I wouldn’t be grinding british tree at all if it wasn’t for fv4005. This back and forth arguing about wether im lying or not is pointless and is done in bad faith to try and discredit me.
Now that most of your reply is going fully into some back and forth trash arguing and not into actually addressing what i am talking about, you might aswell stop it. If you don’t want to converse about the 4005 then don’t but trying to cause back and forth arguments is stupid.
I won’t further engage your claims.
My opinion is based on science, surface areas. What you said is a false equivalent and a strawman argument.
Okay, so half of fv 4005’s ufp was actually penetrable despite claims against that. Cool.
The original point of the shermans mg port area still stays up however, the pixels even around the port (where you could possibly penetrate a vehicle regardless) would not account for enough chance where it would be above 10% of penetrable area.
My arguments were based on claims of the others, like the fv4005 claim (which was apparently wrong anyway) and the shermans port.
No, they have other issues like being plagued by volumetric trash or random bounches when they should not bounce. I have had this problem a lot.
I don’t see any part of my arguments requiring gameplay experience when they are based on values, pixels and the fact that you can make a choice to aim at center of mass instead of a small machine gun port that is less than 10% the size of penetrable area regardless of dispersion.
If you want to argue against such, you can’t say “i have more experience so you are wrong”, you can feel free to calculate the surface areas by yourself and base your argument on facts.
I see now. I must say it is an odd vehicle to “aim” for, but I see you are skipping all to just get to one vehicle asap.
Your own claims on the subject of the 183mm HESH are taken with a pinch of salt until you get there, however (not all, but hopefully you can see in some cases actual experience in matches is better).
Again, I was replying to another, not you. The 183mm HESH is not the same as the 17pdr, I was just making the statement of the 17pdr issue as an aside, for those not used to such a thing. That is information not part of the “argument”. I mean, did you know this when looking at the enemy in their GB vehicles?
So with the OP he is not fully correct, HESH does have “issues”, but then these issues can be shared in similar long reload vehicles or those with large calibre.
In the OPs scenario he did aim for a silly spot. Dispersion “might” cause issue if he had not been aiming there, but he did not aim there.
You will see the vehicle’s limitations but also strengths when you get to it. I for one enjoyed the FV/Tortoise lineup when it was 6.7 with a light tank to back it up (none existed back then but an event premium, all the way to 8.0, as you can see from my most used vehicle in game) and the Charioteer. FV is fragile but potentially lethal, due to the way shots go awry for any vehicle in this game and the long reload you can come a cropper for no “fault of your own”.
The Barn (and the Mk.5 AVRE for that matter) should realistically be able to deal crippling damage in a shot. Even if it doesn’t kill the target, it should at least knock out three crew or some such. I shot a Tiger 2 in the turret front the other day (think it was the H, and yes, not the best shot placement I know) and it got caught by the barrel. Did absolutely nothing. Shot another Tiger 2 in the lower hull, from the side. Instead of “HESHing” and normalising, nope, just blew off the track.
For a round with explosive content in the order of 20+ kg worth of HE, that should not be happening. No i’m not asking to nuke his crew. Yes, I am asking to see some tangible damage. HESH also has the “benefit” of being able to, exempting ricochets, hit at any angle and still do damage. That really doesn’t get reflected well in game.
My opinion is based on science, surface areas. What you said is a false equivalent and a strawman argument.
How is saying someone has to be drunk based off of science lmao. I didn’t make a false equivalent, what I said is just as dumb as what you said for the same reasons. You could be drunk to make the shot, but you don’t have to be; just like you could be a bully to get into arguments with people, but you don’t have to be.
Okay, so half of fv 4005’s ufp was actually penetrable despite claims against that. Cool.
The original point of the shermans mg port area still stays up however, the pixels even around the port (where you could possibly penetrate a vehicle regardless) would not account for enough chance where it would be above 10% of penetrable area.
You’re not making a point that’s anyone is arguing for or against, aside from you.
Because sober people are able to make their own choices about where they choose to aim.
Panic-firing or aiming by instinct is a thing and is what happened with @Caernarvon02’s shot. A person doesn’t have to be “drunk” to make a bad shot, just like a person doesn’t have to be a bully to argue with people.
People can’t disagree with it because i am correct. All this information only supports my original view
In my critique. It is not anyhow incorrect advice.
Good, it won’t be a hard habit to learn to aim center of mass of shermans. Panic firing? Too bad. Maybe do some meditation before playing.
People really want any type of excuse to use
All HESH shells are comedically underpowered, the shockwave it sends through a steel coffin alone is enough to kill everyone inside. Exception here is some Composite and Spaced Armor, as it is “Not one piece” it just doesn’t kick the same for some over-scientific reasons. So say the T-72/T-80, they have a solid “Metal-Oleitie-Metal-Oleitie-metal” composite, the oil like jelly/fiberglass material would absorb some of the shock, but vibrate the tank so violently it would probably fall apart if the weld quality is bad enough. Yet another reason I think hull break was a decent mechanic, and would work better in conjunction to the over pressure mechanic.
Comparison to being drunk is done to tell them that they are in control of their aiming when they are sober, simple as that. Personal responsibility for your aiming choices exist in the sober state of mind, and if you are indeed drunk like that one person suggested, then it is definetly the drunk persons problem.
This is a forum, there is no tone. If you see a tone it really comes from your own interpretation, so stop it.
There is a tone depending on what language you use. Comparing people to being drunk sets a rude tone in your texts. I know you’re not that daft to not realize that.
I like how this guy says that a shell with these statistics shouldn’t be able to completely obliterate a sherman just because you hit the mg port if that’s the case why dont we all just ditch useless shit like RHA and ERA and put machine guns instead all over the tanks?
a small bomb, you know, a 72kg projectile slamming into you at 800m/s or so should do a bit of damage on its own, and if that doesnt do it, then explosive equivalent to 21 kg of TNT should ruin someones day
The FV4005 is a giant waste of time. The RL tank was explicitly designed to kill the IS-3 frontally and fired a 144cm tall, 72kg HESH shell at 716m/s. In trials the gun could penetrate 60-degree sloped plate, 6 inches (152 mm) thick, at up to 2,000 yards (1,830 meters). It blew the turret of a Centurion clean off, and split the mantlet of the Conqueror in half. Tests showed also that even on a non-penetrating hit, just the impact of such a large high velocity shell would damage the target and stun or kill the crew.
However, in my experience in game, in Warthunder you cannot penetrate an IS-2 frontally…or a Panther in the side…or a Puma at all, since my 183mm shell *damaged the tires" without killing it. It ran off around a building and then blew me away with its 50mm gun before I could reload.
