Lord_James

Quote

What happened here? Normal “cadet locks his knees while standing” or something else? 

15 minutes ago, Toxn said:

and makes me think that they simply don't bother playing their own damn game themselves.

This is how I feel about WT: the devs are almost completely disconnected from their community... kinda like most politicians. But when I look at some of the decisions the devs make, I can’t help but think “do you actually play your own game?” 

*cough* French tanks *cough* 

32 minutes ago, LostCosmonaut said:

To get the penetration, the easiest thing to do is probably just use this penetration calculator; http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/p/demarre-calculator.html

 

For the reference, just use a contemporary projectile (Jeep's site has a good page on the 90mm M3; http://www.theshermantank.com/about/sherman-lee-and-variants-gun-data/90mm-m3-gun-information-page/  )

 

30% efficiency is a lot better than I ended up with for my first attempt.

Ehh, I was getting disappointingly small numbers by using the M304 HVAP on Jeep's site, so I went online and looked for the 75/55 Pzgr. 41 data... and now I am pleased 

I used the numbers I got from several sites and now I'm getting penetration values above 200mm I've averaged it out to: 

all values are for 30^o, 0^o being vertical 

220mm @ 100m

214mm @ 250m 

200mm @ 500m

157mm @ 1000m 

99mm @ 1500m 

49mm @ 2000m 

8.67in @ 100y 

8.46in @ 250y 

8.00in @ 500y 

6.53in @ 1000y 

4.49in @ 1500y 

2.51in @ 2000y 

ok, I did the calculator... but have no idea what the hell I'm doing. I got these values: 

but I don't know what to do with them, or what many of them mean (I'm going to assume that 30% efficiency is good)? I calculated that I would have 2.97kgs (6.55lbs) of powder, but I would like to know how much penetration I would get from this data. Also, since my gun is a squeeze bore, is there something I need to account for? 

worse than the AMC.34 YR, FCM.36, or H.35? (I never got past those tanks, I still think I have a 20% win rate in the AMC... and less for the others) 

24 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Sau-40

 

The nickname also aptly describes what you'll develop if you play it for any length of time.

low hanging fruit, I know. 

3 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

3.3 to 3.7 is really a sweet spot in RB for the US line.  The M4A1 is great at 3.3 and the M10 is a monster at 3.7.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Agreed, although M10 needs a bit of skill to play really well.

That 3 inch M7 at 3.7 was just too good to be true, though I guess the slow, open turret was compensation for being able to kill everything at most ranges and angles. 

Though if you really want to experience “easy mode” play the T-34-85s, preferably the D-5T version as it’s slightly lower in BR. IS-1 is also a crime, being placed at 5.3 yet being superior to the T-34-85 I’m many ways (IMO). 

35 minutes ago, Toxn said:

As an example folk from the US can maybe relate to: what is your opinion about the black genocide happening in the US?

https://m.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-sa-reacts-to-donald-trump-comments-on-land-expropriation-farm-murders-20180823

 

I mean; all that evidence of racial profiling, racial bias in incarceration, the expropriation of property, all those police killings? It looks awfully bad from out here.

I guess this is fair; I should have withheld judgement, and I appologize for jumping to conclusions. Though, the current situation (with practically uncompensated, government sponsored seizure of land) is somewhat damning. 

I guess the biggest difference between these 2 situations is the media coverage: 

the cops “targeting blacks” over here was overblown by the media to ridiculous levels. Conversely, I personally haven’t seen much news from over there about the land seizures (and murders), except by smaller news sources and youtubers. Feel free to post stuff that enlightens me, though. 

Personally: 

Arcade is for 2 kinds of people

1. People who say they hate WoT, but secretly wish they were playing WoT again. 

2. For people who love FPSes (CoD, BF, etc.) but also love tanks. 

Realistic is for the people who legit hated WoT and are trying to get away from it (only to be treated with plenty of arcade-ish nonsense).  

Simulator is for those people who want to play a realistic-ish tank game but don't want to play Steel Beasts. 

Air Arcade can be surprisingly fun with its fast paced, almost movie like action, and unlimited ammo (also like many action movies ), as well as respawns. 

Air Realistic is as @Toxn said: 

“fly for 5-15 minutes only to get instantly smashed by someone whom climbed even harder than you”. 

Air sim... never really played it much, but everything is harder. Take-offs, landings, flying in general feels less responsive and more prone to over correction. Play at your own risk. 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

what the fuck are you talking about?

2 things: 

1. I'm talking about our "social justice warriors" whom talk about virtue and standing up for human rights and all that stuff, but don't actually do any of that because they're a bunch of moral-less shit lords. 

2. So farmers aren't being killed on their land, for their land over there? And those farmers aren't of a singular race, that may or may not be a minority in that country? 

My point was that if these "social justice" dickheads (over here in the US) were actually about justice: the news that farmers are being killed because they're of a different race should be a rallying cry to arms... but that certainly wont be the case, as those same social justice cucks are nothing but hypocrites and second rate scum. Sorry if I offended you. 

9 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Should be interesting to see how all these “social justice” faggots respond to actual human rights violations bordering on genocide... oh wait... they won’t. 

I’ve been meaning to ask this, but how do I calculate propellant mass for my shell? I have a desired velocity I want to achieve, but have no idea how to calculate anything with the data I have. Any suggestions? 

Thanks in advance, Lord James. 

the moment you realize soviet APBC is performing much better against sloped armor than it should: 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/419016-realistic-performance-of-soviet-flat-nosed-ap-shells-apbc/&do=findComment&comment=7711928

TL;DR, average performance drop of soviet flat nosed APBC against armor sloped at 60* (90 being vertical) was about 20% of it's penetration per given range, TAKEN FROM SOVIET SOURCES. In game, it's only 10%... cause muh super nuke shells need to nuke harder... 

conversely, standard AP (non capped) is slightly underperforming at the same angles (23-24% in game, 18-19% IRL)… no favoritism or anything... 

Embrace the rage!  

In other news, helicopters: 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/423339-development-ah-1f-mi-24v-rotorcraft-icons/

38 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Manafort verdict.

 

80 years... damn, why not just say "for life"? 

I'm really happy Got the turret pretty far, as well as the gun mount (no breach block yet), AND I decided on the name. May I present to you, the Cascadia Medium Tank T9 ('s turret): 

Yes, it is a cleft turret. I was originally going for a Object 477 design, but it ended up being more like a squished Leclerc. I'm quite pleased with it, though. 

General: 

Height: 517.6mm (from hull roof to top of gun mount) / 467.5mm (from hull roof to turret roof)

Width: 2.3m 

Length: 3.1m (from turret front to turret rear) / 6.31m (from gun tip to turret rear) 

Mass: 6.86 metric tons 

contains 3 crew (commander, gunner, loader) 

Gun depression: -20* (probably gonna be less due to the hull roof, but still pretty good) 

Gun elevation: +60* (it could go higher, I calculated that it would hit the floor of the hull just past this angle, 62.4* IIRC)

Armor: 

Front plate: 230mm

Front sides: 130mm 

Rear sides: 90mm 

Rear plate: 90mm 

Roof: 40mm 

Gun mount front: 100mm 

Gun mount sides: 35mm 

Gun mount roof: 25mm 

The gun mount almost completely surrounds the breach, and acts as a counter balance to assist the stabilizer. I'll post the pics of the gun mount separately here: 

Thankfully, I managed to get the center of mass really close to the center of the trunnion (it is within the trunnion's area), so the primitive stabilizers the T9 has wont need to work so hard. 

There's some things I need to change with the turret and mount, mostly just cutting a hole through both so the loader can access the breach easier. Also gonna add commander cupola/MG as well as loader MG and assorted sights, but that's for tomorrow. 

I present to you, the 94/74mm C2 squeezebore anti-tank gun: 

currently, the sliding breach and mount are not made. 

Recoil stroke: 300mm 

Barrel length: 3.76m (L/40 if using the 94mm as reference, it's an L/50.8 using the 74mm reference) 

Mass: 833.5kg (using steel alloy 7.73 g/cm³) 

Only the first 10 calibers are rifled (940mm), the rest is smoothbore (I hope this is acceptable, it is very similar to the 7,5cm PaK 41 I'm basing this off) 

5 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

I rather mean that I haven't practiced in a long time and that it would be very time consuming.

Time that I don't really have now because of work.

Ahh, I was gonna say “I haven’t used any type of CAD in over 3 years”, but the work thing I get. Classes are starting next week for me, so hopefully I can get most of my vehicle done before then. 

2 hours ago, Donward said:

or classic rock... you’re a RACIST!!!!!!!!

does this count? 

ok, so I fudged up the turret a little bit... and I have to start over, tomorrow. BUT, I did get the shells done!! 

I present to you, the 94/74mm Shot Mk-1 APCNR: 

755mm long complete round (11.4kg without propellant [and steel body]... as I don't know how much propellant I need, yet) 

94x275mm squeezebore projectile (7.63kg with steel body, 5.84kg with aluminum body... dont know which to choose) 

50x200mm Tungsten Carbide penetrating slug (4.88kg) 

Hopefully I can get the gun and turret done tomorrow. 

pretty much done with the hull for now, gonna move on to the turret. 

center of gravity included, haven't calculated mass yet (will probably edit it in). 

Edit: Mass= 14 metric tons (13.92), I was expecting more  

material= high strength, low alloy steel (7.850 g/cm³), so thoroughly average steel (the color is rubber green, cause @ApplesauceBandit already took the rusty red I wanted ) 

After 2 hours (and a total restart), this is what I have for the hull so far. 

3.1m wide, 1.4m tall, 7m long, 2m turret ring, 540mm tracks, side sponsons are to contain fuel cells and equipment (tow cables, shovels, spare track links, etc.).

Torsion bar suspension, 4 man crew, 85mm/55* front plate (148.2mm LoS), 45mm sides (not including upcoming sponson armor) 30mm roof and 20mm rear/bottom. 

Planned: low profile turret, 94/74mm L/40 squeezebore gun with loader assist device (cause I'm crazy), side skirts, engine/transmission/fuel tanks. 

6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Actually, in the real world Autocad is full autism and normies use Solidworks/Inventor.

I completely forgot about inventor, which I strongly preferred over normal autoCAD. 

Thanks for reminding me. 

I will be using Autodesk’s AutoCAD for my design, because I have a lower form of autism than the rest of you... and I have experience with it... but mostly the autism. Hopefully I can start creating tomorrow morning. 

Edit: can I use technology that might not be in the Cascade documents you so generously gave us, but was around (and in use) during the early 40s? 

31 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

My first attempt at a cupola looks pretty... Interesting.

 

Chanelling your inner 1930s France, I see  

Also, I think I’ll throw my hat into the ring. Just need to get a CAD program