And? Does that mean you should not try? Its extremely unlikely that the shell dispersion would actually hit a machine gun port out of all the possible surface area.
I already acknowledged that it should be fixed, multiple times in fact. However just ranting and not looking for ways to self improve and getting mad when there are ways to self improve is pointless.
Everyone is complaining about something, however they are refusing to recognize that their own behavior can actually make this issue significantly less severe, infact if you purposefully aim at spots you know won’t kill the enemy, this issue is going to be as severe as it can be, however you won’t be impaired if you actually aim those shots. I am free to mention this, i am free to suggest this to the people who are just ranting and ranting. It doesn’t prevent them from doing it, one can just ignore and go on and continue complaining, however it is smarter to look for self improvement than to just rant.
I’m not insulting their aim, Hitting a large amount of surface area instead of small amount of surface area doesn’t require skill, its a choice. Now if this issue was the other way around, lets say a round was bugged and couldn’t penetrate a sherman anywhere bug mg port when it should penetrate from everywhere, because it is not easy to aim for the mg port, “just choose to aim properly” would be not a good advice, however this is not the case with hesh shells. Since it is significantly easier to hit anywhere than the mg spot or any other spot with the showcased issues, it is a matter of choice rather than aiming skills. So please make the choice to hit the vehicles in the huge spots where they will die from instead of hitting vehicles in the significantly smaller spots that won’t kill them, right? The issue isn’t going to go away but this is something you can do.
Weren’t we speaking about mg port size at range where shot dispersion is big? It is literally couple pixels if even that.
9 pixels at not too far of range, however the size of penetrable area is also increased in size by more than 100%.
Ill validate your frustration if there is a tank that can’t be reasonably and easily be penetrated by making a choice, like a tank where most of the surface area is impenetrable when it should be penetrable.
Everyone is complaining about something, however they are refusing to recognize that their own behavior can actually make this issue significantly less severe, infact if you purposefully aim at spots you know won’t kill the enemy, this issue is going to be as severe as it can be, however you won’t be impaired if you actually aim those shots.
No one is refusing to recognize it. It’s just not relevant to the actual issue, as these shots shouldn’t be doing no damage in the first place.
I’m not insulting their aim
Saying they have to be drunk is an insult.
Weren’t we speaking about mg port size at range where shot dispersion is big? It is literally couple pixels if even that.
You made the area too small. The issue with the machine gun port is the machine gun itself, which the shell can prematurely detonate on due to volumetric without having even been directly aimed towards it. This extends to every machine gun in-game and nearly every shell type, including cases where coaxial machine guns can eat projectiles and can also be especially prevalent in tanks like the M2A4 Light.
Technically yes because a sober person is able to make a conscious choice about not aiming their mouse purposefully into spots that are significantly smaller than the spots where they should indeed be aiming at that are larger.
I guess i made it too big considering much of the time the sherman just died anyway
Technically yes because a sober person is able to make a conscious choice about not aiming their mouse purposefully into spots that are significantly smaller than the spots where they should indeed be aiming at that are larger.
“Technically” my arse. It’s an insult, don’t try to pretend otherwise with that half-baked excuse.
I guess i made it too big considering much of the time the sherman just died anyway
Protection analysis isn’t reliable for these shots. You would have to use them in an actual match to replicate the issue of it getting eaten by those modules.
With 2 games in the Churchill III in RB and your main grinders being the A13s in AB I think it might take you a LONG while to get to the FV Battle Barn.
OP is probably making a poor assessment of this vehicle other than HESH historically in game being reduced a long time back and fluctuated since (I missed the time of HESH being too strong when first added), and as stated by others does not “work” perfectly due to the fact it is not possible to model with the current engine. It is just the usual pain of any long reload vehicle (and the one here so easily damaged with paper thin armour that the reload can get significantly worse, but that is WT) to see a shell like that do nothing when it “should” have (in those instances) it is more noticeable.
However, being a bit disingenuous does not help (you are nowhere near it in AB or RB unless you do all grinding in PvE Ground, in that case you NUTTER!! But also respect putting up with it).
When you are currently a main on one single nation it is difficult to accept this is done in good faith.
If i am correct, there is no problem. If you feel offended, there is no reason to feel offended simply because you are in control of your own choices and i am free to criticize you for making bad choices purposefully. Someone, wether that was you or someone else even hinted at using alcohol during the game after what i said. Regardless, even if what i said really was an insult, it doesn’t excuse others to break rules in way larger amounts, being more disruptive etc. The alcohol comments have always been part of a message of larger meaning while their legitimately offensive texts not meant to convey any other point than insulting was the sole points of the messages which means those messages were spam.
Okay so why did i have you guys use protection analysis to show your issue but then there is a problem when i use protection analysis? Double standards. I’m going to use protection analysis because we had yall use it too for demonstration.
You can tell i’m wanting all the best for fv4005 because i recognized that this is a problem that should be fixed and from the fact that i am currently grinding for it. Regardless, i am going to criticize meaningless ranting that does not give any ideas on how to counter the issue.
Those not using the 17pdr ever will not probably realise this is a thing. Some guns do NOT always send a shell where you put it at long ranges (with inferior scopes to some at same BRs).
I already recognized shell dispersion however the availabe surface area for a penetrating shot was significantly larger than for a possibly failed shot on both demonstrated vehicles therefore it is going ot be a non issue most of the time (looking at the surface area values, for sherman less than 10% of the time), so thinking “making a conscious choice to aim is pointless because of dispersion” is again self victimization against something that is not likely going to be a problem in most of your matches.
However you lie here (on the surface from looking here, not in an aggressive way)… A13 and Churchill III with 2 games does not show you are grinding for anything.
Of course that is a side point, but to say you are grinding for something when we know you are not is odd, would you not agree? (so you seem to lack knowledge in the game other than from one limited position, other than using the XM1 to grind all of USA).
Again, this is a side issue and if I am coming across as strong that is not intentional.
Edit: poorly worded regarding “other than one limited position” as having such experience with one nation is STILL experience, but hopefully you can see the wider your experience with nations at each BR the more balanced your understanding might be).
You aren’t correct, though, any more than I’m correct if I say that you have to be a bully to argue against someone else.
Okay so why did i have you guys use protection analysis to show your issue but then there is a problem when i use protection analysis? Double standards. I’m going to use protection analysis because we had yall use it too for demonstration.
You’re right. The earlier use of protection analysis wasn’t correct, and the entire reason that half of the FV 4005’s UFP showed up as non-penetrable was due to protection analysis screwing up. However, I never used protection analysis.
Agreed, but you will not personally have EVER come across such a thing as this as you have not ever played them. Most APHE throwers at these BRS do not have the same issue, and those with the better optics will have little understanding to this factor (it is rather random as I would say it works most the time, but when it doesn’t and you have AP needing decent placement it is extra frustrating, something I never had with my APHE throwers on the whole)
Of course my reply was to another to acknowledge in other cases rounds do not do what you might think when using other nations (spaded all nations to about 7.0 so, apart from last 5 months or so, have a reasonable amount of experience).
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.
