You are talking about what you can do if you see it which is fine accept much of War Thunder is about hiding and camo.
This issue is the damage the M44 does and the fact it should not be facing WW2 opposition that relies on it’s historical armour values.
I know it’s a joke right?
1 Like
People are hilarious sometimes.
“Centurion, M47/48, and T-54 are cold war, and Maus isn’t.”
Then you bring up the dates of their prototypes all being 1944 - 1945 and they get quiet fast.
1 Like
The damage it does… Like the lower-tier swede howitzer? The Brummbar? Any of the other 150mm+ armed vehicles?
Historical armor values didn’t mean much for most of WW2 because historically most tanks got clapped by artillery, AT guns, or airstrikes anyways. And, to boot…
The WW2 equivalent would be basically the same thing, on an even lighter chassis. Would you rather have that? :P
1 Like
Brumbär has the muzzle velocity of a 9mm.
Edit: I stand corrected. Of a .45 ACP.
It’s the slowest large caliber HE shell fired by a tank.
Which gives it an effective range of around 250m.
The M44 fires an 155mm HE with 563m/s, that’s almost the same velocity like a Shermans 75mm.
With 61mm pen it can even go through a Jagdpanzer 38(t) or KV-1S, without needing to aim.
Which means it will one shot pretty much everything.
And it’s not slow as a snail like the Dicker Max or Sturer Emil.
2 Likes
The M47 and M48 certainly not existed when in Korea the most modern vehicle was the M46, which was just a slightly upgraded M26.
And a Centurion Mk 1 with a 17pdr is certainly not the same as one with 20pdr or 105mm APDS and two-axis stabilizer.
Likewise T-54s didn’t have any ammunition other than APBC and APC till the mid 50s.
3 Likes
Ask yourself this .Why would you play a heavy armoured tank in this game at lower tiers? They are slow and have poor maneuverability. Only one reason ,protection.Take the Elephant or Jagdtiger. The sole reason for playing that lump of turd is the protection it offers at WW2 BRs. They you fill the game with post war weapons and take away that sole reason for playing them.
If America had a way of annihilating that kind of armour during WW2 the Germans would never have produced it.In 45 that thickness of armour was right on the cusp of what could be penetrated ,the ultimate protection and at the cost of weight.
Totally ruined the point in the game and made the lower tiers a joke.
Hard to see how any GRB fan can defend it.Even harder to see how any armour fan or anybody with a military history interest can defend it.historian can defend it .I just presume you are neither.
Panzer 4 is a Six Day war tank. 7.7 when?
1 Like
Ooooor the incredibly potent cannons they carry?!
Well damn, guess the Germans never should've produced it then
You’re arguing with people who think heavy tanks should be “Invincible”
3 Likes
More that the M48 is a slightly upgraded M46, hence why they’re all Pattons until M60.
Either way, Maus is just as cold war no matter your personal biases.
1 Like
The Cold War is a pretty wide spectrum.
Ranging from late WW2 developments all the way to thermals, darts and missiles.
I don’t even know what that discussion was about, I just said that WW2 roots isn’t really any measurement for how effective a tank turned out to be.
The Maus mainly benefits from WT specific gameplay mechanics like crew armor, APHE one shots and magic repair skills.
A T32s APCR round already means game over and the 128 can’t even pen it from the front.
But in the WT meta the Maus works just fine.
I find them fun. Stuff like the tog and tiger 1 are tanks that i enjoy playing.
More that the M48 is a slightly upgraded M46
‘Slightly upgraded’ is a huge stretch.
The M48 featured a completely new thick round cast hull design, track links, fuel injection system, removed hull machine gun/gunner, improved torsion support and shock absorbers for the suspension, aircraft-like steering wheel for the driver as well as a larger hatch, The commander’s integrated .50 calibre machine gun cupola and a brand-new hemispherical turret compared to the previous M46 and M47 Patton.
hence why they’re all Pattons until M60.
The name “Patton” isn’t synonymous at all with how slight the upgrades the M46/M47/M48 received apart from each other being the sole reason they have the same name.
There are so many upgrades and improvements to the overall tank designs between the M46/M47/M48.
The M47 and M48 are even commonly sometimes referred to as “Patton-II and Patton-III” tanks to differentiate them.
2 Likes
So saying a WW2 prop can see and shoot down a Mig 15 is a good argument for mixing those two? This essentially what you are advocating.
All WW2 armour null and void due tot he mighty M44 making it redundant ,yeah very clever that
No he is arguing with people who want good game play back.heavy armoured tanks are what they are …or rather they were
How used to as well when they had a point and were relevant to their BR .I loved WW2 for being WW2
My god, man, what a horribly bad comparison.
If the WW2 prop had the same performance as the MiG-15, and was just as (if not more) vulnerable, sure, but reality doesn’t mirror that just as it doesn’t mirror your “vision” for the game.
1 Like
I mean, P-51H-5NA is a cold war plane, as is Wyvern, Narval, AU-1, F4U-7, A-1H, AD-4, etc.
All are cold war planes.
M44 is literally just a Brummbar with less armor and slightly faster round speed.
And heavy tanks are what they were. Heavy tanks are survivable beasts in War Thunder because of the BR system.
1 Like
Understatement of the century. lol
That’s like saying the long 88 is slightly faster than the Sherman’s 75mm.
It’s also literally a WW2 cannon/rounds. 155mm M1, M107.
Same gun as on the WW2 M41 HMC, which was based on the Chaffee chassis.
2 Likes