The average Thodin post is them getting killed by something in game and then coming to the forums to complain about how said thing is broken op.
Also real ball knowers remember the pre-nerf wirbelwind and ostwind… those were far worse to deal with.
1 Like
No that was a scrapped concept early on.
I found the treat was the “M38 Computing Sight”
A nice video of one being unboxed
It is modelled but not functional sadly
1 Like
Indeed, people were whining about how “OP” those two were prior to the DeMarre standardization and APCR nerfs to utter worthlessness back when I started playing tanks.
The whining itself has not changed, only the target of said whining has.
Therefore, I have taken on a philosophy of “Let Them Eat Sabot” and undo all the autocannon neutering all at once, then let the BRs fall where they may. Let the whiners empty their tear glands while being completely and utterly helpless until they cry themselves to sleep, grow a set, and load HE to shoot the AAs with.
At some point the game has to stop coddling the lowest common denominator or else there will be nothing left that’s really functional save for Russian APHE, it seems.
1 Like
I remember when the Duster was 6.7, if only Gaijin fixed alternating fire.
It’s called the M38 Computing Sight. A lead setter used course and speed knobs to track the movement of the aircraft. A system of gears and shafts translated the data into horizontal and vertical movement of an aiming rack on the gunners sight, which acted as the aiming reference. At least, that’s my understanding of it.
This field manual details how it works.
The M19 seems to use a conceptually similar system, albeit a different model.
In-game, I’d imagine this would mostly work like the arcade lead indicator, but slightly handicapped. Since the targeting data comes from manual input, it could have an initial delay upon designating the target to track. How precise the input data is could also depend on the rangefind singkill.
This system should have some benefit for gameplay, but I think it makes sense for 40-50s tech to not affording the same level of precision in leading as more modern systems already in-game do.
3 Likes
I made a topic for this a while ago. The squad leader (in-game commander) input the target’s estimated speed, angle of flight, and angle of approach which the computer then moved both the reticle for the gun pointer (in-game gunner) to the correct deflection. The gun pointer then just had to aim the reticle directly over the target once it was within range – which was eyeballed. Both the speed sights (which both the M19A1 and the M42 use in-game) and the computing sights had a fixed range of 900 yards with no way to change it.
The logic behind not giving it a way to adjust range is because it simply wouldn’t have mattered. The effective range of the gun was considered to be between 500 yards (short effective range) and 1,500 yards (near maximum effective range). The average drop for their projectiles was only 3.4 mils every 100 yards, or in other words a difference of 34 mils between 500 yards and 1,500 yards – which is basically nothing.
The M19 had basically the same system. The difference is that the M19 used the M13 or M13A1 system, which used a singular arrow for the target’s heading rather than having a more precise system which was the improvement the M42 had with the M38 system that accounted separately for the target’s angle and heading. The difference between the earlier M13 and M13A1 sight, is that the latter had a singular reflex sight for the gunner, the M24C (which the M42 also used); while the former had separate M23 azimuth and M24 elevation sights that BOTH the gun pointer (in-game gunner) and squad leader (in-game commander) had to aim.
1 Like