Comments on: 4.9.2013

By: Marvin Leek

Marvin Leek — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:13:41 +0000

TOG is the best for attracting odd and funny reactions.
and when i get my ELC out with a ferdi and jgdtiger, you can all hear them complain but when i spot them all there not saying anything and then like me.
so it’s wether you want to or not.
and ofcourse if the tank lies good in your “hands”.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:47:26 +0000

Ball my ASS. It’s a hollow hemisphere, there needs to be room for the mountings and traverse and so on on the inside. And realistically a shell hitting thereabouts would probably knock any amount of that stuff, up to and including the bow MG itself, loose and send it careening through the fighting comparement – to speak nothing of the hapless radioman/bow gunner immediately behind it.
You may also want to look up something called “edge effect”, or, “why you don’t want structural breaks of any kind in armour plate”. That one was AFAIK only gradually realised during the war and further contributed to the demise of the in any case largely pointless bow MG.

Anyways, I’ve no issue with having the cover treated as equal thickness to the glacis – it’s like that in several German tanks already – but entirely removing it from the collision geometry just seems wrong to me. If it’s a physical protrusion from the glacis then surely it should be modeled, right?

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:35:37 +0000

The MG thing is one of those “done when it’s done” things, on the testserver it’s already been effected on the 30.01H besides the Tigers. Though I find the approach chosen odd – I’ve nothing against treating it as equivalent thickness as the surrounding glacis (as is done in eg. 36.01H and 30.02D), but surely removing it from the collison model altogether like it didn’t even physically exist is excessive?
And the gearbox issue is shared by all tanks that have frontal transmissions, and that includes many of the low-tier Soviet ones so whatever really.

Anyway, the point is more that you’re comparing a medium to a heavy which is a bit silly by definition, and in this case doubly so as said heavy is the most infamously weakspot-ridden thing ever in its class and tier. Sure the main turret and hull proper are tough on the KV-5, but who even shoots at those save by accident?

By: Ry0ken

Ry0ken — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:52:35 +0000

Dudes this mg shield is a massive ball of steel with an mg in it! If at all combined armor on that area is even thicker than the rest of UFP!

By: Zamboni

Zamboni — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:47:34 +0000

Not drinking is a huge advantage. I cringe when I see what friends or family members spend on drinks on nights out or at a sports game. (I cringe even more with what they spend on coffee.) I could buy every premium tank WG has and still be ahead of what they’ll spend watching the playoffs at the bar.

By: Zamboni

Zamboni — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:41:05 +0000

It’s an inefficient use of that money.

Spending $50 on a premium tank is one thing if it’s the only way to get that tank. Pay or do without.

Spending $50 on credits is pointless since we get those credits anyway by playing. Pay or don’t pay, the result is the same, so no need to throw the money away.

By: Ry0ken

Ry0ken — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:40:07 +0000

Take your chill pills Kellomies, I just told some KV-5 driver that the Panther tank is more vulnerable at its sides.

But IRL it was very resistant from enemy tank fire upfront and had no weakspot LFP which could burn!
Also as doyle stated the mg shield was no weakspot and as we see with the Tiger2 the cupola was also harder.
So balancing the armor of the Panther should mean removing mg shield weakspot and giving it the harder cupola like Tiger2. So finally the Panther is less vulnerable when turning its front to the enemy, which also historicly would make sense as Panther tanks were instructed to take care of their vulnerable flanks and always face enemy upfront!
A last wish would be that WG finally makes different modules for gearbox and engine, so it will not burn when hit in gearbox.

By: Zamboni

Zamboni — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:20:47 +0000

Movie night means two tickets at $16 each. Two drinks and splitting a popcorn, figure $14 (so we usually skip that). And of course, since you’re already out of the house, movie night invariably turns into dinner night, so tack on another $35-50 to the total.

I can buy *all* of the low tier premium tanks for less than most movie nights.

(Takeout teriyaki and a stack of Netflix discs is less stressful than dealing with movie crowd and traffic, anyway.)

By: Rx

Rx — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:25:09 +0000

I used to complain about what other people do with their money, too. Then I bought myself some therapy and now I realize it’s actually their business and I don’t have to worry about it.

Also the bedwetting is gone now.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:42:26 +0000

>smooting over the collision model like the MG didn’t even exist seems a little excessive to me
Agreed, also I’m amazed that they just use Doyle as reference on this, don’t they have battle reports or tests on captured tanks?