|
On June 09 2013 22:05 rd wrote:Show nested quote +The M18 is historically correct in the gun department. I recommend reading up on stuff before shouting like a baws. I recommend wikipedia, even there you could read it up easily without going to "in-depth-stuff". But lovely that you don't care about "MY" opinion, and then just start spilling yours, somehow thinking that i might be interested in that. Even after showing in the second sentence that you don't even know what you're talking about.
There you go. Couple of words you could google would be "T70 GMC", "Super Hellcat" etc. Oh and just to make sure, the picture shows an actuall 90mm Hellcat. Unfortunately the actual M18 Hellcat never had a 90mm gun. Never. Not once. 76mm from the start of the war until the end. T70 GMC was the original designation name, and it too used the 76. There was an attempt to MOUNT the 90mm onto the hellcat, but it not only never got beyond the prototype stage, it wasn't even an M18 Hellcat, it was the Super Hellcat. It never existed; it was an experimental tank, not the M18. M36 existed specifically to mount the more effective 90mm. Sry bud. Theres no way you're defending this, ontop of the fact that even trying to defend blatant historical inaccuracies is futile considering this game requires them to function with any remote balance
Yeah, you're right - i painted that picture myself. It's not the actual M18 chassis with a 90mm gun, just a dream of mine coming true. How can you neglect something that's proven with a picture? Look at that picture, and then google the chassis of the Wolverine (which the M36 is based on), and the M36. It wasn't massproduced, that's correct, It's a prototype. Like the E-100. Or almost all E-series tanks, or basically 50% of all russian tanks, best example the T-34. ZiS-4 anyone? Never had it. Was actually called T-34-57. It's still mounted on a T-34 chassis though, like the 90mm on the M18. It's an M18 with a 90mm gun, you can twist and wiggle as much as you want - even if they only built one. I'd say easily one third if not more tanks and/or guns/engines are prototypes or even fictional (again T-34-85, never had the S-53 85mm because it wasn't even fully developed by the time, they used the 85mm D-5 and renamed it to S-S-53, but not the S-53). If you look closely (your comment shows that you don't even know it), you can see that the M36 already existed when they tested the 90mm on the hellcat. It was meant as an upgrade for the M18, so they used the actual M36 90mm on the M18. It was even called "M18(!) Super Hellcat" ffs. And the only reason they did not massproduce it btw is because japan surrendered, so there was no need to waste money on it. Get your facts straight, you make youself look like an idiot. Smartassing is okay, i do that sometimes myself, but don't be patronizing based of something you obviously didn't care enough to check up.
(edit: if you would know your stuff btw, you would've seen the muzzle brake on this 90mm, which was added purely for the M18 on that gun. The M36 90mm didn't have or need it, yet another fact for you to ignore)
KT and E-75 are great for pub stomping and thats pretty much it. Their tier 10 variants are sub-par and non-existent anywhere other than for filling in for locked tanks in clan wars. When someone says German heavies blow it's a very accurate statement; They blow. As for the Leo 1, yes, it's a contender. You can throw around pub statistics until you're blue in the face (see what I did there?), but it doesn't change the fact it not only offers everything the BatChat and T-62a do and more, it actually is being utilized competitively on an equal level.
Well, if that someone is the same guy that says he needs to switch away from russian heavies to have fun, ignoring even obvious facts, well. I'm pretty sure that's a good source for an "accurate statement". I could tell you all day long now that the least used/desired T10s in CWs are "AMX 50B, Maus, FV215b", and the most used/desired are "T110E5, IS-4, IS-7, E-100, T57", depending on the map you're playing, but, you would again just try to attack the source instead of giving a source that says different. And no, that's not pub-statistics.
Next you're gonna tell me that the E5 isn't a contender either because it's within the bottom half of tier 10 heavies in random battle statistics too? (I'm restating this for you because at this point I'm confident you probably didn't catch it) That, and I literally acknowledged that the IS-7 was nerfed in my response to you. Did I NOT just tell you one post ago to completely read the entirety of a discussion -- let alone an individual post before you fly off into your tunnel vision rants? How many times do you have to be told before you figure it out?
Do you actually know that you're talking bs, so you need to focus on the E5 now? We never talked about that one. And depending on the map(!) it's a great tank in CWs. And again. I'm not joining your discussion. I told you that, why would i read up on it if i don't intend to join? Read it ffs.
And thats precisely the problem. The poster I was originally quoting crow-barred into his discussion an implicit nod to "Russian" bias as evidence of his argument over the M103. You quoted out of context. Why don't you stay out of discussions you can't be assed to read, let alone contribute anything factual or relevant to? Thanks.
I don't know what crow-barred means. There is no problem though. It's you stubbornly telling me to read up on your discussion to join it, and i tell you, i don't even want to. If it is "too off topic" for you, ignore it, instead of telling me over and over again to read your previous discussion which i didn't even touch. I commented solely on something that i think you misunderstood. Maybe i slipped a bit too much into ranting, but all this here just emerged because you don't get that i don't want to join your discussion about the M103 (if you would bother to read the thread, i already had that discussion a couple of pages ago, also with perscienter).
Edit: Vindicare605, nice one. Feel free to share the replay. 
|
Yeah, you're right - i painted that picture myself. It's not the actual M18 chassis with a 90mm gun, just a dream of mine coming true. How can you neglect something that's proven with a picture? Look at that picture, and then google the chassis of the Wolverine (which the M36 is based on), and the M36. It wasn't massproduced, that's correct, It's a prototype. Like the E-100. Or almost all E-series tanks, or basically 50% of all russian tanks, best example the T-34. ZiS-4 anyone? Never had it. Was actually called T-34-57. It's still mounted on a T-34 chassis though, like the 90mm on the M18. It's an M18 with a 90mm gun, you can twist and wiggle as much as you want - even if they only built one. I'd say easily one third if not more tanks and/or guns/engines are prototypes or even fictional (again T-34-85, never had the S-53 85mm because it wasn't even fully developed by the time, they used the 85mm D-5 and renamed it to S-S-53, but not the S-53). If you look closely (your comment shows that you don't even know it), you can see that the M36 already existed when they tested the 90mm on the hellcat. It was meant as an upgrade for the M18, so they used the actual M36 90mm on the M18. It was even called "M18(!) Super Hellcat" ffs. And the only reason they did not massproduce it btw is because japan surrendered, so there was no need to waste money on it. Get your facts straight, you make youself look like an idiot. Smartassing is okay, i do that sometimes myself, but don't be patronizing based of something you obviously didn't care enough to check up.
It's funny you say I don't know the M36 already existed when the M18 Hellcat 90mm prototype was made (bold assumption). The M36 was way more powerful with the 90 than the M18 with the 76. Pretty hard to kill a Panther or Tiger with a gun that couldn't penetrate frontally from any distance. Which is why they tried to mount the superior 90mm onto the M18, but it never happened, they simply requested more M36's. They made an M18 prototype, which I fucking acknowledged. One can ASSUME that if I say they made a prototype, that at some point, a 90mm was on a single Hellcat, and that they probably took a fucking picture of it. Don't cast all your eggs in the single basket of a picture, I know theres a fucking picture, and it STILL doesn't change the fact the M18 Hellcat never had a 90mm. It would have been given a different standardized sub-designation name if it was ever approved for production, either the M18A1 or the M18(90) "Super Hellcat." But it wasn't, so as a tank it never existed, and the traditional M18 Hellcat never had the 90mm.
They tried to mount a 105mm howitzer on the Hellcat too. Why doesn't the Hellcat have that in the game either? Probably because that tank has a completely different design name, the T88 GMC, even though it's physically an M18 Hellcat tank with a 105 instead of a 76. Ironically enough it's going to be implemented soon as a separate premium tank. Is it an M18 Hellcat? No. It's an M18(105) Hellcat. Because the Hellcat never had the 105. That TOO would be given a different sub-designation production name if it made it past the prototype stage. I mean, you do know that at one point the M18 Hellcat and the M18(90) Hellcat were two separate tanks in the original USA tech tree, right? They later combined the traditional M18 Hellcat with the prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat when it was released. Turns out even WoT agrees with me.
Does it even really matter though? Not really. It's important to bring this discussion back into context. This entire debate is over citing Russian bias by saying the IS-8 got an unhistorical speed buff and the M18 an unhistorical speed nerf, yet the M18 has the unhistorical gun. Does it really matter? It's done for balance. I don't care that the Hellcat has the 90mm, it'd be way too underpowered with just the historical 76. But it wasn't historical. Keep that clear. It was done for balance reasons. You're fighting a losing battle trying to recreate history to justify balance when we both probably agree the 90mm is necessary on the Hellcat.
edit: if you would know your stuff btw, you would've known that the gun the M36 used, the AT M3 90mm, was initially produced without a muzzlebrake. Later production M36's included the muzzlebrake, and this exact same gun was also later mounted on the M26 pershing -- WITH THAT EXACT SAME MUZZLEBRAKE.
Do these pictures look familiar?
M36 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake
+ Show Spoiler +
M26 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake
+ Show Spoiler +
Prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat with an m36 turret which ironically mounts...the exact same gun...fitted with that same muzzlebrake
+ Show Spoiler +
I DARE you to cite a source that the M3 90mm was fitted with a muzzlebrake specifically so it could be mounted on a Hellcat. It'd be a goddamn shame to know you pulled that out of your ass.
|
On June 10 2013 18:14 rd wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, you're right - i painted that picture myself. It's not the actual M18 chassis with a 90mm gun, just a dream of mine coming true. How can you neglect something that's proven with a picture? Look at that picture, and then google the chassis of the Wolverine (which the M36 is based on), and the M36. It wasn't massproduced, that's correct, It's a prototype. Like the E-100. Or almost all E-series tanks, or basically 50% of all russian tanks, best example the T-34. ZiS-4 anyone? Never had it. Was actually called T-34-57. It's still mounted on a T-34 chassis though, like the 90mm on the M18. It's an M18 with a 90mm gun, you can twist and wiggle as much as you want - even if they only built one. I'd say easily one third if not more tanks and/or guns/engines are prototypes or even fictional (again T-34-85, never had the S-53 85mm because it wasn't even fully developed by the time, they used the 85mm D-5 and renamed it to S-S-53, but not the S-53). If you look closely (your comment shows that you don't even know it), you can see that the M36 already existed when they tested the 90mm on the hellcat. It was meant as an upgrade for the M18, so they used the actual M36 90mm on the M18. It was even called "M18(!) Super Hellcat" ffs. And the only reason they did not massproduce it btw is because japan surrendered, so there was no need to waste money on it. Get your facts straight, you make youself look like an idiot. Smartassing is okay, i do that sometimes myself, but don't be patronizing based of something you obviously didn't care enough to check up. It's funny you say I don't know the M36 already existed when the M18 Hellcat 90mm prototype was made (bold assumption). The M36 was way more powerful with the 90 than the M18 with the 76. Pretty hard to kill a Panther or Tiger with a gun that couldn't penetrate frontally from any distance. Which is why they tried to mount the superior 90mm onto the M18, but it never happened, they simply requested more M36's. They made an M18 prototype, which I fucking acknowledged. One can ASSUME that if I say they made a prototype, that at some point, a 90mm was on a single Hellcat, and that they probably took a fucking picture of it. Don't cast all your eggs in the single basket of a picture, I know theres a fucking picture, and it STILL doesn't change the fact the M18 Hellcat never had a 90mm. It would have been given a different standardized sub-designation name if it was ever approved for production, either the M18A1 or the M18(90) "Super Hellcat." But it wasn't, so as a tank it never existed, and the traditional M18 Hellcat never had the 90mm. They tried to mount a 105mm howitzer on the Hellcat too. Why doesn't the Hellcat have that in the game either? Probably because that tank has a completely different design name, the T88 GMC, even though it's physically an M18 Hellcat tank with a 105 instead of a 76. Ironically enough it's going to be implemented soon as a separate premium tank. Is it an M18 Hellcat? No. It's an M18(105) Hellcat. Because the Hellcat never had the 105. That TOO would be given a different sub-designation production name if it made it past the prototype stage. I mean, you do know that at one point the M18 Hellcat and the M18(90) Hellcat were two separate tanks in the original USA tech tree, right? They later combined the traditional M18 Hellcat with the prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat when it was released. Turns out even WoT agrees with me. Does it even really matter though? Not really. It's important to bring this discussion back into context. This entire debate is over citing Russian bias by saying the IS-8 got an unhistorical speed buff and the M18 an unhistorical speed nerf, yet the M18 has the unhistorical gun. Does it really matter? It's done for balance. I don't care that the Hellcat has the 90mm, it'd be way too underpowered with just the historical 76. But it wasn't historical. Keep that clear. It was done for balance reasons. You're fighting a losing battle trying to recreate history to justify balance when we both probably agree the 90mm is necessary on the Hellcat. edit: if you would know your stuff btw, you would've known that the gun the M36 used, the AT M3 90mm, was initially produced without a muzzlebrake. Later production M36's included the muzzlebrake, and this exact same gun was also later mounted on the M26 pershing -- WITH THAT EXACT SAME MUZZLEBRAKE. Do these pictures look familiar? M36 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +M26 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +Prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat with an m36 turret which ironically mounts...the exact same gun...fitted with that same muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +I DARE you to cite a source that the M3 90mm was fitted with a muzzlebrake specifically so it could be mounted on a Hellcat. It'd be a goddamn shame to know you pulled that out of your ass.
I hope i can actually link it correctly, and that also will be the last response because you start to tire me. Think what you want, i actually know i'm right, since i do not base my knowledge on World of Tanks but actual literature.
read, learn, and don't try to discuss this theme anymore
I don't know if the link points directly to the right page, check page 38 if it doesn't. Or better, let me briefly quote, so there's no way you can actually get out of this.
In June 1945, a M36 turret was mounted on a M18 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Tests of the M18 90mm GMC without the muzzle brake found that the vehicle was pushed back 22 inches when firing, and that it rocked violently when firing over the side. Firing tests with the muzzle brake were much more satisfactory. Later during the trials, 21-in, wide T-82 track was added blabla. Although the tests showed that the combination was feasible, the Japanese surrender in August 1945 brought an end to the program since there was no immediate need for such a conversion effort.
M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97, New Vanguard 97, Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey Publishing 2004, ISBN 1-84176-687-9
We both know that you will now try to point at semantics or try to discredit the source before you would actually admit that you're wrong (and you are, i'm trying to tell you that for like 3 posts now).
The crap with the sub-designated production name is bs², at least in WoT terms - EVERY tank changes it's "name" as soon as it gets a new gun. See the T-34, T-34-57, T-34-76, T-34-85, T-34-100 etc. Why didn't they do it? Because there's no need. They made the T-34-85 standalone to be able to give it a different tierspread, otherwise it would also be called "T-34".
About your discussion? I actually do believe the M18 needs that gun, i also don't think it's op. It's great, but OP is something entirely different (KV1S/SU100 with 122mm [which would be the SU122 btw, also no subdesignationthingy], now we're talking). Also, i don't know about speednerfs, to my knowledge (mind you, i paused for a long time) the hellcat never had the magical 97kp/h (edit, i'm talking about ingame). Because it never actually did it in "real" conditions. Without revlimiter/speedlimiter you could do it on a paved road, but NOT without 100% damaging the engine/transmission/tracks. I have to admit that i don't know the exact speeds reached in the fields, but 60mp/h (~72kp/h iirc) sounds pretty reasonable if you take into account revlimiters etc. The M18 is fine as it is. A good tank, not more and not less - as it should be. And no, i'm not talking "historically correct" in balance terms, because you would delete almost 50% of all tank/guncombinations. All it takes for wargaming is one prototype for a tank, which means it existed, which you deny. Yeah, it was a prototype, and i never dismissed that fact - but you dismiss the tank entirely. It was called M18 90mm GMC, other than for example the M39 which was also based on the M18, yet was not called "M18 with different shit on top".
The problem though is, that wargaming in the past buffed tanks which already were strong, for historical reasons. And that NEVER happened to any tank other than russian tanks.
Also, i kinda lost the red line here, so i just stop typing. For the last time, please read up, maybe we talk again after that. It's really getting tiresome. Also i'm tired, so if there is some confusing stuff in this post, just cut me some slack.
Edit: and sorry to disappoint you, i didn't pull anything out of my ass - don't need to do it. You did not catch me. 
|
On June 10 2013 18:58 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 18:14 rd wrote:Yeah, you're right - i painted that picture myself. It's not the actual M18 chassis with a 90mm gun, just a dream of mine coming true. How can you neglect something that's proven with a picture? Look at that picture, and then google the chassis of the Wolverine (which the M36 is based on), and the M36. It wasn't massproduced, that's correct, It's a prototype. Like the E-100. Or almost all E-series tanks, or basically 50% of all russian tanks, best example the T-34. ZiS-4 anyone? Never had it. Was actually called T-34-57. It's still mounted on a T-34 chassis though, like the 90mm on the M18. It's an M18 with a 90mm gun, you can twist and wiggle as much as you want - even if they only built one. I'd say easily one third if not more tanks and/or guns/engines are prototypes or even fictional (again T-34-85, never had the S-53 85mm because it wasn't even fully developed by the time, they used the 85mm D-5 and renamed it to S-S-53, but not the S-53). If you look closely (your comment shows that you don't even know it), you can see that the M36 already existed when they tested the 90mm on the hellcat. It was meant as an upgrade for the M18, so they used the actual M36 90mm on the M18. It was even called "M18(!) Super Hellcat" ffs. And the only reason they did not massproduce it btw is because japan surrendered, so there was no need to waste money on it. Get your facts straight, you make youself look like an idiot. Smartassing is okay, i do that sometimes myself, but don't be patronizing based of something you obviously didn't care enough to check up. It's funny you say I don't know the M36 already existed when the M18 Hellcat 90mm prototype was made (bold assumption). The M36 was way more powerful with the 90 than the M18 with the 76. Pretty hard to kill a Panther or Tiger with a gun that couldn't penetrate frontally from any distance. Which is why they tried to mount the superior 90mm onto the M18, but it never happened, they simply requested more M36's. They made an M18 prototype, which I fucking acknowledged. One can ASSUME that if I say they made a prototype, that at some point, a 90mm was on a single Hellcat, and that they probably took a fucking picture of it. Don't cast all your eggs in the single basket of a picture, I know theres a fucking picture, and it STILL doesn't change the fact the M18 Hellcat never had a 90mm. It would have been given a different standardized sub-designation name if it was ever approved for production, either the M18A1 or the M18(90) "Super Hellcat." But it wasn't, so as a tank it never existed, and the traditional M18 Hellcat never had the 90mm. They tried to mount a 105mm howitzer on the Hellcat too. Why doesn't the Hellcat have that in the game either? Probably because that tank has a completely different design name, the T88 GMC, even though it's physically an M18 Hellcat tank with a 105 instead of a 76. Ironically enough it's going to be implemented soon as a separate premium tank. Is it an M18 Hellcat? No. It's an M18(105) Hellcat. Because the Hellcat never had the 105. That TOO would be given a different sub-designation production name if it made it past the prototype stage. I mean, you do know that at one point the M18 Hellcat and the M18(90) Hellcat were two separate tanks in the original USA tech tree, right? They later combined the traditional M18 Hellcat with the prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat when it was released. Turns out even WoT agrees with me. Does it even really matter though? Not really. It's important to bring this discussion back into context. This entire debate is over citing Russian bias by saying the IS-8 got an unhistorical speed buff and the M18 an unhistorical speed nerf, yet the M18 has the unhistorical gun. Does it really matter? It's done for balance. I don't care that the Hellcat has the 90mm, it'd be way too underpowered with just the historical 76. But it wasn't historical. Keep that clear. It was done for balance reasons. You're fighting a losing battle trying to recreate history to justify balance when we both probably agree the 90mm is necessary on the Hellcat. edit: if you would know your stuff btw, you would've known that the gun the M36 used, the AT M3 90mm, was initially produced without a muzzlebrake. Later production M36's included the muzzlebrake, and this exact same gun was also later mounted on the M26 pershing -- WITH THAT EXACT SAME MUZZLEBRAKE. Do these pictures look familiar? M36 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +M26 with M3 90mm fitted with muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +Prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat with an m36 turret which ironically mounts...the exact same gun...fitted with that same muzzlebrake + Show Spoiler +I DARE you to cite a source that the M3 90mm was fitted with a muzzlebrake specifically so it could be mounted on a Hellcat. It'd be a goddamn shame to know you pulled that out of your ass. I hope i can actually link it correctly, and that also will be the last response because you start to tire me. Think what you want, i actually know i'm right, since i do not base my knowledge on World of Tanks but actual literature. read, learn, and don't try to discuss this theme anymoreI don't know if the link points directly to the right page, check page 38 if it doesn't. Or better, let me briefly quote, so there's no way you can actually get out of this. Show nested quote +In June 1945, a M36 turret was mounted on a M18 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Tests of the M18 90mm GMC without the muzzle brake found that the vehicle was pushed back 22 inches when firing, and that it rocked violently when firing over the side. Firing tests with the muzzle brake were much more satisfactory. Later during the trials, 21-in, wide T-82 track was added blabla. Although the tests showed that the combination was feasible, the Japanese surrender in August 1945 brought an end to the program since there was no immediate need for such a conversion effort.
M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97, New Vanguard 97, Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey Publishing 2004, ISBN 1-84176-687-9
We both know that you will now try to point at semantics or try to discredit the source before you would actually admit that you're wrong (and you are, i'm trying to tell you that for like 3 posts now). The crap with the sub-designated production name is bs², at least in WoT terms - EVERY tank changes it's "name" as soon as it gets a new gun. See the T-34, T-34-57, T-34-76, T-34-85, T-34-100 etc. Why didn't they do it? Because there's no need. They made the T-34-85 standalone to be able to give it a different tierspread, otherwise it would also be called "T-34". About your discussion? I actually do believe the M18 needs that gun, i also don't think it's op. It's great, but OP is something entirely different (KV1S/SU100 with 122mm [which would be the SU122 btw, also no subdesignationthingy], now we're talking). Also, i don't know about speednerfs, to my knowledge (mind you, i paused for a long time) the hellcat never had the magical 97kp/h (edit, i'm talking about ingame). Because it never actually did it in "real" conditions. Without revlimiter/speedlimiter you could do it on a paved road, but NOT without 100% damaging the engine/transmission/tracks. I have to admit that i don't know the exact speeds reached in the fields, but 60mp/h (~72kp/h iirc) sounds pretty reasonable if you take into account revlimiters etc. The M18 is fine as it is. A good tank, not more and not less - as it should be. And no, i'm not talking "historically correct" in balance terms, because you would delete almost 50% of all tank/guncombinations. All it takes for wargaming is one prototype for a tank, which means it existed, which you deny. Yeah, it was a prototype, and i never dismissed that fact - but you dismiss the tank entirely. It was called M18 90mm GMC, other than for example the M39 which was also based on the M18, yet was not called "M18 with different shit on top". The problem though is, that wargaming in the past buffed tanks which already were strong, for historical reasons. And that NEVER happened to any tank other than russian tanks. Also, i kinda lost the red line here, so i just stop typing. For the last time, please read up, maybe we talk again after that. It's really getting tiresome. Also i'm tired, so if there is some confusing stuff in this post, just cut me some slack. Edit: and sorry to disappoint you, i didn't pull anything out of my ass - don't need to do it. You did not catch me.
Well, actually your source validates my own claim. Notice the difference in years: M3 90mm gets the muzzle brake for M36's in September 1944. Prototype 90mm M18 developed in June 1945. The book your citing is a history of the M18 Hellcat, not the history of the M3 90mm AT gun, which definitely had the muzzle brake added for the M36 and M26, not the M18. The muzzle brake was actually dispensed as kits to M36's in the field that could be attached or removed, and that's probably what they're using in the M18 prototype tests the book cites. Pretty sure with every post you make history is rewritten.
In America, production was standardized using sub-designations next to the names. This is relevant because we're talking about an American made tank. Go look at the M4's history. Every relevant change made to the design, no matter how miniscule, warranted a new model name. The M4A3E2 Jumbo is an up-armored M4 variant. It's still an M4, technically, but it's produced differently therefore new production model name. Many of the variants of the M4 are "included" in the stock M4 Sherman in the WoT tech tree as upgrades, such as the newer engines and guns. But those don't get their own tanks like E2 or E8 do. Why? Game design choices. Why is the M18 given the 90mm? Game design choice. It doesn't mean it historically had the 90mm. Cause it didn't. It was a different M18 variant that was ultimately a different tank when it came to production. The M18 Hellcat itself never had a 90mm, or an M36 turret for that matter. I'm not denying the M18(90) prototype existed. It was literally designated such in the game as a separate tank at one point, because historically it was a separate production model tank. It only has the 90mm now because the differences are miniscule and it makes the Hellcat more balanced with a game engine that can't allow the Hellcat it's historical speed.
And that's why Russian Bias is pretty bullshit when you look at the M4 Sherman, or the M18 Hellcat, who get the ridiculous unhistorical 105mm and 90mm respectively. Or further up the tree when you look at the T29, M103, T69, T54E1, T57, and the T110E5. Should be called American bias, considering it dominates most tiers at this point. If the French tanks were more consistent in the lower tiers, it'd be French bias.
|
a. The M18 Hellcat does not have the 105 mm available in WoT.
b. The M18 Hellcat with 90 mm did not enter production as a different tank.
c. WoT's engine can already handle faster top speeds since the physics update, e. g. 79 km/h: http://wiki.worldoftanks.eu/Pz.Kpfw._I_Ausf._C
d. KV-2 top speed was 26 km/h. In WoT it's 35. KV-2 and Hellcat have the same battle tiers, the former being from 1940, the latter from 1943. Although the Hellcat would likely win the fight, it shows how messed up it is.
The 90 mm is the only questionable point coming near to fiction (just coming near, not passing the border), while down-sides of the KV-series are not even modelled and the M18 received many nerfs to its historical values (turret traverse, top speed, no 450 hp engine). WoT draws a picture of mid war tanks competing against early war Soviet tanks. That's the Soviet bias.
|
On June 10 2013 21:58 Perscienter wrote:a. The M18 Hellcat does not have the 105 mm available in WoT. b. The M18 Hellcat with 90 mm did not enter production as a different tank. c. WoT's engine can already handle faster top speeds since the physics update, e. g. 79 km/h: http://wiki.worldoftanks.eu/Pz.Kpfw._I_Ausf._Cd. KV-2 top speed was 26 km/h. In WoT it's 35. KV-2 and Hellcat have the same battle tiers, the former being from 1940, the latter from 1943. Although the Hellcat would likely win the fight, it shows how messed up it is. The 90 mm is the only questionable point coming near to fiction (just coming near, not passing the border), while down-sides of the KV-series are not even modelled and the M18 received many nerfs to its historical values (turret traverse, top speed, no 450 hp engine). WoT draws a picture of mid war tanks competing against early war Soviet tanks. That's the Soviet bias.
a. Re-read carefully and you'll see that I mentioned there is a premium tier 6 TD coming which will be the M18(105) Hellcat variant which uses the 105mm.
b. It never entered production, period. If it did though, it would be given a different model sub-designation for production. Every single American tank had gotten one for smaller modifications.
c. Presumably it got the 90mm to compensate. I don't think it'd be balanced at all if they went back and tried to buff it's speed now.
d. The year doesn't really make a difference. USSR (and Germany) were both several years ahead of the USA in tank design, and the USA didn't catch up until towards the end. The Hellcat was made in 1943 to fight tanks that had been around since 1939.
The 90mm is actually fiction. Many things in WoT are, and they're fine as long as they're somewhat reasonable and balanced. Those nerfs make no difference whatsoever. The M18 is still the single best tank in tier 6 for what it does, and one of the best tier 6 vehicles in the game period. You see way more hellcats in medium TC's and tournaments than you do KV-2's.
|
Double post, but theres an event that just started. Players in the World of Warplanes Beta who play 200 games from June 10th through June 14th are eligible to earn 5k gold which can be spent in either World of Tanks or World of War Planes. Theres additional contests to earn even more gold, but thats the big one. The only criteria is that in order for the game to count you have to have lived for at least 2 minutes.
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/20/wargaming-heads-e3-2013/
Details at the bottom. Apply now for the beta if you haven't already.
|
is the tiger P worth getting? (no further progression in mind)
|
On June 10 2013 23:06 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 21:58 Perscienter wrote:
a. The M18 Hellcat does not have the 105 mm available in WoT. a. Re-read carefully and you'll see that I mentioned there is a premium tier 6 TD coming which will be the M18(105) Hellcat variant which uses the 105mm.
And that's why Russian Bias is pretty bullshit when you look at the M4 Sherman, or the M18 Hellcat, who get the ridiculous unhistorical 105mm and 90mm respectively.
On June 10 2013 18:14 rd wrote:
They tried to mount a 105mm howitzer on the Hellcat too. Why doesn't the Hellcat have that in the game either? Probably because that tank has a completely different design name, the T88 GMC, even though it's physically an M18 Hellcat tank with a 105 instead of a 76. Ironically enough it's going to be implemented soon as a separate premium tank. Is it an M18 Hellcat? No. It's an M18(105) Hellcat. Because the Hellcat never had the 105. That TOO would be given a different sub-designation production name if it made it past the prototype stage. I mean, you do know that at one point the M18 Hellcat and the M18(90) Hellcat were two separate tanks in the original USA tech tree, right? They later combined the traditional M18 Hellcat with the prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat when it was released. Turns out even WoT agrees with me.
I'm honestly not capable to remember every double-statement. Usually the last assertion is more prevalent.
On June 10 2013 23:06 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 21:58 Perscienter wrote:b. The M18 Hellcat with 90 mm did not enter production as a different tank. c. WoT's engine can already handle faster top speeds since the physics update, e. g. 79 km/h: http://wiki.worldoftanks.eu/Pz.Kpfw._I_Ausf._Cd. KV-2 top speed was 26 km/h. In WoT it's 35. KV-2 and Hellcat have the same battle tiers, the former being from 1940, the latter from 1943. Although the Hellcat would likely win the fight, it shows how messed up it is. The 90 mm is the only questionable point coming near to fiction (just coming near, not passing the border), while down-sides of the KV-series are not even modelled and the M18 received many nerfs to its historical values (turret traverse, top speed, no 450 hp engine). WoT draws a picture of mid war tanks competing against early war Soviet tanks. That's the Soviet bias. a. Re-read carefully and you'll see that I mentioned there is a premium tier 6 TD coming which will be the M18(105) Hellcat variant which uses the 105mm. b. It never entered production, period. If it did though, it would be given a different model sub-designation for production. Every single American tank had gotten one for smaller modifications. c. Presumably it got the 90mm to compensate. I don't think it'd be balanced at all if they went back and tried to buff it's speed now. d. The year doesn't really make a difference. USSR (and Germany) were both several years ahead of the USA in tank design, and the USA didn't catch up until towards the end. The Hellcat was made in 1943 to fight tanks that had been around since 1939. The 90mm is actually fiction. Many things in WoT are, and they're fine as long as they're somewhat reasonable and balanced. Those nerfs make no difference whatsoever. The M18 is still the single best tank in tier 6 for what it does, and one of the best tier 6 vehicles in the game period. You see way more hellcats in medium TC's and tournaments than you do KV-2's.
b. Ok.
c. M18 should be tier VII with higher speed, higher turret traverse etc.
d. I don't know. But in fact, articles write about Hellcats fighting Panthers and Tigers '42 / '43 designs.
e. Not another superlative-discussion.
|
On June 11 2013 08:11 Perscienter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 23:06 rd wrote:On June 10 2013 21:58 Perscienter wrote:
a. The M18 Hellcat does not have the 105 mm available in WoT. a. Re-read carefully and you'll see that I mentioned there is a premium tier 6 TD coming which will be the M18(105) Hellcat variant which uses the 105mm. Show nested quote +And that's why Russian Bias is pretty bullshit when you look at the M4 Sherman, or the M18 Hellcat, who get the ridiculous unhistorical 105mm and 90mm respectively. Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 18:14 rd wrote:
They tried to mount a 105mm howitzer on the Hellcat too. Why doesn't the Hellcat have that in the game either? Probably because that tank has a completely different design name, the T88 GMC, even though it's physically an M18 Hellcat tank with a 105 instead of a 76. Ironically enough it's going to be implemented soon as a separate premium tank. Is it an M18 Hellcat? No. It's an M18(105) Hellcat. Because the Hellcat never had the 105. That TOO would be given a different sub-designation production name if it made it past the prototype stage. I mean, you do know that at one point the M18 Hellcat and the M18(90) Hellcat were two separate tanks in the original USA tech tree, right? They later combined the traditional M18 Hellcat with the prototype M18(90) Super Hellcat when it was released. Turns out even WoT agrees with me. I'm honestly not capable to remember every double-statement. Usually the last assertion is more prevalent. Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 23:06 rd wrote:On June 10 2013 21:58 Perscienter wrote:b. The M18 Hellcat with 90 mm did not enter production as a different tank. c. WoT's engine can already handle faster top speeds since the physics update, e. g. 79 km/h: http://wiki.worldoftanks.eu/Pz.Kpfw._I_Ausf._Cd. KV-2 top speed was 26 km/h. In WoT it's 35. KV-2 and Hellcat have the same battle tiers, the former being from 1940, the latter from 1943. Although the Hellcat would likely win the fight, it shows how messed up it is. The 90 mm is the only questionable point coming near to fiction (just coming near, not passing the border), while down-sides of the KV-series are not even modelled and the M18 received many nerfs to its historical values (turret traverse, top speed, no 450 hp engine). WoT draws a picture of mid war tanks competing against early war Soviet tanks. That's the Soviet bias. a. Re-read carefully and you'll see that I mentioned there is a premium tier 6 TD coming which will be the M18(105) Hellcat variant which uses the 105mm. b. It never entered production, period. If it did though, it would be given a different model sub-designation for production. Every single American tank had gotten one for smaller modifications. c. Presumably it got the 90mm to compensate. I don't think it'd be balanced at all if they went back and tried to buff it's speed now. d. The year doesn't really make a difference. USSR (and Germany) were both several years ahead of the USA in tank design, and the USA didn't catch up until towards the end. The Hellcat was made in 1943 to fight tanks that had been around since 1939. The 90mm is actually fiction. Many things in WoT are, and they're fine as long as they're somewhat reasonable and balanced. Those nerfs make no difference whatsoever. The M18 is still the single best tank in tier 6 for what it does, and one of the best tier 6 vehicles in the game period. You see way more hellcats in medium TC's and tournaments than you do KV-2's. b. Ok. c. M18 should be tier VII with higher speed, higher turret traverse etc. d. I don't know. But in fact, articles write about Hellcats fighting Panthers and Tigers '42 / '43 designs. e. Not another superlative-discussion.
Hellcat wasn't designed to fight Panthers and Tigers. USA didn't even know they existed when they began development. It's gun couldn't penetrate either of them from any distance frontally. It was designed just to replace the M10, and initially it was going to have the 37mm. Articles write about a ton of things, most notably that US tanks were for the most part inadequate against the unforeseen German Panthers and Tigers.
|
The Hellcat was designed to fight tanks generally and it worked. They were really designated as tank destroyers, to move fast into a region, maybe sit there in a half-circle formation and pump their rounds into advancing tanks sides. I like that concept from a winning-the-war-perspective. They had problems with Panther's and Tiger's frontal armour, but not the sides, of course.
British forces met Tiger tanks in North Africa in '42. I doubt they didn't squeal.
|
Oh T-34-85 why are you so goddamn awful at stock? The grind up to competitiveness isn't going to be fun.
|
On June 13 2013 10:02 Vindicare605 wrote:
Oh T-34-85 why are you so goddamn awful at stock? The grind up to competitiveness isn't going to be fun.
Just wait for a t9 stock. That shit will break your back. The usual cost for the good gun is extreme. Between 60-100k extreme
|
I just wish there was an easier way that didn't cost gold to transfer XP from tank to tank.
Being forced to grind XP on shitty stock tanks especially against higher tier opponents that are fully upgraded really sucks. I can't hurt any tank in my tier with my stock gun unless I'm practically point blank and shooting at a weak point. Hell my T-34 has a superior gun. ugh.
|
On June 13 2013 21:18 Vindicare605 wrote:
I just wish there was an easier way that didn't cost gold to transfer XP from tank to tank.
Being forced to grind XP on shitty stock tanks especially against higher tier opponents that are fully upgraded really sucks. I can't hurt any tank in my tier with my stock gun unless I'm practically point blank and shooting at a weak point. Hell my T-34 has a superior gun. ugh.
Save your free exp. Don't spend it on unlocking the next tank. By the time you unlock the next tank you should have enough free exp saved up to unlock one or two of the most important modules on it which should take a bit of the sting off it.
|
Holy shit this grind is even worse than the A-20's was.
If I go against Tier 7-8's I can't hurt them with the first gun upgrade and without my engine upgrade I'm about as slow as a heavy while maintaining right around the same hull armor as my T-34.
I just pray before the start of each match that it isn't a higher tier game, I'm literally useless in them.
|
The T-34-85 at least becomes good after you grind that stuff. Wait for the T-43 You will tell yourself, at least i don't have to research all that crap again, as the gun is already free from my T-34-85. Then you realize, to use the gun that was good at Tier 6, you will have to research the suspension and the turret first. So, you are with a 120mm pen gun against up to Tier IX :D And once you are fully equipped, you have a T-34-85 with 1.5x the life and everything else is the same. Oh wait, no, it is not, that tank will be lit on fire when the wind blows a little bit faster :D
I unlocked the T-44 yesterday and now i am shooting with a Tier VI gun at Tier X tanks. In 16k exp, i can mount a gun, that is labeled as "IDIOT" gun.... And every game with that tank costs me credits i have to farm up again
|
Yea I've been doing my reading. Seems the whole Soviet medium line follows this pattern. Awesome tanks when fully upgraded, terrible stock.
At least it's consistent.
I unlocked the suspension, and first engine upgrade for this thing and I've been able to function a lot better. Don't have a ton of firepower but at least I can outmaneuver the heavies now.
I can see the potential though, with the second engine upgrade and a better gun this thing will be quite beastly. I can't wait.
|
On June 14 2013 17:21 Broetchenholer wrote:The T-34-85 at least becomes good after you grind that stuff. Wait for the T-43 You will tell yourself, at least i don't have to research all that crap again, as the gun is already free from my T-34-85. Then you realize, to use the gun that was good at Tier 6, you will have to research the suspension and the turret first. So, you are with a 120mm pen gun against up to Tier IX :D And once you are fully equipped, you have a T-34-85 with 1.5x the life and everything else is the same. Oh wait, no, it is not, that tank will be lit on fire when the wind blows a little bit faster :D I unlocked the T-44 yesterday and now i am shooting with a Tier VI gun at Tier X tanks. In 16k exp, i can mount a gun, that is labeled as "IDIOT" gun.... And every game with that tank costs me credits i have to farm up again
T-44 with D10T is awesome though. At least was. Also, i told you about the T-43 beforehand. 
Just remember to get a WAR on T-44. At least when i played it, it was mandatory.
Edit: finished M7 a while ago, now driving T21. It's actually quite lovely. In my opinion, better than the T20, which is basically the same tank with a bit more armor (or lets say, heavier, since that "more armor" does basically nothing except slowing the tank down, you still won't bounce anything). Funny little trolltank.
|
This game is surprisingly fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img4.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/clipboard01jlc7o052hv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/usmt-M26-Pershing-3rdArmy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/11sdtzm.jpg)
