Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Developers posts on forum

In this section you'll find posts from the official developers forum. The base is updated every hour and stored on a server wot-news.com. If you encounter any bugs, have suggestions or comments, write to info@wot-news.com

Filter by developers

The last day   In the last 7 days   Over a period from   till     

Developer
Subject
Link
Over a period
Image
Mezurashi
Useless Snowflakes
arrow
18.09.2017 09:23:35
 
Subject: Useless Snowflakes
Link on message: #11238730

Mezurashi: Topic is now locked since the warning was pretty much ignored.


The_Chieftain
T110's Northern Migration
arrow
18.09.2017 07:58:11
 
Subject: T110's Northern Migration
Link on message: #11238622

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 18 2017 - 03:17, said: Who cares about Meathead in the context of tree development? I mean, sure, he's a cool guy with events and stuff (he is the one that send me my Kanoen), but do we really need to complain about lack of communication when we know it is someone in the lair under the Minsk HQ who does whatever he wants?

The_Chieftain:   If you are referring to Murazor, he lives/works in Cyprus with the high mucky-mucks.


The_Chieftain
T110's Northern Migration
arrow
18.09.2017 05:06:36
 
Subject: T110's Northern Migration
Link on message: #11238388

View PostThatTrafficCone, on Sep 17 2017 - 17:57, said:   Oh yeah, there are definitely problems with it that I'm well aware of. I'm not particularly happy about the T162 Concept and its immediate predecessors, for instance. But this is simply a what-if that aims to cram as many tanks into the game as possible, in a way that both respects the tanks being represented and minds that this is in fact a video game, and I think I've been able to reasonably achieve that. I just need to keep writing articles there to explain my points.

The_Chieftain:   I think you may have to sacrifice some numbers of vehicles to allow for 'same vehicle research'. For example, you have M53 and M55 as separate tiers. OK, I understand that on the face of it, one is an 8" gun, one is a 6" gun. But is the difference in capability really worth a tier given they both fit in at IX right now? The current M46 turret upgrade is M47, what is the M46 or M47 upgrade path in this tech tree? One can make the same comment with the M36 and M36B1, or especially T53 and T53E1. Outside of, say, HP, what about T53E1 makes it worth a full tier higher than T53?  

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 17 2017 - 19:06, said:   Yeah, I might do that then. It's been a while. I still don't like the fact that MeatheadMilitia acknowledged this guy's tree, even though The_Chieftain completely ignored the number of us from this thread (myself, Super_Noodle, CK16, and others who have been advocating this sort of thing for years now. No wonder the NA community is dying off.

The_Chieftain: In fairness, what does his acknowledgement do? There is very little in TrafficCone's tree which we haven't already looked at, tried to send up to Minsk, or in some cases, planned to implement, built the 3D model, and then scrapped it. I don't know why Meathead singled out TrafficCone's tree for comment. Doesn't mean it's any more likely to gain traction than trees put forward by LiB, CK, myself, or anyone else.


Mezurashi
Useless Snowflakes
arrow
18.09.2017 01:31:08
 
Subject: Useless Snowflakes
Link on message: #11238123

Mezurashi: Just a reminder to keep this civil. I'm seeing some stat shaming on some posts. Let's keep this constructive, shall we?


Mezurashi
Got TKed for hogging all the damage....
arrow
18.09.2017 01:20:19
 
Subject: Got TKed for hogging all the damage....
Link on message: #11238110

Mezurashi: Just a warning. Don't turn this into a stat shaming topic.   Thanks.


Mezurashi
HARM is recruiting
arrow
18.09.2017 01:17:45
 
Subject: HARM is recruiting
Link on message: #11238104

Mezurashi: There's no need to create multiple topics for recruitment. Merged this with the other existing topic.


Mezurashi
MINECRAF IS BEST GAME!111!11
arrow
17.09.2017 07:49:33
 
Subject: MINECRAF IS BEST GAME!111!11
Link on message: #11237073

Mezurashi: Moved to off topic.


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
16.09.2017 02:22:27
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11235273

View PostRumnhammer, on Sep 15 2017 - 21:58, said: Where is this file?  How do I get to it?    

Saffr0n:   Post #151


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
16.09.2017 00:18:05
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11235048

View PostRumnhammer, on Sep 15 2017 - 21:15, said: My game is not updating.  instead of going to the normal wargaming thing where it will normally update if required, it goes to the game start screen and when I go to start the game it says update required.   Then when I hit update it goes to my normal desktop?   Why has it not updated like it always had?  

Saffr0n:   Open the Launcher.exe, and not the WoT.exe file -- these are two different things.  Launcher.exe will run the launcher in verification mode and update WoT.exe will run the client and skip the launcher, thus skipping the update If you're using the Wargaming.net Game Center, open the Launcher.exe


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
16.09.2017 00:15:54
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11235044

View PostNudnick, on Sep 15 2017 - 20:12, said:   I already replied to Robert on the bat file. I couldn't load it, it said windows couldn't find WOT.exe. I just noticed the consumables problem this week. I know my computer is old, but was still able to run the game. I don't understand why there is a problem with this one thing all of a sudden. I guess I'll have to quit playing until I can upgrade. Thanks for your help.

Saffr0n:   I'm instructing you to put the .bat file into the World of Tanks folder, not to load it into WoT.exe


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
15.09.2017 22:28:43
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11234845

View PostNudnick, on Sep 15 2017 - 17:02, said:   Thanks. I don't run any mods. I sent in a ticket and report. We'll see what happens. I'm down to 36 repair kits and won't be playing much this weekend if I run out.

Saffr0n:   No problem. I'm the one assisting with the ticket. From what I can see from your diagnostic is that the system is under minimum requirements, especially the GPU, which may be causing an issue with the interface. Try loading this .bat file into your World of Tanks folder and restart the game client. Let me know if there was a change. 


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
15.09.2017 19:30:11
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11234524

View PostNudnick, on Sep 15 2017 - 12:03, said: I can't buy consumables in game. Is anyone else having this problem ? I sent in a ticket yesterday and they said the patch fixed it, but it still doesn't work for me.

Saffr0n:   The issue where players couldn't purchase premium consumables in bulk using the in-game store when they didn't own Gold was fixed. We haven't found any issues where players couldn't buy consumables at all -- either in the vehicle loadout interface or in-game store. What it sounds like is that you may have a currency lock switched on from a third-party mod, but that's just a guess. If you are running mods, disable them or contact the developer for more info. 


The_Chieftain
T110's Northern Migration
arrow
15.09.2017 07:38:32
 
Subject: T110's Northern Migration
Link on message: #11233899

The_Chieftain: My dad is in his 70s. I told him that if he's going anywhere in for a drink here in the US has to bring it with him in case he gets carded. Understandably, he reacted with some surprise. Companies here are so paranoid about discrimination suits that they often will have general policies of "card everyone". I am routinely carded, I'm grey haired and in my 40s.


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
14.09.2017 21:40:16
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11232541

View PostKenshin2kx, on Sep 14 2017 - 17:15, said:   What you say makes sense ... particularly about the depression and the fact that we Americans were not embroiled in a 'focusing' war at that point in time ... I guess the thing that I find most disappointing here is that it amounted to an all or nothing outcome ... personally, I think I would have opted for a middle ground compromise in the form of 'extended research procurement and funding' within the context of ongoing developments in the field (which if done dilligently, would not cost massive amounts, but possibly shed some light on our then dubious tank doctrine).  So, yes, no whole hearted purchase ... but rather funded and ongoing background research for the eventuality of effective armaments acquisition in the form of a home grown effective arms solutions that did not require the expediency of INSTANTANEOUS technogenesis when hostilities do (or did) break out.    

The_Chieftain:   I think it is unfair to say that the US did not do that do a large extent anyway. Excluding the M1918/21 which isn't a traditional 'Christie' design, and the M1928 which seems to have been a demo model not paid for by the Army, the US Army acquired for testing or service 31 traditional Christie suspension tanks in the 1930s. 18 M2 Mediums were built in the 1930s, one or two T5 mediums, 89 Combat Car M1s, and a T7. So it's not as if the US Army did not give a significant amount of attention to the Christie design, being as some 30 out of 140 tanks purchased in the 1930s were Christie-based designs.


CabbageMechanic
World of Tanks Summer Classic
arrow
14.09.2017 20:42:53
 
Subject: World of Tanks Summer Classic
Link on message: #11232426

View Postfearn01, on Sep 13 2017 - 18:07, said: If somone finds out they cannot make all the dates can they be replaced after the team is confermed

CabbageMechanic:   Yes, PM me or post in this thread if you need a change before registration ends


CabbageMechanic
Marks of Excellence Issue
arrow
14.09.2017 20:31:06
 
Subject: Marks of Excellence Issue
Link on message: #11232403

CabbageMechanic: Update here:
  There was a fix applied to the Marks of Excellence feature. Play a battle to allow the system to recalculate damage percentage from any previously missed battle(s).  Players that were experiencing issues with Missions 2.0 UI, this should have been resolved with this morning's micropatch, 9.20_2. If you're still seeing a problem with the UI, please post another screenshot of your garage. 


The_Chieftain
Question for the_Chieftain, Pike Noses
arrow
14.09.2017 19:39:27
 
Subject: Question for the_Chieftain, Pike Noses
Link on message: #11232294

The_Chieftain: The pike does represent something of an ideal. You get good benefits when the opposition happens to be to your direct front. On the other hand, when angled, things get worse as the relative thickness decreases. If you can make a tank with a thick enough block of frontal armour, though, then you get acceptable protection from the direct front, and even better protection when being engaged from an angle.   The welding problem has also already been mentioned. Not mentioned are the volumetric properties. If you look at the footprint of the tank, x many meters by y many meters, how much of that is usable space for fuel, ammo, fire extinguishers, air bottles, or whatever else you want in the tank? There are large 'blocks' of unused space outside the point of the nose.


Saffr0n
Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
arrow
14.09.2017 19:32:02
 
Subject: Update 9.20 Bugs, Issues and Feedback
Link on message: #11232273

Saffr0n: There was a fix applied to the Marks of Excellence feature. Play a battle to allow the system to recalculate damage percentage from any previously missed battle(s).  Players that were experiencing issues with Missions 2.0 UI, this should have been resolved with this morning's micropatch, 9.20_2. If you're still seeing a problem with the UI, please post another screenshot of your garage. 


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
14.09.2017 18:22:55
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11232145

The_Chieftain: On paper, the German fuel economy seems to have been surprisingly good, actually. Unfortunately, I have not seen a 'service test'. I know how much fuel it takes a Sherman to drive 200 miles because I've found the test report saying "We filled it up, drove it 200 miles, and then measured the difference", and the number ended up fairly similar to the official range of Panther per litre. Of course, the question unresolved is just how close Panther or Pz IV got to their official listings for fuel economy.


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
14.09.2017 08:39:49
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11231651

Quote (I've read that we just couldn't build enough of any single engine, but that doesn't sound right.  Considering all the factories we had to build to produce nearly 50,000 Shermans, I can't see why a couple of extra engine factories would have been a problem.)

The_Chieftain:   I have not seen anything official on the matter either. My guess, proprietary rights. GM is not going to hand over the blueprints to its engine to Chrysler (and pay licensing fees) when they have their own perfectly servicable motor to put into things. Note that the P51 was created when North American suggested they didn't want to build the requested Curtis P40s. The Sherman design was owned by the Army, they didn't care who built it. It's also worth noting that not all engines were being built at the same time. As the Ford V8 phased in, the Chrysler multibank phased out, as did the radial.   There is another possibility. Part of the reason the Aussies went with the cloverleaf Cadillac in the AC1 was that the tooling required to start a motor production line for a new American engine wasn't going to be available for most of a year.


CabbageMechanic
World of Tanks Summer Classic
arrow
14.09.2017 02:33:28
 
Subject: World of Tanks Summer Classic
Link on message: #11231269

View PostLostMyMarbles, on Sep 13 2017 - 13:51, said: are those prizes from Corsair only good for the Continental United states or all of the NA player base who enter the tournament if it is for only Continental US that puts alot of your player base whom you are discarding in the prizes awarded once again

CabbageMechanic:   You win it, you get it shipped to you - we'll cover it.


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
14.09.2017 00:16:45
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11231102

View PostBlazeZero, on Sep 13 2017 - 20:10, said:   Ultimately one of the chief design principles of the M4 was the fact that we had an ocean between any perceived frontline and the production lines correct? Do you think the simple existence of an ocean, more than the "safety" of said ocean as you said here, is more why we went with the M4 instead of a more complicated design like the Christie tanks and by evolution, the T-34? You can adjust or evolve the tank as needed (as they did) but first you have to have the damn thing there.   I have a mildly tangential question to pose though. Many countries watched what happened in the Spanish Civil War with respect to armor interaction very closely. We know the Germans and Soviets learned quite a bit from that conflict and those lessons colored their tank designs moving forward. Do you think the US learned the same lessons or rather came to the same conclusions or did they see the future of armored fighting becoming something else?

The_Chieftain:   Correct. But it was no only a matter of getting the tank itself there, as you can weld lifting eyes to a T-34 as easily as an M2 Medium. It was also a matter of getting all the supporting infrastructure. The cranes, spare parts, etc that are used to repair the tanks and keep them going, which also must all be shipped over. Especially when you cannot return a tank to the depot, as the Soviets could if they wanted to (And the Germans certainly did).Which is easier to box up and ship out to a field unit, a Christie suspension system unit, or a bogie? And when you get there, the longer a tank can run without need for resupply, for example, the better. Ammunition capacity was a constant, significant concern for US tank designers. It reduced the number of trucks required to keep up with the tanks and allowed a tank to stay in the line longer, reducing overall need.   I'm not sure quite how much the Spanish civil war affected thinking of tank design, honestly. I've never looked into it.  

View PostFlaxin_Waxin, on Sep 13 2017 - 20:36, said: The T-34 wasn't really the best because it was superior in technical characteristics...quite the opposite in fact. If you take a look at surviving T-34s up close and then look at something like a Panther or Tiger, you can see a massive difference. The T-34 was cheap and easy to produce en masse, like a lot of Soviet weaponry at the time. One-on-one against a German tank such as a PzKpfw. IV...I'm not sure it would win. The standard T-34 or T-34-76 was easily superior to the Panzer III though, which was the main competition at the time. Even when the Panthers and Tigers came around...there were just so many T-34s and Shermans. The German tanks were far superior in technical stats, but the numbers were skewed. It was never Tiger vs. Sherman or Panther vs. T-34. It was 1 Tiger vs. 5 Shermans, or 1 Panther vs 10 T-34s. In the end, I guess it ended up being sheer numbers that made the T-34 so effective, it was just so cheap to produce.   The case could be made that Germany could have done far better just making more PzKpfw. IV tanks rather than the more expensive V  and VI varieties.

The_Chieftain:   Hmm... I would argue that in two ways. One, T-34 was a 1939/40 design. It is not reasonable to compare it with a 1943 design when we're talking about how good a tank was in 1940/41. As for the second line, the Germans never had the production capability to make enough Panzer IVs to counter the Allied forces. They had no choice but to attempt to redress the numerical differential in part by superior individual pieces of equipment. The problem was that although they attempted to build those superior pieces of equipment, they simply were not able to achieve tanks which were, in truth, superior. They had too many design flaws, some of which are incomprehensible (eg gunner's optics, size of turret), some were arguable either way (eg interleaved roadwheels), and some were simply an attempt to achieve a capability which the technology available simply could not meet (eg sufficient reliability for a vehicle of the weight)  

Quote Interesting side note on Torsion Bar development ... is this accurate Chieftain?

The_Chieftain:  As Mr Dyer observes, just where the idea to move to torsion bar development came from is a bit disputed. Some think 'copied from the Germans', some think 'taken from the Soviets', and some think 'home-grown'. There appears to be no evidence to conclusively support any theory.   Note that torsion bars were not universally supported even in Germany. Some German designers were very hoarding of even those could of inches of internal room which torsion bars took up, and is why the Panzer IV retained the bogies all the way through. It's not as if they didn't know about torsion bars, see Pz III or the half-tracks. They just didn't agree at the time that it was worth it.


CabbageMechanic
World of Tanks Summer Classic
arrow
13.09.2017 23:34:04
 
Subject: World of Tanks Summer Classic
Link on message: #11231017

CabbageMechanic: Reserves: Were disallowed because of concerns about prizing to players who did not actually participate (a frequent occurrence previously), and because they would have significantly diluted the overall prize pool.  We understood going in that the lack of reserves would suck and did set to work on a solution.  Good news: we have figured out a way to restrict prizing to team members who play a predetermined amount of battles.  Bad news: it is too late to implement this for the Summer Classic.  The November and December Seasonal Classics will both have reserve slots and both require those reserves to play in a few games to win prizes.

West Coasters: I feel your pain.  This issue was discussed extensively but the reality of timezones put us in a spot where it starts far too early for some players or ends far too late for some other players - no easy solution.  We can perhaps mix it up in November so the inconvenience can be shared between the coasts.

Prizing:  The excellent folks have Corsair are raising the stakes by providing Void Pro Surround headsets, Sabre Mice, and Strafe keyboards for our top finishers.  First place team will receive all three, second place team will receive mice and headsets, third place team will receive headsets

 


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
13.09.2017 21:15:05
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11230776

View PostBillT, on Sep 13 2017 - 17:19, said:   To me, Christie's work isn't just about the suspension system. His tanks were also outstandingly fast, and his T3 design implemented sloped front armor as well.  But my main point is that his design evolved into the T-34, which was indisputably the best tank of 1940 and arguably the best tank of WWII.  If the US had held onto Christie, we could have had an American T-34.    The question boils down to this: Was the T-34 superior to the Sherman?     Most tank buffs would immediately answer "Yes".  I'm not convinced, because like you I don't swallow all the Cooper-esque hatred of the M4.   But I still have to admit that the T-34 was better in 1940 and '41 (before the Sherman entered service), and it had several superb features.  So I'm inclined to think that an American-developed T-34, combining its profile and armor layout with American mechanical parts and ergonomics, would have been better than either the Sherman or the T-34. 

The_Chieftain:   Mmm... I take your points, though I'm not sure I find them convincing. Yes, the T-34 is arguably the best tank in the world in 1940/41. I think, though, one must also investigate the question of why the US wasn't using the designs. Yes, I know that Christie was a bit difficult to work with, but does that invalidate the reasons that the US Army may have stuck with the bogies, such as rugged reliability and internal space? Again, if there was ever any one country which sacrificed anything necessary in terms of capability to make sure that the tank built would do what it was expected to do as effectively as possible at all times, it was the US. One might also inquire as to how US tank design may have progressed had they had the impetus of being a continental power without the safety provided by an ocean secured by a large Navy, even given the fiscal constraints the US Army was under in the 1930s. Perhaps the US tank of 1940 might actually be a bit better than the M2 Medium which it had, though there are equally arguments that it wouldn't have given the thinking behind US tank design requirements. After all, the 37mm was a perfectly reasonable anti-tank gun, a position generally shared by Germany and the UK at the time, after all.    Fundamentally, the question is "If the US could have had a T-34 of its own in 1940, would it have chosen to do so, or would it still have built something different?" I don't know if there truly is an answer to that counterfactual.


The_Chieftain
guy car girl car
arrow
13.09.2017 20:11:57
 
Subject: guy car girl car
Link on message: #11230646

The_Chieftain: Could be a car-digger. Don't care about the money, just the taste in cars.


The_Chieftain
T110's Northern Migration
arrow
13.09.2017 19:58:45
 
Subject: T110's Northern Migration
Link on message: #11230625

View PostDerViktim, on Sep 13 2017 - 15:38, said:   Having fun touring BB-54, DD-850, and SS-298?

The_Chieftain:   And the Tarantul FFL(G)  

View PostRitaGamer, on Sep 13 2017 - 10:35, said: Rainin, pissin, floodin, you feckin name it!

The_Chieftain:   Jaysus, I remember that bloke.   We've moved on a bit, since. Normally we don't discuss the weather much. We know what it's going to be anyway, but I do recall a few years ago when everyone, and I mean, everyone in the country was talking about RTE's weatherwoman and 'that dress'.  


The_Chieftain
guy car girl car
arrow
13.09.2017 07:14:47
 
Subject: guy car girl car
Link on message: #11229946

View PostCutthroatlemur, on Sep 12 2017 - 16:20, said: I've owned an S4 and LOVED it, one of my buddies has an absolutely perfect 08 RS4 that will bend time and space, so believe me I get it...I've always wanted an S8 as well.  That said, I think you are looking for the wrong vehicle Cheiftain.   You mentioned a wife (with great taste in cars) but I heard no mention of kids or dogs...so why would you need an extra set of doors and seats?  You can get a fantastic slightly used R8 for the same $ and win every stoplight drag race and curbside sex appeal showdown.  If you haven't driven an R8, go do it!  There is an Audi drive experience right up at Sonoma Raceway.  

The_Chieftain:   I have a 2005 S4 Cabrio. V8 with a manual transmission which I bought new as a 'welcome back from Iraq' present. Only thing wrong with it is that the air conditioning system costs more to repair than the car is worth. Fortunately, being a convertible, I get 75 aircon. I'm not planning on selling it at all. Ever.   I do have a daughter, eight years old, and the wife did come with a dog. So there should be a four-door in the family. She (big firm attorney) drives an SL550, so it's the daily driver which is the 4-door, which right now is a Passat TDI, and that's the one getting replaced under the Dieselgate business. So that's flaw #1 with the R8. Flaw number 2 is that I don't know how much you think Wargaming pays me, but it's not enough to buy an R8. And given how much I commute, something with a lot of miles on it already is a non-starter: The VW is barely two and a half years old, but already out of warranty. But, yes, I am well familiar with the R8, I'm part of a local Audi fan group called "Quattro Crew" which, in fairness, isn't picky about marque: When we go on group drives, I take the Audi, wife takes the SL, and we bring radios to chat. A number of R8s usually show up at an event. Wife thinks they are the most comfortable car seats she's ever been in...


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
13.09.2017 06:58:12
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11229930

The_Chieftain: Christies were dead-end designs, though. The Soviets ditched theirs in favour of torsion bar, and the British ditched theirs for bogies. The US went from bogie to torsion bar and skipped Christie entirely (despite buying a few for testing). The Germans similarly went bogie to torsion bar.   By way of example of the problem, imagine having to change some damaged suspension component on a Sherman. Then try and do the same thing on a Cromwell or T-34. Further, the Christie suspension takes up a lot of room inside the tank which could otherwise be used for things like ammunition or just space for the crew. It's not as if the Christie design, which did have some merits, don't get me wrong, was all good with no downsides. Something like "Easy to repair" is very important to an army fighting 5,000 miles and an ocean away from the factory.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 01:11:30
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229456

View PostKenshin2kx, on Sep 12 2017 - 22:07, said: Speaking of Russia ... given their fascination with the with beeg bomska I am kind of surprised that they did not up gun the M4 ... or did they?

Lert:   They probably just wanted to push those lend lease tanks to the front as quickly as possible and not hold them back to experiment on them.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 00:53:46
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229427

View PostKingtigerIVIV, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:52, said: So basically a Rev with worse gun handling?

Lert:   And likely a tier lower, yes.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 00:52:33
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229422

View PostKenshin2kx, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:48, said: during the war, it was like ... 17 pounder?  Will it fit?

Lert:   IKR!   It's like this:   Here, we built a tank with a 75mm gun. Hmmm. Maybe we can fit our long 3" in it and call it a Firefly. Ha, amateurs. here, we put a 105mm into it. .... Hold my beer.  

View PostKenshin2kx, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:48, said: So this would be the direct counterpart to something like the KV-122?

Lert:   M4 Revalorise I would think. Possibly the SO-122 could fit a tier lower since the gun is inaccurate and has slow ROF in this game.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 00:37:36
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229397

View PostNL_Celt, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:35, said: But which nation?

Lert:   Yugoslav. Alternatively, Russian. Alternatively, American.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 00:18:17
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229371

View PostHowitzerBlitzer, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:17, said: Why the A-19? Isn't that one of the older 122mm guns that took up more space on the interior?

Lert:   Maybe they couldn't get the D-25T to fit. Maybe they only had A-19s lying around. I wasn't there, I don't know.


Lert
Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
arrow
13.09.2017 00:12:26
 
Subject: Need a new premium Sherman with Big Boomstick: SO-122
Link on message: #11229366

Lert: In the late 1950s the Yugoslavs experimented with some leftover Shermans they had. One experiment they did was fitting the Soviet V2 Engine from the T-34 into the back of a few Sherman hulls for additional oomph. This became known as the M-634.   Then in 1961 they put a Soviet A19 122mm gun into a modified turret, and called it the SO-122.     The project was eventually canceled because they couldn't get the boomstick to elevate enough for indirect fire.   That said ...    


Lert
Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
arrow
12.09.2017 22:51:17
 
Subject: Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
Link on message: #11229252

Lert: Huh. I'll have to look in to those then. I wonder if the local hobby store has them ...


CabbageMechanic
USS Lexington: Corpus Chrisi, TX - TBA
arrow
12.09.2017 22:01:16
 
Subject: USS Lexington: Corpus Chrisi, TX - TBA
Link on message: #11229170

View Postcoolcoolcoolnow, on Sep 11 2017 - 12:31, said: I live in Minnesota, and may not be able to cancel my booking/ find another place to stay at. So if I am unable to make it to the event what will happen with my 4 tickets? Will there be any compensation?

CabbageMechanic:
We will be offering compensation for this situation, details as to what exactly that entails is still being worked out.  We definitely appreciate the severity for anyone who already put money in or has inflexible travel plans, and we will be doing our best to take care of you guys.


Lert
Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
arrow
12.09.2017 21:54:44
 
Subject: Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
Link on message: #11229160

Lert: Here's my first 1/16th scale tank, a Pz IV Ausf. F2. I've had this tank for nigh on 5 years now. Decided over the past few weeks to give it a repaint:       Went with very heavy washes / weathering by way of experimentation, as if this is a veteran vehicle. I'm not quite sure I'm entirely happy with the result.     @Yankee: I've never worked with those Tamiya weathering pastels. What are they like and how are they used?  


The_Chieftain
M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
arrow
12.09.2017 08:53:57
 
Subject: M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"
Link on message: #11228385

View PostIkanator, on Sep 11 2017 - 19:40, said:   Well, it couldn't have been WWI. Advances in tank design and construction after WWII limited its later use. And regardless of whatever you might think of its tactical limitations there was an extent to which the logistics factors that effectively put limits on its weight and size overrode other considerations. As the Germans found out to their dismay what were arguably the best tanks in the world at that time were pretty much useless if you couldn't get enough of them to where the battles were being fought.   Also, if I understand things correctly, there was a problem with our doctrine. Tanks were not seen initially as primary anti-tank platforms. That role was to be filled by anti-tank guns and dedicated tank destroyer formations using specialty vehicles. Tanks were to be used for infantry support, and more importantly making and exploiting breakthroughs in weak sections of an enemy line. The Germans did not have such doctrinal hang ups and did not have to worry about making their tanks small and light enough to be easily shipped on freighters and railroad cars to get where they were going. So it is not too surprising that they could get tanks that were better one on one in an anti-tank role than an M4 was.   When all is said and done at the end of the day it comes down to the saying that I have heard attributed variously to either Lenin or Stalin. "Quantity has a quality all its own". The problem is that if you're relying on the quantity side of that divide then you have to be willing and able to take some serious lumps if necessary. We did so. We produced overwhelming numbers of M4s compared to what the Germans could produce of their designs and we were able to get them where we needed them and keep them supplied. The Germans' quality advantage was not sufficient to overcome that and so while they were able to "win" various tank vs tank engagements, they also lost more tanks than they could afford to and thus the war as a whole.   Could we have produced a heavier tank? We had the Pershing, we just did not have it in large numbers. The Pershing based on what I have heard was able to fill the tank vs tank role pretty well. Then the question becomes, if we had attempted to seriously mass produce the Pershing instead of the M4, could we have gotten enough of them where we needed them to actually get the job done that needed to be done? That's the question that I can't answer. I don't know the extent to which logistical considerations would have limited the Pershing's ability to be shipped in large enough numbers to have been the primary tank that we used. But I would be willing to bet a cold beer that given what I have heard about problems with shipping controlling the design of the M4 we might not have been able to get enough Pershings into the European theater fast enough to have made the Normandy breakout if not even the landings themselves possible.

The_Chieftain:   You don't need to risk your cold beer. I have written fairly extensively on the subject (as well as spoken), and there is no way that Pershing could have shown in numbers which would have been relevant to the war.


Lert
Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
arrow
12.09.2017 04:13:03
 
Subject: Scale Model Group Build, anyone?
Link on message: #11228058

Lert: Very nice work, Yankee. Can you tell us your weathering procedure?


Lert
Do Tanks Still Carry Those Logs?
arrow
12.09.2017 04:11:54
 
Subject: Do Tanks Still Carry Those Logs?
Link on message: #11228055

View PostBaconMeLoveIt, on Sep 09 2017 - 01:16, said: Is that a real tank, a scale model, or 3D model?

Lert:   It's real.


Реклама | Adv