|
Hellsau posted:GW Type E It hasn't been called this in game since forever, it's GW E-100 now.
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Infected posted:So Fluff/Renhanxue how much of a NDA did you have to sign for Wargaming. Any sweet goon-exclusive news that you can share in the future with us? I haven't signed anything yet, so here are some sweet goon-exclusive news: Yuri Pasholok wears 70's glasses and speaks really awful English. Also, for some reason saw fit to give me a signed copy of his book about the SU-152. In Russian. I don't read Russian, but I guess it has pretty pictures? The Swedish medium/heavy branch (it's a medium branch up to tier 8, where it splits into two, so there's both heavies and mediums tier 8-10) is mostly unproblematic up to tier 8, where it takes off into sorta paper-y speculation territory if we can't use the S-tank as a medium, and it's far from certain if we can do that because they're not sure if they're gonna have time to implement support for its suspension system in time. Still, if they don't use the S-tank it seems like their plan is to just develop a tier 9 and 10 based on what is basically a napkin sketch and one (1) blueprint of a turret. Then again they claimed Wargaming's internal hierarchy is basically feodal (their exact words) so it's not just up to the historical guys. Timeframe for the first Swedish branch is probably 2016, or maybe late 2015. I think. Would people be interested if I posted Swedish archive stuff here? I go every week, sometimes twice a week, and I'm up to like 10000 pages of documents now so there's no shortage of content.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Anyone mind if I post some contextless Swedish tank porn? Writing things is  and I found a bunch of pictures recently. Centurion grew a beard.   that really doesn't look like a safe place to sit  *farrrrrt*   massive nerd cred to whoever recognizes this vehicle (yes, the gun is a dummy) TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Thats a prototype S tank right? It's not, and that's the funny thing. It really looks like it could be, but it's from 1972, four years after the S-tank entered service. It's one of the S-tank's spiritual successors. After they put the S-tank in service they started a long running experimental program with various more or less crazy vehicles to figure out what kind of weirdo thing they should develop to succeed it. The program was called UDES, which stands for Utredning Direkt Eld Stridsfordon (something like Experimental Direct-Fire AFV, but it's a really clunky phrase in Swedish) and that thing was one of the first experimental vehicles. It was called UDES 03 and was supposed to weigh 25-30 tons and have a crew of two. It was also supposed to have both an elevating gun and an elevating chassis. Since the budget for a full scale development program for a new tank never materialized, they just kept this experimental program going well into the 80's, and one of its many branches eventually lead - by a long and winding path - to the CV90 IFV. If you want to see a ton of crazy tank mockups (and a few real experimental vehicles), look no further, just click this here link: http://www.ointres.se/udes.htm (in Swedish, but it's mostly pictures). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:Good ol' S-tank. There's a video on youtube where they shoot at it a whole bunch, and the results are pretty interesting. I found that in the archives, translated it and put it on YT, glad you appreciate it 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
quote:The Russian tanks have heavily influenced the tank and anti-tank technology of other countries ever since the late summer of 1941, when the Russians surprised the Germans with the T-34 tank. For a long time - since 1944 - our best reference manuals on armored fighting vehicle technology have been Russian works. From a formerly secret instruction to the Swedish army attache in Moscow, dated September 3rd, 1962, instructing him on what he should be gathering intelligence about. Source (in Swedish): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8bCDRcq9BVeOWV0SlBkX3lZb1E/edit?usp=drive_web RUSSIAN BIAS!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Neat. Can I get a translation of the whole page for my blog? Armored fighting vehicle development in the Soviet Union Briefing for the army attache in Moscow, 1962-09-03, 13:00-13:50. (Handwritten: head of the vehicle department, head of the intelligence section [both of the army ordnance administration] and Sundin [engineer at the intelligence section at the time]) 1. The Russians started committing a great deal of resources to the AFV sector as early as in the 1920's. It is a very telling fact that during the 1931-1939 period, when other great powers held trials with maybe 5-10 different tank types and took 3-4 types to series production, the Russians trialed 32 different tank designs, both foreign and domestic, and took 10 different types to significant series production runs. The Russian tanks have heavily influenced the tank and anti-tank technology of other countries ever since the late summer of 1941, when the Russians surprised the Germans with the T34 tank. For a long time - since 1944 - our best reference manuals on armored fighting vehicle technology have been Russian works. 2. Our current knowledge regarding Russian AFV's is documented on a number of datasheets, which are kept at the army attache office. The general characteristics of these vehicles will be shown on the following slides: T-34-85 IS III (both 1945) T54 T10 PT76 ASU57 (four different chassis types) APC (8 wheels) SU100 - T54 chassis ZSU57-2 - T54 chassis ISU152 - T10 (IS III) chassis "SU400" - T10 (IS III) chassis BTR50 - PT76 chassis "SU85/62" - PT76 chassis Rocket launcher vehicle - PT76 chassis Artillery tractor - ASU57 chassis 3. Regarding new AFV's, the following intelligence is of primary interest: 1) Photos or drawings 2) Designation 3) Type of armament and armament characteristics (gun bore, guided missiles, any electronics, turret or fixed casemate) 4) Weight (chassis class, number of road wheels) 5) Amphibious capability or lack of such capability 6) Presence of external armor screens or such things (on heavier tanks and other well armored vehicles) 7) Night fighting equipment (Handwritten note next to point 3) Card with this text provided to the army attache. The attache said he would request that a tank expert be sent over to be present at parades and other such events in the future. --- Feel free to use the image of the original page if you want to, the document itself should be in the public domain and I'm pretty sure I couldn't claim copyright on the photo of it even if I wanted to (and I don't). Edit: Some of the slides they showed at point 2 should be in this folder somewhere, but I don't have time to translate all those datasheets. It should be fairly intelligible anyway though because it's mostly numbers and units. There were a lot more of those datasheets in that box but I didn't photograph all of them, just the Swedish ones (which are here). Note that each sheet is dated in the top right corner. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Atal Vataman posted:The healthcare of farts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Here's a pretty funny M46 Patton game in which I get incredibly loving lucky and three or four tanks basically kill themselves in their eagerness to get to me. Note how the Centurion shoots his friendly Waffle4 in the back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKIMrQCETL0 Oh, and if you don't have the UT announcer mod you're missing out. Replay, in case you'd rather want that: http://wotreplays.com/site/1627318 TheFluff fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:I recently downloaded Shadow of Mordor... 37Gb. Oh you want the HD textures and poo poo? No problem head over to the DLC section and clicky. By the way it is another 40Gb of content and if you don't have a video card with 6 gigs of ram then gently caress you scrub. Speaking of disk space hogs, in your World of Tanks folder there's a subfolder called Updates. This contains all the game updates you've ever downloaded (everything from the big 9.4 to 9.5 patches to the stealth micropatches you get every once in a while). After you've upgraded to a new version I'm pretty drat sure you can just delete them and (potentially) save yourself gigabytes of disk space. I've done this myself after several major upgrades and I haven't seen any ill effects at all. Not taking responsibility for anything, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
ISU moments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUMG_gHVWk&t=202s (see also at around 0:25 where I oneshot a T28 HTC from max render range) Replay: http://wotreplays.com/site/1634487 TheFluff fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Accuracy is INSANELY good for snapshotting on NA server. Hetzer snapshotting with the derp, SU-122-44s firing on the move, full bloom Comet and T-25 shots - everything is hitting WAY too often. e: and full bloom, 90 degree turning SU-100Y shots from 200m, apparently. The 2PAC consensus so far seems to be that they haven't really nerfed snapshots, they've nerfed sniping, especially with low accuracy guns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Mesadoram posted:Anyone know a good If you have an nVidia card their newer drivers come with a thing called ShadowPlay which is actually really good. Takes a shitton of diskspace if you wanna record in 1080p at best quality (I think it's like 4 GB for 15 minutes at 30 fps), but it has very little performance impact and in addition to regular recording it has a "shadow mode" where you can just press a hotkey combination to save the last X minutes of play whenever you want. Very convenient. Otherwise I concur with the other guy who recommended MSI Afterburner, it's legit. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 22:54
|
|
FREE
|
pubbie tunnel vision.wotreplay While playing this I was very close to just shouting STOP SHOOTING THE HULLDOWN IS-7 YOU SPASTICS at the screen, but then I remembered you should never look a gift pubbie in the mouth. I mean, we complain a lot about pubbies not wanting to click tanks, but sometimes they really do, it's just that they're really loving awful at it. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Good gun and mobility but made out of paper. AMX M4 can be good if you think of it as a big medium. In my experience, the top 90mm on the M4 45 bounces way more often than the raw pen would seem to imply. The low caliber makes it susceptible to autobounces on awkward angles of relatively thin armor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:The 1945 is an average tier 7. If you're used to T29 class performance before grinding through it, you'll wanna kill yourself of course. The IS is pretty fast and has a huge boom, the T29 has a good gun that handles well plus that really loving strong turret, and the Tiger is king poo poo of DPM mountain and has a huge HP pool. There's nothing average about the M4 45, it's down there with the Black Prince in the "shameful T7 heavies" corner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Some of you nerds might enjoy this report from British evaluations of the S-tank: http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/03/03/report-from-british-evaluation-of-the-s-tank-1968/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
As someone who just bought it yesterday, it's... not bad at all? I mean, it doesn't make as much of a boom as the 50 120 and it has problems penning some things from the front (loving VK 4502B's) but it's pretty quick and agile even with the stock engine (definitely moves better than the 50 100) and unlike the 50 120 it actually has some camo. It's sort of in an awkward place somewhere between the 13 90 and the 50 120 though. It feels like it's not super good at fighting neither mediums nor heavies, but it might just be that I haven't really figured it out yet. I only have like 10 games in it so far.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Reminds me that I downloaded an old client just so I could youtube this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q1GL1sSelM 13 kills, Kolobanov (won 1v8), 2750 damage. While I'm sad they nerfed that thing, it was necessary (on the other hand, they haven't buffed pubbie intelligence). I will probably never have a game that good again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
In 1943, Scania-Vabis (today better known as just Scania - they manufacture trucks and other such things) proposed an upgrade of the license-built Czech TNH (aka. Pz. 38(t)), using these wooden models:  This is the same model today:  Apparently it's been sitting in some storage shed at Scania's plant in Södertälje for the last 70 odd years. I'm amazed it has survived since it never went any further than a proposal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:I'm trying to do HT15 now, except the only heavies above t6 I have right now are the T-29, Caernarvon and Krupp Steel II. Nothing above tier 8 Get an E-75, should be simple enough in that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
The tier 9 Patton is great, man. The accuracy could stand to be better but the amazing gun handling makes that sort of a moot point except when sniping. It's a really solid medium that's not bad at anything, really. Sure, it doesn't bounce things like the T-54 or the E-50, but you rarely need to take a hit considering how amazingly good it is at snapshotting and going hull down. It's just a really comfortable tank to play. Oh, and take camo as a crew skill, it actually does have decent-ish base camo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Talking about the Cent. I know its camo is pretty poor but there is a lot to be said for that VR, and I think the Fatton's camo is as bad or worse anyway. 11.51% base on the Centurion 7/1 vs 13.34% base on the M46. They have the same view range. In practice if both have optics, camo paint and 100% camo skill the M46 wins the spotting war by about 10-15 meters. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
So I'm reading the internal Swedish evaluation of the British (BAOR) 1973 evaluation report on the S-tank, and it's a loving riot. The Swedish observers have a lot to say about the British army's poo poo. Archive documents are usually drier than Sahara, but this is genuinely entertaining reading. On gunnery skills: quote:The gunnery practice was finished by two tests with a gun camera, one against a fixed target and one against a moving one, as per usual Swedish standard. The results were bad. The first time the results may possibly be explained by the gunners not taking the trial seriously, but even after they had evaluated their own results and re-did the test the results were very bad. It is possible that more training could have improved the results somewhat, but the more likely explanation is that a large portion of the British gunners simply aren't suited for their job as gunners. In some cases, problems with bad eyesight were apparent. It should be noted that British tank personnel is not tested in the same way as Swedish personnel before being assigned as tank gunners. quote:Both the methods the tank crews used for engaging targets and their laying skills were unacceptable and clearly worse than that of the average Swedish crew. On command style and discipline: quote:Exercise of command was relatively tame and commanders rarely supervised anything. The subordinates were left with a lot of freedom to solve rather ill-defined problems on their own. When it came to looking after their equipment, the personnel was rather sloppy and nonchalant. quote:The readiness (in a broad sense of the word) at the BAOR appears to be rather low. quote:Radio traffic was very lively, but rarely contained orders. On observation and crew resource management: quote:The number of targets detected was on par with the performance of Swedish crews. However, the time to open fire was in most cases far longer than can reasonably be expected. In part, this is due to lack of training on the tank, but more importantly it's also due to the way the British crews work together. The tank commander always have to give orders about everything and the gunner is forbidden from opening fire on his own initiative when he spots a target, unlike in Swedish regulations for tank crews. Just like in the 1968 trials, it has been impossible to convince the Brits to try the Swedish method, which is also employed by the Germans for example. The reason cited by the Brits is that tanks carry so few rounds that the commander cannot risk the gunner opening fire on a non-essential target and that the gunners in general aren't all that good at neither judging the importance of a target nor at adjusting their fire. (...) This severely limited the advantages of the S-tank's duplicated controls. On tactics: quote:(in a discussion on delaying fights) The target marker equipment made this exercise an excellent and very illustrative example of how not to fight this type of action (in both Chieftain and the S-tank). quote:Coordination between infantry, artillery and tanks is nonexistent. On civilian relations: quote:Very little attention is paid to the fact that the unit is exercising on private property. Careless driving on public roads and the maneuver area isn't delimited. Damage to planted fields is frequent despite good opportunities to choose routes over fields where the harvest has already been taken in. Apparently the property damage costs for a similar exercise in the same area last year were on the order of 10 million SEK (about 62 million SEK today, ~6 million EUR). These damages are paid for by the German authorities. There's a lot more of this. Should I keep on translating? Maybe it's a better fit for the milhist thread in A/T.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This is great, keep going. Can I post these on my blog like last time? Go ahead! I'll probably post the entire report (mostly in Swedish, but anyway) on tanks.mod16.org sooner or later but feel free to crosspost whatever you like.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
More BAOR stuff: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3585027&pagenumber=431&perpage=40#post443564345
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
JuffoWup posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj69L_W6uH4 oh yes, le epic maymays 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Azhais posted:I should buy an IS-6, c/d? c Also, this is modern tanks, but since it's Russian bias! I think it fits in this thread: http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/09/report-from-terrain-trials-with-t-80u/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:The 59-16 has a funny gimmick (shoot all APCR out of the 76mm and be a vulture) The 59-16 is a ton of fun in T6 strongholds because of the gofast meta. Try it sometime. KV-85's are annoying though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:IS-7 played by none retards are quite amazing correct? I wouldn't say amazing, but it's a solid tank. The gun could really stand to handle better (I miss the IS-8's gun a lot) and the tank could be faster but it's definitely workable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Having discovered the insane amounts of XP you get for doing team battles I'm almost ready to get a new Tier IX. Which is better between the M46 Patton and the Centurion 7/1 ? I'm feeling it's probably the Centurion 7/1 at this stage. I love the M46, personally, but you need like 50k free XP for the top gun or it's just a bad Pershing. Once you get the top configuration though it's just a really, really fun tank. It shoots amazingly well on the move and is just really agile in general. lovely sniper, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:E100 model is broken; wait, what? can you just shoot it anywhere or is it a hole in the armor model somewhere?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:People swear by camo skill, but the benefit, even with a full camo crew is rather marginal to your camo rating. This is wrong. At 100% camo on all crew members you almost double your tank's camo rating. That's a gigantic loving bonus, but its utility depends on your tank's native camo rating, since it's multiplicative. On tanks with bad native camo (heavies) it does effectively nothing. On most high tier mediums (except the E-50) it's incredibly valuable and on lights and Soviet mediums it's mandatory. Keep in mind camo nets and camo skill stack so you are effectively completely invisible in a tank with good native camo and both active. e: beaten like seven times over
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:So my friend just got the T-44 and is awful at it so I was going to go to vbaddict and show that the tank is good but holy gently caress literally everyone that drives the T-44 has to be an aborted fetus. It's one of my best mediums despite being my second T8 ever - one of my best winrate tanks at higher tiers. It's much like the T-34-85 in that it's a really balanced and flexible medium. No idea why it's unpopular. e: he's not using the 122mm is he? TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:54 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
I didn't really mind the 50 120 much. Finicky to play, sure, and not exactly a great tank, but I did decently in it. You can carry games in it.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
maev posted:Whats the better tier 10 upgrade, The IS-7 or E-50M? About to get exp for both. The IS-7 is decent but the E-50M is arguably the best solopub T10 in the game. Get in on that. Unless you desperately need a heavy to get the bounce missions with, or something, but even then the E100 or VK B is probably better.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:I prefer to have the flat stat increase from vents instead of the higher DPM from the rammer. this is the wrong decision also I can't believe you guys are still falling for the churchill III troll, it's only been repeated like ten times in the last few months?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 22:52
|
|