16.7.2013

Posted on by

Nothing much today either. Looks like SerB and Storm are on vacation or something.

Veider (another developer) just answers a few questions, such as:

- this area in T110E3 is easily penetrable, it’s the commander’s copula:

Wr4VJcS5a9k

- some player was moaning about AMX 13 105AM arty, that its gun is too weak for its tier, a developer (Marschig) says that by transferring it to tier 5, its MM spread has actually decreased than it was before
- the thickness of the bottom armor of the tank is also historical (in other words: if a HE shell lands under the tank, the splash will encounter the bottom armor, which is practically non-existent.
- Komarin and Swamp are still bound to return at some point

Otherwise, not much. Just one more thing:

Remember Listy? He’s an author from EU forums, who wrote a whole bunch of British-themed historical articles. Actually, if my info is correct, it is him personally, who is responsible for finding the AT-15A premium TD documents. So, if you hate AT-15A, go and say hi to Listy, who just started a new FB page with his historical articles.

42 thoughts on “16.7.2013”

  1. Is it just me, or should something be indicated on the picture

    Also, Listy has pointed out several times that WG have taken liberties with the AT 15A’s armour (and the rest of the AT line) and in several cases it is thinner than was intended.

    • @up: Precisely. I don’t think that it is fair to pin everything that is wrong with British TD’s on Listy. As the rumour goes he was the main source for Nuffield designs, but it was WG that decided against including more widely known vehicles (Achilles or Archer anyone?), going with these monstrosities that we have in game. And it’s not the first time WG “experts” have “taken liberties” with available data (not to look far, Conqueror armour discrepancies or recent Challenger’s revelations about FV4202 dimensions). So, while usually I’m with You all the way, SilentStalker, this is a bit of a cheap shot towards Listy. Not very nice at all. Only hoping it’s not some revenge for declining Your offer to contribute towards FTR.

      • Whoa there.

        First SS never asked me to contribute for FTR, there were some of you lot requesting that I join though. I suspect that here you just send articles in an SS checks them over and then publishes, there’s no offer to join or the like.

        Me and SS have a good relationship, with no malice. While we do disagree on some things we’ve helped each other out a few times.
        SS comments above is a joke, or at least that’s how I read it.

        BTW: I also have set up a supporting Twitter account.
        @History_Listy

      • a) He never declined – probably because I never asked him AFAIR (“too close to Wargaming” and all that)
        b) As Listy says, it was a joke. Personally, I am not fond of Nuffield designs, but Listy did a LOT of good work on that branch.

        • Sorry for a storm in a cup then, which I must blame on my crap memory. I vaguely remember SS expressing desire to get a British and Italian Expert on FTR board back in the blog days. And as You Listy are most known nerd on all things British, someone probably dropped Your name. Anywhoo… don’t mind me.

      • Guys, give me a break. As much as i hate those !@#% moving bunkers, be fair.
        Chinese tree: Those lazy, greedy WG bastards made copycats, refurbishing tanks already in game!!!
        British: Oh, noes! They made us some genuine tanks, unlike everything in the game, instead of making historical Achilles! And it would be sooo easy, just copy some murricans, but they are too lazy even for that!!!

        • There is difference between “legit”, known for combat history “copy/paste tank” and few prototypes no one ever heard except some Chinese odd librarian with access to archives.

  5. I found that weakspot on E3 on test server in training room with my brother recently. He was in KT and i was in E3 and he actually accidentally shot me there and i was surprised it took damage. Then we tested it a bit more and indeed was weakspot. Kind of stupid cause E3 already is worse in armor compartment compared to tier lower T95 and then there is also this weakspot.

    • …. E3 already is worse in armor compartment compared to tier lower T95 and then there is also this weakspot…..

      Be glad it can move 3x time faster.

      • True that, and the weakspots been there a loong time. Felt it and used it myself.

        And ammorack in front…. not saying were, just saying ammorack in front.

        T95 was a better armoured tanks (and better except for gun and HP)

    • Complaining about a micro weakspot next to an invulnerable mantlet… try wiggling a little, problem solved/mitigated.

    • It’s 75mm thick, BTW- but it’s freaking tiny, and the huge tumour (229mm of sloped armour, lol) probably draws all the fire when the lower plate is hidden.

      Fairly sure the weakspot is the driver’s hatch/optics, though- the commander should be in the MG turret.

  6. That’s not commander, commander is in the tumor. That’s driver’s cupola.

  7. So thanks to Listy, tanks like the Firefly, Achilles and Archer have been forever cast aside in favor of British fantasy tanks like the AT-15A. I can’t even bear to look at the tanks of the 1st British TD line. The long wait goes ever on.

  8. the thickness of the bottom armor of the tank is also historical

    what tank? E3?

  10. Who the hell engages E3 1vs1 anyway? one would say good to know in case of facehug, but then again why facehug it and not flank instead?

    But anyway its nice info.

  11. Thickness of the bottom armor is historical.
    I thought the models have no bottom, thats the reason they cant fall over.
    Because everytime i shoot the bottom of a tank, i cant get through.

    • I’ve done it several times- and the numbers are on the armour hitboxes (go to gamemodels3d for a look, you may have seen screenshots from that site in here).

    • I’ve hit several tanks directly on the belly armor with large caliber shells and they do nothing, even with HE shells (one close enough to damage myself with the blast, but still do no damage to the tank above me). Change the gun angle so I hit the LFP instead of the belly armor, the target explodes like it should.

      Shooting treads from the inside, with the shell traveling under the tank before exploding against the treads on the far side, can also have some odd results. Even from a 152mm HE shell, it’s still a zero-damage critical as the bottom armor is unaffected by the blast.

      (There’s also at least one track with questionable top armor. I’ve never been able to penetrate the engine deck of a KV-1, regardless of what gun or angle I’m shooting at. I can penetrate the top of the turret just fine, but switching to the engine deck earns nothing but bounces.)

    • I think it was that the didn’t have a texture (or just a realy bad generic one) under the tanks

  12. Why have you done this?! I have E3 and now more players will be educated how to penetrate it’s front

  13. SS, you actually (maybe) missed one kind of important answer from SerB about Weserhütte Tiger:
    “As soon as you will provide us some blueprints of it from authoritative source – we will think about where to implement it and in what way.”

  14. Entire hull bottom is weakly protected… i sense an arty splash abuse!

  15. so, who’s the guy using the MG turret if the commander is there (on the weakspot meantioned) ?