Heat (fs) in WW2 era

[GrumpySven]

@SinisterIsRandom

Japan practically fought all nations. This included Germany not WW1 Germany but actual 4 letter word Germany.

OK, you’re a fan of alternative history, so no wonder you like War Thunder. After all, they make up reality to suit themselves.

[jaded_sakura77]

Certain vehicles are balanced this way such as Ratel 20 who’s only gimmick is to one tap tigers in the face with a milan otherwise it’s borderline useless. Slower, bigger, weaker than all its contemporaries. No gun depression, not even 50 cal proof. A dreadful combination.

[jaded_sakura77]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

it’s mounted on a fast vehicle that accelerates quickly to high top speeds.

I really don’t believe that but then again I haven’t spaded it :/ cross country mobility is actually awful worse than some mediums or french heavys like the amx 50 which outran me

[Mitchverr]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

However, as you said… M-51 literally has AMX-30’s gun and she’ll; it’s basically a M4A1/3 with the firepower of a 1970s tank… Israel made this vehicle to counter T-54s, which it was able to do quite well.

Kind of hard to be a 1970s tanks firepower when the AMX 30 and M51 are 1960s tanks using 1950s gun technology lol (M51 iirc specifically was first in service in 1962, which is also the year the AMX 30 gun was finally completed with most its development in the late 50s). The French also put a similar L44 gun into a Sherman too in the late 50s, IIRC similar munitions.

Make the argument about eras if you will, but it is a little tiring reading people make the argument and getting dates completely wrong, or when they make said argument ignoring that technologies in the vehicles are from before the vehicles were made and “off the shelf” so to speak. (IE your argument suggests the guns are as much as 15-20 years more advanced/later then they actually are)

[Mitchverr]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Ratel 20’s MILAN ATGM can pen the Sherman because it was meant to pen T-55s by the time WW2 Sherman’s were nothing but an ancient museum relic; and it’s mounted on a fast vehicle that accelerates quickly to high top speeds.

Ratel and fast, have you used a Ratel before? Like, I love them and enjoy them, but calling them fast is a, err, yeah. Mobile? Yes, especially given most the UK stuff is like, 35kmh. Fast? Compared to what other nations get? …

edit: inb4 “but muh road use!” stuff.

[jspene]

He’s playing the version from an alternate universe where Gaijin actually fixed its mobility…

[Tagnoch]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Dicker Max’s gun can pen the Sherman because it was meant to pen Shermans back on its day;

It was meant to destroy bunkers and after this t34s

[WinstonWolfe]

I wrote about this a long time ago. If some banana republic produced some junk, don’t add it to the game just to destroy the realism of WWII.

[Tagnoch]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

There’s the slight difference. As stated; not everything is about pen.

You can machine gun the m56 to death with every machine gun in the game.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

Never said anything about M56 though!

As I said above;

@SPANISH_AVENGER

I think there should just be a middle ground.

It’s fine for tanks to time-travel when their capabilities are actually equivalent to those of the opponents they will face… such is the case of ASU-57, for example; which, despite its date of production, doesn’t bring anything different to the table to that which WW2 tanks already do in terms of capabilities.

But I don’t think it’s fine for tanks to time-travel to the degrees they do when this only leads the vehicles forced to face them to be rendered obsolete because of the inherent capability advantages the superior technologies of the time-travellers provide them with by comparison. Why do we need 1941 KV-1s to face 1972 MILAN SACLOS ATGMs?

[jspene]

If we had true realism:

1. Chance for your tank to break down randomly in the middle of the game
2. Every part of your tank besides tracks would be impossible to repair
3. No scouting and no magical mini map
4. No magic third person camera
5. There would be no prototype tanks in games, or at the very least you could only spawn one at a time
6. Majority of maps in game would be removed
7. No crew replenishment

And more…

The fact is that War Thunder sacrifices realism for gameplay in many areas, it’s just that when the gameplay is something you dont like you cry “muh realism”

[RunaDacino]

This is a pretty bad argument.

There’s multiple forms of realism/simulation.

You can simply say “Warthunder is a vehicle combat sim, not a historical sim.” Vehicle handling, physics and damage models ideally follows realism (more so for props than tanks but still). It’s a similar and sufficient argument as “Warthunder is a vehicle combat sim, not a crew management sim.”

To note, it did use to try for historical sim aspects as well - dynamic campaigns and whatnot - but those got unfortunately abandoned :/.

The in-game encyclopedia can be pretty funny in how it kinda plays them up.

[jspene]

That’s not what the guy I was responding to said, War Thunder has never been a WW2 simulation game and never will be.

I agree than it’s an arcadey vehicle combat simulator, but then there’s no issue with HEAT-FS slingers facing WW2 tanks.

If you can prove that a specific HEAT tank is too strong, then I agree it should be moved up. But basing a BR of a tank off when it was used is dumb because then you’d have M48s fighting T-64s.

[RunaDacino]

I’m not disagreeing with your premise, just that I really hate the “we can’t have realism because other unrealistic components exist.”

It’s a pet peeve of mine, one that also extends to discussions concerning fiction (fantasy + arms & armour and melee combat techniques, sci-fi + logistics and consistency).

[_Renzo]

Also asymmetrical CAS would be a thing. You would basically have to give every US late ww2 player a free P-47 that they can spawn at any moment of the game while late ww2 German players would have max 3-5 CAS spawns shared between the entire team.

[SinisterIsRandom]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[GrumpySven]

Thanks, but I’ve known that for a long time. And where did Japan fight Germany? Nowhere. You’re confusing Germans with Germany… BigBang help!

And then Italians with Germans.

[SinisterIsRandom]

You need help. You need a lot of help, gramps.

[Silesian_Lynx]

What you mean is this part of Sino-German friendship: China–Germany relations (1912–1949) - Wikipedia Sending military attachés was not an active participation against Japan. But this is off-topic.

[BOMBAY9997042]

as someone who spaded the m56 I agree that I have only 5 mm of protection