Jump to content


Introducing "The Chieftain's Hatch"


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

Pongo #81 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 21:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24623 battles
  • 2,274
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010
We called tankers zipper heads too, did any infantry other then the Canadians use that nick name for our armored friends?

Chieftain, do you really think the germans developed side skirts to counter anti tank rifles more then the Bazookas the US had introduced in 1942? I have seen that opinion repeated on the internet before, even people saying that the german skirts were ineffective and a waste of resources. Of course, they were very effective and the concept was copied well into the cold war era to augment the area of the side of the hull not protected by road wheels or storage boxes. More modern slat or reactive armour skirts are obviously a different beast.

Welcome aboard, I have been in the drivers seat of a chieftain, not driven it, same for the M60 a3, M1 and Leopard 1. At that time the Chieftan was kind of neat because of its 120mm long rifle. The others still having 105s at that time.

TazzMaRazz #82 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 22:38

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 25415 battles
  • 80
  • [FCF] FCF
  • Member since:
    10-07-2010
I bet he has nothing in information than a former Clanmate - Nihtwaco of (DSA). He was a military historian for the military, and WWII vehicles were his specialty. You might want to look him up and contact him for any information you my not know.

FryaDuck #83 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 23:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10974 battles
  • 499
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 09 2011 - 20:49, said:

Two possibilities immediately come to mind, both depend on the fuze. One is that the fuze is defective. Built by forced labourers or people who just didn't care about QA. Would not have been overly uncommon in WWII, just ask an old submariner. The other is that the fuze simply isn't initiated. For example, if the fuze is at the nose of the shell, but the blow is sufficiently glancing that only the side of the metal casing touches the armour plate, you won't get an explosion. Of course, these are gross simplifications, but should get the idea across.

6 degrees grazing is the WWII standard for HE detonation. I was posted for a time to the Port Wakefield Proof and Experimental Establishment were I was able to obtain much information on WWII Guns (40mm upwards)

View Postseraphswife, on Sep 09 2011 - 20:49, said:

I will give this question a shot...
HE works by using shock to atomize the oxygen bound radicals in the air to increase its explosive force or over preasure, i am trying to paraphrase something on mythbusters or somewhere (HE is an Explosive but not all explosives are HE). the over preasure is used to shatter and break objects rather then burn or penetrate. I hear there is a tatctic called "Scratching Backs" where one tank being overran with insurgents is shot by another tank using HE and there is no damage other then superficial, residue and charred paint. Now im not sure if the rounds use a pezio-electric crystal that when force is applies sends a charge to detonate or if there is a fuse on it like a mortar round.
so correct me if im wrong in any part, like any guy im interested in explosives i will only ever see behind something glass or velvet rope lol.

Nothing to do with the action of the explosive, everything to do with the action of the fusing.

Thread #84 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 23:16

    Private

  • Players
  • 2178 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
Hey. im not very nolegable but could you tell me about the switzerland army tanks. I know they were nutrual in the war but they did have lots of defence and even ingage both forces in the air. I would love to hear more from you on this. Im all ears. :Smile_great:

Lagometer #85 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 00:01

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 19502 battles
  • 598
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
As a Cobra gunship pilot in Vietnam, I spent a period of time dueling with Russian T-55's (unsuccessfully) in 1972. They were eventually dealt with by old "B-Model" Hueys fitted with the first operational TOW missiles.

The good part was, they saw fit to place an air-conditioner in the cockpit of the Cobra, since we didn't have any windows we could slide open and closed.  Due to the humidity in Vietnam, the air-conditioner would spew ice crystals from the vents, causing it to "snow" in the cockpit. If you collected enough ice, you could toss a small snowball over your shoulder at the rear seat driver.

tatertot127 #86 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 00:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2246 battles
  • 63
  • [KOW] KOW
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
tank porn lolz :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

A1x2e3l #87 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 00:22

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8738 battles
  • 666
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
I would like to use the opportunity and ask a professional tanker-WoT player few questions:

1. WoT is often considered as a team game. However, in random battles “team play” is self-organized: basically there are no teams, no really coordinated group play. According to official reports ca. 95% of all battles in WoT are random battles. I am not talking about clan wars and company battles, they are nearly exclusively for 9-10 tiers drivers at the moment.
In RL army coordinated activity (combat as a unit) is based on rigid hierarchy (general, officers, privates), regulation documents, must-follow orders issuing system, and hard trainings. WoT does not have support pre-programmed features for that: no leader selection/election mechanism, no orders, no time for deployment, no responsibility of any kind for personal actions. The present game design promotes different forms of selfish behavior: rage quitters, TKers, soloers, campers.
Here is a question: do you think that it would be reasonable to implement additional small armor unit combat simulation game mode? Individual tank mechanics (moving, spotting, aiming, shooting, damage, etc.) is nicely approximated in WoT IMO (yes, there are some known flaws/bugs), but RL tank group combat (actual team work) is not simulated at all. I am not talking about hardcore simulator, this approximation could be also simplified, arcade like. I understand that WoT is a game, entertainment and real combat, war is dangerous job, horrible mental and physical suffering. However, developers so far managed to achieve a reasonable balance between “fun” and technical “realism” (interesting tank mechanics, no cheap violence, no propaganda or ideology, and many other examples). Hence, they are capable to bring the game on another level that is missing in all present MMOs: organized group play. It is obvious that without programmed features, restrictions, support of the team play like selection/election of a team leader it is not possible to approach this game concept.

2. Are you happy with the crew voice files? To my knowledge real WW2 German tankers were not talking like that during combat. I am using German voice files created by some Russian WoT fans that are simply a very close translation of corresponding English phrases. IMO these files should be revised and substituted by more professional ones: not next-door dude expressions should be used but the ones of a real tanker). I guess experts like you could help developers to do that.

My best regards.

:Smile_harp:

The_Chieftain #88 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 01:20

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13978 battles
  • 9,919
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostA1x2e3l, on Sep 10 2011 - 00:22, said:

In RL army coordinated activity (combat as a unit) is based on rigid hierarchy (general, officers, privates), regulation documents, must-follow orders issuing system, and hard trainings. WoT does not have support pre-programmed features for that: no leader selection/election mechanism, no orders, no time for deployment, no responsibility of any kind for personal actions.

It has been a topic of discussion around the office.

Quote

2. Are you happy with the crew voice files? To my knowledge real WW2 German tankers were not talking like that during combat. I am using German voice files created by some Russian WoT fans that are simply a very close translation of corresponding English phrases. IMO these files should be revised and substituted by more professional ones: not next-door dude expressions should be used but the ones of a real tanker). I guess experts like you could help developers to do that.

Don't worry, the American voices hardly seem particularly realistic either. "Real" responses are going to be pretty boring after a while. "Target!" or "Target! Re-engage!", and that's all you'd hear every time you hit... (Or whatever the German equivalent is.. "Trefferblitz" or something, no?)

Quote

Hey. im not very nolegable but could you tell me about the switzerland army tanks

In WWII?
http://statcdn.world.../swisstanks.png
Basically they were 38(t)s, except of course the Czechs called them something else at the time. LTH, and I don't know offhand what that stands for.

Quote

You might want to look him up and contact him for any information you my not know
I'll bear it in mind. I'm here as much for entertainment as for knowledge. Actually, this isn't supposed to be a technical Q&A forum, but I'll allow the odd thread diversion...

Quote

Chieftain, do you really think the germans developed side skirts to counter anti tank rifles more then the Bazookas the US had introduced in 1942?

Since you're asking what I think, as opposed to what I know to be verified fact, yes, I do. I understand that Vorpanzer was designed with HC charges in mind, but I've seen nothing to indicate that Schurzen's effect on shaped charges was anything other than a beneficial side-effect. I don't think the US Army was of much concern in 1942 outside of Africa, and the presence of it on the Russian front doesn't add weight to the theory.

SakeBreath #89 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 01:27

    Private

  • Players
  • 13686 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011
I noticed for mostly the german side lots of unbalanceness for the tanks, example on the Allied side the Sherman tank aka in ww2 as the coffin, in this game they made it badass, i also noticed that the russians and americans have some super tanks that were never made. For example where is the german super tank  LANDKREUZER, i know the german's build the bottom half and were going to mount a Battle shipgun onto it. i Would love to see this as a tank in the game.

Also i think its stupid that only Spg's shoot in an arch, all tanks shoot at an arck.

Also tracking a tank is easy a large rock can track a tank.

1-2 rounds is more than enough to track a tank. Tanks treads are just pices of medal with no real armor rating. A simple handgranade can take out a tread. also repairing a tank tread is a pain in the ass. theres no possible way a tank can fix one while being fire apon.

The_Iron_Valkyrie #90 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 01:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27807 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011
So, Chieftain, will we be seeing you in-game, too?

The_Chieftain #91 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 02:00

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13978 battles
  • 9,919
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostThe_Iron_Valkyrie, on Sep 10 2011 - 01:47, said:

So, Chieftain, will we be seeing you in-game, too?

You may already have. This isn't my in-game name....

Killer30CoD #92 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 02:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9688 battles
  • 964
  • [_MLP] _MLP
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
Tankers unite! I will always be on the look out for your articles!

Killer30CoD #93 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 02:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9688 battles
  • 964
  • [_MLP] _MLP
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 10 2011 - 02:00, said:

You may already have. This isn't my in-game name....

So what is your in-game name?

Rick_OH_Shay #94 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 03:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 26022 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostTyryndyr, on Sep 08 2011 - 22:22, said:



Nicholas (The_Chieftan),

     I am excited to hear that we have an actual 'Nerd Tanker' as an active part of WoT.  Indeed I was present to witness the 'Thunder Runs' our tankers in Iraq were tasked with to display the 'Power and Might' of a tank.  Anything you can contribute to the general knowledge base will be greatly appreciated.

Tyryndyr


Tanker nerds will one day rule the world, or at least the interweb.

Welcome and thanks for helping keep the us free!!

Rick_OH_Shay #95 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 03:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 26022 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostO_Smiladon, on Sep 09 2011 - 01:29, said:

Hay mate, and welcome.

I see by that comment that you would love to see suspension working in W.O.T as well.

Now that you are in the in crowd so to speak. Push for will ya...For us lot.

Regards
O_Smiladon

Not just the look of treads/suspension, but the sound of steel crunching across open ground is truely awsome!!

Rick_OH_Shay #96 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 03:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 26022 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostBillT, 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.
AHAHAHAHA, nice!

Isengard #97 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 03:15

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 23000 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Welcome Chieftain.

From your intro, I'm guessing you were/are a docent at the MTV as well, ex-Irish Guards?

A1x2e3l #98 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 04:04

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8738 battles
  • 666
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

Quote

It has been a topic of discussion around the office.

I know (from his interviews) that Mr.Kislyi is skeptical about this. However many of us are playing WoT because of it’s historical component (who is interested in neutral fantasy “orc-tanks”?!) Moreover, I guess such additional game mode could encourage players to learn more about our history and army life. It could make the game more interesting, “immersive” and challenging.

Quote

Don't worry, the American voices hardly seem particularly realistic either. "Real" responses are going to be pretty boring after a while.

I did not serve in a armor unit but in a radio-reconnaissance one. So, my information is from other games like “T-34 vs. Tiger”, memories of WW2 tank veterans (I have many tank history books in German, English, and Russian), and internet, e.g.:
http://www.lexikon-d...usdruecke-R.htm
I understand that some informative messages cannot be programmed (e.g. “Russian tank, 14 o’clock, 500 meters!”) but others like loader message “Charged, ready to fire!” could be helpful especially for tanks with slow loading period. I guess more historical immersion can not be "boring": “Panzer voran!” instead of neutral “Bewegung!”.

:Smile_harp:

Anderson_Kenneth #99 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 04:47

    Private

  • Players
  • 10838 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
OK I will admit that tanks are cool but as a ground pounder I like the ground. Of course I am an airborne soldier (retired due to injuries from a IED) and though tanks are pretty cool in combat I prefer to drop in or get air lifted by my UH-60. Fast roping into a hot zone is awesome, so is landing under fire. However, I will admit that having good old heavy fire support from an armor regiment is pretty comforting to us airborne guys. I would like to say though that as a retired member of the 101st ABN DIV we get on just fine without the heavy stuff as well, and we can go places and do stuff that the heavy's can't do. I will admit as a true soldier however, that a well coordinated operation using all available assets is a pretty awesome thing to behold.

ledhed14 #100 Posted Sep 10 2011 - 04:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 14491 battles
  • 6,534
  • [_SOA_] _SOA_
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
I seem to recall HE,  Heat,  Cannister,  If a team member not soft skin is being swarmed wouldn't coaxial mg be first choice?
Second being cannister?
The He would vaporize the threat but the concussion would maybe take the crew out in the hull or turret,  also the rear even with HE is not a good spots even remotely to be exploading things.
Is cannister still used?
I seem to remember a huge ball filled shell for close in def or support without concussion that would be indescriminate.
Sorry my memory and hair seem to be in a race to see who can be lost fastest.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users