Hussar91

Gaijin, why do you hate the British?

man, this continues to rattle my brain. i hear n c this all the time, ppl complaining about how brit tanks r horrible etc, n from my personal experience, this rlly is quite far from the truth. with the exception of a very few bad vehicles (like that wheelbarrow with a motor n a 17pounder attached to it that they call the archer), the brits rlly do have a very solid roster of tanks. i rlly think this is a mostly a L2p issue here. 

  • Confused 9
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FrobroSwagginz said:

man, this continues to rattle my brain. i hear n c this all the time, ppl complaining about how brit tanks r horrible etc, n from my personal experience, this rlly is quite far from the truth. with the exception of a very few bad vehicles (like that wheelbarrow with a motor n a 17pounder attached to it that they call the archer), the brits rlly do have a very solid roster of tanks. i rlly think this is a mostly a L2p issue here. 

Until tier 6 and 7 it's bottom of the barrel there

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, FrobroSwagginz said:

so u clearly haven't played japan

I have all Japan and I agree up to tier 3 is **** but from there Japan becomes God mode

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how incoming shots that penetrate and kill the tank every single time, no matter where they hit, or from what angle, or range can be a ltp issue.

Where I have been playing, at rank 3, Comet, Avenger, Churchill v11 I cannot, try as I might, get a decent battle.

Either the admittedly thin armour, isn't working at all, or the RNG factor is ridiculously biased and, if so many people are complaining, then perhaps there IS something wrong.

Not that I am a particularly good player I freely admit, but I can play other nations' tanks and do somewhat better than the Brits, at least at this rank/BR

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/03/2019 at 10:59, FrobroSwagginz said:

so u clearly haven't played japan

 

I've played both trees extensively. Japan is much easier than Britain from 2.0 onward; when compared the main downside to Japan is the lack of tanks in Rank V/VI to make well rounded lineups with, and even then that's become less of an issue with the addition of the Type 89 and Type 74G. Britain has the edge with 2-plane stabilisers from 6.7 onwards, but British tanks are still painful to play in WT thanks to their armour layout.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the chieftain mk3, i love how it cant turn, how slow it is both in top speed and acceleration, how it's turret armour can be penned by most 7.7 tanks and how it's at 8.3 where most of what it faces are better in either every way or 2/3 ways. why do gaijin hate brit tanks? because they have guns that can pen russian armour so in order to keep russian tanks on top they nerf the brits as much as they can. the fact of the matter is, brits are the biggest threat to the russian tanks and that's just something gaijin will not tolerate.

Edited by badwolf87
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/03/2019 at 11:18, AG9229 said:

Smin, if Gaijin doesn't hate the British, and you are here taking suggestions to make things better, your absence from this thread is disappointing, considering your last post here was February, but you have been active in the forums as recently as yesterday. Why are you not helping to get the Cromwell's armour correctly modelled? 

 

Could you link me to the report please?

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Could you link me to the report please?

 

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/446569-187058-cromwell-i-and-v-missing-inner-turret-structure/

 

Note this is the fourth time we've reported this. It gets accepted every time since it's primary sources, and then someone on the Russian forum says "no that isn't true", and it never happens in game, despite them not showing any evidence to support their claim.

 

This has happened 3 times before, even getting as far as the dev server, which is generally when the RU forum spots it and "counteracts" it.

 

This is why any time people are told "just bug report it" people get mad and cite the Cromwell. This has gone on for 2 years now.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Upvote 6
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/446569-187058-cromwell-i-and-v-missing-inner-turret-structure/

 

Note this is the fourth time we've reported this. It gets accepted every time since it's primary sources, and then someone on the Russian forum says "no that isn't true", and it never happens in game, despite them not showing any evidence to support their claim.

 

This has happened 3 times before, even getting as far as the dev server, which is generally when the RU forum spots it and "counteracts" it.

 

This is why any time people are told "just bug report it" people get mad and cite the Cromwell. This has gone on for 2 years now.

 

Thanks for the report, however im intrested, could you please link me also to where this is supposedly being "shot down" on the RU forum?

 

We dont close bug reports just because someone says "thats not true". They have to provide sources. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Thanks for the report, however im intrested, could you please link me also to where this is supposedly being "shot down" on the RU forum?

 

We dont close bug reports just because someone says "thats not true". They have to provide sources. 

 

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/228325-1731126-rebronirovanie-cromwell-v-i-cromwell-i/

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

According to that topic, the issue was with the riveted vs welded construction layouts? it also links to a topic where many sources were provided.

 

 

i have no idea abou that issue. i was just aware of it. first link is the russian report and the second link, about the middle of it, is where ppl start to talk about it and become aware of the russian bug report.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

According to that topic, the issue was with the riveted vs welded construction layouts? it also links to a topic where many sources were provided.

 

 

As they say, they demand the zones be returned to the (incorrect) lower amounts.

 

These amounts, as the sources we have reported multiples times, are not true.

 

" The thickness of these zones must be returned to 63 mm and 44 mm, respectively. 13 mm plates behind them can be left as a construction. " They have shown no evidence to confirm this.

 

Except as has been shown in evidence, the total armour thickness is more like 76.7mm. As is clearly shown.

TD8401_Sheet2.jpg

 

64mm + 12.7mm = 76.7mm

 

This is missing in game.

 

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/03/2019 at 10:43, Smin1080p said:

 

Could you link me to the report please?

 

That simply does not answer my question.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/03/2019 at 15:18, Smin1080p said:

 

Thanks for the report, however im intrested, could you please link me also to where this is supposedly being "shot down" on the RU forum?

 

We dont close bug reports just because someone says "thats not true". They have to provide sources. 

So, what possible evidence could be better than that which is provided in the form of armour profile schematics drawn in 1943 for the British DTD? I'll help: there isn't any.

 

The evidence here is both literally and metaphorically in black and white. So, can you provide the supposedly superior evidence which contradicts drawing T.D. 8401 for the DTD, and dated 21st July 1943? Going by your assertion, it must a) be out there, and; b) have been submitted. 

 

I won't hold my breath.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AG9229 said:

That simply does not answer my question.

 

Your question was to why am I not helping with one singular issue, without a link to the exact bug report, I cant do anything to help as I wont have the history and context of the issue. Hence why I first asked for the report link so I can begin. 

 

49 minutes ago, AG9229 said:

So, what possible evidence could be better than that which is provided in the form of armour profile schematics drawn in 1943 for the British DTD? I'll help: there isn't any.

 

The evidence here is both literally and metaphorically in black and white. So, can you provide the supposedly superior evidence which contradicts drawing T.D. 8401 for the DTD, and dated 21st July 1943? Going by your assertion, it must a) be out there, and; b) have been submitted. 

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

If you read the response on the RU forum, it actually explains why it was contested. That Armour schematic is for a welded body Cromwell, when the version we have in game is the riveted version. A link to an RU report with documentation is provided. According to which, the values for our Cromwell (Riveted) are indeed correct. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

If you read the response on the RU forum, it actually explains why it was contested. That Armour schematic is for a welded body Cromwell, when the version we have in game is the riveted version. A link to an RU report with documentation is provided. According to which, the values for our Cromwell (Riveted) are indeed correct. 

The solution then should be to model the inner armour of our Cromwell's turret as has been done (partially) with the Crusader Mk III (which now has a 19mm CHA plate behind the 30mm RHA turret face)?.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smin1080p said:

If you read the response on the RU forum, it actually explains why it was contested. That Armour schematic is for a welded body Cromwell, when the version we have in game is the riveted version. A link to an RU report with documentation is provided. According to which, the values for our Cromwell (Riveted) are indeed correct. 

That is flat out wrong. The schematic literally says the turret is bolted, as with standard Cromwell turrets. Additionally, the schematic literally says the hull is of the rivetted type. It's there in writing.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, AG9229 said:

That is flat out wrong. The schematic literally says the turret is bolted, as with standard Cromwell turrets. Additionally, the schematic literally says the hull is of the rivetted type. It's there in writing.

 

Thats the turret. The Russian report cites riveted hull vs welded hull: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/228325-1731126-rebronirovanie-cromwell-v-i-cromwell-i/

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WO 194/109/4 TD 8401 Cromwell Plate thickness was the one presented in the bug report. This is a Armour scheme for a tank with a welded hull. In game It is the riveted hull,  and the scheme WO 194/109/8 TD 8401 Cromwell Plate thickness is the applicable one, which it conforms too.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

WO 194/109/4 TD 8401 Cromwell Plate thickness was the one presented in the bug report. This is a Armour scheme for a tank with a welded hull. In game It is the riveted hull,  and the scheme WO 194/109/8 TD 8401 Cromwell Plate thickness is the applicable one, which it conforms too.

 

is the 194/109/8 the one in the picture above?

 

i think i see the confusion. the picture above is of the riveted hull. but it has a iner skin welded on the inside of the turret. lets see if i can show it.

 

 

cromwell.JPG

Edited by zuadao
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zuadao said:

 

is the 194/109/8 the one in the picture above?

 

i think i see the confusion. the picture above is of the riveted hull. but it has a iner skin welded on the inside of the turret. lets see if i can show it.

 

 

cromwell.JPG

 

The version we have in game is reflected in document 194/109/8 TD 8401. Looking over the one posted above, its not that one. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.