*AllahHuAirlines

Member
  • Content count

    659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

*AllahHuAirlines last won the day on June 24

*AllahHuAirlines had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

880 Excellent

1 Follower

About *AllahHuAirlines

  • Rank
    Pilot officer

Recent Profile Visitors

441 profile views
  1. Hullbreak is pretty glitchy and random things trigger it. I've had glancing hits on the mantlet of Hellcats which have resulted in hullbreak, which is a true testimony to how inconsistent it is.
  2. Stats don't matter if you can't put forward a logical, well-thought out and properly written argument. I don't think threads along the lines of "The IS-6 isn't so bad, it can be killed if you fulfill a bunch of tactical conditions, you're driving the right tank with the right ammo and the IS-6 player is a dumbass" count as logical.
  3. Considering that you have to learn how to use the rockets, be at specific distances to hit anything with them and you only get 4 of them- no.
  4. I think the Cent 10 is fine in it's current place. The tank can't be equipped with HEAT-FS like the M60 can be, and the tank's armour is barely adequate at 6.3 where the Cent 3 is- let alone above 7.0.
  5. It's real. The T-55 had the ammo rack placed there as a pseudo wet stowage system.
  6. The SPAA economy needs a massive revamp anyway. Lower repair costs, lower ammo costs, higher rewards.
  7. That might require a tree reshuffle, the M47/48 and the T-55 will have to be in separate, new lines since putting them before the Leos would make grinding problematic. I think that keeping the T-55 out of the German tree would be the better idea since a wacky tree reshuffle would still leave us with the gap after the Panther II.
  8. PS4 players can't download user missions (I think)
  9. Gotcha, brain's in Sunday mode
  10. While I condemn the ad hominem attack, you do have a point. The microscopic weakspots on the IS-6 don't balance it out at all, like the Tiger II or Panther's do.
  11. I don't know. What's certain is that shrapnel from HE explosions doesn't lose energy fast enough, I've been killed by arty like that in lightly armoured vehicles like the Puma which weren't effected by arty shrapnel IRL.
  12. Britain has a few postwar domestic & export light/recon tanks which could work well in that BR range if they are modelled correctly, as well as some more Vickers MBTs, Centurion AVRE etc. The USA has a whole myriad of prototype tanks which could be implemented. There are far too many to list in this thread, there's a separate thread in the US section. Japan doesn't have much apart from a Jeep with MCLOS ATGMs and a prototype of the Type 60 SPRR with 4 recoilless rifles. Germany has the M47/48s (there's also the East German T-55s but I'm not sure that they should have them solely because it would be unfair to have 3 different nations rolled into one, if that makes sense). I don't know about Russia but maybe APCs like the BTRs, BMPs, more PT amphibious tanks etc.
  13. Good luck needling an IS-6 to death with AP or APCR when they can just turn their turret and OHK you before you can reload, like one did to me in a Super Hellcat I was test driving.
  14. I think OP is referring to situations where a glancing hit on a tank with large sideskirts (ie. the Centurions) will detonate APHE shells and then secondary shrapnel will penetrate the tank and decimate it. I've seen it happen occasionally, it's not a massive issue but it's very annoying
  15. Being skilled only works up to a certain point. Even flanking the damn tank isn't guaranteed to result in a kill. I've bounced 90mm M82 off the IS-6s rear before at shallow angles.
  16. Wish I could vote yes to all of these.
  17. You can't use a Steam or PC based account on PS4, you can only transfer a PS4 account to PC.
  18. The only difference between them is 100 m/s in velocity
  19. I've been playing since 2015, split between my old Steam account and this PS4 account. I stopped playing between the end of 2015 and the end of 2016 and I restarted earlier this year. I have a good idea of how to play and I'm trying to improve all the time. I have only been posting about giving the Panther II it's correct attributes this entire time, I have not complained about my own experience using any tank in this thread. You said it yourself that you spawn in fast tanks to cap quickly, taking SP for yourself in RB. I only called your playstyle selfish because you did the exact same thing when I proposed a solution to the quick cap -> CAS problem faced by RB players. While it's true that I don't play German tanks, I play against them enough to know what they are best at and what they are worst at. Again, I have made no posts in this thread about playing German tanks so this is irrelevant. The only posts I've made regarding any German tank is the Panther II, and my view that it needs remodelling and some re-evaluation in game with regards to some attributes like overall mass.
  20. I propose that the test drive system for tanks should be improved. Here are some of the improvements I want to see: The ability to select which nation you want to test vehicles against The ability to choose individual tanks from the selected nation for each position on the test range. More planes to test AA on. Adding in a heavy bomber at fairly high altitude (about 2.0-2.5km) and a fighter at the same altitude as the attacker currently in the test range would allow SPAA testing against multiple types of plane, meaning that players can judge the capabilities of SPAAGs. Any other suggestions are welcome.
  21. You're still not making an actual point here.
  22. What on earth are you talking about? Start making sense or don't bother debating. Why are you throwing random numbers at me with no units assigned? How are the performance values of the HL230 and HL230 upgrade "Just a figure"? I can't even tell what your point is.
  23. Just trying to fit his narrative, I think. The original Maybach HL230 engine had a maximum output of 690HP at 3000 RPM. The HL234 fuel-injection version had a base power of just under 900HP and the supercharged version had 1100-1200HP. Where's that "3 times the boost" figure? I don't think the HL234 modification was ever done to German tanks in service use. The fuel consumption would have been way to high for late war Germany. The HL234 modification would definitely have featured on the planned E-Serie tanks though.
  24. That's fair enough, but it isn't particularly valid to complain that a 152mm APHE shell with about 160mm of penetration (which is pretty awful for 6.0) won't penetrate the angled side of a Centurion. They have sideskirts and loads of roadwheels in front of the hull armour, and they're notorious for eating shots on every tank.
  25. Until the recent smoke update for the regular Tiger, they were definitely modelled on the HT N°6.
  26. Only if it was armed with the 75mm KwK 42 L/70, and fitted with the correct turret, which was a design bridging the gap between the Schmalturm and the regular Panther turret:
  27. Nah, it looks more like another classic ad hominem attack from I_J. Last time we butted heads they hit me with this scorcher:
  28. I get that there has to be some special cases for half-built or paper tanks, but that still doesn't excuse the Panther IIs weight.
  29. It's not really a complaint to be fair. The tank's overall mass does not take into account the added weight of the long 88 and the turret, meaning it is more mobile than it should be. I want all tanks in the game to be as accurate to their IRL counterparts as possible, so trying to deflect my argument by saying "but X tank and Y tank have mobility issues too" is moot.
  30. I have never claimed to be a good player. Why attack me using my stats? All it does is make you look bad.
  31. Another nice meme brought to you by Inset_Judgement
  32. Nothing to do with it being competitive. 105mm APDS eats it up nicely anyway- it's the physically impossible mobility that gives rise to complaints. The gun is already on 6 other regular & premium tanks between 5.0-7.0 anyway.
  33. Of course people have complained about the KT 105, have you been under a rock since GF's release? I only mentioned the Panther II because it's one of Germany's fast vehicles in the 6.0-7.0 range.
  34. Maybe it's because the British & US tank player base is more skilled since they've had to learn how to use solid shot, aim for weakspots, position their tanks, play to tanks' strengths and have good map knowlege too? Not to mention the higher level of teamwork I see and the amount of communication over chat compared to Russian & German teams. And why are you bothering to play the ISU-152? That thing's a meme, it's trash compared to the ISU-122
  35. Have you looked into your control bindings? Maybe resetting them to default and then setting the controls back to how you prefer them could work.
  36. AA is not very well implemented at the moment, for a few reasons; Abhorrent repair costs Criminally low RP & SL rewards for shooting planes down High research & purchase costs The recent nerf to AP ammo belts making a lot of SPAAs useless against tanks, when AT work is the only decent thing they can do (ZSU-57-2 for example). With regards to which nation to play for just SPAA? Germany. It's the only nation with consistently good SPAA throughout the ranks. In AB you get lead indicators for shooting planes down. However if you decide to only play SPAAGs in Ground Forces, you'll be a dead weight to teams, especially in RB when there are no planes in the sky for the first 5-10 minutes.
  37. Strange that they were removed from the 3D model as soon as the patch dropped for the regular German Tiger's smoke. Was the Tiger that Japan bought & trialled fitted with smoke grenade launchers?
  38. If your tank has an APHE shell with more than 200mm of penetration, you can easily OHK the IS-6 through the cupolas. They're small targets but since a lot of maps are very close range, that kind of works.
  39. Probably a DM issue since all projectiles are a pixel wide in dimensions, and a lot of tanks in-game have armour holes which can be exploited by quick firing AA guns.
  40. I had a monster game in this thing on Korea. I was uptiered to 8.0 as well, so there were a couple of enemies using the Maus. One of these guys tried to do the early game sniping tactic from the eastern rocky section on the southern ridge. I put a stop to that quickly with the FV4005 I'm pretty sure he was livid as it looked like a decent position for the Maus- that is if there isn't an FV4005 gunning for you!
  41. You're calling my proposal which could allow multiple people to drive to the objective and get a fair share of SP 'Selfish'?! Take a look at what you've described in this quote. A single player, yourself, using fast tanks from lower BRs to capture objectives by yourself. How is that not selfish? The system I propose will prevent the early-game abuse of CAS which is pretty prevalent. It won't lock objectives in the first five minutes, you'll still get credit for being a selfish SOB using fast vehicles to hoard SP to yourself. Besides, there are fast German vehicles at 6.0-7.0 too. The RU251, while being premium, is definitely one of them. The Panther II is ridiculously mobile as well thanks to the overall mass of the tank being totally incorrect, as it doesn't take into account the added weight of the long 88 and the Schmalturm turret. This is a bit off topic here but I think the Panther II should be replaced at 7.0 by the 90mm armed prototype Leopard, and the Panther II given a massive rework replacing the long 88 with the improved 75mm that was planned for it, as well as the turret that was planned for it too. This would allow it to be another 6.7 for Germany. The Panther II is a monstrous example of a franken-tank in War Thunder.
  42. I own the IS-6. It's so boring and easy to play that I only use it to top up my SL balance when I want to buy a tank I've researched. As I've said in your other thread, there are only a few non-Russian vehicles at 6.0-7.0 that can counter the IS-6 using HEAT-FS or HESH. Here's the full list of them: M56 M46 STA-1 STA-2 Type 61 Type 60 SPRR Centurion Mk10 Vickers MBT Mk1 Conway FV4005 RU251 Considering how few people play Japan, how useless light vehicles like the M56, RU251 etc are in arcade mode and how few British tank players play AB, the IS-6 can stomp AB whenever it wants. As well as this, Germany only has 1 vehicle below 7.0 with HESH & HEAT-FS, and it's a premium. I rarely get uptiered in the IS-6 unless I have the T-44-100 in my lineup so it's usually a boring clubfest. What you've been saying in these two IS-6 related threads of yours is "it's fine because rarely played tanks can kill it".
  43. The M60A2 never used HESH.
  44. There's a simple solution: Put a lock on all aircraft spawns for the first 5 minutes of the game. That way nobody, no matter what nation, can simply take a fast vehicle, cap and then spawn in a plane.
  45. APHE worked like regular AP for a while, but people were bitterly complaining that their shells would only kill 2 of a T-34's crew. Of course this was before the slope modifier change to the T-34's frontal plate. I'd like APHE to be on a level playing field with regular AP but most of the community would throw a fit, especially German & Russian tank players.
  46. Completely different maybe, but most likely inferior to ammunition used by countries who actually developed the munitions for the tanks used by the Chinese. Chinese products are usually laughably low quality compared to Western-produced products of the same type. As part of my summer job I assemble and test farm machinery that is imported from China, and the tolerances for parts are horrific. Even simple things like sheet steel trailers etc. don't have holes properly located for bolts half of the time.
  47. You make a valid argument. No dispute from me. I initially posted about the 'magic' 1:1.5 caliber:penetration ratio because that's what you mentioned in the post I replied to, however as you have so conveniently edited that post since, it puts my argument out of context. What I failed to mention about the poorly drawn innacurate graph I posted is that it represented what I thought was a median where max spalling of the 105mm HESH round would be at 127mm. In my initial understanding of the round's IRL mechanics I believed that after the 127mm point for plate thickness, the level of spalling would be lower but there would still be small pieces of the plate's interior breaking off. Obviously this is not the case given that I was posting based on my (incorrect) understanding. Is there a basis for the +/- 20% penetration variance in the HESH round seen in-game? It's entirely based on RNG, something War Thunder is advertised to have less of (since the 'more realistic' line seen in the trailers for the game can be interpreted as such) and results in a non-penetration half of the time on any tank with an armour plate thickness of 100-120mm. With 105mm APDS in the state that it is currently in, HESH is ironically more reliable with the +/- 20% penetration factor.
  48. The M36 used the M3 90mm, the Type 61 90mm is an improved version of the M3A1 90mm gun used on the M46. It should definitely be better than the M3A1, at the moment it's just a copy and paste from the M46.
  49. Isn't the T-44's hull ammo rack obscured by the frontal fuel tank? Unless you hit precisely at a slight angle the HEAT-FS spalling probably wouldn't detonate the ammo. I don't think I've ever been OHK'd through the hull by HEAT-FS in the T-44-85 or the T-44-100.
  50. I doubt that it's a maximum. If the tests were done properly that would only be a median for the ideal penetration/spalling coefficiant. For example, this poorly drawn graph shows the 127mm median for ideal spalling with 105mm HESH. Besides, even if it was 1:1.5 caliber: penetration ratio that would be incorrect for 90, 105, 120 and 183mm HESH in-game. And why are you trusting brochures? Do you really think that sales material is an accurate source? Show me a verified table displaying spalling effectiveness of 105mm HESH on RHA steel plates of differing thickness, please. Until then you're just talking out of your arse, as always.
  51. Yeah, that would make a lot more sense.
  52. That's 8 tanks that pose a threat to it in the entire 6.0-7.0 range. The M46, M56, STA-1/2, Centurion Mk10, Vickers MBT Mk1, the Conway and the FV4005. Unless you're playing arcade, the 3 Russian tanks with HEAT-FS (2 if you don't include the Type-62 as it's a gift tank) will never face the IS-6. Very large caliber APCR might be able to do it, but I somehow doubt it's effectiveness.
  53. a HEAT-FS shell can only kill the driver/set the front fuel tank on fire if it hits a T-44's front plate. APHE post-pen is far better.
  54. From what I gather, 6.0-7.0 has always been a mess. The last boogyman was the T29, and before that it was the King Tiger. The IS-6 should never have been put in, at least not at 7.0.
  55. HESH doesn't work that way IRL anyway, it shouldn't be a binary pen/no pen system like it is with other shells; it should be a spectrum from 0mm-300mm showing spalling effectiveness in % at each 100mm interval. Treating it like a penetrating HE shell simply makes no sense.
  56. How can I take the time to critique & evaluate the content of your threads if I can't understand it without puzzling over it for 5-10 mins? I get that you're in a rush but this is a forum where your ability to write a thread determines the amount of response to that thread. My advice would be to take notes on the tactics/statistics/attributes of the vehicle you are writing about, eat/sleep/shower/do whatever is making you rush and then write the thread in full when you have enough time. Writing threads in detail is helps to increase your eloquency and thought process while writing long bodies of text, it's very useful for writing reports/essays.
  57. Are you expecting the HEAT shell to OHK like an APHE shell? HEAT simply doesn't work like that. HEAT-FS doesn't work like that anymore either. You have to crew snipe or ammo snipe with it.
  58. Keep your voice down, the inferiority-complex German players will hear you
  59. Watch out, they'll ban you for speaking the truth
  60. Really? I love my STB I just wish 105mm APDS wasn't so badly nerfed
  61. I've noticed nothing different with 105mm APDS. Are you sure there was a change to APDS?
  62. HESH, the only useful round for the L7 105, has a +/- 20% penetration variation. Every time a 105mm HESH shell is fired at a tank, a dice is rolled. With tanks like the T-10M which have 120mm thick plates on the hull front, 105mm HESH won't penetrate 50% of the time. It's a different story with most of the TT Soviet mediums except the T-54-49 which has a 120mm thick hull. Compare that to the +/- 10% variation for other ammo types; the T-10M's APHE will penetrate 253mm of armour minimum. This means that the T-10M will always have a guaranteed penetration and OHK with its standard ammunition. Leopards/STB-1/Type 74/M60s have to grind to get HESH (their only OHK ammunition) and it's unreliable as hell to boot. Don't bother with the HEAT-FS argument, post-pen is awful except on cramped Soviet mediums and on a successful ammo detonation. 105mm APDS is the same, except it's been horribly nerfed.
  63. There may be a premium STA-3 on the way soon™. I'm fairly certain that both British and US GF had Rank IV premiums on release, too.
  64. It's not that Chinese tanks don't appeal to me, I love my Type-62; the tree simply won't have enough unique vehicles to appeal to the playerbase. M18? M10? I have those in the US tree. T-34-76? T-34-85? PT-76? IS-2? IS-3? I either already have those or I can grind to get them from the USSR tree. Captured Japanese tanks? I've already got the entire Japanese GF tree researched apart from 3 Rank Vs and 2 premiums. Can you see what I'm getting at? There are so few vehicles unique to China in the timeframe that it isn't worth developing an entire tree's worth. The unique vehicles can just be relegated to be premium/gift tanks, or be put in an International tech tree (if one is actually made, which doesn't seem likely).
  65. Meanwhile, Germany still stomps 6.0-7.0, if used with half a brain.
  66. There would simply be no point playing a Chinese TT. A couple of unique vehicles and some semi-unique knockoff T-34-85s? Not appealing. At least the Japanese tree is entirely made up of native designs apart from 3 tanks and 1 SPAA.
  67. If you get surprised by an enemy, the smoke grenades are very useful tools for making a quick escape. Smoke shells are quite useful for obscuring important sightlines for the enemy, covering caps etc. They work better if you have a good rate of fire on your tank. Atm smoke shells all have a fixed smoke screen radius and set up time- I'd like to see them with radius etc varying with the caliber of gun. A 120mm smoke shell should put out a much larger screen than a 76mm shell.
  68. A British ZIS-30 equivalent maybe?
  69. I'd rather see light vehicles which were actually put into service with the British Army before any commercially produced British export tanks are added. AFVs like the Scorpion, Scimitar etc would be perfect for heading up an armoured car line. Maybe the export Scorpion with the 90mm gun as either TT with APFSDS or premium 7.0 without. The VFM looks cool but priority should be foremost placed with vehicles that were put into service.
  70. Ammo, crewsnipe or disable with 3 shots that cause engine fires
  71. That's an entire GF map I've seen figures of <100m accuracy bandied about, including on old US Army training films- an RNG roll for 50-100m dispersion would be better. This is all besides the point anyway, we won't see dedicated indirect fire weapons in the game in future (besides the rocket trucks, but they're pretty useless).
  72. Gaijin know how much of a pull GF is to new players- they keep the rewards low to encourage more money spent on premium vehicles & accounts. It's unfair on the players but that's how Gaijin run things, sadly.
  73. Load BR-365A and flank. That's always been the best playstyle and it still is.
  74. Spalling is very random in effectiveness. I managed to kill a T-54-47 with a non-penetrating 105mm HESH hit to the turret because the spalling bounced down and blew up his ammo through the hull roof.
  75. Then research the mobility mods for it... ? Lots of light vehicles that rely on stealth can't be. Try using the RU251, the ASU-85, the M56, the ASU-57 in AB and you'll face the same problems with detection. Edit: I've just tested the Type 60's RB acceleration vs the KT Sla.16. 12.7 seconds for 0-30 km/h with the type 60, 25 or so seconds with the KT. And that's without mobility mods on the Type 60 and with them on the KT. The KT initially had better acceleration between 0-20 km/h, but after that the Type 60 was quicker.
  76. They're the same thing. SPRR = Self Propelled Recoilless Rifle, SPRG = Self Propelled Recoilless Gun The thing's by no means slow either, my only gripe with it in its' role is the low HP compared to the M56, which can get to some crazy positions.
  77. Once you get to the Chi-Ha kai it gets much better. Punchy, high pen 47mm with a decent reload. Only issue is the unhistorical turret rotation.
  78. The Chi-Ri II. Shells aren't the best for it's BR, has that bug where if the loader is wounded or killed the whole autoloader is refilled for more than 30s, it's as big as a Tiger I and it has 3/4s of the Tiger's armour thickness. I'd be far happier if the Chi-Se had been implemented instead, it has a very nice 105mm cannon.
  79. One of these phantom AP shells knocked the tracks off my Cent 10 when I was playing on Ash River, allowing the enemy to get on my flanks and kill me. It's a very confusing mechanic.
  80. Once again, this boils down to "waaahh I don't like being penetrated by HEAT-FS". The round is nowhere near as damaging as APHECBC, costs a lot and you have to crew snipe or ammo snipe to frontally kill things like Tiger IIs- and even then the spalling loses a lot of energy before it reaches the hull ammo racks. Why do German players always insist that they need their hands held against nasty nasty HEAT-FS? There are counters to Tiger IIs etc in the game for a reason.
  81. It's about the gun, not the armour. I have no issue with them.
  82. This is ***** stupid Vazeg. Stop posting things about this irrelevent HE shell.
  83. Thanks, I had some GE spare so I unlocked HESH and I've been using it as a primary AT round. It's surprisingly effective against Chieftains!
  84. To be frank, Vazeg- who gives a toss? It's an HE shell which will only ever be used on light vehicles. The BR-XXX shell with the MD-8 fuse will still be the main shell used by the T-34-76 players. You don't have to get all up in arms when the penetration of a niche shell is slightly adjusted, so little that it won't affect gameplay. Relevant image: Besides, the overperforming nature of APHE in all factions (except Britain, for obvious reasons) means that the T-34-76 and the Panzer IV are both capable of OHKing each other.
  85. 4.7 is easily one of the best lineups in the British tree. It's definitely on par with the 6.7 Cent 3/Carnarvon/FV4005 or Charioteer setup, and you don't get sucked into the 6.0-7.0 black hole with the 4.7 trifecta.
  86. Could you give me an example of a situation where 105mm APDS can be used effectively? I'm struggling to use it on my STB-1 since I'm used to 20pdr APDS on the 6.7 Brits (and how useful it is).
  87. Not to mention the poor quality of most Axis teams leading to less people playing them and more playing the other nations. Even solo waiting time for an RB match in British tanks takes 2-3 minutes, sometimes even at peak times.
  88. Hopefully soon™. Besides, the L7A1 is lower pressure than WWII era 105s as it's designed to fire subcaliber APDS (and later APFSDS) shells & chemical penetrators. WWII era 105s were designed to lob massive heavy full-caliber AP shells instead. Look at the difference between the T29 and the Centurion 10's breechblock in the X-ray view. Same with the Dicker Max. Weirdly enough the Americans kept developing the massive, high pressure guns post-war and that culminated in the M103. You can see the same difference when you compare the muzzle energy of the M103 to the Conqueror/Conway/Chieftain. I think it's something like a 17MJ difference in muzzle energy between them.
  89. More like Chi-Ri and Ho-Ri, since it doesn't use the L7A1
  90. Must just be a bug and a lot of RNG. I expect you could only replicate that shot with over 1000 test fires. There's no point going crazy about the IS-6 doing this either, every 122mm gun below the T-10M/SU-122-54 has the BR-471B shell that the IS-6 has. It could have just as easily happened with a T-44-122, ISU-122, KV-122 etc.
  91. Padding, maybe? You'd have to ask the creator.
  92. This thing uses rocket ammunition so you wouldn't get stadia lines or penetration/drop indicators anyway, just like the other rocket vehicles.
  93. APDS has been nerfed so badly because of the intro of APFSDS. The same happened to APCR when APDS was released en masse with the British tree. I hate relying on HESH, not knowing whether I'll pen or not when everyone else knows that their one click APFSDS/APHE will always work.
  94. Gaijin will only listen if you post in suggestions, and your argument is shaky enough for any suggestions topics to be deleted.
  95. Jeez, you could at least look at the Japanese tech tree before making such unfounded claims. There's only 4 US tanks in total, and I find that only one of them is useful in my lineups since the Chaffee has been replaced at 3.7 by the Chi-Nu II.
  96. Yeah, that's true. It doesn't have any REAL at capability apart from a crappy HEAT round with 150mm of pen. Even the SU-122 has 160mm of HEAT pen.
  97. It's obvious that the Type 74 Howitzer wouldn't be a fit for the game. Wishlisting it is plain silly.
  98. If the IS-7 is added, then HESH should at least be remodelled to how it should perform like IRL.
  99. And it's essentially the same as the Gepard (a 70's SPAAG) where it counts. Bad example.
  100. 105mm APDS seems... useless since the last patch; similar to 120mm APDS. I've been reduced to primarily using HESH, while HESH is still good it emposes a limit on AT capability and it seems to be truly random at times. I think it may have gone the way that APCR did when APDS was initially implemented into the game. 17pdr APDS, 20pdr APDS and US 76mm APDS seem fine, and I'm sure the Russian 100mm and 122mm APDS is unaffected as well. Very shady practice, nerfing APDS used by every nation's Rank V MBTs except Russia's. Why does Gaijin nerf the last best shell to make the new shells look better when they could just assign values to the new shells which supercede that of the old shells? It's very perplexing. I'm not calling Russian Bias here, the T95E1 has APFSDS and it's doing quite well apparently.
  101. Gib
  102. For a prolonged engagement (or just a really good game), that could be an issue; but on average, how many rounds do you fire per game from a 122mm gun? I never usually fire more than 10 when I'm playing 122mm armed tanks.
  103. Gaijin know that tanks are one of their biggest pulls in WT and so they keep the rewards low to encourage the purchase of premium time and more premium vehicles. It's slightly unethical and not fair for the majority of the playerbase, but that's the way Gaijin have chosen to run things.
  104. I'll admit that the theory is questionable at best. Seriously, though? Donald Trumping your way out of this? That's incredibly apt. Aaaaaaaannndddd the ubiquitous Ad Hominem attack. I have just the quote for this;
  105. If you expect to be taken seriously on the forums then don't write utter garbage like this. And you called my thoughts on why Japan has been so badly treated by Gaijin 'Dumb crap'. Think before you type. Besides, the vox populi isn't correct by default. I can think of plenty of historical situations and current political events which are great examples.
  106. I've only had a few games in the STB-1 with the 105 so far, but I've had a lot of ammo shots not detonate the ammunition like 20pdr APDS would. Are there dataminers looking into this?
  107. In which case...
  108. You can do it with Japanese MBTs, there are Type 61 and STB-1 AI on maps. With Germans you can do it with the regular Tiger IIs and Panthers
  109. If the Panther II did eventually get moved back to 6.7, it needs a lot of change to make it balanced. A rework including removal of the NV optics from the 3D model, replacement of the long 88 with the planned improved 75mm and updated mobility taking into account the weight of the turret & gun would work better for it. If the change in gun and 3D model isn't feasible then at a reduction in mobility to levels which obey the laws of physics would be enough.
  110. Is it just me or is 105mm APDS worse than 20pdr APDS? I have no problem using 20pdr APDS on the Caernarvon, Strv 81, Charioteer etc but 105mm APDS on everything with the L7A1 seems awful in comparison.
  111. Apologies for the late reply. I've done some digging on HESH performance in game and it turns out that I was wrong- it has a +/-20% variance instead, and it's RNG based like most of WoT. This means that a good 50% of the time, a 120mm plate will not be affected by HESH in-game. I recently unlocked my first 8.0 (also my first tank with the L7A1), the STB-1, and 105mm HESH can't deal with tanks like the T-10M. 105 APDS really suffers compared to 20pdr APDS too, it has far less spalling and I seem to get less ammoracking too. (this is all off-topic but I wanted to get the info more well known)
  112. Depends on how you want to play. Do you want to play a sluggish heavy tank with a powerful but slow firing 105mm, or do you want to play a quicker medium tank with a decent 90mm, fairly low profile and quick reload? The choice is yours. If you have of mediums & heavies unlocked in the regular tree then pick the one you perform best with.
  113. That theory wasn't even mine originally. It's certainly fairly plausible anyway given how badly treated Japanese AF has been since their release. I think that counts for more than your reputation of posting things like "Put all tanks with HEAT-FS at 7.7" I couldn't care less about you. It's just tiring to see you poke the beehive and try to start flamewars with comments like the quote above.
  114. Type-62 is already in the game as a gift tank, if you want to rob those of us who worked/spent money to get it then that's just poor.
  115. Has the turret rotation speed been ninja buffed? With the horizontal drive mod it now rivals some of the top tier Soviet mediums. While it's still slow, the Type 62 is even more fun to flank with and occasionally lob HEAT-FS at frontal armour I had a game in it where I flanked a Tiger II P and my APHE didn't OHK him, so he turned his frontal armour towards me- just to get a HEAT-FS shell through the front plate
  116. Japan is always limbered with the Germans against everybody else in RB, even with postwar tanks. There's no other matchmaking variation like the very historical USA vs Japan or USSR vs Japan. I think British (or at least Commonwealth) armour may have fought against the Japanese at some point, I'm not sure though. If they did then it could justify the UK vs Japan matchup.
  117. It's very easy to wiggle the tank's turret between shots, I've had loads of bounces because intelligent King Tiger players do that. The same is done with any other tank with a weak turret, like the Panther series, T-44 series etc. HESH isn't even that amazing, it's fairly unreliable 80% of the time compared to 88mm APHE and also has a weird +/- 10mm or so penetration variance which isn't even shown on the stat card. Back when 105mm HESH could be used against the KT's front plate, there used to be a lot of non-penetrations due to this.
  118. Oh please, I was just using British tanks as an example. There's only a couple of hard KT counters in the US tree within the KT's BR range, the Russians have the same issue. The Conway and FV4005 are very easy kills unless they have the drop on you, you and I know it. Not to mention massive long reloads resulting in them being less well-rounded than KTs. I'd say that the KTs are the best tanks in the game for their BR, considering that hard counters are limbered with massive reloads, worse armour and sometimes worse mobility. Not to mention the overperforming nature of APHE, which suits the KT just fine with a long 88 shell penetrating 230mm of armour every 10 seconds. And planes? Don't assume that everyone uses air[insert disease here].
  119. Every single RB game I play it's always Germany & Japan vs Russia, USA & UK. Why doesn't Japan have varied opposition? I know for a fact that in British tanks you'll often see a fully German team or fully Russian team, it would make a lot of sense if wartime Japanese tanks could see a USA vs Japan game or two. As well as this, Japanese postwar tanks in Rank IV are limbered with German wartime vehicles; when Japan was most definitely not an axis power in the 1950s-60s. The issue carries on up to 8.0 with Japan always playing with the Germans vs everybody else. Why is this so? Does Gaijin not care enough to give Japanese tanks the same matchmaking in RB as other nations?
  120. Even with counters in the game, KTs are still a nightmare to play against. Especially since 105mm HESH was nerfed enough to make it useless against KTs, and using APDS against them is like a death by 1000 cuts- while all a KT player has really ever had to do is point & click.
  121. This thing is only useful in RB if you camouflage the gun and poke it out between 2 pieces of cover. In AB it's decent for locking down sightlines like the long road on the eastern side of Advancd to the Rhine.
  122. Inset_Judgement is just a bad troll, they deliberately post inflammatory comments.
  123. What I meant is that Square is used to make snapshots with the secondary gun, while triangle is used to switch over to the secondary entirely and use the 'sniper mode' bound to it. X is then used to reset weapon selection completely so I can use the main gun and the secondary gun with R1 and Square respectively. One example is the Type 60 SPRR; it has two identical guns mounted together, so I use the default 'sniper view' and fire one with R1 and the other with Square. On tanks like the Ro-Go, T-35, SMK etc it's different; I use the Triangle button to switch to the smaller secondary guns, allowing me to fire from their perspective and use the 'sniper view' from their turret. Then I use X to reset it back to normal with Square being for snapshots with the secondary and R1 firing the main gun. I'd show you a video but I'm busy with other things atm.
  124. Depends how good you are at using Solid Shot and positioning. The T29 is definitely more forgiving, I played a game earlier today where a King Tiger, and IS-6 and a Panther II were unable to kill me via the turret. I was only killed by a flanking T-44. The Strv 81 doesn't have this advantage, although the turret does give some nice bounces sometimes. Ultimately it depends on which nation you want to get Tier V tanks in. Britain is certainly solid in that area despite issues with 120mm APDS, and the USA is slightly behind them in terms of effectiveness.
  125. Apologies for the double post, but let's look at the O-I's attributes objectively: The gun is comparable in shell performance to tanks at 3.7 and below. The armour is comparable in both thickness and angle to the Churchill VII at 4.7. The mobility will be terrible, as expected for something designed to be a mobile pillbox. I expect it will be Maus levels of bad, despite the thinner armour; considering the performance of Japanese tank engines compared to German engines. In terms of surviveability, the tank itself has a large crew of 11, which means that it would certainly do well; even moreso than the Tortoise- however with the spherical explosion of APHE shells, it would be possible to take out multiple crew members with each shot. That is if Gaijin doesn't model the 20mm armoured bulkheads dividing the tank into multiple compartments, which is likely since they haven't modelled bulkheads on other tanks which had them historically; such as the bulkhead between the driver's compartment and the fighting compartment on the Centurion series. As well as this, the O-I is so large that it would be unable to use cover as effectively as similar superheavy tanks. As you have mentioned that the ammo racks are armoured too, that would be another boon to surviveability; if they are actually modelled and perform correctly. The T-55A has the largest ammo rack protected by the fuel tank, and it performed well in preventing an ammo explosion IRL- however in the game this system doesn't protect the ammo racks at all. Considering all these factors, the same BR range (that I have proposed throughout this thread) pops into my head: 5.3-5.7. If the bulkheads & armoured ammo racks are actually modelled and work as they are intended to IRL, 5.7 would be more feasible; however if they aren't, 5.3 makes much more sense. Besides, on a downtier there are plenty of tanks which can frontally engage the O-I by using APCR and other solid shot ammo, or by flanking- something a tank such as the PzIV, Sherman or T-34-76 could easily do.
  126. Why do you insist that this tank be put into a BR range where it's only advantages are negated? Sure, it has 11 crew which would certainly make it surviveable upon penetration; but there are very quick firing guns like the British 20pdr which would negate this. A Centurion 3, Caernarvon or Charioteer could just crew snipe the O-I and leave it completely immobilised. And if it faces ASU-85s, Obj. 906s, T34s, T29s, any of the American & British mediums past 6.0? You may as well not take the O-I in any lineup at all. Nobody would play it if the only advantage (armour & suviveability) was negated by putting it near the 5.7-7.0 black hole. Even if it was 5.3 it would be totally useless in an uptier. At least the Tortoise, T28 and T95 have guns & armour which would be useful on an uptier. Even at 5.7, the only tanks which would struggle to kill the O-I on a downtier are more than able to flank the O-I, except maybe the flakbus & the Churchill VII. Even the US 76mm guns could counter the O-I from the front with solid shot at the sort of ranges which are common in Ground Forces maps. In regards to the shell selection, the 150mm HEAT which the O-I is capable of using is at a massive disadvantage compared to large-caliber HEAT of the other nations: Germany: the Sturmpanzer II at 2.3 has 185mm of HEAT penetration Russia: the SU-122 at 3.3 has 160mm of HEAT penetration (and that's with a smaller gun); the ISU-152 at 6.0 has 250mm of HEAT penetration; the Object 268 at 7.7 has the same. So the 150mm HEAT shell is far below BR 2.3 in terms of effectiveness. The APHE shell is equivalent in penetration to the American 76mm gun's M62 shell, which first appears at 3.7 and is last present at 5.7 on the M4A3E2 76 (which is widely regarded as overtiered junk). The German 75mm PzGr 39 on the PzIV F2 is better too at 3.7BR. It's even better on the Marder III H at 3.0 with 147mm of penetration max. The performance of the ammo is definitely a factor which should be seriously considered when balancing the O-I. Honestly there's no point debating with somebody who accuses the other side of "dreaming" when the other side has put together a valid argument (IMO) which takes the performance of tanks vs the O-I into account.
  127. At what point did I say that solid shot was nerfed? Please, show me; all I've written so far is that APHE is overperforming as a humorous reply to the OP. I'm happy with solid shot's performance. APDS post-pen needs looking at though. It's APHE that's incredibly unrealistic; just compare the blast diagrams in the thread I linked to the way it performs in game. HESH isn't even modelled correctly, and if it was then there would be even more outcry from the heavy armour players. In fact, the "penetration" of 105 and 120mm HESH was nerfed a patch or two ago, and the damage output boosted instead. While it is good, HESH is still far less reliable than APHE is. I have no experience using APFSDS as I do not have any tanks with it, however I do know that the post-pen of APDS waa nerfed to make APFSDS look better, similar to how APCR was nerfed when APDS made an appearance on British tanks when they were added. I never said that we should focus on one type of ammo. Honestly I think you're jusy clutching at straws here and introducing completely unrelated points. I did that in my first post of the topic as a valid bit of humour to show how much OP is whining, but you've taken it to a whole new level. Everything in the 5.7-7.0 range has had to suffer from Tiger II spam. Everything. It's only until recently that some counters were added, and even then the Tiger II still stomps on a lot of players in the AB mode. RB is different because the idiots who play the Tiger II don't get a penetration indicator to deal with tanks which they can't just point and click on. I still see KTs spammed to high heaven in both RB and AB. APHE is the epitome of point & click, and the Long 88 has the most penetration with APHE out of every tank in the 6.0-7.0 range. It was unrivalled in the until a few updates ago with the ASU-85, Obj. 906 and others like the T-44-100. The SU-100 also has a better APHE shell but it's a turretless tank destroyer- and the T-44-100 is still 0.7 BR above the first Tiger II. Even the infamous T29 has less penetration, and it has a longer reload speed- making it less suited to bumrushing players and using the tank like a T-44, which the Tiger II can do comfortably. I don't understand why you've decided to completely derail this thread with your talk of King Tigers and CAS rockets. Are you just a bad troll or what?
  128. I have mine set up like this: R2: accelerate forwards L2: reverse R1: fire selected weapon L1: sniper mode R3: fire all MGs L3: zoom camera X: repair/put out fire/select target O: events menu/switch to MG Square: fire secondary guns Triangle: switch to secondary guns (it allows you to use an individual scope for them, it's very useful for multi-turreted tanks) D-pad left: binoculars D-pad down: free view D-pad up: first type of shells D-pad right: second type of shells Any other commands I have bound to a USB numpad. It's for non-essentials like crosshair lighting, crosshair range control, cruise control, hydropneumatic suspension controls, 3D tank module view, rangefinders, stabiliser on/off, chat etc. If you set seconday weapon selection up like mine, you could use the Maus' 75mm coax more effectively.
  129. It only has 5 modelled; I checked immediately after smoke was added.
  130. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I was leaning more towards a BR in the 5.0-5.7 range. I know that the O-I would be impenetrable to the T-34-76s and Sherman 75s; I only included 4.7 in my reasoning because that's the BR which already has the Churchill VII, which has similar armour and a subpar gun- just like the O-I. This tank sits somewhere in strengths between the KV-2 and Churchill VII, which warrants a BR of between 5.3-5.7; although 5.7 would be too high.
  131. Have you actually played tanks in the abyss of 5.7-7.0? 150mm of nearly un-angled armour is nothing in that BR range. The Caernarvon has better armour with the UFP having roughly 230mm of effective thickness, and it's at 6.7- as well as being more mobile, having a fully stabilised gun, being a much smaller target, and having a decent gun with APDS; 285mm of penetration at most. 20pdr APDS could kill O-Is at over 2000m. Even the T-44 and M26 have better APHE penetration- and they're widely regarded as having very low penetration for the 6.0-7.0 range. The M4A3E2 (76) is overtiered junk- and that's the destiny for the O-I if it's placed at 6.0. Pitting the O-I up against fully stabilised APDS slingers, the American 105 & long 90s and Russian 100 & 122mm guns would reduce the O-I to a hangar ornament. Hell, the T34's 120mm would rip the O-I apart from front to back, armoured bulkheads and all. Mai, you're a good historian, you write excellent blog articles and I'm sure the book you're collaborating on with Listy will be amazing; but please leave the BR balancing debate to people who have experience playing the 5.7-7.0 range.
  132. Reinstall the game?
  133. That's a (rather infamous) map from CS:GO, not an upcoming WT:GF map.
  134. Oh dear. Someone else took the bait... I was referring to how unrealistic APHE's post-penetration is. In WWII tank combat reports you'll see that a lot of crew survive APHE penetration; one Comet tank took 3 or so 88mm penetrations and all it did was lightly wound the driver. Of course that's an exceptionally rare example, so here's a thread which goes into an in-depth statistical analysis of crew members killed by APHE shells: TL; DR it should act like slightly better solid shot instead of the "grenade inside a tank" meme.
  135. It just means you can't use small scraps of cover like the M18, Type 60, T-44 etc can. And of course city maps will be a nightmare when you expose the front of the tank to corner.
  136. It could just be balanced around the armour like the Churchill VII is, that tank has a very poor gun for 4.7. Of course as the O-I's gun is similar to the US 76mm and Soviet 152mm gun in terms of APHE penetration, 5.3 or maybe 5.7 would be best- although 5.7 may be slightly pushing it.
  137. If it were to be 6.0 it would just be a Maus Lite™, and end up as a free RP & SL piñata- especially to the British 20pdr armed tanks, as they would get a hell of a lot of RP etc for crew sniping- while the O-I would have to aim for weakspots. This tank would be a joke- the Maus is a bit of a joke too, but I've seen Sim replays where a player in a Maus carries the entire team.
  138. Rush B! I guess we'll all be buying AWPs too
  139. So you want Gaijin to implement a vehicle at a BR where it will be nearly useless unless they introduce a mode where tanks have to destroy pillboxes? Ok. Let's have a look at the three pillars of tank design: Mobility Protection Firepower The O-I has protection and firepower, but only enough to be used within a certain BR range- not above 6.0.
  140. Pulling this thing into the 6.0-7.0 black hole would make it worse than useless. Look at the other superheavy tanks in this BR range; the T28, the T95, the Tortoise. They have both the armour and gun which allow them to perform their roles fairly well. The O-I does not have the armour for it. A few 100mm shells and it's toast. Not to mention the T-44 which would make mincemeat out of this thing if it were placed at 6.3, as well as the tanks with HEAT-FS too. The only BR range this tank would work at is 4.7-5.3, although 5.3 would be a better choice. The armour can actually work at that BR, and the APHE & HEAT shells will be useable too.
  141. Learn to use smoke.
  142. Gee, I don't know why... perhaps because they were intended to be counters to the Tiger II from the beginning?
  143. That's true. They also get access to HEAT, but as it's not fin-stabilised I guess that's not a great deal of an advantage.
  144. 6.3 would be fine with HEAT-FS. The ASU-85 has a better performing HEAT-FS shell at the same BR.
  145. If anyone complains about HEAT-FS, I generally get the idea in my head that the main reason for their complaint is becausd they play tanks which rely on armour- armour that is negated by HEAT-FS. There are very few tanks which have such armour and are also good all-rounders, and the Tiger II series is one of them.
  146. That won't happen. The round has been in the game far too long for that. All that needs to happen is an APDS buff back to it's pre-1.69 levels, fix APCR properly and abandon this culture of nerfing the previous best solid shot when a new one is added. APCR was originally nerfed when APDS was added with the British.
  147. That's one of the systems that should definitely be implemented to balance the IT-1, RacketenJagdPanzers and the American machines with the Swingfire, Strv 81 and Type 60 MAT, as these three vehicles effectively have a minimum engagement distance thanks to their missile lauching arcs.
  148. A lot of players share your opinion. I'm sick of the '3 corridor' map design meta too, it makes using flankers & light tanks almost impossible without being detected.
  149. And then the absolute spam of Tiger IIs and Panther IIs would triple, with players scrambling to club American tanks, and the American players would have to attempt to needle said Tiger IIs to death with APCR. No. HEAT-FS is unreliable as it is, and German 88mm APHEBC is far better in general. You can only get an OHK with HEAT-FS if you hit a cramped Russian tank and kill all the crew, kill remaining crew members on an already-damaged Tiger II or aim for ammo, and from the front HEAT-FS spalling loses a lot of damage before it reaches ammo racks. Otherwise you have to crew snipe like with APDS. Even with HEAT-FS in the game, 88mm APHEBC still remains at a massive advantage over everything. "But you have to aim for weakspots with it" boo hoo, everybody else has to aim for tiny turret weakspots on the Tiger IIs & Panthers.
  150. When will it end?! War Thunder is not biased towards NATO like you insist in every spam thread. NATO tanks have had loads of problems in the past and still do, while Russian tanks are generally very useable with a few lemons like the PT-76. Using APFSDS requires skill, unlike the APHE handholding Russia has always had. If you get killed by a T95E1 APFSDS shell, it's probably because they have gone through the entire US tree and have learned how to use solid shot.