3 Likes
ā¦sorry for sounding like a broken record, but is there any chance that we will finally get a friends text chat in the lobby and in-battle, so we can actually communicate with our friends that we are grouped up with? I know there is a team text chat but sometimes you want to tell your guys something specific, which would only confuse the rest of the team. And in battle it is tedious (and often very deadly) to alt-tab out of the game to use discord or something else to get a message to your friendsā¦
Would make even MORE sense at this point if you add a ālooking for groupā thingy, so ranom players can join your groups.
Thanks.
6 Likes
Solid AP needs an overhaul - even no HE filler should deal significant damage to the crew because of shrapnel.
2 Likes
war thunders rulesā¦
they looked at changing how APHE workedā¦even made some roundsā¦didnt follow through
3 Likes
Sadly, both Enlisted and Warthunder are based on killing the crew to take out tanks, when in reality if your tank gets penned youād bail (why stay in a loud, giant, blinding and clumsy armoured box, when the āarmouredā part is no longer doing itās one job, all the downsides with no benefits anymore). This is the reality of armoured warfare, but it would be a pretty lame mechanic in game.
Solid shot was valid because it still reliably took out tanks, not the crews to the same degree as APHE, but it did the job on the field as well as the alternatives. APHE was for grand strategy rather than battlefield advantage, denying the enemy trained tank crews is a huge strategic benefit, but not a direct benefit on the field of battle.
1 Like
Which is why all I am asking for is adding a bit more shrapnel to those rounds - to mimic their real life potential.
5 Likes
the way I read itā¦the reason APHE way over performs in warthunder/enlistedā¦is once it pens, it detonates 360 inside the tank instead of a cone pattern moving forward.
Brits found APHE no more effective than solid shot, which is why they used solid shot
7 Likes
Sound compromise, I think it already does that to a small degree, but making them a little more useful would be great, thereby making high BR British tanks in the future somewhat competative with tanks that one-shot you if youāre penned anywhere.
1 Like
But they were clearly wrong. Like with many other decisions in relation to their tank designs.
Its very simple really.
The crew doesnt want to die so when an enemy shell penetrates the tank, they know that the enemy can do that again so even if they sustain no damage, they bail out.
2 Likes
Again, not on the battlefield.
Strategicly, yes itās just better to kill them, but in the field the crew being dead or abandoning the tank makes no difference, the tank has been taken out of the fight either way.
1 Like
hehe papa gaijin said so
1 Like
Not really.
Itās just some pseudo argumentation based on specific scenarios.
Tank crews could easily abandon tanks even after non penetrating hits. Doesnāt really matter. Thatās not good justification for them to use solid shots.
It was just outdated form of ammunition. And in literally every scenario it was better to use ammunition with explosive fillers.
The famous Cologne tank duel
4 out of the 5 crew members made it to safety after the Pershing had penerates the Panther, the last guy didnāt get away because he was injured and couldnāt make it out of the tank before it was ignited (standard practice during WW2 to keep firing into enemy tanks until they explode).
I think its clear that one hit destorying the tank or killing all crew members is completely BS.
There are realistic things in WT, but tank combat is not one of them.
7 Likes
nah thats just what gaijin has gone with. post war - modern Tanks dont use explosive filler on AP roundsā¦solid. so if anythingā¦brits thinking was aheadā¦and the 17 pounder isnāt famous for nothing.
5 Likes
Itās not, itās the representative truth of general armoured combat, and whatās more itās reality.
Indeed, German tank crews were found to abandon their tanks if under direct attack by rockets from aircraft, even though aircraft rockets were found to be a very unreliable tool to take out tanks. Morale and perception does matter, you may say itās dumb because itās not as effective. Okay Mr Armchair General, the troops donāt (and didnāt) agree with you, theyāre running no matter how you personally feel on the subject.
Again, HE filler is only a strategic benefit. Tanks today (amongst other things) still launch pure AP at eachother, itās not rare, theyāre more like crossbow bolts though than solid shots but the principle remains the same and equally sound.
1 Like
Tell me how to insert effective amount of explosive into a needle.
You are comparing incomparable.
Solid shots that brits were using for majority of WW2 were just outdated.
Sabots are totally different story tho.
Yeah because the ru forum really hated the APHE changes plus the classic tactic of 300k votes at 3am
3 Likes
I mean even studies by other militaries came to a similar conclusion in the end, I mean a lot of US tanks used AP despite APHE being available to them.
APHE was better vs thinner armoured targets due the the possible lack of spalling created by hitting such targets. Its also that APHE was considered effective vs reinforced structures to a degree.
Despite that, most militaries found the effect between solid shot and APHE was minimal in tank on tank engagements, both producing a similar amount of spalling and in the same pattern.
Saying all this, British shell technology is a real enigma, its either the best of the best or just horribly outdated and there is never any in-between for them. It is worth mentioning that their tanks werent inherently bad, more a doctrinal misuse of them. Pound for pound they matched their contemporaries despite questionable decisions that really only rear their ugly head to us in hindsight now.
Covenanter aside ofc, that is a real hellhole of a design.