217 replies to this topic

[Valkeiper]

Dominatus, on Sep 13 2011 - 21:49, said:

A single penetrating shot will generally hit some important component and knock out a tank. At Wittmann's last battle, Ekin's Firefly made 3 confirmed kills. He put one shot into each of them. Wittmann's own Tiger is disputed.

An American 76mm was inferior to the British model, but not by horribly much. Again, if it did penetrate, the Tiger would be knocked out.

yeah, that's one thing that irritates me about WoT. In true battle, it does not really matter the caliper or bore of the round... if it penetrated, there is very high chance (like over 90%) the target vehicle is out of action and another 7 or 8% the crew managed to get out.

WoT's depiction of a 'health bar' for tanks reminds me more of a deflating balloon then a menacing steel monster.

of course, WG aims the game at teens and preteens who have no idea how sudden death occurs to even the toughest foe on the battlefield. These young punks have been raised on the premise that you will never die without a long, drawn out fight.

sorry, but war is an 'instant kill' environment (especially for tanks). if you are hit by a round, you're either unaffected (aside from having a bit of repair work to do after you defeated the enemy) or dead. Maybe you'll be one of those 1 or 2% who actually have their vehicle only "temporarily" knocked out; but don't count on it.

[Valkeiper]

Troika, on Sep 14 2011 - 03:16, said:

How do you think German tanks ingame compare to other nations? I personally believe they're just fine, though I suppose it's always possible that the people who post whine threads about the Tiger all the time are right. =p

just look at the reports from the battlefields (whose very lives depending on the accuracy of those reports) or the detailed studies of captured vehicles in both the USSR and UK.

Unfortunately, The US and UK did not try to develop any tanks to counter the "cats". They decided they would just produce 20+ shermans for each 'cat' the germans made while only 'expending' eight or so to kill each cat.

boy, that got a lot of generals (on both sides of 'the pond') steamed. Seems the politicians forgot they were also asking the men driving those '8 or so' shermans to 'expend' themselves as well.

the USSR had a more pragmatic view and did produce tanks expressly for the purpose of killing 'cats'.

[Valkeiper]

The_Chieftain, on Sep 30 2011 - 22:57, said:

Looks like rifling to me...

http://svsm.org/albu...an/P1070563.jpg

Technically, "Shillelagh" was the name given to the entire kit and kaboodle, more completely known as the Combat Vehicle Weapon System Shillelagh. This was developed as the XM81 (eventually XM81E3), initially designed to fire four kinds of ammunition from the start: XM-409 HEAT-MP, XM410 White Phosphorous, XM411 Training and the XM13 Missile. Indeed, if they couldn't get the XM13 to work, a backup plan was to modify TOW to be launched from the gun, whilst retaining the conventional ammunition capability. What ended up happening was that the first four pilots were built without a missile control system installed at all, and tests were only carried out with the conventional ammuntion. When the missile problems were sorted out, the electronics were retrofitted into the pilot vehicles.

thank you for that clarification. I could not understand how they could put rifling in a tube designed to launch a missile. how did they handle the obvious problems with that?

seems... again... my perception was incorrect.

[Dominatus]

Valkeiper, on Sep 30 2011 - 23:52, said:

just look at the reports from the battlefields (whose very lives depending on the accuracy of those reports) or the detailed studies of captured vehicles in both the USSR and UK.

Unfortunately, The US and UK did not try to develop any tanks to counter the "cats". They decided they would just produce 20+ shermans for each 'cat' the germans made while only 'expending' eight or so to kill each cat.

boy, that got a lot of generals (on both sides of 'the pond') steamed. Seems the politicians forgot they were also asking the men driving those '8 or so' shermans to 'expend' themselves as well.

the USSR had a more pragmatic view and did produce tanks expressly for the purpose of killing 'cats'.

Well, actually, you're wrong there. The Us T29 was designed to kill KTs, and the 132 and 34 were basically further developments of that concept. The T30 was also just a bigger T29. The reason none of them entered service is because they would have been difficulties in production and shipping, both of which the Sherman were great in. Upgrading the Sherman to the A3 actually did a lot though. Those with 76mm guns were good vs heavier German tanks, and the front armour of E8s could bounce L/56 and 75mm L/70 rounds on occasion.

The UK also made a number of tanks with the 17 pdr gun, designed with the purpose of killing heavier German armour in mind. The only ones to see widespread use was the Sherman Firefly and the Achillies. However, the Challenger also was developed, as were the famous Comet and the mighty Black Prince. The next generation of tanks, the Centurion also had the idea of killing German heavies in mind, as well as doing everything else. The Tortise was a tank-killer too. Of these, ultimately only the Comet and Challenger arrived before the end of the war, but neither of those two had any real imact either.

[Valkeiper]

all that was true.

maybe i should have been more... specific... in my post.

The US and UK didn't introduce equipment to kill the 'cats' as effectively as the USSR. The US and UK politicians had to be 'convinced' before they 'allowed' such development.

The USSR got their vehicles designed for the purpose into use. The US and UK got very few of theirs into use.

[Ole_Sleepy]

Hummmmm, The M551 pic says much about you Chieftain, "Littlefields" ?

[The_Chieftain]

oldtop, on Nov 17 2011 - 13:40, said:

Hummmmm, The M551 pic says much about you Chieftain, "Littlefields" ?

That is where the picture was taken, but all the picture says is that I can use Google to find pictures of the M551's barrel.
The photo is hosted on a San Jose scale modelling club website.

[Ole_Sleepy]

The_Chieftain, on Nov 17 2011 - 18:30, said:

That is where the picture was taken, but all the picture says is that I can use Google to find pictures of the M551's barrel.
The photo is hosted on a San Jose scale modelling club website.

[Ole_Sleepy]

Oh, I was just wondering if you had a link of some kind with Littlefields that and you introduced Ken Estes.

[The_Chieftain]

oldtop, on Nov 17 2011 - 18:58, said:

Oh, I was just wondering if you had a link of some kind with Littlefields that and you introduced Ken Estes.

I do

But the photo didn't prove it!

[Ole_Sleepy]

The_Chieftain, on Nov 17 2011 - 20:56, said:

I do

But the photo didn't prove it!

[Ole_Sleepy]

Ken had mentioned someone from Littlefield had contacted about WOT and with the picture it wasn't hard to put it together.
He told me about WOT and I told him I would have a look at it, I liked what I saw and joined up, once a marine tanker always a tanker.

[Ultramarine212]

SgtFtKnox, on Sep 09 2011 - 14:30, said:

If there was just someway to get the smells and heat of being in a tank, the game would be perfect.

Play WoT while driving a tank! The ultimate World of Tanks experience

[ChillbroBaggins]

KnightsCross, on Sep 18 2011 - 08:38, said:

( battle bore sight - look through the barrel, load and fire )

For some reason I'm picturing a gunner doing this while taking a non-penetrating hit that shakes the breechblock loose so it closes on his head. You thought Garand thumb was bad ...

(Garand thumb: when you shove a clip into an M1 rifle and don't hold the bolt back with the side of your hand/are too slow letting go, so it tries to chamber your thumb)

The_Chieftain, on Sep 15 2011 - 23:36, said:

I'll go with something akin to "mobile, armoured vehicle equipped with a direct fire weapons system with the primary role of and capable of defeating the full variety of enemy systems to be found on the battlefield"

Stryker MGS: tank or not? Or modern Wolverine-equivalent?

[The_Chieftain]

Neither. Assault gun

[ChillbroBaggins]

The_Chieftain, on Dec 04 2011 - 04:37, said:

Neither. Assault gun

Right, modern StuG. I knew that but somehow totally forgot while posting.

By the way, what do assault guns actually do when they're not being pressed into service as TDs? Direct-fire artillery, sort of an SP equivalent of the Napoleonic-era 6pdr field gun? Does that come up all that much these days?

[Dorz]

World of Ships?

Will there be a new game called World of Ships where we get the various ships of the world's navies like subs, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, etc?

[Gungunus]

Chief,

Just wanted to toss a salute your way.

I always and thoroughly enjoy your articles - you are a hellva an author.

I sense a book one day....