack of firepower and decent armor when uptiered. O So to sum things up: being uptiered sucks, no the Panther D doesn't deserve special treatment for fighting tanks that completely outclass it because everyone has to face the same issues regardless of nation. Appreciate that the APHE of the Panther D can still OHK tanks a full BR higher than it is and it is a stock round meaning you can shoot as much as you want without costing you anything.
  9. And when my T25 sees a Tiger II. And when my M4A3 sees a Tiger II and Ferdinands. And when my M4A1 sees a Tiger I and Panthers. Being uptiered sucks. Deal with it.
  10. Yes it is. For some reason unless you hit very close with the 1000lbs bombs and score a direct hit with the HVAR rockets the IS-6 doesn't go down. Also, the problem with the Horten 229 isn't that it is just an excellent attacker, it is also a ridiculously hard target for SPAAG and other aircraft. It is fast and agile enough to dogfight and has guns powerful enough to disable heavy tanks and destroy anything lighter. Besides, US and UK ground pounders are good for ground attack and nothing else. Try dogfighting in an AD2 or P47 and see how well it ends. For the IS-6: Yesterday, I got two turret fairly flat side hits with the T34's 120mm gun at point blank range on Stalingrad, both shots simply got absorbed by the armor. That shouldn't have happened, on top of the insanely well armored and with overperforming slope modifiers make that thing very resistant to anything that isn't HEAT-FS and HESH, even the side armor still trollish as hell as it can still bounce shots and the lower parts tend to deflect shells because of the tracks or the road wheels. The IS-6 needs to get its larger prototype turret instead of the wooden mockup turret and fix that damn blackhole optics weakspot because even when you manage to accurately place a shot in that tiny weak spot, that isn't weak at all, you still need to hope the shell actually does something because of the RNG involved with the optics and damage models. The IS-6 is better than the IS-3 in every metric and has everything all the other nations despise in the Russian tree: overperforming armor, high mobility, good firepower and protected by RNG that allows the IS-6 drivers get away with mistakes no other tanker would.
  11. Far from being OP but also far from being Under Powered either. I've been on a losing streak against German and German/Russian teams and it is mostly related to the experienced players coming out to play, when the German teams get organized then US and even US/UK teams get stomped. I even had a US vs Germany match in Tunisia where my team got completely rolfstomped by the Germans because they played right into the Germans strong points: Trying to outsnipe and outcamp the Germans.
  12. So you, on AB where the game itself tells where you can penetrate tanks or not, are complaining that your Tiger I(H1) isn't impenetrable through the frontal weak spots? Your evidence for this is using a 85mm, the long Pz IV 75mm and being hit by a British Firefly (which you just stood still there waiting to get hit), which have good to high penetration values and even then most of the Tigers I hit didn't die. Your entire problem with the Tiger I was that there are tanks, in the BR range the Tiger I has to fight that can penetrate it? Like damn. How dare other players be able to penetrate the Tiger I? As if the British, the Americans and the Russians didn't have developed guns and ammo capable of going through the Tiger I UFP and certain spots of the turret. Protip: The Tiger I was never invincible through the front. The US/UK/USSR developed tanks and ammo that could deal with the Tiger from long range and employed them by the time the Tiger I hit the frontlines. Every tank has weakness in their fronts, no armor is completely uniform in the front. There is this thing called BALANCE in videogames where you should pit players in a way they have a chance to defeat each other. Also learn to not rely on the AB marker to tell you where to shoot. The way you put it makes it sound you want to fight nothing but M3 Lees, M4 armed with the short 75mm and the T-34 mods 1941 and 1942 which practically have no chance to fight a Tiger I. Here is the biggest protips of all: STOP ACTING LIKE YOUR TANK SHOULD BE INVINCIBLE
  13. If you can't really tell how poorly angled that was to demonstrate your point, then it is no wonder why you're getting killed in the Tiger I. Your angle is in practice straight in relation to the IS-1.
  14. Your video was of a very unagled IS-1, the angle was so shallow it is practically straight ahead. try in a 30 or 60 degrees angle and see what happens. Better yet L2P.
  15. This is why my M56 is my to go pick on 7.3 and 7.7 matches. If I don't get machinegunned to death while moving I usually can cull the numbers of T-54 and IS-6 to something more manageable. One or two hits on the UFP or the side plates there the ammo is stored and those IS-6 are gone. The IS-6 introduction makes me wish the M47 was downtiered to 7.0 though.
  16. If War Thunder was historically accurate, half of the Tigers on the German team wouldn't have fuel at the start of the match and half of the Panthers would suffer breakdowns in the middle of the fight with at least 2/3rds of the German team being either out of commission thanks to lack of spare parts, fuel or having a critical breakdown before the match begins. The remaining 1/3 would be split in two: half got bombed to oblivion and the other half has to deal with the ally team. Meanwhile in the Wehraboos dream and WT.
  17. Compared to other HEAT-FS capable tanks at 6.7, not really, only the M56 is slightly better and that is mainly because the people who play them aren't using them like RU players use the US which is as RUSH B CYKA BLYAT! XAXAXAXAXA! tanks. The RU is outright better than every HEAT-FS capable light tank or tank destroyer between 6.7 and 7.3, the RU is doing badly because: most players in the German playerbase have no idea how to use a light tank good for flanking. It is better than the ASU-85, the T92, the M56 and the Jpz 4-5 with only the Object 906 performing better, but tit for tat, it is mostly because the M56 and Object 906 players are, by the time they get them, used to play lightly armored tanks or tanks that are viable only with flanking tactics. The Type-62 even though is very similar in stats with the RU is also performing much worse. By the stats the RU is very overperforming on Sim battles, light tanks always sucked on Arcade and Realistic always had some issues with players simply rushing the objectives straight ahead when they shouldn't.
  18. Not just Germany, yesterday I landed more than a few rounds with my M46 and M56 to the sides of Tiger IIs and Panther IIs without much effect, I got successful penetrations but the shells just turned everything inside yellow and I then I had a very pissed off Tiger or Panther driver aiming at me. On the other hand it is a two edge problem because I survived a few shots that left me wondering how the hell I was still in the field but also lost a few kills because the M82 utterly failed to kill anyone after a penetration. One match I traded blows with a Tiger II in Poland with a M46, where he failed to kill my crew in a front hull penetration, though he did destroy one of the tracks, I got a HEAT shot on his loader which bought me enough time to repair and I got a second hit on his barrel. Then I moved to his side and landed a M82 shot on the side...nothing happened, I had to sink a second M82 but not before swapping to HEAT again to take out the cannon breech. Another match in Eastern Europe, get to hit a Panther II on the ammo rack at close quarters with a side hit and he just finishes popping out of the corner and deletes my M46 with his 88. I don't think this is related to the fuse times or the shells themselves, I think that Gaijin royally botched the damage model in the update and their silence of the issue seems more evidence that they screwed up than intentionally nerfing APHE.
  19. AT weapons include things like Tank Guns, Tank Destroyers like the Stug and Anti-Tank emplacements which all had similar weapons and shells by the same tanks we see in WT. Regardless of the source of fire, those AT cannons from either SPGs and Tanks didn't kill the whole crew and the death to penetration ratio isn't above 2 opposed to WT where APHE can kill the entire crew in a single penetration. Specially in cases where a cupola shot sends shrapnel to the driver's seat like it happens in WT. In WWII you din't even need to kill the crew to make them bail out or render the tank out of action, Tiger I's lost to Shermans because they got a hit that dislodged their turrets from the turret ring and made the turret unable to turn, which resulted in the crew bailing because from there on they'd be sitting ducks for other tanks.
  20. If a Sherman can deal with a Tiger II(P), then the Germans can deal with a T26 Super Jumbo at 6.3 and the Russians have at least several flavors of 122mm and 100mm guns to deal with it and two HEAT-FS slinging tanks on that BR range. Because: The Panthers get APCR, the Tiger I(E) gets APCR, the Germans get the long 88 at 5.3 with the Nashorn and at 6.3 with the Jadgpanther, Tiger II(P) and the Ferdinand all of which can make short work of the T26. Besides, the T26 is slow, very damn slow and with a long reload so T-44s and soup letter Panthers shouldn't have any issues flanking that thing. Germany doesn't have a single 5.0 Medium or Heavy tank so their chances of having a low BR line up facing a full uptier against teams with Super Pershings is minimal, the Russians have small and fast tanks packing good enough firepower to dance circles around the T26. Also no US medium tank at the Tier IV can reliably penetrate the front turret of the Tiger II(H) without APCR, because the solid AP of the M36 and M26 can only penetrate the turret front at point blank and unangled turrets with stock AP and need to grind until they get APCR, which means they either need to flank to get kills using the M82 or sink at least 3 penetrating hits with APCR to get a kill on German heavies, but only the M36 can semi-reliably flank because the M26 is slow everywhere, specially on sandy or muddy terrain. It is completely asinine to say the Super Pershing shouldn't be downtiered because 5.3 and 6.0 tanks are going to struggle with it. Guess what? Every single US medium and light tank struggles with German heavies and that doesn't stop Gaijin from throwing teams filled with medium tanks against hordes of German heavy tanks. The problem is that the Super Pershing isn't a 6.7 tank, by a long margin, it doesn't even compete with heavy tanks on the same BR due to how weakly armored, slow it is and you can't even say it has good firepower because of the long reload and the M82 having just enough penetration to deal with the Tiger II(H) while the Germans and Russians can get guns capable of dealing with US heavy tanks at a lower BR. Not to mention that the T26 is going to spend more time fighting on 7.0 and 7.3 matches where it is completely outclassed in terms of mobility, protection and firepower by medium tanks even other heavy tanks are more mobile than the T26 and far more protected.
  21. Because the majority of the sources state that most crew survive penetration with APHE rounds. What killed a lot of crew was being shot while bailing out of the tank. The Shermans were well known for having most of the crew survive penetrating hits, even from the 88mm thanks to its roomy interior and wet storage preventing ammunition fires. Gunfire penetrations usually resulted in a single crew death and a single crewman wounded. Crews were rarely all killed, even if a tank burned. American Wet Storage also diminished the chances of burning in general. M4s with wet storage burned as little as 5 to 10%. British and Canadian burn rates were 80+%. American tanks in Italy, without wet storage also saw an 80% burn rate. That goes to show the “magic” of proper ammo storage. Distribution of casualties among crewmen is roughly even,unlike WoT’s radiomen…Light tanks had higher casualty rates(~65% per position) over their medium cousins(~50%). Please don’t confuse casualty with death. Whether or not a destroyed tank caught fire made a big difference for the crew. Only 40% of the tanks in the sample burned, but casualties were distributed evenly between the tanks that burned and those that did not. This was due to the higher casualty rate in the tanks that caught fire (1.28 crew casualties per tank) and those that did not (0.78 casualties per tank). But why most tanks are out of the action if there are still crew left to fight? Because unlike War Thunder, a damaged engine, turret right, breech, cannon, transmission and etc. couldn't be repaired in the middle of the battle in a minute and more often that not a penetration would result in a critical component damaged and thus making the tank unable to fight. Apply that statement for yourself. One: Fragmentation isn't uniform, not always lethal and the tank itself isn't devoid of obstacles between the crew and the fragments. Two: Shots don't penetrate and detonated perfectly in the middle of the crew like in WT. Three: As noted, the fragmentation isn't spherical and most fragments are focused in a small areal. Four: Tanks aren't perfectly sealed, the human bodies are surprisingly resistant to over pressure. Five: Your statement that fragments bounce is unfounded, tanks interiors aren't flat or devoid of surfaces allow fragments to bounce without losing a lot of energy. APHE was never meant to behave like grenades, the HE filler was there to aid armor penetration. We have posted reports, models and data all explaining that most tank penetrations didn't result in a total crew loss and the ratio of wounded to killed was just slightly better for APHE. You on the other hand didn't show a single report or any evidence that APHE resulted in the whole crew being killed or being incapacitated. [citation needed]
  22. Not to mention the stock grind of the T-54 is much better with its 200+ Pen APHE while the M47 has that borderline useless AP, sub 180mm penetration M82 APHE and has to grind 3 shells + another modules each rank before reaching HEAT-FS. But that is the problem with US light and medium tanks once they reach 5.7, they are competitive only when fully spaded and until you spade them you will die a lot while a T-54 will just be able to get OHK on most tanks it meets.
  23. Laugh all you want, but that is the difference between real life specifications and War Thunder mechanics. The documents are there to prove the 120mm APCR would be capable of penetrating the UFP of a T-54 but thanks to the Gaijin's nerfed APCR and overperfoming slope modifiers make it very useless against most tanks that need to use it. Throwing a kneejerk reaction like that all the time isn't going to help fixing the APCR issue in WT.
  24. Look at the date of the last post before posting.
  25. The Soviet 100mm can go through the front turret of a Tiger II(H)/105 with APHE and get a frontal OHK from any practical range, bellow 500m, while the 90mm can only OHK Tiger II(H)/105 with side hits. Not to mention it also can OHK most US tanks through the front. The T-44 also has a UFP that can still tank or bounce shells from long 75mm and 88mm, and short and long 90mm tank shells and sometimes even the 120mm of the T34 can't go through the T-44 UFP, so the T-44 and T-44/100 are better protected than the M46, M26 and the Panthers, the problem the T-44 has is the 4 crew with 3 on the turret that pretty much means that any APHE going through the turret will destroy the tank. I don't think the M46 needs a lower BR but the M26 doesn't offer much as a 6.3 tank, is hopeless against T-54s specially because it is slow as hell, thus not suitable to flank, and the only decent ammo it gets to pen the T-54s and the Tiger 2(H) is the lackluster APCR needle. The way this game works the Panthers A, F, G and the M26 can't really penetrate each other's UFP reliably but the turrets can be penned by each other as long as you have a decent shot placement and those three are at 6.0 BR. For the Super Pershing, if it is a 6.7 tank then so is the Tiger II(P). I'd accept the M46 being moved to 7.0 as long as they fix the M82 and give the HEAT shell its correct 306mm penetration, which would allow it to fight T-54s without being completely outclassed.
  26. I usually can penetrate the things I am shooting at with APCR, even at range, however the post penetration damage of the APCR drives me mad with anger, specially on side shots where you can see it going through crew, ammo and modules without doing much for damage. I almost gave up on spading the T92 and M56 because I simply wasn't getting kills with it due to the AP-CR(AP) being stock ammo, I flanked and shot the sides but hardly got more than 2 crew killed and even ammo racks didn't result in a detonation, then I got the M82 for the M56 and the APDS for the T92 and never looked back on APCR. I am not even going to grind the M48 because it is also the stock ammo and I really don't want to get pissed off again for having to shoot the same tank 3 to 5 times to get a kill while every other tank can just one shot me. Also if the targets moves, angles or just wiggles the turret you can forget about getting APCR to penetrate anything, unless it is a really flat angle it isn't going to reliably pen, it doesn't really work on tanks with round and curved armor, so shooting Russian tanks with it isn't exactly a good idea unless you want to spend more SL killing a tank than getting SL for killing it. This thing is also too expensive to use if it isn't stock.
  27. I keep a sacrificial lamb vehicle in my line up just in case I get uptiered. Nothing fancy, just the basic modules like FPE and parts so I don't die too easily but it has a low BR and lower repair costs so I don't have to lose too many SL in case I get killed. With the US however is another story, all my tanks in my current line up are 6.7 so there is no way to die without losing SL, the M56 however still quite capable of dealing with uptiers, the rest, not so much. Once you reach 5.7, the power disparity between each full BR is way too great, most bottom BRs are helpless against the top BRs and higher the tier, higher the disparity, like fighting T-54s and IS-4s on a M46 or T92, it isn't fun or even viable for most of the time. Seriously, most of the balancing problems would be fixed if Gajin implemented a 0.7 BR spread. Tiger I wouldn't fight T34s, US Shermans wouldn't fight Tiger IIs and British tanks wouldn't get rolfstomped by Russian heavies that often and with a 0.7 spread the disparity between the top and bottom tiers isn't so great to make being uptiered a hopeless situation and a SL drain.