Jarms

British Bug Reports

1 hour ago, *BrentD15 said:

No AP ammo?

There never was any AP ammo for the 3 Inch Howitzer, just Smoke and HE.

 

Not that we'd ever see it in game and it would be quite silly if we did. The closest we would get to AT ammo for the 3" Howitzer would be an experimental shell called the Cambridge shell which was designed as a high capacity flame weapon but the shell could also be used for a hollow charge projectile. The round need to be fired without spinning so as to not upset destabilise the flammable liquid inside.

 

As a flame round, the shell was tested in the 3" Howitzer used by Matilda II and Churchill Mk I CS tanks (somehow they got around the fact that this gun was rifled and would spin the round), only later was a cut-down 95mm HEAT cone attached to the 3" shell and tested in gun made specifically for it; this "Camal Gun" smooth-bore firing this Cambridge HEAT round achieved a penetration of 120mm@30° in one test and 150mm@30° in another. If they managed to stop the shell from spinning in a 3 Inch Howitzer I imagine it might have been just as effective.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Every little helps and all that. It'd be nice to have HOT levels of pen, even if post-pen did still heckin' suck.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 10:57, *Carbide_ said:


Every little helps and all that. It'd be nice to have HOT levels of pen, even if post-pen did still heckin' suck.

 

Added.

 

:salute:

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Shrike142 did bug report about mantlet armour of Centurion Mk10. Finally someone did it! It always seemed so weird to me that Mk10 had way weaker mantlet than Mk 3.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, FilipAleksanderS said:

I think Shrike142 did bug report about mantlet armour of Centurion Mk10. Finally someone did it! It always seemed so weird to me that Mk10 had way weaker mantlet than Mk 3.

It was mainly about the turret roof not being modelled correctly and the missing trunnion block. About 8" (203mm) cast steel completely missing from behind the mantlet.

 

Edited by Shrike142
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2018 at 01:49, FuryMkI said:

By the way looks like the RARDEN penetration is also being reported on the russian forum https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/251187-181116-30mm-rarden-apds-t-nekorrektnoe-probitie/

 

Speaking of the RARDEN, shouldn't it's rate of fire be higher than 80 RPM? I could have sworn it was at least 90 RPM.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/10/2018 at 04:30, Taurevanime said:

Speaking of the RARDEN, shouldn't it's rate of fire be higher than 80 RPM? I could have sworn it was at least 90 RPM.

Unfortunately, no.

636509945_screenshot_43.jpg.e4387be3fe67

screenshot_44.jpg.7e47372c761156052978e6

  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what about HESH effectiveness currently - will the "removal of HE shockwave" from the rounds smaller than on the FV4005 and AVRE get reverted? 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t suppose someone could help me out with this, please? I really don’t have free time these days. 

 

 

 

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jarms said:

I don’t suppose someone could help me out with this, please? I really don’t have free time these days.

I tracked down the source of the image KotA was asking about and explained that while it being something that someone has made and uploaded to the internet might not make it a good source, it does serve to illustrate the layout of the armour described in the tables you posted with it :salute:.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/11/2018 at 09:27, Time4Tea said:

I tracked down the source of the image KotA was asking about and explained that while it being something that someone has made and uploaded to the internet might not make it a good source, it does serve to illustrate the layout of the armour described in the tables you posted with it :salute:.

 

Thanks for that. It unfortunately looks like they archived the report. I’ll have to ask a mod to reopen it.

 

Also hoping to report the Valentine Mk. IX missing shoulder stop. I have an interior diagram but trying to find the source (that computer crash really killed me. Lol).

 

UZl0Z2k_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

 

I had another source stating the Mk. IX used a shoulder stop, but I need to find that too. Haha. 

 

Other things I’m looking to report:

- Valentine Mk. IX armour values.

- Valentine Mk. XI armour values.

- Crusader AA Mk. II turret ring. They fixed it, but they made it 50mm cast instead of 50.8mm RHA. 

 

Edited by Jarms
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/12/2018 at 11:06, Jarms said:

Also hoping to report the Valentine Mk. IX missing shoulder stop. I have an interior diagram but trying to find the source (that computer crash really killed me. Lol).

 

 

 

I had another source stating the Mk. IX used a shoulder stop, but I need to find that too. Haha. 

 

Not sure if this helps at all; but there are some great photos of the inside of this restored Valentine Mk V

sOf2ge0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update from what I've seen after the patch went live. 

 

On 29/11/2017 at 07:41, Jarms said:

- Churchill Mk. III missing structural steel + turret offside incorrect thickness

- Churchill Mk. III issues with armour thickness: Partially resolved still needs turret offside and hull MG port armour fixed. Also needs internal MS plates and rear fuel drum added to damage model.

 

The turret offside has been fixed, unfortunately though they have given it 89.9mm not 88.9mm. So it's actually the strongest part of the turret now. 

 

Still needed to be fixed:

- MG Port weakspot.

- Missing internal MS plates.

- Rear fuel drum missing from damage model (not a priority).

 

On 29/11/2017 at 07:41, Jarms said:

- AEC Mk. II Wrong Crew Size: Partially resolved crew members given wrong positions.

 

It appears that the crew member positions have been fixed. I'm not sure when, but it also looks like smoke grenades have been added. 

 

On 16/12/2018 at 04:27, RoryWatt18 said:

 

Not sure if this helps at all; but there are some great photos of the inside of this restored Valentine Mk V

sOf2ge0.jpg

 

I don't think it will unfortunately, it'd have to be an internal photo of a Mk. IX or Mk. X. 

 

It also looks like they're closing our Crusader incorrect armour report. They want us to split it up into individual reports. 

Edited by Jarms
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jarms said:

Still needed to be fixed:

- MG Port weakspot.

- Missing internal MS plates.

- Rear fuel drum missing from damage model (not a priority).

Is the angle of the hull glacis (between the driver plate and hull nose) correct on the Mk III? Its 63° for the Mk III but 68° for the Mk I and 69° for the 3 Inch Gun Carrier.

 

"AFV Weapons Profile 1: Churchill, British Infantry Tank Mk IV" gives an angle of 70° for the glacis on the Churchill Mk III:

 

Spoiler

GL4MTx4.png

 

But then this source gives 76mm for the sides of the turret - probably to keep things simple though (since they cut the decimals off the thickness too).

Edited by Time4Tea
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Is the angle of the hull glacis (between the driver plate and hull nose) correct on the Mk III? Its 63° for the Mk III but 68° for the Mk I and 69° for the 3 Inch Gun Carrier.

 

"AFV Weapons Profile 1: Churchill, British Infantry Tank Mk IV" gives an angle of 70° for the glacis on the Churchill Mk III:

 

  Hide contents

GL4MTx4.png

 

But then this source gives 76mm for the sides of the turret - probably to keep things simple though (since they cut the decimals off the thickness too).

 

Oh, I never even thought to check the angle. I’m going to have to look into that.

 

According to Whelmy the turret offside is 3.5 inch, same as the turret front. 

 

fppF4UU.jpg

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jarms said:

According to Whelmy the turret offside is 3.5 inch, same as the turret front.

Indeed, I only mentioned my source giving 76mm for both turret sides to show that it wasn't an entirely accurate source. I imagined that Whelmy's source would be the more accurate one :DD.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, the hull glacis angle inconsistency appears to be present on some other vehicles too, though to a somewhat lesser degree. The Valentine Mk I has a 66° glacis, the IX and XI have a 67° glacis ("AFV Weapons Profile 06: Valentine Mk III" states an angle of 68° - but this is for the Mk III). The Cromwell Mk I has a 74° glacis while the Mk V has a 70° ("Armour in Profile 05: Cromwell Mk IV" states an angle of 70° - which is correct with the Mk V).

 

There are other vehicles that I don't have sources for such as the Avenger and Challenger with the former having a 71° glacis while the latter has a 73° glacis. The Churchill Mk VII has a 66° glacis while the Black Prince has a 70° glacis - the same angle that earlier Churchills are supposed to have which leads me to believe that the angle of the Mk VII's glacis may not be correct.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every tanks you cited should have 70° glacis except for the Valentine at 66°, I have some stuff to report that, I'll try to do it once, I still plan to do the turret rings but I've been a bit lazy lately and anyway they might get lost inbetween the hordes of reports for italian stuff as I guess It is their top priority at the moment.

 

Just my assumption here but the inconsistencies might be due to the fact that the devs maybe don't always have such precise data as angle of plates and as such model the vehicles based on pictures, drawings etc...  so when you hover your mouse above a plate it is just extrapolating the angles from the 3D models, 

Edited by FuryMkI
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, FuryMkI said:

Every tanks you cited should have 70° glacis except for the Valentine at 66°, I have some stuff to report that, I'll try to do it once, I still plan to do the turret rings but I've been a bit lazy lately and anyway they might get lost inbetween the hordes of reports for italian stuff as I guess It is their top priority at the moment.

I do wonder if this could mean that the Churchill turret roof angles are incorrect too? Looking at some of the technical drawings for the VII at least, the turret roof looks more like 80° rather than 77°. It'd be nice to not have to worry about medium velocity 7xmm cannons punching through those spot as much. Good like with the turret ring reports when the Italian invasion is over :salute:.

 

19 hours ago, FuryMkI said:

Just my assumption here but the inconsistencies might be due to the fact that the devs maybe don't always have such precise data as angle of plates and as such model the vehicles based on pictures, drawings etc...  so when you hover your mouse above a plate it is just extrapolating the angles from the 3D models, 

This sounds like the most plausible explanation, would explain the issues we had (we still have) a while back with the difference in construction angles for the two AEC Mk IIs we have.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Time4Tea said:

I do wonder if this could mean that the Churchill turret roof angles are incorrect too? Looking at some of the technical drawings for the VII at least, the turret roof looks more like 80° rather than 77°. It'd be nice to not have to worry about medium velocity 7xmm cannons punching through those spot as much. Good like with the turret ring reports when the Italian invasion is over :salute:.

 

This sounds like the most plausible explanation, would explain the issues we had (we still have) a while back with the difference in construction angles for the two AEC Mk IIs we have.

I have 78° mentionned for the Churchill, the AEC however wow I never realised there was such a difference between the 2 of them o_o Sadly I haven't got anything for it... Maybe one day I could try to sneakily measure the one they have at the Bastogne barracks :004_2: They kindly authorised me to get inside last week :D

  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.