Haven’t we agreed yesterday while discussing 35T that there is something wanky with how shells perform?
And also T26 regularly pens my PZ3E from the front. Which is fine by me, it’s gun should be able to do so.
I wrote:
T-28 can easily oneshot all German tanks from the front at 0
Apart from the Pz IV being angled you did not hit a single proper hit on the Pz IV in your footage and one hit killed the Pz II once you properly hit it.
The first shot was a bounce off at the edge between the front and left side
The second hit the first wheel of its track at an angle
°
1 Like
I understand that you don’t have to bother about that when using T-26, but aim at:
driver viewport
turret front, cheeks
turret sides, mid center or parts that are more flat to you
turret back, mid center
What you did say was that there is “effectively” no armor - which is arrant nonsense. If it has to be at 0 degrees then that’s because any angling at all makes it impregnable, and, sadly, most shots are angled to some degree or otehr.
If ther was “effectively” no armour then angling wouldn’t matter - stop posting drivel!
And yes - I said 1 was a glancing shot and the other hit the tracks - well done - you spotted what I had already said - what a genius you are!
No - I didn’t agree with that - the damage model is off - in WT I’d have tracked that Pz 4 with a hit to the front sprocket - and often you’ll hit engines, etc and do no damage - that’s the damage model - penetration seems OK to me - shells are penetrating when you’d expect them to, and not when you wouldn’t
The damage model is off indeed. There is effectively no armor when BT-7 and T-26 go in flames from PZ IV HE shell to the side. Which according to WT shouldn’t happen. The distances are almost always very short and at 0 degree you can pen parts that aim assist thinks you can not.
Now where in my post does it say you can one shot at an angle that is not 0° ? I only said at zero you can one shot all tanks aside from the T-60 that includes the soviet ones just as well.
Furthermore you should not be able to pen the 50mm of a Pz IV or 38(t) at all with the guns of the T-60 or T-28 yet you can not only pen it even at angles other than 0° but also take out multiple if not all crew members at once with the T-28. Which is why i said that the armor effectively does not exist in tank to tank combat.
Missed this bit again did you? Heck I only posted it the once in addition you uyou actually writing it.
No problem - ther it is again - and just in case you need your own words paraphrased 'cos you don’t understand them… you say there is no effective armour in tank combat - so why would angling matter?
You angle to ward off noob players. When you take your time to aim properly, armor plays very little role. In PZ IV I had to learn to do the same as in WT - keep your turret moving between shots, otherwise anyone with some skill just insta gibs you.
1 Like
Angled armour doesn’t care whether you are a noob or not!
This isn’t WT - the T-28 has no AP round, and 34mm penetration max, vs 30, 35, 40 and 50mm armour - angling matters when it is that close to the limit - it matters a lot.
Yes, shrapnel round is not as good as AP on T-26 but it still pens just fine at specific places. It goes through turret sides at shallow angles and getting 0 angle on turret front is easy for obvious reasons.
I wish we could have crewed targets in the practice battles, you could see that it’s not that hard, just not as easy as with BT-7 or T-26.
No - statement.
So T-28 will never get AP round?
So what did I do wrong this time??
1 Like
You seem to be very out of luck.
I just finished a battle where T-28 was dominating everything. I was one shoted by it few times in my Pz III E. So it is clearly no problem for it.
1 Like
You are unlucky 
But you have not answered a question, that’s what you did wrong.
I’m not a dev - how would I know whether it will ever get a AP round or not?? 
And it is not bad luck - those tanks have armour that is right on the limit of the T28’s penetration - if the slightest thing isn’t perfect you do not penetrate. So you have to be lucky to kill them - dieing to them is not unluucky - it is normal!
Next game I did get “green” solution on turret front of P4 at point blank range - but each time I did his faster reloading 75 put an APHE into me first and wiped out my gunner - 3 times - that’s pretty much how it gows for me - haven’t killed a P4 with a T28 yet.
Yeah I occasionally 1 shot P3E’s too - they have a 30mm armoour basis all round - no thicker sides or nose like hte Pz4E
But it is stil marginal for me and not at all marginal for them if they can get a shot in first!
Yeah I know you are not, that was the point of me asking 
But you tested it how many times, its gun is underperforming with current ammunition. With addition of Pz3J this will become even more obvious.
I just hope devs will add new shell types. I am not for totally replacing shells like we can do in WT, but some realistic loadout. Few AP shells for T28 or few PzGr40 for Panzers, that you will need to carefully use when you run into beast that your normal ammo can’t deal with.
Unless the T-34 was implemented as being historically accurate, aka, with polished steel as mirrors etc, then we could consider it. You’d be absolutely blind and it would be no fun to use, but at that point it would be somewhat balanced.
When talking about giving the T-28 APHE, we should also give stuff like the Pz2 HVAP, Pz3/Pz38t APCR, etc. Of course, those ammo types should only be given in limited quantities, like maybe 15-20% of the total ammo capacity, to allow those tanks to deal with tougher targets without sacrificing historical rarity of those ammo types.
Are we also going to have historically accurate panthers and tigers in other campaigns so they run out of fuel or break down with alarming frequency?
The T-28 doesn’t even have the armor value it should have.
Anything post winter war should have additional armor plates put on it increasing it by around 20mm everywhere if I remember correctly.
The T-34 should absolutely be in the game as it is the most iconic soviet tank in Moscow.
Instead we got the T-50 which had a production run of less then 50 tanks.
Probably won’t ever see the lend lease matildas or valentines either that were in Moscow in greater numbers then the T-50 or T-28.
The Soviets are given a bunch of backwards equipment, some of which was hardly used in the actual campaign, because the actual equipment they had would stomp the German equipment.
Meanwhile the German good equipment is given to them and allowed to excel.
If the Germans are allowed to have 250kg bombs well the Soviets cap at 100kg bombs, then the Soviets should have access to their better tanks.
Not to mention the Germans already get a time traveling grenade launcher, since I am fairly certain the GrB-39 only saw use after Moscow.
The idea that it has to be ‘accurate’ is absurd when accuracy has already been thrown out the window.
Let’s not forget that having semi auto rifles everywhere is also not “accurate”.
T-28 and T-50 are pretty inaccurate as well they should not be in any large numbers, Matilda and Valentine would be much more accurate to what the Soviets were fielding well T-34 production was getting restarted as the factories moved.
2 Likes
That’s patently false
It can pen the PzII and both 3s fine
38t, III J, and the IV not at all unless you aim for pixel wide spots
It needs its BR-350 round