You can make it explode by shooting one of the fuel tanks repeatably. Ammo rack is probably possible by shooting it multiple times against right side of a turret. It’s funny how IS-1 is weaker than T-34 and KV-1 now.
You can make it explode by shooting one of the fuel tanks repeatably. Ammo rack is probably possible by shooting it multiple times against right side of a turret. It’s funny how IS-1 is weaker than T-34 and KV-1 now.
No problem to kill
The big text in the top left that says “Vehicle is empty”, is very interesting I wonder what it means?
Ammoracking is not the only way to destroy tanks, might seem crazy I know.
It quite literally means, vehicle is empty.
And apparently the shots doesnt do sht to modules.
Sure, i guess ? Theoreticly you could snipe the crew out 1 by 1.
Me when basic sarcasm.
This forum is quite hopeless.
If both tanks are same level on flat ground the HEAT could just barly pen the front plate but if the angle was a bit larger it was stoped. But the lower front plate was a sure pen.
A bit harder to pen but this shoot was always a 1 shoot from that distance.
1 Like
doesn’t matter tanks doesn’t explode once entire crew leaves that vehicle at least not till few minutes will pass out, so in 99% of the cases you need to destroy ammo racks/ignite fuel tank with first resulting in a kill and another is a mobility kill if you also took a few of crewman so tanker won’t bother playing with just 1-2 crewman
For both tanks expect to only see yellow markers as the does get pushed to its limit with the front armor.
The new HEAT seams very much capable of 1 shoting ammoracks IF you are aimed directly at them. If you miss them a small distance it wont 1 shot and most likely just turn it yellow. So you better aim each shoot like if it is AP
Due to the massive deapth of penetration of the HEAT it does not really matter how far the module is away inside of the tank if you still have the module lined up to be hit.
I’m more surprised that they didn’t move all this endless arguing into the mess room.
1 Like
Well yeah, you need to hit the turret cheeks to penetrate T60, but at longer ranges you’ll lack the power to pen it at all, very similar to how T50 used to be, but at least that one could have been attacked at its cupola.
I made up my mind, Panzer IV needs a couple of HEATs just so it can deal with tanks with 50+ armor reliably.
Either that, or the devs lower STUG III F to BR2, so that Panzer IV and Stug would need to play together in a combined arms tank style to have both, infantry support and anti tank power - which would even fit the German faction, they had kinda weak overall tanks at the beginning of the war, but their combined arms tactics and the blitzkrieg made up for that.
3 Likes
Testing the exact same shoots in the old live build has the exact same result as with the new HEAT.
Both had almost no damage done to the modules if shoot at that part of the tank.
I’m a big proponent of this. But I’m lazy to do a suggestion post.
1 Like
Probably rilled up to many Mains against me the last few days that it would yield any results if I did it myself…
2 Likes
Hold my beer
2 Likes
Nailed it.
“Its armors too good” on one faction
On the other faction “its fine, use the green pen indicator you scrub”
2 Likes
If I compare the skill level of an average German team without 4 stacks and an average Soviet team without 4 stacks
(Since 4 stacks artificially affect them).
I don’t find intentional double stardards in it actually. Because Soviet teams are really something. Who knows if they even noticed that there is something like a penetration indicator in the game.
3 Likes
I dont think double standards usually are intentional. Its a form of bias, which often not conscious of
I do not agree with that. One can be quite easily biased towards something and be pretty well aware of it.
But in this case, I feel like one camp is living in some parallel world of their own and not actually realizing that they are somehow out of sync with reality.
1 Like
I said usually…not cant. Anyway we pretty much saying the same thing
1 Like
But I feel like the other side isn’t acting rationally either.
I really don’t see how anyone can be against this change.
After all, the only arguments against it are typically: “but those guys have this thing that overperforms. So why can’t we too”.
You’d think this topic would be about change to PZ III N.
But what I can see here more often are statements about T-28(/e). I think that tell pretty much everything.