Katsumoto

5 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Then what's the point of locking it? ... I suppose you could lock it forward and drive around with the top plate a bit more angled forward . ... although with the Hari's 'armour', I'm not sure if this is useful at all?

Someone told me that he got sick of the gimbled affect where he was on a slopped surface.  He was facing front and allow the hull to do its thing as the target started to drop below his gun depression but when he turned the turret to get a shot off on something to the side the tank "rocked" as he was trying to target another tank resulting in a missed shot.  That is the only thing I could think of for a time to actually lock the hull on the HM.

On 5/6/2020 at 3:52 AM, TeyKey1 said:

Thanks. Yes you're right. Seems like I am still stuck in Balance 2.0 with this one. I'll add the ricochet default angle as well to the explanation. Do you happen to know when they changed this and if there was an explanation? Regarding the HEAT shells there are no accurate ricochect/fuse failed angles afaik. But they seem to be pretty high, as the MP stuff fuses even under very high impact angles.

Here is what I found in the patch log that @Qbicle posted.

Quote

HE and HEAT Impact Overhaul

We've overhauled the way HE and HEAT shells interact with armor at extreme angles. They do no longer automatically detonate when the impact angle is above 85 degrees even when the armor is really thin (overmatch rules do no longer apply) with the chance to not detonate increasing from 87 degrees onwards to approximately 50 percent. As a result:

• Firing these shells at heavily armored tanks from extreme angles will not work even with the strongest projectiles
• Lightly armored targets (with roughly 20-40mm of armor or less, the value can depend on a projectile) will still be susceptible to ATGMs even at extreme angles

However, firing at anything at extreme angles (87 degrees or more) is now quite unreliable with a chance of the shell not detonating and is definitely not encouraged.

I know that on the first night the game opened up there was information posted on the AW forums about what the exact mechanics were at that time.  I'd be willing to say that this is a pretty safe bet for now unless we can get more information from the dev team.  I recall that someone said that HESH and HEP work the same as HE minus the changes to account for what they were intended for.

19 hours ago, Spyshadow01 said:

T14 has 69 degrees.

Good catch, I overlooked that one.

As a point that I just noticed:

- AP rounds have their maximum ricochet angle at 67 degrees.  There is only 1 round in the game that I know of that has 70 degrees (130mm DM23 for the Leopard 2AX).

9 hours ago, kachow said:

dunno if i am stupid or not, keep finding contradictory sources that i dont know the credibility of

according to this http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2083.html the missiles are not kornet, but are konkurs instead

according to this https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/BMPT-terminator.php they are kornet

most credible source i know is andrei bt http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt.htm says they are kornet

still think they are kornet due to the end of the missile tube being different from that of the konkurs

Add this one as well:
http://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-track/k-istorii-bmpt/

So it appears that this could be with a 90% certainty the UKBTM.  This program started in the early 2000's so it would predate the current variations of the BMPT.

Quote

 

"Although the initiator of these works is I. Rodionov soon (May 1997) he was dismissed from the ranks of the Armed Forces, work on the creation of BMPT was continued from 1998 by the established procedure in the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering, where V.I. Potkin was the chief designer, and V. Domnin since 2002. B. Thus, Rodionov I.N. may well be considered the "father" of modern BMPT.

Initially, in the UKBTM, the chassis of the T-72 tank was used, and subsequently the T-90A tank. The running model of the BMPT "Frame-99" ("Object 199") was demonstrated for the first time in the summer of 2000 at the Nizhny Tagil arms exhibition. BMPT has already been decoded as a tank support combat vehicle.

Of the five crew members, four could participate in fire control. On a low-profile tower of an original design with external armament, a 30 mm 2A42 automatic gun and a 30 mm AG-30 (AGS-17A) automatic grenade launcher paired with it were installed in a single stable cradle, four Kornet ATGMs with their own independent stabilized drives (in armored container on the left side of the tower).

This design made it possible to fire immediately from the entire weapons complex. The commander’s hatch housed a 7.62 mm remote-controlled PKTM machine gun.

Additional weapons were two automatic grenade launchers in the fenders in the front of the machine. The modern SUA BMPT "Frame" made it possible to conduct effective firing in any conditions and over a long range."

 

Yeah, we don't need another BMPT varient.

Please no.  We don't need more of these.

This is like an odd plot twist.

An MBT with "armor", good pen but meh damage per shot.

Armor wears out.  40 tons.

It starts to sound like one of those things where it starts off one way but turns into something else.  Someone may want an MBT at the beginning of the match but at the end of the match wish they brought an LT.  Sounds like it may allow for some risk taking before you have to dial it back.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

Back when AW had their "official" forums, it was just as bad.

I do recall a time when a person posted a question about a problem with the game mechanics and they were outright banned.  There was one time where someone asked if a potential to fix one of the tanks was in the works and presented a very compelling case as to why it should be in the books to be looked at and the entire thread was deleted.

You're not going to win with them.  I'm sure that the reason the mod had acted the way they did had some merit behind it, but just remember it could be worse.

2 hours ago, BumbaX said:

The TD class lacks of an identity, everything can fit in it or don't fit, only depending on a very arbitrary decision of the developers, at least the Type 16 is faithful to what the TD class used to be a long time ago, a good gun that can snipe and give support fire to the frontliners, with enough camo to rely on it and not on armor to survive and fast enough to relocate as the battle evolves.

I think this statement is what gives me heartburn with some of the tanks being identified as a "TD" instead of an AFV, or in some cases an IFV.  The Type 16 is one of the actual few tanks that have been released lately that sticks to what you are discussing in this fine point you make.

May I present exhibit A:  The T-15 Armata.  It has a troop compartment.  Why is it a TD and not an AFV?  I have to explain it to people that it was an AFV when it came out.

Exhibit B:  The T249 and the M48 GAU-8.  Why is one an AFV and the other a TD when they both do the same thing: spit ammo at a target?

Well, I guess it proves that maybe I should search sometimes for something something idiot something........ I need to go back to day drinking.....

I would like to make a prediction here:

So far, they have said for the next "Asian themed battle-path" that one of the rewards is the Japanese Type 74 MBT at tier 5.  I loved the STB-1 in WoT when it came out.

But....for the tier 10.....there is only one tank i can think of that would fit much like the previous battle paths and that would be the Japanese Type 10.

The Type 90 is already in the game as a tier 7 and is a generation too young to be really any higher than a tier 8 much less a tier 9.  The Chinese Type 99A and 99A2 series is already in the game, and there isn't really anything else in the region that is in "development" that could be brought into the game other than the hypothetical Chinese Type 5 that you can see the picture about halfway down the page here: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern-tanks.php

Thoughts?

OS: Windows 10 Professional, 64-bit, Version 1903

Game Version: version 01.04.2020

Brief Description: Several tanks that have adjustable suspension have a loss of the block along the bottom for changing the height of the suspensioon or locking it in position.

Affected tanks are the K2, Altay, Challenger 2 ADTU, CATTB

Steps to Reproduce: adjust the suspension during the match, die, then respawn.

Result: it replicates about 75% of the time

Expected Behavior: icon should be present

Fixes/Workarounds: none

Other Notes: none

On 4/6/2020 at 11:00 AM, Haswell said:

K2 might actually be somewhat good now. Assume 700+ damage for HEAT (probably HEAT-MP), a 3 round burst will handily remove superior Bradleys.

That is, assuming the accuracy isn't utter trash.

Given how it has followed in the footsteps of it's Turkish brother, it'll use the Altay HEAT-MP round.  Doesn't matter though, if you don't get all high rolls it'll take 4 rounds to finish it anyways.

My opinion on this is that while it might be a TurdJeep technical for certain roles, in PvP it can cause issues.  That .50 cal is best served for taking out infantry that are spotted.  There are only a handful of tanks that it can do damage with it, like a CRAB or a SPINX or a Kornet.  That's it.

Get into a location on a map and you can just chip away at someone and take them out of their game just enough it can change something, or they just decide to weather it out and lose 400 to 600 HP each hit then they don't have a tank anymore.

I'd be partial to a designate target mode as part of the recon package for it just to make it a more "useful" turd.  At this point they might as well just add the Toyota HiLux in the game and have a go.

HI!

Looking around I don't see it anywhere unless I missed it.

Would it be possible to make a section with known bugs that need to be taken care of?  Maybe have someone compile them so the dev team can see them.  Dealing with it on Discord is a horrible experience.

I would be willing to help volunteer my time to get something compiled if need be.

Best regards

The one big issue I have with WP is that it doesn't have the same spread as a regular HE round.  You pretty much dial in the exact spot you want to drop it in at.  Face hugging a storage container in a cap and they can't hit you with HE but they get you with WP seems counter to what the intent is behind what they are trying to do.

9 hours ago, BumbaX said:

Is the autoloader of the "Draco type", allowing a faster partial reload, or "PL01 like", compelling you to wait the full reload time even if you have shot only a single shell?

Good evening,

This autoloader is the progressive type where if you fire a round is loaded into the breach the autoloader reloads another round into the magazine unless you fire again much like the Altay.

On 4/4/2020 at 12:12 AM, Haswell said:

I just can't see the K2 as anything other than a Hyundai Altay. I just can't.

Anyone ran the numbers to see which module config give the best DPM or burst yet? I'm leaning towards the single shot gun with both reload modules, but there are convincing arguments for the magazine gun with +1 capacity and +50% burst RoF as well.

I've done some numbers as well.  I have to go back through and check them because there are things I saw when I did the calculations for a comparison for a clan mate when we were discussing what configuration works for a given situation. 

The K2 has been one of the tanks I have been waiting for for quite some time because it interests me.  There are differences that I'm starting to see.