Meplat Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 There's plenty of one offs/prototypes in other trees as well. Usually offered as premiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Specifically talking about the difference between premium and researchable, I may have been unclear. I basically don't see the point in the seemingly arbitrary division between what is researchable, and what is not, and the infuriating forums brimming with idiots who think only their snowflakes should be researchable or count. Also, what other prototypes, in what other trees? Researchable, not premium. I count 2-3 American tanks, 1 American plane, 2 Russian tanks and 2 Russian planes. Compare to 6 German tanks and 10 German planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Hell, I'm not firing it up to check.. One is too many til they've fixed their core issues anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I'm more casual with my gaming and I only have ~5k in WoT since I started playing several years ago. I tend to bounce around between a bunch of different games. Although I have become increasingly frustrated with WoT for some reason lately. I've been running up the Russian tree in WT and aside from some annoying game faults, it has been mostly fun. I only play the RB and I like the pace of the games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 WT trip report: fired 4 shots point blank into the back of a PzIV's turret and hull execution style, all penetrated, he didn't die. Realism guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 WT trip report: fired 4 shots point blank into the back of a PzIV's turret and hull execution style, all penetrated, he didn't die. Realism guys! Grow stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 WT trip report: fired 4 shots point blank into the back of a PzIV's turret and hull execution style, all penetrated, he didn't die. Realism guys! With what? 4 shots of 25mm isn't going to put a PzIV under, and although it's been awhile using 45mm armed tanks I don't ever remember having issues knockintg them out, the reverse was usually true since the Panzer IV has atrocious ammo placement. Sponsons, everything must have ammo filled sponsons, christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 WT trip report: fired 4 shots point blank into the back of a PzIV's turret and hull execution style, all penetrated, he didn't die. Realism guys! He shot himself with lots of smaller shells to build up his immunity. With what? 4 shots of 25mm isn't going to put a PzIV under, and although it's been awhile using 45mm armed tanks I don't ever remember having issues knockintg them out, the reverse was usually true since the Panzer IV has atrocious ammo placement. Sponsons, everything must have ammo filled sponsons, christ. I'm keeping in mind that you're the one who lives in the weird alternate universe where WarThunder isn't ass, but the Pz IV has 30mm of rear turret armor. Some .50 cal projos could penetrate that; 25mm should have no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 With what? 4 shots of 25mm isn't going to put a PzIV under, and although it's been awhile using 45mm armed tanks I don't ever remember having issues knockintg them out, the reverse was usually true since the Panzer IV has atrocious ammo placement. Sponsons, everything must have ammo filled sponsons, christ. 45 mm. I only have Soviet tanks so everything I own has the same gun, except the ZiS-30 that takes me up to tiers where all my other tanks are useless against everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 WT trip report: fired 4 shots point blank into the back of a PzIV's turret and hull execution style, all penetrated, he didn't die. Realism guys! Working as intended. Their armor damage modelling is still ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 I'm keeping in mind that you're the one who lives in the weird alternate universe where WarThunder isn't ass, but the Pz IV has 30mm of rear turret armor. Some .50 cal projos could penetrate that; 25mm should have no problem. No 12.7mm is capable of penetrating the rear turret armor of the Panzer IV (not even WoT), and the 25mm lacks enough explosive filler that it'd likely result in crew casualties but is unlikely to knockout the PzIV until crew in the turret are replaced. 4 shots of 25mm is nothing. 45 mm. I only have Soviet tanks so everything I own has the same gun, except the ZiS-30 that takes me up to tiers where all my other tanks are useless against everything. I could see that completely screwing over the turret crew and damaging the engine and gun, but since there is a radioman and sub 85mm explosive filler is universally low, you'd need to wait 8 seconds or maneuver to get better shots, side shots are actually the best because knocking out the engine isn't fatal and it acts as ablative armor. The IS-1/2 is actually best at this. Working as intended. Their armor damage modelling is still ridiculous. That has nothing to do with the armor model, has everything to due to how hardcore the wehraboos whined such that internal component health got a serious buff. There was quite a bitching storm on the forums because Tigers would light up really easy on first shot and well that's just unacceptable. Man it sure sucks you have to deal with a design flaw and work around it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 No 12.7mm is capable of penetrating the rear turret armor of the Panzer IV (not even WoT), and the 25mm lacks enough explosive filler that it'd likely result in crew casualties but is unlikely to knockout the PzIV until crew in the turret are replaced. 4 shots of 25mm is nothing. I could see that completely screwing over the turret crew and damaging the engine and gun, but since there is a radioman and sub 85mm explosive filler is universally low, you'd need to wait 8 seconds or maneuver to get better shots, side shots are actually the best because knocking out the engine isn't fatal and it acts as ablative armor. The IS-1/2 is actually best at this. That has nothing to do with the armor model, has everything to due to how hardcore the wehraboos whined such that internal component health got a serious buff. There was quite a bitching storm on the forums because Tigers would light up really easy on first shot and well that's just unacceptable. Man it sure sucks you have to deal with a design flaw and work around it. First, I was referring to .50 BMG SLAP ammunition. Not WWII, but it will definitely carve up a Panzer IV, and I was just using it as an example of how poor the Panzer IV's rear armor is. I don't know what sorts of 25mm guns are in the game, but the ones I have for reference are modern types that would have absolutely no problem carving one up. Now, maybe you were specifically referring to some early pissweak 25mm, I dunno. It's all irrelevant because 4 rounds of 45mm ammunition into a Mark IV would be the end of that Mark IV's day. In War Thunder, apparently, they don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 First, I was referring to .50 BMG SLAP ammunition. Not WWII, but it will definitely carve up a Panzer IV, and I was just using it as an example of how poor the Panzer IV's rear armor is. I don't know what sorts of 25mm guns are in the game, but the ones I have for reference are modern types that would have absolutely no problem carving one up. Now, maybe you were specifically referring to some early pissweak 25mm, I dunno. It's all irrelevant because 4 rounds of 45mm ammunition into a Mark IV would be the end of that Mark IV's day. In War Thunder, apparently, they don't think so. I was referring to what's available ingame, I don't think comparing to modern available rounds is helpful in this context. Also, SLAP rounds were experimented with in WW2 IIRC, just a 7.62x63 bullet in a sabot. And yeah, the Panzer IVs armor is shit even by light armor standards today. The 25mm I was referring to is an old 25mm AAA used by the Russian navy IIRC, and it's potent enough @ 46mm penetration. Not entirely disagreeing but it's clear that Gaijin found strict realism wasn't fun and so made concession to increase durability, such as suicidally brave superhuman crewmen who can repair an engine block after it's eaten several shells. They're actually still treading an issue WoT had very long ago, and that is modules eating shells, such that dead components can several reduce behind armor effect. I still think my favorite so far is that tracks will eat shells happily due to how they model shell shatter, the shell doesn't evaporate so much predetonate or shatter incoming projectiles harmlessly, track HP is enormous in WTGF. There is some realism to this but you'll have something like a BT-7 track eat an 88mm PzGr43 shell. I will say that WTGF has better HE/HEP modeling than WoT, WoTs systm is far too simple while WTGF actually uses a blastwave combined with shrapnel with individual mass and velocities. This might be too computational expensive for WoT though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Whichever game implements this decal first will win my heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Tangential, but the US has so far been the best imperial power and replacing a known decent hegemon with an unknown or worse known awful one is dumb. Just because the US is bad at state building (actually, I can't think of an Imperial power that was good at it, the Achaemenid Empire doesn't count nerds) doesn't mean you need to destroy it. I have no interest in the potential successor Imperial powers of China or Russia and I highly doubt they'll be as capable or as forgiving. CrashbotUS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 The US is exceptionally shit at state-building, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 We've only tried at a relatively tricky time for it, and we try not to kick cans down the road. Mileage may vary on whether that's good or bad. Some of the proceeds of kicked cans have been spectacularly awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 I will say that WTGF has better HE/HEP modeling than WoT, WoTs systm is far too simple while WTGF actually uses a blastwave combined with shrapnel with individual mass and velocities. This might be too computational expensive for WoT though. HEP pen is good, but still falls into the "HESH doesn't care about range!" trap. Also their module placement is totally messed up and bears little resemblance to the vehicles they're meant to be modelling - eg M3 stuart with made up fuel tank, ammo in the battery compartment and a made up radiator. And this is on something as common as a stuart FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Tangential, but the US has so far been the best imperial power and replacing a known decent hegemon with an unknown or worse known awful one is dumb. Just because the US is bad at state building (actually, I can't think of an Imperial power that was good at it, the Achaemenid Empire doesn't count nerds) doesn't mean you need to destroy it. I have no interest in the potential successor Imperial powers of China or Russia and I highly doubt they'll be as capable or as forgiving. It's not "state building" it's "Creating a customer base". People are looking at it the wrong way. What better way to generate more profits, than to force people to buy your products? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Marshall Plan Sez otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted July 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Marshall plan was great for Japan and Germany. Pity all the other countries (China, for instance) whose major takeaway must have been "if you destroy enough stuff and murder enough people, we'll pay to rebuild you. Otherwise you're on your own." Xlucine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Not just Germany and Japan. All of Western Europe. Otherwise the Soviets were more willing to fund their brand of expansionism by handing out military hardware to tinpot dictator willing to mouth anti-Western sentiments. For all the crap the US gets for our foreign policy issues, the Soviets trying to export Marxism to Africa, Asia and Latin America has been a disaster for mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Not just Germany and Japan. All of Western Europe. Otherwise the Soviets were more willing to fund their brand of expansionism by handing out military hardware to tinpot dictator willing to mouth anti-Western sentiments. For all the crap the US gets for our foreign policy issues, the Soviets trying to export Marxism to Africa, Asia and Latin America has been a disaster for mankind. As far as Latin America goes, I'm not sure capitalism has exactly been a picnic for that area either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I'm not saying it's been either. But it takes two to fight proxy wars and the Russkies were every bit as culpable in how they destabilized the region as NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I dont see how building schools in Afghanastan and letting women read was a big kick in the nuts for geopolitcal stablity The same could be said for the middle east in general, if Socailism really toke off and those states were 1/56 as good at warfare as the USSR was we wouldnt see all these Islamist holy war muderfests popping up every couple of years As for South America, it probably has more to do with it being in the number 1 enemy of communism's back yard Africa is a cesspool of diesease, murder, and incompendence, it was like that before the Soviet Union and was like that when the Berlin wall was coming down and my fat ass was on a ural heading back to Minsk. If anything, i point the figure more at colonialism than any other ism for Africa's current state All the Soviet Union contributed was the fact that your average child soldier's weapon wouldn't jam after he tosses it in the mud and i think if you want to bring up the whole "well maybe if the USSR didnt give out weapons so much the world would be a better place" argument than you can fuck off back to your grass eating hippie commun. African warlords would be raping an pillaging with Muasers if they had to, and then probably a long stick or their bare hands. People with no other option than violence arent gonna stay peaceful becuase there tank isnt as capable of advanced combined arms maunever warfare as your average T-72 They are gonna be violent because it can still turn on and 100mm HE makes things go boom and most importantly, they dont feel like starving to death, and if they were stuck with panzer 4s they would do the same thing. Meplat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.