should i get it? i am between the Ram II the P-47(USSR) and Talisman for a random tier 5 plane or tank (keep in mind i am rank 4 in UK so it will not help me in my grind the same with the p47
Right, forgot about that fact, it took the US getting a vehclie is has no relation to for one of the 3 operators (Canada, UK, Netherlands) to get it. Another reason not to like the Skink in the US tree. That trade shouldn’t have been needed.
Sadly, Gaijin believes the US order for Ram tanks wasn’t cancelled before they got some, by the incorrect name.
5 Likes
Eh I wasn’t a big fan of Thunderbolts so if I were you I might buy either Talisman or Ram II
So when it comes to not making a premium the ONLY way to access a “historically important” vehicle or new weapon system, wanna talk about the F-14D? The “Super Tomcat” was historically important as not only is it the most widely recognized F-14 variant (since it is THE Top Gun plane.) but it also made major improvements to both the engines and the radar. Not only this but in the game the F-14D gets access to the AIM-54C+. This missile is not just “another variant of the phoenix missile” it is a full on upgrade and a half of the AIM-54C. As stated on the navy’s official aviation website: “AIM-54C+ High Power Phoenix-
Improved variant developed by Hughes for F-14D. Contains internal heaters, which eliminates need for temperature conditioning liquid, high-power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) transmitter adapted from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and low-sidelobe antenna. Latest version of RPM substitutes 6 ultra-high-speed computer chips for 45 of earlier, less-capable chips. Full-scale development began in August 1987. First test flight of fully upgraded missile on 14 August 1990 scored a direct hit on a QF-4 drone.” - (https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701) the AIM-54C+ not only has more processing power, but internal heaters that help the missile especially in high altitudes, and a higher power radar from the AIM-120. Considering the following I believe it is safe to say the AIM-54C+ is not just way better than the AIM-54C, but a new whole weapons system in general. Do you see what I see? That seems to go against your previous statement of “Our current approach at the high ranks is generally to make premium vehicles useful for progression without making them the only way to access a unique capability, weapon system, or a historically significant vehicle.” I would recommend adding the F-14D to the tech tree because of this.
I don’t believe there ever was a RAM with the 75mm.
There was a plan to switch the Ram IIs to the OQF 75mm gun like much of the British tanks do to capability with US ammo. Exactly how many was converted during the War and their service history is unknown, however all post war service examples did use the OQF 75mm as that’s the only type the Dutch had.
And this can be seen clear as day with the suggestions for them:
3 Likes
A bunch of british vehicles just received APHE, which britain notoriously did not use. Britain has benefitted quite a bit from C&P.
5 Likes
Oh mate, that is completely incorrect.
That is a straight example of ‘myth by Gaijin’.
Imagine that we literally left things at Dunkirk and Americans gave ammunition for 75mm M2/M3 that can also be used in OQF 75mm
Do you really think that we dump the APHE version of M61 APCBC into Dover offshore and illogically captivated to use Solid shot version of M61 APCBC only?
You can find proofs that we used those in the discussion thread about that
It is not us who didn’t use APHE
It is Gaijin that didn’t give us APHE
“OH TECH TREE UNIQUENESS IS IMPORTANT AND 17/20PDR DOESN’T HAVE APHE, SO- Remove APHE from OQF 75mm and only keeping those in Sherman II and Churchill NA75 that uses 75mm M3.”
6 Likes
^ guy who gets his history from war thunder
3 Likes
Mate Britain used M61 it is literally the reason it was given as Gajin refused to for many years
They should also add the 6 pounders APDS
5 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/K2CFi8rU0Cqw
Im not disputing that the british had M61- but it seems like the British were removing the explosive fillers for a good portion of the war at least.
And as far as “myths” go, its pretty consistent with british armor doctrine in the cold war, as they were not using APHE on the centurions.
it was done on occasion, as APHE didnt really give much benefit over a solid shot shell, and thats if the fuse even worked (aphe fuses were notoriously unreliable) but we still very much used the APHE in our QF75mms and m3 75mms.
3 Likes
Can this be proved in any way
“APHE shells for tank guns, although used by most forces of this period, were not used by the British. The only British APHE projectile for tank use in this period was the Shell AP, Mk1 for the 2 pdr anti-tank gun and this was dropped as it was found that the fuze tended to separate from the body during penetration.”
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28541
Since the british evaluations of APHE were poor, it makes sense that, when the british used M61 and other aphe rounds, the he filler was removed just due to how expensive the explosive fillers were.
3 Likes
Sorry but what amounts to a single sentence on a webpage proves precisely nothing
5 Likes
Mate do you have any ‘Proper source’ which aren’t bloody Wikipedia-but-book?
The encyclopedia has its own role but this is not how to use it.
that websites source is a random handwiki page with no solid sources.
Hmm, not a single inert M61 APCBC shot found here, only M61 APCBC/HE. By April 1944 the British were solely using APHE with their 75mm guns, because that’s what they got from the US.
The difference is the British didn’t make anymore APHE rounds after the 3-Pdr and 2-Pdr, they still happily used what was delivered.
7 Likes
It’s kinda funny that the later war British tanks with the QF 75 have a better claim to US APHE rounds than their earliest Shermans used in North Africa.
1 Like
A big issue I have with the current implementation of “copy” vehicles is that, in many cases, they actually should have distinguishing features that could set them apart from their preexisting counterparts, at the very least visually. These little features can offer something for players to get invested in, which is exactly what I’d think Gajin would want for a new addition they might’ve spent a good chunk of time and resources modeling.
But routinely, effort is not invested into modeling these distinctions. This illustrates a lack of care or forethought behind the addition of these redundant vehicles, making it more difficult to believe that there is a deeper rationale to their addition beyond just checking a box. At that point, pushback to redundant vehicles is only natural when the playerbase feels their concerns or requests are disregarded.
Here’s some specific examples just to illustrate my point:
- The Finnish T-34 is missing various external modifications and German/Finnish ammunition
- The Leopard 1BE is missing its Belgian ammunition [Link]
- The Washington B.Mk.1 is missing its British ordnance [Link] and is unable to use its ground radar
- By extension, just about every US plane in the British tree should be able to use British bombs, but they are largely limited to their US ordnance currently
- The Israeli Imp.Chaparral is missing a front pintle mg [Link]
5 Likes