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
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7543595
Link on message: #7543595
dance210: Congrats to all the teams that have made it to the Finals!
Starting around 5:30 pm PDT, we will be broadcasting the final
match between GHAZI and all money money to my home! Be sure
to tune in to www.twitch.tv/wargaming to see
all the action!
Subject: Some Skirmish Questions
Link on message: #7543214
NightmareMk9, on Jul 27 2014 - 14:37, said: We are trying to setup for our first Clan Tournament. Group
Round 1 Starts at 7PM Pacific. How long does the play last
on Mon, Tue, Wed Nights? Do you play the same team multiple
times or is there a specific number of games then a new team?
Thanks
Link on message: #7543214
NightmareMk9, on Jul 27 2014 - 14:37, said: We are trying to setup for our first Clan Tournament. Group
Round 1 Starts at 7PM Pacific. How long does the play last
on Mon, Tue, Wed Nights? Do you play the same team multiple
times or is there a specific number of games then a new team?
Thanksdance210: Each group has a maximum of 8 teams (which is 7 rounds);
battles are 15 minutes apart. So battles last ~1.75 hours.
For the group stage, you will play multiple teams each night. Teams
are randomly distributed to the groups, so it's possible you could
see some of the same team(s) on different nights. You will also
only play each team in the group once per night.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.Captain_Judo: There's no minus two rule in these test tournaments. These
"test tournaments" are a series of exercises in developing a new
pro format. But they're not tied to the current pro-format and are
intentionally different.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.Captain_Judo: There's no minus two rule in these test tournaments. These
"test tournaments" are a series of exercises in developing a new
pro format. But they're not tied to the current pro-format and are
intentionally different.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.
Link on message: #7543156
Beasts_of_the_East, on Jul 27 2014 - 12:25, said: @Captain Judo We really like to particpate in these kinds of
tournaments. And especially having 44 tier points instead of 42
gives more options to the teams. I do have a complaint, and
I sent in an e-mail and a PM about it, but unfortunately nothing
has been done with it yet. The rules are clearly stated on the
tournament page. But we encountered multiple teams that brought
line ups that did not comply with the rules. A few teams played
with 6 players only, and according to the rules they should have
lost a tier point of the total when they are a player short. The
bad thing is that these teams influenced the standings and even
made the play-offs, while they shouldn't be even allowed to play
with those line ups. I'm hoping things could be fixed for future
tourneys so that this cheating can be prevented beforehand, cause
obviously it is not something that is easily fixed during the time
the tournament is running.Captain_Judo: There's no minus two rule in these test tournaments. These
"test tournaments" are a series of exercises in developing a new
pro format. But they're not tied to the current pro-format and are
intentionally different.
Subject: Clan Wars Map Exhibition: 9.1 Maps
Link on message: #7542327
The_Emperors_Hand, on Jul 27 2014 - 10:48, said: If we create a team, is our whole clan automatically registered?
Or do we need to have everyone register on their own?
There are 86 reserve spots available. Also, the
link on the tournament page to the Forum Discussion is broken....
Link on message: #7542327
The_Emperors_Hand, on Jul 27 2014 - 10:48, said: If we create a team, is our whole clan automatically registered?
Or do we need to have everyone register on their own?
There are 86 reserve spots available. Also, the
link on the tournament page to the Forum Discussion is broken....dance210: 1. Once you create a team, your clan is NOT automatically
registered. Each player will need to sign up on their own.
2. Thanks! The link to the forum discussion has been
fixed 
Subject: Clan Invitational Tournament: Last Chance Qualifier
Link on message: #7542146
Wandorf, on Jul 26 2014 - 15:16, said: So, this thing is supposed to start in a little under 2 hours and
no schedule posted....
Block Quote Round of 64 (if needed)
Link on message: #7542146
Wandorf, on Jul 26 2014 - 15:16, said: So, this thing is supposed to start in a little under 2 hours and
no schedule posted....Hypnotik:
Block Quote Round of 64 (if needed)
Hypnotik: Round of 64 wasn't needed - Round of 32 will be. Tonight is
the first night of battles. It should be up soon.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?Captain_Judo: There's no automated standings table like the one that we
post, unfortunately. We simply collect all scores and manually
compute. There's no live scoreboard. But if it helps, we can
compute the scores after each group stage.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?Captain_Judo: There's no automated standings table like the one that we
post, unfortunately. We simply collect all scores and manually
compute. There's no live scoreboard. But if it helps, we can
compute the scores after each group stage.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?
Link on message: #7540230
19D_VET, on Jul 26 2014 - 19:13, said: Thanks but is there a way to track this WHILE the tourny is
running?Captain_Judo: There's no automated standings table like the one that we
post, unfortunately. We simply collect all scores and manually
compute. There's no live scoreboard. But if it helps, we can
compute the scores after each group stage.
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540161
Link on message: #7540161
Captain_Judo: Tie-breaker group scheduled for the following teams for one
available playoff berth: KGB MT1BR rga Group Stage
Standings Rank Team Name Points Earned / Points Possible 1 W1N
0.958333333 2 GHAZI 0.9375 3 all money money to my home 0.875 4
TomaTHbIu KycT 0.875 5 [BE] Beasts of the East 0.833333333 6 Leads
with Face 0.8125 7 MGL-A 0.791666667 8 The_end 0.791666667 9 anyone
can join play for fun 0.75 10 QSF Distorted Algorithms 0.75 11
Bigorninha Returns 0.708333333 12 Reltards 0.708333333 13
icedragons 0.6875 14 New Gamers 0.6875 15 Order Of The Black
Knights 0.6875 16 -RCS- 0.6875 17 SATBR 0.6875 18 Team Awesomsauce
0.6875 19 NOOBS 0.645833333 20 !CBL 0.625 21 3DACR 0.625 22 By The
Sword 0.625 23 CBC 0.583333333 24 Don Gasto y su Pandilla
0.583333333 25 ! Anyone Can Join ! X 0.5625 26 !!Mongolians!!
0.541666667 27 OS CARAS DE CHIBATA - BABB 0.520833333 28 3LIT3 TRY
HARDS RETURN 0.5 29 DPUSA 0.5 30 LOW 0.5 31 Total Oblivion 0.5 32
KGB 0.4375 33 MT1BR 0.4375 34 rga 0.4375 35 Blindados Brasileiros
0.395833333 36 Savage Outcast Battalion 1 0.375 37 CuTiTOuT
0.354166667 38 LOS VAMOS A COMER CRUDOS 0.333333333 39 86th Easy
Street TS 77102-9112 0.3125 40 DROID Army 0.3125 41 Big Test
icicles 0.291666667 42 !! DELTA !! 0.270833333 43 BOOM 0.25 44
R3ACT 0.25 45 Senta a Púa, praças de 1944 0.229166667 46 Atomic
0.208333333 47 BBGC 0.125 48 Commissars Frontoviki Battalion 0.125
49 The samcro crew 0.125 50 Panzerjäger 0.0625 51 sticky bombers
0.0625 52 !KalajiniSinovi! 0.020833333 53 Freedom Fighters
0.020833333 54 IMPERIAL STEEL 0.020833333
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540161
Link on message: #7540161
Captain_Judo: Tie-breaker group scheduled for the following teams for one
available playoff berth: KGB MT1BR rga Group Stage
Standings Rank Team Name Points Earned / Points Possible 1 W1N
0.958333333 2 GHAZI 0.9375 3 all money money to my home 0.875 4
TomaTHbIu KycT 0.875 5 [BE] Beasts of the East 0.833333333 6 Leads
with Face 0.8125 7 MGL-A 0.791666667 8 The_end 0.791666667 9 anyone
can join play for fun 0.75 10 QSF Distorted Algorithms 0.75 11
Bigorninha Returns 0.708333333 12 Reltards 0.708333333 13
icedragons 0.6875 14 New Gamers 0.6875 15 Order Of The Black
Knights 0.6875 16 -RCS- 0.6875 17 SATBR 0.6875 18 Team Awesomsauce
0.6875 19 NOOBS 0.645833333 20 !CBL 0.625 21 3DACR 0.625 22 By The
Sword 0.625 23 CBC 0.583333333 24 Don Gasto y su Pandilla
0.583333333 25 ! Anyone Can Join ! X 0.5625 26 !!Mongolians!!
0.541666667 27 OS CARAS DE CHIBATA - BABB 0.520833333 28 3LIT3 TRY
HARDS RETURN 0.5 29 DPUSA 0.5 30 LOW 0.5 31 Total Oblivion 0.5 32
KGB 0.4375 33 MT1BR 0.4375 34 rga 0.4375 35 Blindados Brasileiros
0.395833333 36 Savage Outcast Battalion 1 0.375 37 CuTiTOuT
0.354166667 38 LOS VAMOS A COMER CRUDOS 0.333333333 39 86th Easy
Street TS 77102-9112 0.3125 40 DROID Army 0.3125 41 Big Test
icicles 0.291666667 42 !! DELTA !! 0.270833333 43 BOOM 0.25 44
R3ACT 0.25 45 Senta a Púa, praças de 1944 0.229166667 46 Atomic
0.208333333 47 BBGC 0.125 48 Commissars Frontoviki Battalion 0.125
49 The samcro crew 0.125 50 Panzerjäger 0.0625 51 sticky bombers
0.0625 52 !KalajiniSinovi! 0.020833333 53 Freedom Fighters
0.020833333 54 IMPERIAL STEEL 0.020833333
Subject: WGL Format: 7/44
Link on message: #7540161
Link on message: #7540161
Captain_Judo: Tie-breaker group scheduled for the following teams for one
available playoff berth: KGB MT1BR rga Group Stage
Standings Rank Team Name Points Earned / Points Possible 1 W1N
0.958333333 2 GHAZI 0.9375 3 all money money to my home 0.875 4
TomaTHbIu KycT 0.875 5 [BE] Beasts of the East 0.833333333 6 Leads
with Face 0.8125 7 MGL-A 0.791666667 8 The_end 0.791666667 9 anyone
can join play for fun 0.75 10 QSF Distorted Algorithms 0.75 11
Bigorninha Returns 0.708333333 12 Reltards 0.708333333 13
icedragons 0.6875 14 New Gamers 0.6875 15 Order Of The Black
Knights 0.6875 16 -RCS- 0.6875 17 SATBR 0.6875 18 Team Awesomsauce
0.6875 19 NOOBS 0.645833333 20 !CBL 0.625 21 3DACR 0.625 22 By The
Sword 0.625 23 CBC 0.583333333 24 Don Gasto y su Pandilla
0.583333333 25 ! Anyone Can Join ! X 0.5625 26 !!Mongolians!!
0.541666667 27 OS CARAS DE CHIBATA - BABB 0.520833333 28 3LIT3 TRY
HARDS RETURN 0.5 29 DPUSA 0.5 30 LOW 0.5 31 Total Oblivion 0.5 32
KGB 0.4375 33 MT1BR 0.4375 34 rga 0.4375 35 Blindados Brasileiros
0.395833333 36 Savage Outcast Battalion 1 0.375 37 CuTiTOuT
0.354166667 38 LOS VAMOS A COMER CRUDOS 0.333333333 39 86th Easy
Street TS 77102-9112 0.3125 40 DROID Army 0.3125 41 Big Test
icicles 0.291666667 42 !! DELTA !! 0.270833333 43 BOOM 0.25 44
R3ACT 0.25 45 Senta a Púa, praças de 1944 0.229166667 46 Atomic
0.208333333 47 BBGC 0.125 48 Commissars Frontoviki Battalion 0.125
49 The samcro crew 0.125 50 Panzerjäger 0.0625 51 sticky bombers
0.0625 52 !KalajiniSinovi! 0.020833333 53 Freedom Fighters
0.020833333 54 IMPERIAL STEEL 0.020833333
Subject: T110's Second Summer of Love (And Tolerance)
Link on message: #7540002
Link on message: #7540002
The_Chieftain: I didn't get a chance to get to a keyboard before reading your last
missive to warn you not to go on the key raid until you had
equipped most everyone with laser weapons. Now I'm dead, and so I
can't now.
Subject: Cantigny Player Gathering
Link on message: #7538162
Link on message: #7538162
Content_WG: Join Wargaming at the Cantigny Tank Park and First Division
Museum!
Full news text Hello everyone, We are excited that so many of you are going to come hang out at the Cantigny Tank Park and 1st Division Museum with us! We have already reached our 50 RSVP's and they are listed below. Please note that this thread was created across all products so you will be sharing these slots with them as well. Just because we filled up the RSVP slots doesn't mean that you still can not come and hang out! Everyone is still invited to come out and meet us as well as participate in the trivia and drawing contests. If you did not make the list and would still like to come, please let us know which tour you are thinking of attending (each tour can accommodate 25 people). People on the RSVP list are the only ones eligible to receive the meal voucher/gift, but there is no limit to how many friends you can bring with you! Just let us know which tour you plan on taking so we can try to accommodate them.Tours start at 1pm, 2pm, and 3pm. WoTx forums: 1. elcobra44
2. GevarM96
3. GewehrM48
4. MeatShield58
5. Phobosfactor4 +1
6. marinefish666
7. Chilli RiverRat
8. PurE Provision
9. LURKINGPANCAKE
10. RileytheLucario +1
11. World of Banks
12. MPC 2117 +1
13. Nikadiemus
14. Rachmartivir
16. Way2ez4u2 +1 WoWP:
17. PatrioticPole84 WoT: 18. greatalex
19. bat1159man
20. LoveBuffalo
21. Cockpits
22. real_turbo
23. CpIML
24. HellcatDeath
25. CaptainGu
26. Foozogz
27. A3M-ECTb
28. gordunk
29. JJ_McTeague
30. Chickens
31. LunchBox_Express
32. RockingReilly
33. Papasan
34. acestone
35. 759thTankBatallion
36. mugwump
37. Sluffo
38. Azeyn
39. Conan455
40. POWMIA81
41. Damian81
42. Khagan1
43. cuf_patriot
44. CuF_Turtle
45.Powerage13
46.GeneralChaos567
47.webchef
48. celtics23
49. BadalWolf2
50. ypb0924
Full news text Hello everyone, We are excited that so many of you are going to come hang out at the Cantigny Tank Park and 1st Division Museum with us! We have already reached our 50 RSVP's and they are listed below. Please note that this thread was created across all products so you will be sharing these slots with them as well. Just because we filled up the RSVP slots doesn't mean that you still can not come and hang out! Everyone is still invited to come out and meet us as well as participate in the trivia and drawing contests. If you did not make the list and would still like to come, please let us know which tour you are thinking of attending (each tour can accommodate 25 people). People on the RSVP list are the only ones eligible to receive the meal voucher/gift, but there is no limit to how many friends you can bring with you! Just let us know which tour you plan on taking so we can try to accommodate them.Tours start at 1pm, 2pm, and 3pm. WoTx forums: 1. elcobra44
2. GevarM96
3. GewehrM48
4. MeatShield58
5. Phobosfactor4 +1
6. marinefish666
7. Chilli RiverRat
8. PurE Provision
9. LURKINGPANCAKE
10. RileytheLucario +1
11. World of Banks
12. MPC 2117 +1
13. Nikadiemus
14. Rachmartivir
16. Way2ez4u2 +1 WoWP:
17. PatrioticPole84 WoT: 18. greatalex
19. bat1159man
20. LoveBuffalo
21. Cockpits
22. real_turbo
23. CpIML
24. HellcatDeath
25. CaptainGu
26. Foozogz
27. A3M-ECTb
28. gordunk
29. JJ_McTeague
30. Chickens
31. LunchBox_Express
32. RockingReilly
33. Papasan
34. acestone
35. 759thTankBatallion
36. mugwump
37. Sluffo
38. Azeyn
39. Conan455
40. POWMIA81
41. Damian81
42. Khagan1
43. cuf_patriot
44. CuF_Turtle
45.Powerage13
46.GeneralChaos567
47.webchef
48. celtics23
49. BadalWolf2
50. ypb0924
Subject: Zebra Mission: Pershing Pt 3
Link on message: #7537400
Link on message: #7537400
The_Chieftain:
I will finish the current series on the timelines of
the production and fielding of T26 General Pershing with Ordnance's
view of the background to the Zebra Mission, the in-theatre combat
testing of the tank. Then, my ponitification, which of course, is
totally correct and beyond reproach. The below is
transcribed straight from Ordnance's historical record. While
the difficulties surrounding the size of the gun on the heavy tank
were in the process of settlement, another controversy arose. In
March 1944 Ordnance proposed sending a T26 tank (along
with five each of the T23 and T25 models) to the North African
theater "in order to get a battle evaluation of these tanks since
it was the Ordnance opinion that they would be an important factor
on the battlefield if used to augment the fire power of the M4
tanks". Army Ground Forces answered bluntly that "the suggestion
that a team of officers and experts and eleven
experimental tanks be sent to NATOUSA is not favorably
considered at this time." Ground Force headquarters added that
"these tanks have not been tested by a service board, and
it is not known whether they are fightable -and fit to be put
in combat. This headquarters does not view with favor the idea of
making any combat zone a testing agency." In view of theAGF
attitude, Ordnance suggested that the Armored Board be sent to
Aberdeen Proving Ground to witness tests of the T25 and T26 tanks.
By expediting the tests, Ordnance felt, it might
still be possible to send the vehicles to North Africa
not later than the previously proposed date of 1 April 1944.
The problem with testing in a combat zone is that if
the enemy knocks out your tank, you can't use it for testing any
more. This was Pershing #22. This new Ordnance proposal was
apparently rejected by AGF, because ASF replied to the
Ordnance indorsement with a statement that Commanding
General, Army Ground Forces, had indicated that he would
do everything possible to hasten the test of the heavy tanks and
that a report might be forthcoming in about a month. Ordnance was
instructed to ship T26 tanks to the home base of the Armored Board
-- Fort Knox, Kentucky. Ordnance was also warned that pending
clearance by AGF, none of these vehicles would be shipped to
overseas theaters. Ordnance, of course, was required to
abide by the decision of higher authority, but, for
purposes of record, answered that "it is still the opinion of this
office that the… T26 Tanks should be sent to the theaters where
they may be required. It will take a considerable time to ship the
tanks and to get them into service. The information which would be
obtained would be of great value, both to the using service and to
the Ordnance Department." Ordnance recommended that the decision to
hold the shipment of these tanks pending service
tests be reconsidered. The ASF decision
was not changed. In August of 1944,Ordnance again asked
permission for combat test of the T26 tank and
received approval from the General Staff for the formation of
a tank platoon in the North African theater for the special purpose
of testing these tanks in battle. Army Ground Forces, as it
had before, strenuously resisted this proposed action, and was
again able to obtain cancellation of overseas tests. During the
same month, the Ordnance Department also proposed the
standardization of the T26 (actually the
modification designated T26E1), but Army Ground
Forces refused to concur on the grounds that service tests had not
been completed, that tanks embodying improvements suggested by the
Armored Board had not been provided for further test, that other
modifications might prove necessary, that immediate standardization
would not facilitate-either the development or production of the
heavy tank. AGF wanted standardization withheld until the T26
had been proven battle-worthy. Despite continued AGF opposition to
the overseas trial of the new heavy tank, Ordnance persisted in its
attempts to get sample tanks to the battlefields in order that
their performance might be observed by personnel directly concerned
with combat operations. Ordnance persistence apparently was
rewarded,because on 31 October 1944, General Barnes told Colonel
Joseph Colby, Ordnance development chief in Detroit, that it was
anticipated twenty heavy tanks would be shipped overseas the first
week in January 1945. Whether AGF had changed its mind on the
subject; or whether it had been overruled by higher authority was
not indicated. That General Barnes’ information was correct
is shown in a letter of 24November 1944 which informed the
Office, Chief of Ordnance-Detroit (OCO-D) that
"arrangements are being made by the War Department to
send twenty T26E1 tanks… to an overseas theater." Ordnance and AGF
thinking on the subject of heavy tanks still did not travel in
the same channels. Two weeks after the dispatch of the letter
to OCO-D, AGF still thought (as General Barnes interpreted AGF
thought) it would be necessary to have the T26 declared
battleworthy at Fort Knox before the twenty tanks destined for an
overseas theater could be shipped. General Barnes had fought so
long to get these tanks overseas, however, that he did not intend
to be frustrated again. Calling Colonel David Friesel of ASF, an
officer concerned with the shipment of the tanks to his office the
following day, General Barnes “told Col. Friesel that before we
would allow anyone to 'gum up' the works, I would go to
G-4(General Maxwell) and, further, I would go to General Marshall
direct if necessary to see that this proposal is not blocked." The
same day General Barnes telephoned Colonel Edward P. Mechling of
War Department G-4 and explained that Ordnance was willing to give
AGF twenty tanks for testing at the same time Ordnance took
twenty vehicles off the production lines for shipment
overseas, but that to give AGF the first twenty tanks would make it
impossible to complete the overseas shipment by 15 January.
Mechling expressed surprise that this difficulty had arisen, saying
it was the G-4 understanding that the Ordnance plan for allocation
of the tanks had been agreed to by AGF. Agreement, however, was so
far from complete that General Maxwell of G-4 called General Barnes
and General Waldron into conference 19 December 1944 to discuss the
situation. The Ordnance position was subsequently favored by
General Maxwell who "directed that twenty… T26E3 Heavy
Tanks (the mode1 number had recently been changed from
T26E1 by OCM action), from the first forty…produced, be
released for shipment to the European Theater of Operations, with
the understanding that these tanks have not yet been
cleared by the Army Ground Forces for combat
use." An AGF officer was to accompany the mission
(headed by General Barnes) to be sent to Europe as an observer. In
the absence of further major disagreements twenty between Ordnance
and AGF, the heavy tanks were delivered to the European
Theater about the middle of February and taken into
battle by the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions before the
end of the month; Overseas commanders appeared pleased with the
combat performance of the tanks and asked that more be furnished.
Pershings heading to the Rhine near Wesel The
Chieftain's Observations Thus ends the overview, from Ordnance’s
perspective, of the development and implementation of the T26/M26
General Pershing. This is where I get to climb on my soapboax and
give my opinion. Much is made as to why Pershing was not
introduced into service sooner, with various claims going around
that McNair personally held up development, or that the M26 could
have been available in numbers for the Normandy landings, if not
the standard US tank. We’ll ignore the ‘Patton didn’t like it’
silliness as not worthy of commentary. Bear in mind that Ordnance’s
relating of history is not particularly generous to AGF or McNair.
The section entitled “Relations with Army Ground Forces and AGF
Components” starts with “Relations between the Ordnance Department
and Army Ground Forces were often strained. Differences of opinion
as to the development of ordnance arose almost daily and
occasionally gave rise to considerable rancor, especially in
connection with heavy tanks. Most of these differences could be
traced to a fundamental divergence of opinion between AGF and the
Ordnance Department as to the role of the Ordnance Department with
respect to the development of materiel.” As a result, any
conclusions drawn from Ordnance’s perspective are likely to place
the best possible view of Ordnance and their heroic crusade to give
US soldiers the most capable tank the US can come up with against
the evil forces of AGF inertia and closed-minded thinking. Yet,
even at that, it doesn’t really seem to paint AGF’s position as
being particularly poor or a significant factor in delay. Firstly,
and most importantly, there’s the question of how quickly the
vehicle could be brought into service through the development
process. Many of the questions of delay refer to whether or not the
vehicle should be accepted for mass production, or actually mass
produced. Bear in mind that the reason that the Zebra mission got
shipped out in January 1945 was that was when they could get the
first 20 vehicles off the production line, and the approval for
producing the first 250 was made unofficially in early December
1943 and officially in early January 1944. This seems to make the
delay in approving the Zebra mission to Europe fairly irrelevant:
Even if AGF had immediately acceded to the request, they would
still have had to build the tanks. This approval for mass
production seems to be the only significant delay which can be
ascribed to AGF: The initial request for mass production of 500 was
in early October 1943, which was denied. If we were to assume that
the creation of the first 20 production tanks (as opposed to the
ten evaluation vehicles) were to be the same two months sooner as
the change in approval date, then it would apparently not have been
possible to get even those twenty tanks into combat before late
December 1944, and subsequent deliveries may not have had huge
effect given the nature of fighting which followed from that date.
Given that the request to approve 500 tanks was made some four
months before the first actual T26 was delivered for testing in
February of 1944 (itself approved for production June 1943), it is
perhaps not particularly surprising that AGF and ASF might look a
little askance at approving such a large production request for an
untried vehicle: Basically a Paper Panzer, it hadn't even been
built yet! One also has the issue that the vehicles produced in
December would have been made without the benefit of some
observations from the extra two months of testing which, you will
recall from earlier articles in this series, indicated that the
tank still needed some work. The repeated denials of combat testing
of T26E1 in the NATO also seems justifiable. Deserts are not the
most forgiving environments to begin with, and as testing in
slightly less hostile Aberdeen and Ft Knox showed, the mechanical
state of the vehicle was such that the vehicle was simply not
combat ready. Had the T26E1 platoon actually shown up in theatre,
it could very well have proven utterly unreliable and scuppered the
program, plus been an unreliable drain on resources which the local
commanders would have had to take into account, possibly a risk to
life. It was a risk which probably wouldn’t have had much benefit,
AGF’s position on not making combat theatres early test and
evaluation facilities has strong merit. Plus one also has the issue
of the very small number of vehicles which would have been sent
out. A couple of tanks, vs the 20 of the Zebra Mission. The first
T26 to see action in Zebra (“Fireball”) was knocked out on Day 1 by
a Tiger, leaving another 19, can one imagine what would have
happened had one of a T26 platoon in North Africa or Italy suffered
the same fate?
Fireball. Shot through the sight port These various
timelines, to my mind, do not seem unreasonable when one compares
the timelines of the 76mm M4. Recall that full scale production of
the vehicle was still approved in early September 1943, after
testing, and few tanks made it to Europe before the June D-Day even
though the vehicle was merely a derivative of something already in
full production. Arguing that an entirely new vehicle which had not
even started testing until February 1944 could have been in theatre
in any appreciable numbers merely four months later would, I think,
indicate a detachment from the realities of procurement and
logistics. So what really –was- McNair’s influence? Arguably, from
the timeline shown by Ordnance’s history, it seems it wasn’t so
much that he scuppered Ordnance’s plans because he didn’t like the
tank (even if he didn’t), but it was mainly due to the more
pragmatic philosophy of not wanting to send untested vehicles into
combat, a philosophy which he appears to have ingrained into AGF
for it remained their position even after his death in July 1944.
There may well be further precedent to be found in the 76mm M4:
Ordnance and AGF approved the early 76mm M4 with the original
turret with an eye to having it partake in the North Africa
landings, only to have the end user (Armored Force) test it in time
to prevent the vehicle from being deployed once they realized that
it was unacceptable. Once bitten, twice shy, perhaps. So, in my
opinion, Pershing seems to have gotten into theatre as soon as
practicable, regardless of AGF’s interference, and with barely 230
made by March 1945, still less than the originally production order
of 250 making subsequent machinations effectively irrelevant, there
would have been relatively little battlefield effect even if AGF
hadn’t interfered.
Crossing the Rhine Follow my Facebook
page!
I will finish the current series on the timelines of
the production and fielding of T26 General Pershing with Ordnance's
view of the background to the Zebra Mission, the in-theatre combat
testing of the tank. Then, my ponitification, which of course, is
totally correct and beyond reproach. The below is
transcribed straight from Ordnance's historical record. While
the difficulties surrounding the size of the gun on the heavy tank
were in the process of settlement, another controversy arose. In
March 1944 Ordnance proposed sending a T26 tank (along
with five each of the T23 and T25 models) to the North African
theater "in order to get a battle evaluation of these tanks since
it was the Ordnance opinion that they would be an important factor
on the battlefield if used to augment the fire power of the M4
tanks". Army Ground Forces answered bluntly that "the suggestion
that a team of officers and experts and eleven
experimental tanks be sent to NATOUSA is not favorably
considered at this time." Ground Force headquarters added that
"these tanks have not been tested by a service board, and
it is not known whether they are fightable -and fit to be put
in combat. This headquarters does not view with favor the idea of
making any combat zone a testing agency." In view of theAGF
attitude, Ordnance suggested that the Armored Board be sent to
Aberdeen Proving Ground to witness tests of the T25 and T26 tanks.
By expediting the tests, Ordnance felt, it might
still be possible to send the vehicles to North Africa
not later than the previously proposed date of 1 April 1944.
The problem with testing in a combat zone is that if
the enemy knocks out your tank, you can't use it for testing any
more. This was Pershing #22. This new Ordnance proposal was
apparently rejected by AGF, because ASF replied to the
Ordnance indorsement with a statement that Commanding
General, Army Ground Forces, had indicated that he would
do everything possible to hasten the test of the heavy tanks and
that a report might be forthcoming in about a month. Ordnance was
instructed to ship T26 tanks to the home base of the Armored Board
-- Fort Knox, Kentucky. Ordnance was also warned that pending
clearance by AGF, none of these vehicles would be shipped to
overseas theaters. Ordnance, of course, was required to
abide by the decision of higher authority, but, for
purposes of record, answered that "it is still the opinion of this
office that the… T26 Tanks should be sent to the theaters where
they may be required. It will take a considerable time to ship the
tanks and to get them into service. The information which would be
obtained would be of great value, both to the using service and to
the Ordnance Department." Ordnance recommended that the decision to
hold the shipment of these tanks pending service
tests be reconsidered. The ASF decision
was not changed. In August of 1944,Ordnance again asked
permission for combat test of the T26 tank and
received approval from the General Staff for the formation of
a tank platoon in the North African theater for the special purpose
of testing these tanks in battle. Army Ground Forces, as it
had before, strenuously resisted this proposed action, and was
again able to obtain cancellation of overseas tests. During the
same month, the Ordnance Department also proposed the
standardization of the T26 (actually the
modification designated T26E1), but Army Ground
Forces refused to concur on the grounds that service tests had not
been completed, that tanks embodying improvements suggested by the
Armored Board had not been provided for further test, that other
modifications might prove necessary, that immediate standardization
would not facilitate-either the development or production of the
heavy tank. AGF wanted standardization withheld until the T26
had been proven battle-worthy. Despite continued AGF opposition to
the overseas trial of the new heavy tank, Ordnance persisted in its
attempts to get sample tanks to the battlefields in order that
their performance might be observed by personnel directly concerned
with combat operations. Ordnance persistence apparently was
rewarded,because on 31 October 1944, General Barnes told Colonel
Joseph Colby, Ordnance development chief in Detroit, that it was
anticipated twenty heavy tanks would be shipped overseas the first
week in January 1945. Whether AGF had changed its mind on the
subject; or whether it had been overruled by higher authority was
not indicated. That General Barnes’ information was correct
is shown in a letter of 24November 1944 which informed the
Office, Chief of Ordnance-Detroit (OCO-D) that
"arrangements are being made by the War Department to
send twenty T26E1 tanks… to an overseas theater." Ordnance and AGF
thinking on the subject of heavy tanks still did not travel in
the same channels. Two weeks after the dispatch of the letter
to OCO-D, AGF still thought (as General Barnes interpreted AGF
thought) it would be necessary to have the T26 declared
battleworthy at Fort Knox before the twenty tanks destined for an
overseas theater could be shipped. General Barnes had fought so
long to get these tanks overseas, however, that he did not intend
to be frustrated again. Calling Colonel David Friesel of ASF, an
officer concerned with the shipment of the tanks to his office the
following day, General Barnes “told Col. Friesel that before we
would allow anyone to 'gum up' the works, I would go to
G-4(General Maxwell) and, further, I would go to General Marshall
direct if necessary to see that this proposal is not blocked." The
same day General Barnes telephoned Colonel Edward P. Mechling of
War Department G-4 and explained that Ordnance was willing to give
AGF twenty tanks for testing at the same time Ordnance took
twenty vehicles off the production lines for shipment
overseas, but that to give AGF the first twenty tanks would make it
impossible to complete the overseas shipment by 15 January.
Mechling expressed surprise that this difficulty had arisen, saying
it was the G-4 understanding that the Ordnance plan for allocation
of the tanks had been agreed to by AGF. Agreement, however, was so
far from complete that General Maxwell of G-4 called General Barnes
and General Waldron into conference 19 December 1944 to discuss the
situation. The Ordnance position was subsequently favored by
General Maxwell who "directed that twenty… T26E3 Heavy
Tanks (the mode1 number had recently been changed from
T26E1 by OCM action), from the first forty…produced, be
released for shipment to the European Theater of Operations, with
the understanding that these tanks have not yet been
cleared by the Army Ground Forces for combat
use." An AGF officer was to accompany the mission
(headed by General Barnes) to be sent to Europe as an observer. In
the absence of further major disagreements twenty between Ordnance
and AGF, the heavy tanks were delivered to the European
Theater about the middle of February and taken into
battle by the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions before the
end of the month; Overseas commanders appeared pleased with the
combat performance of the tanks and asked that more be furnished.
Pershings heading to the Rhine near Wesel The
Chieftain's Observations Thus ends the overview, from Ordnance’s
perspective, of the development and implementation of the T26/M26
General Pershing. This is where I get to climb on my soapboax and
give my opinion. Much is made as to why Pershing was not
introduced into service sooner, with various claims going around
that McNair personally held up development, or that the M26 could
have been available in numbers for the Normandy landings, if not
the standard US tank. We’ll ignore the ‘Patton didn’t like it’
silliness as not worthy of commentary. Bear in mind that Ordnance’s
relating of history is not particularly generous to AGF or McNair.
The section entitled “Relations with Army Ground Forces and AGF
Components” starts with “Relations between the Ordnance Department
and Army Ground Forces were often strained. Differences of opinion
as to the development of ordnance arose almost daily and
occasionally gave rise to considerable rancor, especially in
connection with heavy tanks. Most of these differences could be
traced to a fundamental divergence of opinion between AGF and the
Ordnance Department as to the role of the Ordnance Department with
respect to the development of materiel.” As a result, any
conclusions drawn from Ordnance’s perspective are likely to place
the best possible view of Ordnance and their heroic crusade to give
US soldiers the most capable tank the US can come up with against
the evil forces of AGF inertia and closed-minded thinking. Yet,
even at that, it doesn’t really seem to paint AGF’s position as
being particularly poor or a significant factor in delay. Firstly,
and most importantly, there’s the question of how quickly the
vehicle could be brought into service through the development
process. Many of the questions of delay refer to whether or not the
vehicle should be accepted for mass production, or actually mass
produced. Bear in mind that the reason that the Zebra mission got
shipped out in January 1945 was that was when they could get the
first 20 vehicles off the production line, and the approval for
producing the first 250 was made unofficially in early December
1943 and officially in early January 1944. This seems to make the
delay in approving the Zebra mission to Europe fairly irrelevant:
Even if AGF had immediately acceded to the request, they would
still have had to build the tanks. This approval for mass
production seems to be the only significant delay which can be
ascribed to AGF: The initial request for mass production of 500 was
in early October 1943, which was denied. If we were to assume that
the creation of the first 20 production tanks (as opposed to the
ten evaluation vehicles) were to be the same two months sooner as
the change in approval date, then it would apparently not have been
possible to get even those twenty tanks into combat before late
December 1944, and subsequent deliveries may not have had huge
effect given the nature of fighting which followed from that date.
Given that the request to approve 500 tanks was made some four
months before the first actual T26 was delivered for testing in
February of 1944 (itself approved for production June 1943), it is
perhaps not particularly surprising that AGF and ASF might look a
little askance at approving such a large production request for an
untried vehicle: Basically a Paper Panzer, it hadn't even been
built yet! One also has the issue that the vehicles produced in
December would have been made without the benefit of some
observations from the extra two months of testing which, you will
recall from earlier articles in this series, indicated that the
tank still needed some work. The repeated denials of combat testing
of T26E1 in the NATO also seems justifiable. Deserts are not the
most forgiving environments to begin with, and as testing in
slightly less hostile Aberdeen and Ft Knox showed, the mechanical
state of the vehicle was such that the vehicle was simply not
combat ready. Had the T26E1 platoon actually shown up in theatre,
it could very well have proven utterly unreliable and scuppered the
program, plus been an unreliable drain on resources which the local
commanders would have had to take into account, possibly a risk to
life. It was a risk which probably wouldn’t have had much benefit,
AGF’s position on not making combat theatres early test and
evaluation facilities has strong merit. Plus one also has the issue
of the very small number of vehicles which would have been sent
out. A couple of tanks, vs the 20 of the Zebra Mission. The first
T26 to see action in Zebra (“Fireball”) was knocked out on Day 1 by
a Tiger, leaving another 19, can one imagine what would have
happened had one of a T26 platoon in North Africa or Italy suffered
the same fate?
Fireball. Shot through the sight port These various
timelines, to my mind, do not seem unreasonable when one compares
the timelines of the 76mm M4. Recall that full scale production of
the vehicle was still approved in early September 1943, after
testing, and few tanks made it to Europe before the June D-Day even
though the vehicle was merely a derivative of something already in
full production. Arguing that an entirely new vehicle which had not
even started testing until February 1944 could have been in theatre
in any appreciable numbers merely four months later would, I think,
indicate a detachment from the realities of procurement and
logistics. So what really –was- McNair’s influence? Arguably, from
the timeline shown by Ordnance’s history, it seems it wasn’t so
much that he scuppered Ordnance’s plans because he didn’t like the
tank (even if he didn’t), but it was mainly due to the more
pragmatic philosophy of not wanting to send untested vehicles into
combat, a philosophy which he appears to have ingrained into AGF
for it remained their position even after his death in July 1944.
There may well be further precedent to be found in the 76mm M4:
Ordnance and AGF approved the early 76mm M4 with the original
turret with an eye to having it partake in the North Africa
landings, only to have the end user (Armored Force) test it in time
to prevent the vehicle from being deployed once they realized that
it was unacceptable. Once bitten, twice shy, perhaps. So, in my
opinion, Pershing seems to have gotten into theatre as soon as
practicable, regardless of AGF’s interference, and with barely 230
made by March 1945, still less than the originally production order
of 250 making subsequent machinations effectively irrelevant, there
would have been relatively little battlefield effect even if AGF
hadn’t interfered.
Crossing the Rhine Follow my Facebook
page!
Subject: T110's Second Summer of Love (And Tolerance)
Link on message: #7537346
Seraphil, on Jul 26 2014 - 07:31, said: It's for the GuP movie that's coming out soon. Ooarai and
Chihatan Academy team up to face St. Gloriana in a rematch battle.
I dunno why Chihatan is fielding just early model Chi-Has
though. You'd think they'd have at least one or two
Shinhotos...
Link on message: #7537346
Seraphil, on Jul 26 2014 - 07:31, said: It's for the GuP movie that's coming out soon. Ooarai and
Chihatan Academy team up to face St. Gloriana in a rematch battle.
I dunno why Chihatan is fielding just early model Chi-Has
though. You'd think they'd have at least one or two
Shinhotos...The_Chieftain: Not the movie, another OVA. The movie has a different
matchup.
Subject: Skirmish 28
Link on message: #7536226
jamessundstrom, on Jul 25 2014 - 19:33, said: we just had our playoff game aginst a team and the cheated by
bringing in 3 kv1s' in the match. we told them that was not aloud
and they laughed about it. i mean if that was going to be the case
then why was there a limit on how many you could bring?
Link on message: #7536226
jamessundstrom, on Jul 25 2014 - 19:33, said: we just had our playoff game aginst a team and the cheated by
bringing in 3 kv1s' in the match. we told them that was not aloud
and they laughed about it. i mean if that was going to be the case
then why was there a limit on how many you could bring? dance210: As apache1990 stated, you need to file a dispute at
tournaments@wargamingamerica.com with replays of the match showing
the team breaking the rules. Please include your team name and the
opponent team name, and what rule they broke. If you do this
tonight, then the dispute will be processed tomorrow :)
Subject: T110's Second Summer of Love (And Tolerance)
Link on message: #7536129
Seraphil, on Jul 25 2014 - 23:24, said: Community Manager position for WGA now open... I've been a
long-time senior staff moderator on a website called Koei Warriors,
which is the largest fan-run site for games produced by
Koei-Tecmo(Dynasty Warriors, Romance of Three Kingdoms, etc) but I
don't know if that's enough to really qualify for the
position. Our old admin who created the site moved on a while
back and became Community Manager for the actual company of
Koei-Tecmo(European branch) though, so I dunno.
Link on message: #7536129
Seraphil, on Jul 25 2014 - 23:24, said: Community Manager position for WGA now open... I've been a
long-time senior staff moderator on a website called Koei Warriors,
which is the largest fan-run site for games produced by
Koei-Tecmo(Dynasty Warriors, Romance of Three Kingdoms, etc) but I
don't know if that's enough to really qualify for the
position. Our old admin who created the site moved on a while
back and became Community Manager for the actual company of
Koei-Tecmo(European branch) though, so I dunno.The_Chieftain: Sure, try for it. We've taken a couple of community managers
off the street, and at this level personality and intelligence
count for more than experience.
Subject: Lego Fans Unite! (Or, Lego Tank show-off thread)
Link on message: #7535650
Caligulis, on Jul 25 2014 - 17:05, said: So, I was having a think and decided I wanted to build some lego
tanks. I decided on the probably absurd goal of building ALL THE
TANKS. And so, I started. Now, almost a year and 30 models
later, I've made some progress in my building technique and style.
If you want to see more, visit my MOCpages account (Cade Connelly).
There, you'll find not only myself, but many other builders with
similar interests who also build tanks/TDs (or just WWII stuff in
general. There's some pretty cool stuff on there).
Here's the T95 super heavy tank. It's a monster. This
is by far my largest build, and probably my most labour-intensive
(my poor computer could barely handle rendering it in LDD.) It's
one example of the kinds of things I build; all my builds are
digital due to lack of real-life resources.
Here's the T30 heavy tank. It's a TD in WOT, because
reasons! If anyone else wants to share, please do.
I'd like to see what other people in the WOT community like Legos
and build tanks with them (or even just military stuff in
general.)
Link on message: #7535650
Caligulis, on Jul 25 2014 - 17:05, said: So, I was having a think and decided I wanted to build some lego
tanks. I decided on the probably absurd goal of building ALL THE
TANKS. And so, I started. Now, almost a year and 30 models
later, I've made some progress in my building technique and style.
If you want to see more, visit my MOCpages account (Cade Connelly).
There, you'll find not only myself, but many other builders with
similar interests who also build tanks/TDs (or just WWII stuff in
general. There's some pretty cool stuff on there).
Here's the T95 super heavy tank. It's a monster. This
is by far my largest build, and probably my most labour-intensive
(my poor computer could barely handle rendering it in LDD.) It's
one example of the kinds of things I build; all my builds are
digital due to lack of real-life resources.
Here's the T30 heavy tank. It's a TD in WOT, because
reasons! If anyone else wants to share, please do.
I'd like to see what other people in the WOT community like Legos
and build tanks with them (or even just military stuff in
general.) HBFT: Wow, that is really impressive, sir! I am "drooling" over
your MOCpage. haha
Subject: 16th Anniversary Epic Tank Creation Contest!
Link on message: #7535628
A_Little_Baby, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:27, said: How are winners chosen?
Link on message: #7535628
A_Little_Baby, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:27, said: How are winners chosen?pizzastorm: We get a bunch of people from the community team to vote on their
top choices.
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?SchnellerDamon: Cuando se hace una devolución de dinero no es por el dinero
efectivo. O sea si pagaste en efectivo no hay devoluciones, el
bloqueo viene de los que usan sus tarjetas de créditos y cuando
hacen una devolución es porque se lo piden a SU BANCO no a
nosotros. Lo que e notado en este hilo es que muchos
creen que nosotros hacemos la devoluciones, pero la realidad es
que son los bancos (pedido por el que uso la tarjeta) que
cometen la devolución y por eso bloqueamos las dos cuentas.
Nosotros por razón de seguridad no sabemos si es una estafa (como
alguien menciono) o no y lo más razonable es bloquear las dos
cuentas.
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?ElPozoleOlmeca: Cuando se hace una devolución de dinero no es por el dinero
efectivo. O sea si pagaste en efectivo no hay devoluciones, el
bloqueo viene de los que usan sus tarjetas de créditos y cuando
hacen una devolución es porque se lo piden a SU BANCO no a
nosotros. Lo que e notado en este hilo es que muchos
creen que nosotros hacemos la devoluciones, pero la realidad es
que son los bancos (pedido por el que uso la tarjeta) que
cometen la devolución y por eso bloqueamos las dos cuentas.
Nosotros por razón de seguridad no sabemos si es una estafa (como
alguien menciono) o no y lo más razonable es bloquear las dos
cuentas.
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?PollotheDestroyer: Cuando se hace una devolución de dinero no es por el dinero
efectivo. O sea si pagaste en efectivo no hay devoluciones, el
bloqueo viene de los que usan sus tarjetas de créditos y cuando
hacen una devolución es porque se lo piden a SU BANCO no a
nosotros. Lo que e notado en este hilo es que muchos
creen que nosotros hacemos la devoluciones, pero la realidad es
que son los bancos (pedido por el que uso la tarjeta) que
cometen la devolución y por eso bloqueamos las dos cuentas.
Nosotros por razón de seguridad no sabemos si es una estafa (como
alguien menciono) o no y lo más razonable es bloquear las dos
cuentas.
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?
Link on message: #7535585
Aguslos80, on Jul 25 2014 - 15:57, said: Pero entonces por que hacen devoluciones de dinero?ApolloArtemis: Cuando se hace una devolución de dinero no es por el dinero
efectivo. O sea si pagaste en efectivo no hay devoluciones, el
bloqueo viene de los que usan sus tarjetas de créditos y cuando
hacen una devolución es porque se lo piden a SU BANCO no a
nosotros. Lo que e notado en este hilo es que muchos
creen que nosotros hacemos la devoluciones, pero la realidad es
que son los bancos (pedido por el que uso la tarjeta) que
cometen la devolución y por eso bloqueamos las dos cuentas.
Nosotros por razón de seguridad no sabemos si es una estafa (como
alguien menciono) o no y lo más razonable es bloquear las dos
cuentas.
Subject: blue screen only on wot
Link on message: #7535546
Link on message: #7535546
Pigeon_of_War: Hmm, these are always dicey situations. We might need an AIDA64
report, but first send us a DxDiag and python log to Tech Support.
Pigeon_of_War
Hanger 'background noise' soundtrack continues to play after game cli...
26.07.2014 02:04:50
Subject: Hanger 'background noise' soundtrack continues to play after game cli...
Link on message: #7535402
Link on message: #7535402
Pigeon_of_War: This actually happens if you switch applications continuously. It
goes away when you start a new battle or just switch applications
again.
Subject: can't start the game
Link on message: #7535368
Link on message: #7535368
Pigeon_of_War: Definitely a missing DirectX driver. A quick download should fix
this. Tell us if it does!
Subject: Cant load into battle
Link on message: #7535361
Link on message: #7535361
Pigeon_of_War: We got a new update coming out in less than a week, but to get you
back on the battlefield sooner we need some information from you.
Would you send us a Python, DxDiag and WOTLauncher logs to Tech Support?
Subject: Garage screen won't load
Link on message: #7535349
Link on message: #7535349
Pigeon_of_War: I am curious of your system specifications. Please send a DxDiag
and Python log to Tech
Support and we will help you out.
Subject: WG: wth is the IP we should use in PingPlotter?
Link on message: #7535328
Link on message: #7535328
Pigeon_of_War: You don't have to SPAM the SUpport queue with tickets, but sending
one would be optimal. 
Subject: GPU CPU usage when minimized
Link on message: #7535316
Link on message: #7535316
Pigeon_of_War: Hmmmm, normally when you minimize the client and leave it in
windowed mode, it uses less resources. You can send us a Support Ticket if it
becomes a big problem for you.
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes
.
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes SchnellerDamon: Créeme, había muchos que hicieron su compra (tu pon con
tarjeta de crédito) y pedían su devolución a los 2-3 meses, ya
después de que el pago se "aseguro".
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes
.
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes ElPozoleOlmeca: Créeme, había muchos que hicieron su compra (tu pon con
tarjeta de crédito) y pedían su devolución a los 2-3 meses, ya
después de que el pago se "aseguro".
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes
.
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes PollotheDestroyer: Créeme, había muchos que hicieron su compra (tu pon con
tarjeta de crédito) y pedían su devolución a los 2-3 meses, ya
después de que el pago se "aseguro".
Subject: ME BANEARON LA CUENTA POR UN REGALO QUE NO RECIBI
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes
.
Link on message: #7535232
Ozymandias_, on Jul 24 2014 - 17:51, said: Pero es muy simple WG tendría que ASEGURASE el pago primero, antes
de aceptar un pago "inseguro". Si permiten estas fallas es a
PROPÓSITO y es parte del sistema de cobro de WG estas
"inseguridades", haciendo que se transformen en ganancias. Por
cierto abogo con la idea de no aceptar regalos de probables futuros
insolventes ApolloArtemis: Créeme, había muchos que hicieron su compra (tu pon con
tarjeta de crédito) y pedían su devolución a los 2-3 meses, ya
después de que el pago se "aseguro".
Subject: Running a wireless repeater - Low ping yet game still feels laggy?
Link on message: #7535226
Crucis, on Jul 25 2014 - 12:46, said: I had the same issue, and switching to a hard wire completely fixed
the problem.
Link on message: #7535226
Crucis, on Jul 25 2014 - 12:46, said: I had the same issue, and switching to a hard wire completely fixed
the problem.Pigeon_of_War: The more solid your connection, the stronger the connection.
Repeaters would not be recommended for a PC game in many
cases.
Subject: No hagan esto (bloqueado por un pelotón en el mismo equipo)
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusado
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusadoSchnellerDamon: Si esto pasaría entonces se pierde la política de
privacidad. 
Subject: No hagan esto (bloqueado por un pelotón en el mismo equipo)
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusado
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusadoElPozoleOlmeca: Si esto pasaría entonces se pierde la política de
privacidad. 
Subject: No hagan esto (bloqueado por un pelotón en el mismo equipo)
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusado
Link on message: #7535217
MirrorTank, on Jul 25 2014 - 14:49, said: Sería bueno que WG te notificara si 'sancionan' al acusadoPollotheDestroyer: Si esto pasaría entonces se pierde la política de
privacidad. 
Реклама | Adv















