|
Darkrenown posted:Fairly spergy question if anyone knows: The design dates all the way back to the Flak 18. There weren't too many tanks running around back then. Until the Matilda II hit the battlefield, there was no need for such a big AT gun, and small mobile 37 mm guns were enough to knock out anything.
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
one on a bun posted:Is there a reason why the reload indicator on jimbo's keeps going to 0 at random times as I'm loading? WG broke some scripts that let custom reticles work properly. Try toggling sniper mode a few times, that usually does the trick.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:But can others see my obnoxious anime skins??? Nobody can see your modded skins but you. You can definitey modify your sound assets as well as textures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
FalloutGod posted:I've had a lot of fun rolling around in my KV-1 rockin the 11 mm U-11 gun and the huge view and signal range is great. I'm not sure where to go now though. I've read the KV-2 is a big troll machine that is a lot of fun and while I dig that I've also read the T-150 is the more resilient tank. The T-150 has the option to use the mm U-11 but at tier 6 will it still be viable to use it? I've actually unlocked the KV-2 but then saw the 920k price range. By the time I hit a million credits I'll be able to unlock and afford any of the 3 choices at this point. (KV-2, KV-1S, T150) I don't know anything about the KV-1S. The KV-2 has a gun like your U-11 but on steroids. A direct hit to an equal tier tank will likely cripple him, and low tier tanks are basically all one shots. Beware higher tier tanks, you are a big target and they know that your huge gun makes you a threat to them. The T-150 has a 107 mm gun that does a lot of damage, and does so more reliably, since it uses AP. The KV-2 is a hilarious gimmick tank, but the T-150 is a lot more balanced and all around good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 02:36
|
|
. Since I was starting over I went down the soviet line this time because I heard they were just big heavy turtles. I haven't been disappointed so far. I'd liked to get the LLTB at some point and get the S-51 to have some artillery fun.
|
demonR6 posted:"Only filthy poors don't fire premium rounds." They love hearing that. "Gold tank, gold ammo, gold crew, gold camo."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Red does suck, and the stats are configurable on the website. The default is # of games played (in thousands), WN8 rank in tank, WN8 rank global, global win rate. Don't worry about sucking, you only have a thousand battles, you barely learned what button goes forward. Don't worry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Win rate is luck donchaknow, we're all coinflippers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What does it mean for a tech tree to be forgiving, unforgiving, or "hardest"? Some tanks are easier to play than others. If you drive an armoured brick like a KV-1 face first into five enemies, you might take a little damage as you back out, no big deal. If you're in a French tin can that's reloading your magazine, you're dead. Once you've played this game for a bit and learned the maps, that tin can gets a hell of a lot deadlier, since you will know where to hide and where to flank.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
I made a stock T-70 like some kind of coin-flipper.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Atal Vataman posted:but what about the churchill 3? Church loving owns and you should have one. You can machine gun down anything effortlessly, short of a KV (unless you use gold). Your armour is meh, but at tier 5 most people don't know what to aim for. Your tank is kind of slow, but it's one of those things that can take out a flank and strike fear into the hearts of pubbies when used properly. Plus it gets mad XP bonuses, and everyone loves those.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
I load HE into my E-100 for CW training so I can shoot friendlies without killing them too much 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Played a bunch of WoT Blitz yesterday. It owns and if the controls weren't that awkward, I'd give up regular WoT. The matches are shorter, there is much more potential to carry, and it's generally less frustrating. Also, nobody uses the chat. Pubbies are still dumb as gently caress and still have to be reminded to hold their phone sideways each battle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I'm going to stick to Blitz for a week or two until people forget about this nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:Ooooh good one! I would also add 'rich off swindling the gubment claiming fitteen kids we don't have bitchezzz'... "Kids may be hungry, but my win rate is higher then ever! Thanks, Obama!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Did they buff the 3 cm? I remember playing with that thing in companies, and I'd have to park myself behind artillery, dump a full magazine and that would take off maybe half of his health with every shot penetrating.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Tias posted:This game looks amazing, yet confusing. Should I just jump in, or is the learning curve steep? I thought it would be confusing (and this was before they had a tutorial), but it was very intuitive for the most part.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Yeah that's a great idea. But we just can't because reasons. Can and did! But only in WoT Blitz.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:The only arguments against it are from historical nerds since M4s and Tigers real life whatever, and from people who think +2/-2 matchmaking makes wargaming more money. Unfortunately people at Wargaming fall into both of these categories.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:yes, who ever has the least exp in the crew towards the next skill gets it doubled. It's not doubled, you get a +1/Nth bonus where N is the number of crewmen. So if it's a tank with only two guys, you get a sizeable 50% bonus, but if it's a tank with 6 guys, your bonus is only 16%.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Strobe posted:If the other team is at the same disadvantage, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. With the TD view range nerf I expect this to be a good thing for the game. That fucker will find a thousand other things to whine about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Turns out you can have an even more ineffective ersatz American tank than the War Crime Panther.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
maev posted:I love how an arcadey game like World of Tanks brings out such visceral political / historical divides and anger issues between players. Where 85% German tanks played is a nostalgic fascist statement and the belief that the T-34-85 was a superior operational tank to the Tiger is unfettered communist sympathy and Stalin apologia. You don't need to go as far as that, I was called a Trotskist on the WoT forums because I said that Hitler was bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Blitz released API's. It's confirmed. I am bad. poo poo, now I have to care about stats and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
saintonan posted:I wonder if you can be chatbanned on the NA server for things you say in something other than English. Yes, you can get RO'd/ chatbanned because the moderator that saw the report didn't understand what you wrote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:just installed battle assistant and holy poo poo it's amazing for arty. Shame i'm still terrible though. One question i had is does ammo go boom if you get destroyed? If i load a few gold rounds in a tank for occasions when i come up against a higher tier do i pay for it again every time i die? Even though it says "we lost some ammo", you don't actually lose ammo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:cool, You hit an external component, like the tracks or a gun, but either didn't penetrate or didn't hit the armour behind it. You technically penetrated, so the game tells you so, but you didn't penetrate the enemy hull, so he takes no damage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Tank spies of WWI When the first British MkI tanks reached the battlefield, intelligence workers all over the world found their hands full. Placed as observers, military attaches, or as spies behind enemy lines, agents began exploring the topic of "land battleships". Since 1910, intelligence and counterintelligence in Russia was controlled by the Special Department of the General Quartermaster of the Chief Directorate of the General Staff. Its office was the one receiving information from foreign agents. After the debut of tanks in September of 1916 at the Somme, Russian intelligence passed on information found in British press on these new events. Their opinions were, at first, very critical. For instance, a message written on December 10th, 1916: "All data on English tanks, both from a mechanical and a tactical point of view, shows that they do not present a significant interest, which is further confirmed by the English abandoning them". When he talked of abandonment, the author meant that British engineers already began work on modernization of the first tank and other types of this weapon. Scepticism to Interest Two months is not a lot of time. However, it was a new year, and tank building made a step forward. One Russian military attache was able to attend British tank trials. His report was different from previous ones: "Trials were carried out on clay soil, soft from rain, with a fairly sound foundation. Tanks crossed huge steep holes up to 8 feet deep, a robust parapet, and an ordinary brick English house. The tank broke up its walls and crossed over the wreckage ... Trials went very well." The use of the word "tank" as a feminine word is curious, but remember that the English word "tank" came into military use only a few months before that. It will be a while before it enters the vocabulary of people all over the world. In this document, another section is of interest. "Tanks have been improved compared to what I saw in September on the English front." As it is unlikely that an agent would confuse early fall of 1916 with November, this means that Russian intelligence already knew about its ally's work on tanks long before they were used in battle. The message included news that the vehicles were armed with Lewis guns. It can be said without a doubt that the nameless scout observed MkIV tanks, as they were the first to carry these weapons. Their side and top armour was improved. It is important to note that these tanks arrived to the front lines in April of 1917, and fought their first battle on June 7th. Again, Russian military intelligence was aware of the newest vehicles months before they reached the battlefield. Behind Enemy Lines The most interesting intelligence work was targeting German tanks. One of the residents wrote: "Various sources report that there are two types of tanks, big and small... Tanks have a rounded shape in front, with a 35 degree slope." The Germans indeed had a number of tank designs, but this description matches the famous Colossal. The same title would be given to Krupp's superheavy gun that shot at Paris in 1918. A weapon of such magnitude was needed on tracks. The Colossal, or K-Wagen, was created as a superheavy breakthrough tank that would sweep away French defenses with its 150 tons of mass. The rhombus shape of British was smoothed out to armoured ovals in the front and rear. The project was approved at the end of June 1917, and not even a model was made until next year. Thanks to intelligence professionals, Russian high command obtained sketches of the Kaiser's "vengeance weapon". They also retrieved information on another German tank which actually got to fight: the A7V. "Another type [of tank] was very large, the size of a railroad car", an agent in Ogenkwar wrote. This was a good comparison. The 30-ton tank was also symmetric, and carried a record of 18 men. Each one had it rough due to the heat inside the tank. The heavyweight A7V was clumsy, heavily armoured, and had poor visibility and cripplingly small firing angles, even worse on the MkI. Only 20 of these tanks were built, and they had little influence on the battlefield of WWI. Kamikaze Tankettes and the best anti-tank weapons Russian intelligence also intercepted information about German work on early transporters of explosive charges, something like Borgward tankettes used in WWII. "Sources indicate that the Germans propose the use of small automobiles, akin to English "tanks", to destroy enemy wire and trenches. Loaded with explosive or poisonous substances, they are directed towards the enemy with no crew. The explosion is controlled by a clockwork mechanism", one agent wrote. There is only one vehicle of this type known to be built in WWI, the French Torpille Terrestre, or "land torpedo". Controlled by wire, this tankette would approach enemy lines and destroy them with explosives. A prototype was built in 1915, but that was it. It is difficult to say what the German analogue would have been like, as information is lacking. Obviously this information on new tanks caused development of methods to fight them. Here, specialists of the Entente matched each other. "Our artillery, same as the English, is considered the main method of combat with heavy armoured cars." The 37 mm trench cannon firing AP grenades at short ranges was considered the most effective weapon. It is known that the Russian military had no tanks. However, Austrian WWI reports include a mention of Russian attacks on Austro-Hungarian positions at Bukovina, allegedly supported by two tanks. These were likely Garford armoured cars equipped with cannons, but the enemy faced those before, and it is difficult to confuse tracked and wheeled vehicles. What could they have been? It looks like another mystery of early tank building.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Crash74 posted:Please post about insane russian tripod tanks and ufo boats, tia. I wrote this for The Mittani recently, seems like it's up your alley. No tripod tanks though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:What's a good book to stop somebody from believing in the Krupp Steel mythos? I have an acquaintance who was arguing about German/Soviet K/D ratios and I want to shoot myself. Feed him Zaloga in a continuous stream.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Wasn't the Panther transmission pretty terrible, though? I seem to remember a goon making a large effortpost on the Panther in the official forums that mentioned this, like it was so bad that you couldn't downshift without serious risk, or something like that. Or is that what von Manteuffel meant by 'as a prototype'? Yes, also the engine. The later ones, after the kinks were ironed out and power dialed back, were still only as reliable as MS-1 engines from the 1920s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:gently caress, I can't find Hellsau's loving premium tank ratings thing again. What's the consensus on the Matilda IV (aka Матильда)? Imagine a Churchill III but worse and you have to shoot APCR all the time. Yeah, you have mad gun depression, but that's worth little when your gun is so useless. I bought one as a novelty when it was 75% off. I don't think any other premium tank was ever that steeply discounted except the Valentine, which I also bought. At least it's amusing to pair with B2s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
You forget step 2.1, which is "deal with it, there's only one German heavy line and we delayed the E-series again, suckers!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Can the E-50 even mount a short 75? I've seen Pattons with short 105s though, those are always a riot. Also when the IS-4 became tier 10, a few people would drive it with the D-25, not realizing they got the top gun for free.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
I had a T-34-57 shoot HE at me the other day. I was also in a T-34, so it's not like he couldn't deal with my armour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Tiers 5 and 6 are the most profitable if you don't have a tier 8 premium.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
WitchFetish posted:Ask me about having to spot 6 tanks without getting spotted at any time ever, minimum tier 6. Sit in the swamp on Malinovka, watch 6 people leave the south spawn, drown self.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
TheFluff posted: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 Neat. Can I get a translation of the whole page for my blog?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Armored fighting vehicle development in the Soviet Union Awesome, thanks a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
The E-50M is the most fun tank simply because you can track an unsuspecting Batchat and them ram it for 1000 damage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 05:43
|
|