It’s whatever the hell i want it to be. TD/SPAA it is. I don’t have a 6.7 lineup, btw, I have a 7.0 lineup. And you just got another SPAA for 6.7, if you’d care to read the patch notes.
1 Like
They implemented the BR changes.
thats not correct friend. there is no way a shell which lacks penetration power makes it through the armour without abusing armour holes. if not this, then it uses the overpressure bug. this often takes place BECAUSE of the spamming of said shells which, in recent times i have come to theorise, overloads the CPU computations and causes a mistake in which the overpressure penetrates into the target.
youre asking for intentional and distinct ahistorical changes in a game which, abliet inconsistently, prioritises historical accuracy. i for one, will never support ahistorical changes that go against clear data.
1 Like
The Jumbo 75 was prior at a BR with strong survivability, but limited lethality yet got uptiered into near-obsolescence. An APHE rework would allow it to be re-tiered properly where it would have effective armor wiithout being toothless. The same would go for other tanks like the Churchill.
Tanks with large and spacious crew compartments should be more " tanky " - They were designed that way for crew comfort and crew survivability in the event of a penetrating hit, after all.
3 Likes
INCREASE The pen. Actually.
I think we can both agree that when we mean ‘armour holes’, we mean unintended gaps in armour.
87mm of penetration is enough to go through most cupolas and thus kill the enemy tank, which doesn’t require armour holes to exist.
If the cupola is too small / can’t be penetrated, you can instead sometimes (even by accident) ricochet off of the mantlet and, instead, penetrate the roof armour of most tanks.
Spoiler
Or even shoot at slightly less-angled roof weakspots / weakspots in general:
This isn’t true since for overpressure mechanic to exist, the shell needs at least ~170g of TNT equivalence. The PzGr shells of the Coelian only has 37.4g.
What is (was) actually going on is that APHE / SAPHE shells have a bug where if the enemy reverses, the shells magically go through armour.
This is different to the overpressure bug that was going on some time ago (especially with the M247), which in that case your explanation is good.
M247’s SAPHEI / HE shells have 262g and 192g of TNT equivalence respectively, which is more than enough for overpressure to occur if it somehow penetrates (which is what the bug back then caused).
Spoiler
I mean, I get your position. If you care about accuracy then those two ways of reducing the problem isn’t feasible.
However, I think (for the balance of the game) it is worth it.
There are a bunch of historical inaccuracies that haven’t been implemented into the game for valid gameplay reasons.
I can give you a few good examples (at least in my opinion). Each tank sight in war thunder is the same, other than FOV and zoom. In reality, they would have differences in qualities, especially between opitcal sights and digital cameras. Cold War Gen 1 thermals also only had fixed color palette (like on M60 TTS and early M1 variants), but in-game you can switch it to black-white, or red-white if the player prefers it.
Commander also does not open their hatch to use their binoculars, meaning that your binoculars are effectively floating in mid-air while you use it. However, players in-game would probably complain about their commander always dying when they use the mechanic.
Most top-mounted machine guns also don’t have any operator in-game, unlike in real life.
If you had to open your hatch to use those MGs, I believe people would use them much less often.
Should we fix all these changes for ‘historical accuracy’?
1 Like
Yeah, it could probably go as low as 4.7, great armour but glorified 106mm pen AP at 4.7 isn’t that great to be honest.
I mean just look at the Churchill Mk VII. 😅
Of course, the Jumbo is at least fast enough to get into some flanking positions, so I doubt it would be as bad as that Churchill.
Probably 5.0 / 5.3 to be honest with you.
Not sure what you mean here.
If you’re talking about the APHE Churchill (NA75), then yes it could change, but I think APHE slingers would move around in BR, and not the AP slingers… unless its surrounding had been changed so drastically by the APHE nerf.
I understand that, but I think APHE nerfs would make them even more survivable. (A buff to the vehicles where it may not have been necessary)
1 Like
I absolutely do not trust gaijin to make such change and not completly screw it up royally. What I would see as likely scenario would be gaijin turning all shells damage wise, no matter their mass or explosive filler, into the british 75mm AP like that found on cromwell.
and that one is depressing.
3 Likes
yes we can
im not sure if the experimental APHE spall formula wouldve fixed this but i was eager to try it out
it should need arond 170g of TNT however in my own experience, i have seen shells with much lower explosive mass detonate and damage internals of vehicles which should not have been damaged by it.
im not sure if gaijin models HE propagated spall even if the shell doesnt penetrate (WOT players will understand)
yep, that one especially
i can understand ur argument, however imo it doesnt apply.
since explosive mass is distinct and seperately modelled for each shell, while Optics and FOV etc are not aside from zoom, NVD and TVD. the color and fov are not subject to this, for better or worse.
which is also a standard across the WT universe.
this i cannot argue against since this is not a consistent standard applied across the WT universe.
if not all, then we need consistency at the minimum.
1 Like
We can just start with a simple fix that stops ricocheting APHE from detonating since the shell cavity and fuse would be too deformed to properly detonate, you can see that in may physics simulations of APHE shells.
1 Like
again, it would not be you doing the fix/remodel, it would be gaijin. I absolutely do not trust them on this one lol.
Yeah i agree with you on that
👍
Apparently it still goes through most cupolas.
Not sure if you could give me any examples of this?
Maybe you misremembered or misunderstood what happened?
I haven’t really seen this be the case other than the current APHE / SAPHE bug, other than the occasional armour holes on some vehicles where shells damage vehicles where they should not have been.
However, overpressure does not occur in either of these cases.
👍
Fair enough.
Again, fair enough.
I agree with this, though I still think balance should come first (especially if it’s a severe issue) before historical accuracy.
They could also remove the Coelian if it’s too much of an issue, I guess. Though I don’t think many people would be too happy about that.
I guess the only other option is to nerf APHE, but that will take a whole rework of the system and each APHE vehicle’s BR, which may cause a lot of problems in that moment.
1 Like
Ricocheting APHE is only one of the issues with high rate-of-fire, low-caliber, high-penetration, relatively-high-TNT-equivalent APHE / SAPHE shells.
You’d still have to go about with the issue that they can kill most tanks frontally via cupola / small weakspots
2 Likes
Don´t worry, bros, BI still at 6.7.
2 Likes
Not to mention basically no armor on the turret - .50 cal can demolish it.
1 Like
Buff it more imo. More SPAA = better.
Love seeing the Flakpanzer where it belongs. With the Panther II and KT 10.5.
My next wish is for them to open it up so that newer players have the chance of having such a lineup, even though they only really like bringing back the Maus.
7 Likes
2 Likes
I doubt Gaijin would do that for the Panther II and Tiger 105mm, let alone the Coelian. Most people who have those vehicles would get angry that it would no longer be exclusive.