|
cool! post post post post. i can see how a swedish tree could work, and napkin tank designs are pretty rad tbqh. however, i dont get how they would make full italian and czechoslovak trees. when i looked at the italian designs some time ago, it seemed to only have stuff fitting t6 max (+ that weird autoloader napkin leopard), and the most famous cz/sk tanks are already in the german tree (and low tiers)...
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
As someone with close to 2k battles in an SPG, I used Battle Assistant once and couldn't get used to it, so switched back. Arty is easy enough with no mods. I would think all the "sky cancer" people would want to very publicly approve of Battle Assistant just to get arty nerfed again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
saintonan posted:As someone with close to 2k battles in an SPG, I used Battle Assistant once and couldn't get used to it, so switched back. Arty is easy enough with no mods. I would think all the "sky cancer" people would want to very publicly approve of Battle Assistant just to get arty nerfed again. just switch back and forth between them, using only battle assistant is wonky. battle assistant helps you see shots you might not have realized you had. its also handy for aiming at the sides of tanks parked on inclines, like the middle dune on sand river.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Atal Vataman posted:cool! post post post post. The Italians were a part of the Europa-Panzer project that resulted separately in the Leopard and AMX-30, Wargaming could always throw them some of the Leopard working group concepts and prototypes they weren't planning on making for the German tree/premium, and there was, apparently, an Oto Melara and Fiat medium tank from the late 70s called the OF-40 which borrowed some Leopard parts and aesthetics to make their own for export tank. Yet another medium with http://www.military-today.com/tanks/of_40.htm There's also a heavy tank development with a 120, but 1993 may be a little late http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4412.html NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I haven't signed anything yet, so here are some sweet goon-exclusive news: Is it different from what have already been posted at FTR by you (or stolen by SS?)? Regardless, just post away. Also, shouldn't the Swedish tech tree be predominantly post-1945 tanks? I guess the IKV is out of the picture? A Swedish tech tree without the S-tank would be kinda weird, especially given that it is our only unique and iconic tank. On the other hand, I guess we can't go wrong with more variants of the Centurion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Is it different from what have already been posted at FTR by you (or stolen by SS?)? S-Tank or bust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:On the other hand, I guess we can't go wrong with more variants of the Centurion.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
To be fair if you attacked that with a sword you'd be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Is it different from what have already been posted at FTR by you (or stolen by SS?)? The stuff posted on FTR is written by my partner in crime sp15, who came up with the original branch and helps me keep track of all this junk. He has access to my shared archive folder and writes stuff on his own. I don't talk to SS personally. I do find a lot of stuff that doesn't get posted to FTR. Cardiac posted:Also, shouldn't the Swedish tech tree be predominantly post-1945 tanks? Cardiac posted:I guess the IKV is out of the picture? Cardiac posted:A Swedish tech tree without the S-tank would be kinda weird, especially given that it is our only unique and iconic tank. I agree and I will keep lobbying for it. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Swedish attempt at a HEAT-proof tank?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The alternative tier 9 and 10 mediums were the "backup alternatives" for the S-tank in a 1958 study about the future of tank development. Are these the A-Tank (which was supposedly somewhat similar to a Patton), and T-Tank (closer to Leopard)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Are these the A-Tank (which was supposedly somewhat similar to a Patton), and T-Tank (closer to Leopard)? Kinda, the tier 10 is the A-tank, because for that we at least have a gun and a turret blueprint (for the T-tank all we got is the proverbial napkin drawing). The tier 9 is probably gonna have to be the K-tank, which is a Centurion mk 10 turret on a chassis from the aborted heavy tank project. I don't like either of them because we'd have to make way too much stuff up, but we might have to roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/OGxMBldhv1w?t=4m32s CdC footage, bit later on its out accelerating a 13 90 up a hill. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Snakes in a can posted:http://youtu.be/OGxMBldhv1w?t=4m32s Just a little bit quick 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Swedish attempt at a HEAT-proof tank? Guess so. Strv103/S-tank in the C-variant(?) also have HEAT-fences. At least my model tank has it. Cents were in use within the Swedish army until at least year 2000 (which I know since my artillery company got rolled by a bunch of them in the final exercise during my conscription).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Guess so. Strv103/S-tank in the C-variant(?) also have HEAT-fences. At least my model tank has it. The slat armor ("fence") was there from the start, it was just kept secret. The possibility of adding a "fence" was the main reason for building a turretless tank in the first place. Here's the document that formalised the classification: http://imgur.com/a/q2iRt I don't have time to translate it but the tl;dr is that the holes for mounting the steel rods were plugged with plastic and painted over at the factory. The actual fence components were collectively named Tillsatsutrustning 2930 ("additional equipment 2930") and kept in boxes marked "open in event of mobilisation". The officers with a "need to know" about the fence were roughly battalion commanders and up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
So I sold my T92 and bought an un-upgraded M53/55. I know I am using the stock gun, but my oh my I cannot hit anything in this tank. I know the top gun is made of cocaine and sex but this is going to be a rough grind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
The M55 (upgraded version) is so good I can't bring myself to grind up any other nationality. The horizontal arc is just stupid wide so you can cover huge amounts of the map without having to turn the tank. It's a better gun than the T92.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
God loving dammit. Any hints on how to set someone on fire deliberately? It seems now that I'm actively trying for that mission, my fires have gone down to 0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Many have had success with shooting tier 5-6 soviet heavies or mediums. Both the KV series and the T-34 variants like to burn, and fewer people drive with crewskills and premium extinguishers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:God loving dammit. Any hints on how to set someone on fire deliberately? It seems now that I'm actively trying for that mission, my fires have gone down to 0. This should help a little. http://worldof-tanks.com/hit-zones-of-fuel-tanks/ I never installed it or used it, so use at your own risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:God loving dammit. Any hints on how to set someone on fire deliberately? It seems now that I'm actively trying for that mission, my fires have gone down to 0. Shooting a Jagdtiger/88 in lower hull used to work for me, although I don't know if that has changed with the changed transmission fires. T29/T32/T34/T30 have a tendency to burn if shot in the back. Same thing for E3-E5s. Caernavron also burns easily from side/back shots. Otherwise, Tiger tiger burning bright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Play mid tiers, shoot KV and IS fuel tank locations. Those things burn a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
KV-3 was always good due the sheer size of its engine hitbox.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
In the 1930s, Soviet military minds carefully watched the civil war unfolding in Spain, read reports and articles by foreign analysts. Both agreed on one thing: tanks with no infantry were capable of only fruitless effort and occasional local gains. Divisional Commander Kolchigin, a lecturer at the Frunze Military Academy, proposed an original vision of future tanks. No more wasted effort and minor gains, only success and victory! How did Kolchigin's futuristic tanks look? Jack of all Trades Kolchigin's tank was meant for independent mechanized units, "creating their own operational weather". Independent meant autonomous, relying on as little support as possible from other vehicles. But how can this be achieved? You cannot make the tank too large, or it will be an easy target. What yo ucan do is make mechanisms smaller, reduce the length of the crankshaft, and place the engine in the front of the tank. This way, minor repairs can be done without leaving the tank. In order to increase mobility and autonomy, the tanks must be able to switch from tracks to wheels and back without the crew leaving the tank. Mechanized shovels and saws would help the vehicle create trenches and construct obstructions for the enemy. If the tank was amphibious, there would be no need for bulky pontoons. In order to deal with breakdowns during marches, the tanks would have "a manner of bumper on the front and back" which could hook the tanks together and let one tow another. A crew of three could not effectively observe the battlefield and tired quickly. Kolchigin proposed a 6-8 man crew, which would also make motorized infantry or "motorized sappers" unnecessary. A part of the crew could simply leave the tank to take prisoners, demolish bridges, etc. If the crew can take turns sleeping inside the tank, then tankers would be tired less, and would be able to perform more repairs on their own, reducing the need for repair units. The tank would be controlled by either the driver or the commander. A similar mechanism already existed on aircraft. These tanks, in Kolchigin's vision, would fight for extended periods of time with limited supplies. Because of this, a short 76 mm gun and a "powerful machinegun" that could double as an AA gun would be sufficient. As a result, AA forces could be reduced. The tank would have 3-4 submachineguns and grenades for defense from infantry. The inventor considered it mandatory to have the ability to provide indirect fire, so that the tanks could perform artillery barrages without the aid of towed guns. Kolchigin considered self propelled artillery insufficiently effective. Since ammunition could run out during these long operations, the tank's ramming capability would be reinforced. In order to reduce time spent on supplies and fueling, these tanks would be supplied on the move by a supply tank. This tank would have "very thin" armour, and be armed with a "powerful machinegun", a submachinegun, and two rifles with grenade launchers. These launchers would have HEAT grenades to fire at enemy tanks. The supply tank would carry all manner of supplies, and could also be modified to spray poisonous gases or lay mines. The tank could also be equipped with a 8-9 inch mortar with a range of 2-3 kilometers to destroy enemy fortifications. Commander in Chief Kolchigin devoted special attention to a future commander tank. The author remarked that modern radios are either insufficiently powerful or too large. If placed in a truck or an armoured car, they fall behind. Would it not be simpler to put all staff in special "battle radiotanks" with expert drivers? Kolchigin's commander tank would be more maneuverable and faster than a regular one, since the commander would have to relocate often. The author made a reasonable comment that the tank should look as similar as possible to a regular tank, as commanders' vehicles would draw fire. The commander's tank would have a whole communications center with 5 radio stations. They would communicate with the subordinates, superior HQ, aircraft, and rear units. In order to observe the battlefield, the tank would be equipped with a small unmanned airplane. Information from the airplane and others like it would be transmitted to the commander's television. The complicated problem of communication was solved very elegantly, as Kolchigin thought. The inventor cared about the commander's comfort. He wanted the workspace to be free of noise or shaking. The commander needed a desk and a place to rest. In order for the commander to not die in a reconnaissance mission, radio controlled tanks would be used. Ideal Utopia Kolchigin wanted all types of tanks to share a chassis. The annoyance of having to deal with many types of vehicles was very noticeable. Armies of the world came to the same conclusion, but much later. Accordin to Kolchigin, this futuristic tank army would also include the benefits of artillery and infantry. So, how many tanks should it have? Intelligence reported that a German division had 500 tanks. Kolchigin composed his division of 20 battalions of 48 tanks each, or 960 tanks in total, excluding the ones assigned to HQ. The proposal seems utopic even for the 21st century. Tanks that automatically exchange wheels for tracks, rammer tanks, tanks with televisions that control UAVs? Tanks carrying 10 men that need no sappers, AA guns, artillery, or motorized infantry? Paradoxically, despite the fantasy of transformer tanks with five radios, Kolchigin's ideas were individually already being implemented. There were planes that could fuel up in the air, tanks and planes that could be controlled by radio, television. However, assembling all this together would be impossibly difficult. The author was very realistic about the technical problems with his wonder-tanks, and stated that "the familiarization of tank designers with this work will definitely raise a number of questions in their field". You cannot argue with that statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
This felt good.  Me, the Crusader, and Dicker were on the West side of map while the rest of our team did their best to contribute as little as possible. We then held up in the NW corner of the map and came out on top of 3 vs 12 (with one afk Wolverine)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Xmas Dumpster Fire posted:This felt good. Nerf TD view range, remove Prokhorovka from the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Hellsau, didn't you hear? The 85b is getting nerfed to 330.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Nerf TD view range, remove Prokhorovka from the game. Wouldn't have mattered. That Crusader made some pretty clutch shots, wish I had the replay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Oh, we haven't had an arty discussion/whine for the last 10 pages, so I guess it is that time of the month again. Or, you get one-shot because bad players are now able to angle fire into depressions at close range when previously only actual arty players could do that. I have been one-shot 5 times since BA came out, which is literally an infinite amount of times more than I was before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
srb posted:Hellsau, didn't you hear? The 85b is getting nerfed to 330. My 85b crew has been moved to the SU-100. I had a four skill soviet TD crew before even moving past the tier four on that line - having multiple good premiums and being the best tier four pubstomper is kind of nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
gently caress this "get spotting damage without getting spotted" Light Tank mission beyond all reckoning. I have yet to see a single compatible map in 20+ games of playing the T37 since getting this mission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:God loving dammit. Any hints on how to set someone on fire deliberately? It seems now that I'm actively trying for that mission, my fires have gone down to 0. Try using a tank with a high rof gun. Even if you hit engines/fuel tanks it's still a dice roll so being able to click more should increase your chances. I completed the mission by lighting an spg on fire from the front so.. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The british mediums are really good at it, and the Cromwell is just plain fun to play. It's easily fast enough and accurate enough to get around to people's sides and shoot them in the rear or the back end of the sides, and you shoot fast enough that you'll get a dozen rolls at fire per game, so you'll get it soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
srb posted:Hellsau, didn't you hear? The 85b is getting nerfed to 330. When? Next patch?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
I think Tina Turner wore this thing in Thunderdome. My take on BA- it is really useful for tight shots. I have found several shots on maps like Himmelsdorf that I just couldn't see/visualize in overhead view. It really gives me tunnel vision though, so I only use it when I need it. Overhead view is fine most of the time, and is actually better (at least for me) when trying to hit a moving tank. BA feels like the field of view is distorted and I can't just speed/distance nearly as well. And what is better than one shotting pubbies on a dead run? The tears, oh the glorious, salty tears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
There is one thing that's still supremely good about the SU-85b and that is its mind-boggling DPM. It has more DPM than almost every Tier 8 tank you can think to mention and it's in line with most T9s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:I think Tina Turner wore this thing in Thunderdome. Now it finally makes sense because my adolescent self was certainly shooting lots of HEAT at her  
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
I got Ace Tanker in my M41 Bulldog in a 4k damage defeat:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
McGavin posted:I got Ace Tanker in my M41 Bulldog in a 4k damage defeat: Stop trying to win games Edited for accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:26
|
|