_Ruffles_, on Sep 08 2011 - 22:16, said:
@OT Lol, you says you're not a "developer" but it clearly says you are.
Yeah, I've asked them to fix that.
Elepole, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:46, said:
I just need to know one thing: B1 bis or not B1 bis ?
Excellent question. I personally didn't do all that well with it in Beta but recently it seems to be matched better. That said, there are other Premiums I'd personally recommend over it, but that's just me.
Chiyeko, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:56, said:
As for the love of tanks, no idea I never cared much for them, of course I could be in awe when I saw them, but that was about it and I went back to Star Trek, in the end science fiction is my name and game, but still there is something about tanks that made me crash in here, (also thank CCP for screwing up so badly, without that I doubt I ever would have given this game a look) I think in the end the feeling of might these machines have makes them attractive for me.
Go find the "Hammer's Slammers" series of books. SF and tanks all rolled into one quite nicely.
Quote
O and any advice, grind for the IS-4 or change targets and go USA heavies? (I am so torn atm)
I hate IS-4s. Mainly because I keep trying to kill them with my US heavies, and they don't seem to die easily. That said, I don't regret working the American tree.
Ducesettutamen, on Sep 09 2011 - 00:01, said:
your still a lazy tanker.
Love, PBI
We prefer to refer to your type as 'Crunchies', PBI is, well, a little old-fashioned.
Ragnokak, on Sep 09 2011 - 00:50, said:
Simple answer:
If you have to ask, an explanation won't do you any good.
I like.
mikel1967, on Sep 09 2011 - 01:32, said:
sorry,think the job should have went to a german tanker past or present,as they embody the true tankers spirit,no arty support no air support,close your eyes and go
I personally believe in "fight smart, not hard". If I can use my highly trained wireless telephone skills to call in an airstrike so that the pilot does the hard work while I sit back and brew coffee, I'm not going to stand upon principle and try to do it myself.
BillT, on Sep 09 2011 - 01:37, said:
"So why tanks?"
Easy. You can get further with a kind word and a tank than you can with a kind word alone.
This, I like too. Must remember it.
duff48, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:31, said:
Awesome... Finally, something more reliable than Wikipedia. Tank you!
Where do you think I get all my information?!
As1anBeasTagE, on Sep 09 2011 - 02:30, said:
I know many things. Most importantly, I know what I do not know. The trick is trying to hide what I don't know.
weveran, on Sep 09 2011 - 03:45, said:
A1.
Quote
Had a chance to look over 64's and 72's while 'over there'?
Only blown-up ones. (Only seen 64s from the outside, and not in the Mid-East). The ones in the US are in much better condition. I fit very happily in the turret of a T-72. The driver's hole is another matter entirely.
Quote
This has parallels back to WW2 as the germans had the nous to identify that crew comfort led to better tank performance and while not largely attributal to the size of german tanks did play a part.
That is the topic of a future rant I have in mind.
Ghost_24601, on Sep 09 2011 - 04:15, said:
I wanted to ask about the "slat" or "cage" armor theory, where vital parts of vehicles or tanks have a "cage over them". I know what it does and i've seen it before, but i wanted to know some history about it. I know the germans started to develop "cage" armor in the late 1930's by Hilter's order, but was it ever further developed it or whether it was use in WWII?
By the way, other people can chime in and answer as well, if you want. If you get the answer right, I won't have to spend time typing the response! (Smart, not hard, remember?)
The slat armor found on today's vehicle works off a different principle to the stand-off armour of WWII vintage, even the 'bedspring' armor the Soviets used in WWII. Today's slat armour functions by defusing an RPG round to prevent it from detonating. (If the outer skin and inner shell of a standard RPG-7 projectile touch each other, it creates a short circuit which basically defeats the fuze).

[Edit: Beaten to this one by UWS_W3r3Wu1F] The only armor I'm offhand familiar with which might qualify as cage armor in WWII was Drahtgeflecht Schurzen. (Yes, I know there's an umlaut in there somewhere, but couldn't be arsed to find the key combo)
http://stugiii.com/i...z_IV_-_mesh.jpg
This was developed mainly to counter AT rifles and HE shells, not shaped charges, so is a different issue. However, it must be said, I've never gone looking specifically for the existance or not of bar armour as opposed to the mesh, so don't take this as a definitive answer to your question. I am separated from reference materials right now, I'll try to remember to have a look in the future.
typhoonxii, on Sep 09 2011 - 04:59, said:
There is a certain romance and nostalgia that goes with playing a game set in the golden age of tanks. No laser range finders. No depleated uranium penetrators. No anti-tank missiles fired from helicopters hovering in the tree tops miles away. Just steel beast versus steel beast with no frills, no lace doilies and no complications.
Also makes it much easier to play tabletop wargames at a reasonable scale. With the modern stuff, 'max range' is about as far as the tape measure will go, if you see it, you can kill it. Do a battle set in 1940, however, and it's a different matter entirely. You can actually maneuver within sight of the enemy on a 4x8. But that's a matter for another day.