That’s the thing, sometimes I want to express myself in a way that might hurt someone, or say something that shouldn’t be said. In certain cases, I think emotions should be kept separate.
1 Like
when nuke thunder released the player count was at an all time high and then that dissapeared and it all just dropped again, now there bringing back nuke thunder but in a much worse state.
i wouldnt call it misinfo because its true to an extent and saying the playerbase has gotten larger in the past 8 years should be basic knowledge
Eh, I’d rather people didn’t. People will never learn unless they make the mistakes, whatever gods that are out there knows that the education systems won’t teach them it.
day 1206 of waiting for Polish tech tree
5 Likes
Guys this isn’t the Topic about what you think about AI pro or con please remain on Topic!
4 Likes
morning polish thunder
1 Like
Afternoon Rzi4628
have you got your polish tech tree yet?
no :(
dont worry i havent got a realistic challenger yet either, and thats much less of an ask (or atleast should be).
2 Likes
just to know when they add the polish TT i will grind it and rename it from the game files to THEPolishThunder
2 Likes
Every YouTuber and even Reddit I’ve noticed has devolved into calling variants C&P.
But him claiming War Thunder has run out of vehicles already made his argument not great. When there are well over a thousand vehicles suggested on the new EN forums alone. And we’ve barely made a dent in a number of those nations’ vehicles.
There were also a number of points that didn’t help the argument, like the removal of naval and a few other things, which made the argument not as good as they might have thought. (like the event ones)
4 Likes
for now i dont play the game complain about it on forums get people annoyed at me and then go to sleep, like a true brit.
1 Like
i mean me too i am joking 4 players play naval but they are more, removing it dosent fix anything,
And copy paste premiums is the best because they dont lock unique stuff i want to play behind paywalls
6 Likes
the codmineman did?
Naval probably breaks even at this point. Coastal, definitely not. But enough people bought Gneisenau and Sevastopol already
@Smin1080p_WT to raise the Washington again.
With a full US bomb-load copied from the B-29A-BN, the 2000 lb and 4000 lb bomb loads are Rank IV modifications and would also the top bomb loads for the Washington B.1.
Modifications
Unfortunately this does not match the historical evidence for US bombs in British service.
AP 1661B lists only GP bombs from 250 to 1000 lb, and SAP bombs from 500 to 1000 lb, as being qualified for British service.
AP1661B Vol1 S17, AMERICAN BOMBS, List of Chapters
Furthermore, 2000 lb bombs are shown in the lend-lease documentation as being delivered only in very limited number (1500 bombs), possibly for evaluation purposes only. This matches the lack of this bomb in AP1661B Vol1.
Over 33000 4000 lb bombs are shown to have been delivered to the British, but contained in this number is also the 4000 lb HC Mk V & VI bombs, of which almost forty thousand were manufactured in the USA and transferred to Britain under Lend-Lease.
In the document Official Munitions Production of the United States (1947), production of 38,805 4000 lb HC Mk V bombs is described. Other than those retained for testing by the US, these bombs were evidently intended for British use.
Cover
Page 217
Finally, the Operations Record Books of 35 and 90 Sqns RAF specify the use of 500 lb and 1000 lb MC-series bombs in their bombing exercises.
ORP, 35 Sqn RAF
ORP, 90 Sqn RAF
So here’s my question;
Given that the British did not receive or use either the 2000 lb AN-M66 or 4000 lb AN-56 (or subvariants) in significant quantity or as service bombs, and clearly did use British bombs, could the Washington B.1 please receive British bomb loads?
Some late/post-war British bomb suggestions are in my previous post. Again, thank you chief for your replies and attention on this rather specific issue.
4 Likes
do you think he will see this?
Hi Smin :)