*AllahHuAirlines

Way of the Samurai
  • Content count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

160 Neutral

1 Follower

About *AllahHuAirlines

  • Rank
    Sergeant
  1. We're already on the way to that situation. In AB it's rare to see more than 2 or 3 people playing British tanks, thanks to the high skill level needed to play them effectively with the poor spalling damage their shells produce. In RB US/UK/USSR vs Germany/Japan you see the same effect.
  2. I'm in agreement with you there. The map meta is awful at higher BRs.
  3. The only possible reason people argue for this is because they want to club other nations in their Glorious Kruppstahl tanks.
  4. The Type 60 ATM has an actual AT capability unlike an HE-lobbing 105mm howitzer
  5. That's funny, I do awfully in the STAs and the Chi-Ri II but I love the M41A1 and the M24
  6. Japan can definitely use more stuff, it's just I don't want what could be a near-useless vehicle added to the tree to pad it out "just because".
  7. Ho-Ri I and II Preferably with the 20mm AA gun mounted to the roof on the Ho-Ri I. Chi-Ha with the long 120mm Centurion AVRE
  8. Instead of individually selecting each gun, just set up a separate control for firing each gun. I play on PS4 so my primary fire control is R1 and my control for the second barrel is the Square button. I can aim the guns and fire each barrel individually without having to switch between them.
  9. I'm in agreement with you there. Playing the STA-1 is not fun at all and it's common to lose credits.
  10. Give it a couple of months for more Japanese tanks to be implemented. There's a whole bunch of tank destroyers which need to go into the tree, a couple of which are actually armoured similar to the Ferdinand. One tank destroyer has a 120mm long barrelled gun in an open top mounting, too. Just give it a chance. The Americans were stomped on too before their tree was fleshed out properly.
  11. The Japanese air forces were in War Thunder already, so it was only logical to add the ground forces in. If Gaijin had just added a bunch of Italian or French tanks into a tree, the Japanese would still be needing a ground forces tree and the Italians/French would need a proper AF tree. That would be like having 3 unfinished projects at the same time. Besides, while postwar French tank designs are very interesting, they mostly rely on autoloader mechanisms. If any of you have played the Chi-Ri II you'll know how broken Gaijin's interpretation of them is.
  12. The KV-2 was designed as a bunker buster (hence it's armour piercing ammunition), the Brummbär was an infantry support gun with HEAT as a last ditch anti-armour capability and the FV4005 was a dedicated tank destroyer prototype. There is no reason to have a soft skinned vehicle with a 105mm cannon that only fires HE. Try taking the M4A3 105 or the StuH. 42 out with only HE and see how useful it is. These two vehicles are actually more protected since the Type 74 artillery only has very thin aluminium armour. To top it all off, the Type 74 is a dedicated artillery vehicle which is not supposed to combat enemy armour at close range. "The weapon [105mm howitzer] was of good quality and intended for indirect, long-range barraging of target areas." - MilitaryFactory.com. No details have been released but it is reasonable to assume that the Type 74 105mm artillery piece only fired HE. There was another variant of the Type 74 artillery piece that fitted a 155mm howitzer and was produced in greater numbers. While it does have a greater selection of ammunition, it is still only rocket propelled variants of standard 155mm HE.
  13. It's a self propelled artillery gun intended for firing on troops, structures and soft skinned vehicles. It's unlikely that it will be added to the game unless it has AT ammunition.
  14. I stopped expecting things from Gaijin a while ago. If anything is even partially fixed it's above my expectations.
  15. At the BP's BR it's pretty useless. It's a tank that relies on armour and that's negated by all the long 75s and 88s it faces. Some 85s can penetrate it too, and anything higher decimates the Mk VII chassis that the BP is based on. A cool premium vehicle would be the Churchill NA75 though. Under Operation "Whitehot", 200 6pdr armed Churchill IVs had their turrets refitted with gun mantlets and 75mm M3 cannons from Shermans which had been disabled by mines, while carrying otherwise lightly used guns. While the armour is nowhere near the 152mm of the Mk VII, it would be very competitive at BR 4.0 along with the Mk III. If it proves too effective then BR 4.3 would be a good position for it.
  16. I've had some monster games in the Churchill Mk VII. Myself and 3 other Churchills capped the C point on El Alamein and several Panzer 4s with the long 75s were shooting at us from a very long range. I bounced 30 shells
  17. The StPz II is another example of Gaijin's hypocrisy. "Player controlled artillery will not be implemented into the game". This is alongside the SU-5-1 which is definitely an artillery vehicle, a tank destroyer would carry more than 8 rounds and wouldn't have such a high firing arc.
  18. Does anyone still randomly get the 'Hit' marker on their screen when firing the Chi-Ri's gun at targets rather than the camera shot showing where the shell went? The same thing happens with MGs in the game and it shouldn't happen to a main gun.
  19. Sadly Gaijin have said that the AVREs (both Church. and Cent.) won't be introduced because they were intended to be used for anti-fortification purposes. Beats me as to why they aren't allowed but the KV2 and SU-100Y is, despite the fact that they were intended for the same purpose.
  20. The SU-5-1 and the StPz. II are both implemented into the game as of the last update, and the StuH 42G has been in the game for a very long time. These vehicles are all artillery pieces. If GJ have gone back on their word concerning player controlled SPGs and artillery pieces, I propose that each nation should get a tree for this class of vehicle. There are plenty for the USSR: SU-8; a 152mm howitzer with gun shield on a T-28 chassis. SU-14-1; a 152mm howitzer on a T-35 chassis. SU-14-2; an armoured version of the 14-1 2S3 "Akatsiya"; a 152mm armed SPG produced in the early '70s. The SU-14s were used in the defense of Moscow alongside other experimental tanks such as the SU-100Y. This justifies their existence in WT.
  21. It would be cool if proper aiming systems for the rocket artillery tanks were implemented. At the moment you have to spend hours getting used to each vehicle's rocket trajectory to launch them in direct fire, but it should be based on map co-ordinates or aimed like mortars are in Battlefield.
  22. That's a very poor reason. We already have 2 Japanese heavy tanks stuck as premiums, the O-I can wait until other heavy tanks are modelled and they can all be added together as one tree.
  23. The O-I should be normal tree. Honestly Japan doesn't have enough tanks to allow vehicles like the O-I to be premium. There's a whole myriad of paper or prototype designs which can be premium, but the O-I was actually produced and tested in army trials so, IMHO it should be one of the Tier 4 heavies in the normal tree.
  24. There's only a few which historically had AP ammo. The Flaktruck is a well-known one, but the Flakpanzer 1 Gepard & the Type 87 SPAA both had an APDS belt which could be switched to instantly in case of attack from enemy light armour. I suppose the 29-K is another one where AT ammunition existed for guns of a similar calibre, I don't know whether it actually shot any APHE irl though.
  25. Treat them all like light tanks or thinly armoured tank destroyers.
  26. Suggestions have been made to Gaijin before and met with denial "because they were used as anti-fortification weapons". Same with the Centurion AVRE. This is despite the fact that the KV2, Brummbär, StPz II, Ho-Ro, M4A3 105 and other derp-gun armed tanks are in the game. Some of which may have never fought tanks at all!
  27. I'd rather they were regular tree and we had either the STA-3 or STA-4 prototypes as premium. Possibly the A-3 since the A-4 is basically a pre-production Type 61.
  28. I've seen references to S.A.P. shells being developed for the 4-inch gun between WWI and WWII. Can anyone find some hard data? I'm tempted to drive down to one of the naval museums in Portsmouth and ask if they have any info
  29. I've found some data on the Gardner 6LW diesel engine used in the Foden DG/6/10: Gardner 6LW 102 hp (later 112 hp) @ 1700 RPM, Natural 6-cylinder diesel, Cylinder Capacity: 8,370cc This is taken from a Wikipedia article which used this site, Tangent Engineering, as a source. Not too sure but I think the variant with increased HP was introduced after the war when Gardner began supplying engines to bus manufacturers.
  30. This would be a great addition. The only gun in the British tree close to that 4-inch naval gun is the 32 pdr on the Tortoise, and that's still a little smaller. I have a feeling it will be even less mobile than the Flakbus and the 29-K, but the size and number of the rear tires give me a little hope for it's handling.
  31. Every nation has had their own unique sfx since launch except the Japanese. I can accept shared sfx for export vehicles like the HT No. 6, the SDF tanks and the STA-1 & 2 armed with copies of the American M3 90mm gun as they are already on other tanks in the game; however sharing the SFX for the German 75 is just strange.