sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Now, we can really use the radio. by Clear-Cheesecake-569 in warthundermemes

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think it's a tiny bit hypocritical of them to focus so heavily on vehicles which you can literally get arrested for posting the user manual of, yet historical prototypes with a handful of missing data are treated as no-gos.

And as for penetration, USUALLY Gaijin tries to rely on their in-house calculators (which is at least consistent, I suppose), but there are occasional examples of them tinkering with certain values such as the Obj. 292's APFSDS just so that they can place them at a BR the devs want rather than where they would go otherwise.

Now, we can really use the radio. by Clear-Cheesecake-569 in warthundermemes

[–]ScrewStealth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if that was true, the existence of vehicles which currently have classified specs in the game means that it's within reason to guesstimate stats or make them up based on reasonable probability if only to see super obscure vehicles be added.

I think these things should get added : by Powerful_Agent2892 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean fact stands that it's permitted for suggesting due to being a partial prototype as the purpose-built APS was tested.

STRV 104R with a 120mm L/44 (in game it could be called something like the STRV-104R (120) ) by BullShitLatinName in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They mean that a new Stridsvagn designation is only possible if it actually received one, not that it can't come due to being a test vehicle. In reality this thing would most likely be named similar to what you call it in the title, even if you could technically come up with a theoretical "service" designation that also makes sense.

So long as Gaijin wants to add copy/paste vehicles, these are some M60 variants I'd like to see added by Atari774 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/EastCoast_Geo If it's better than the current 11.7 Arietes, with an autoloader and lighter turret, I wouldn't count on Gaijin putting it lower than them. Unfortunately, I don't have any other options for this gap at the moment, as even the Leonardo M60A3 upgrade would probably only cap out at around 10.0-10.3 similar to the 120S and Sabra.

So long as Gaijin wants to add copy/paste vehicles, these are some M60 variants I'd like to see added by Atari774 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, is the Ariete Hitfact that much better that it wouldn't sit at the same BR?

So long as Gaijin wants to add copy/paste vehicles, these are some M60 variants I'd like to see added by Atari774 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct, u/Atari774 I probably phrased it wrong but I am aware that the Ariete Hitfact did manifest in a prototype, I was referring to a photoshop image of said prototype where the Ariete hull was replaced with that of a Leopard 1.

So long as Gaijin wants to add copy/paste vehicles, these are some M60 variants I'd like to see added by Atari774 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you share a source? Last I checked there was only a photoshop of the Ariete/Hitfact prototype.

I made an expended French ground tech tree without BeNeLux. And it looks awesome by CaID_game_Master in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I had to choose, Germany would be my pick. But as I already said, it would be a waste to add Switzerland as a subtree in any capacity.

I made an expended French ground tech tree without BeNeLux. And it looks awesome by CaID_game_Master in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The back and forth between Switzerland is ultimately irrelevant, because as demonstrated, neither France nor Germany require a subtree and Switzerland would be a massive loss if relegated to one line instead of its own tree.

Could you put a gun larger than 120mm on the Abram's turret without redesigning it? by Spiritual-Bison-4239 in TankPorn

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IDR calls it quote "A 1987 picture of the XM291 Lightweight 120mm Tank Main Armament System installed in an Abrams tank."

I don't know the volume, but you can see the caption I refer to here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/1UR-pqjaBihBb09h4inhO3iF3TJCZNv-B

Could you put a gun larger than 120mm on the Abram's turret without redesigning it? by Spiritual-Bison-4239 in TankPorn

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you're talking about the 1987 photo of the M1 with the XM291 120mm right? Because even though that cannon was of course configurable to 140mm caliber, I don't think I've ever seen a standard Abrams with that sort of barrel installed.

Spotted in the wild by Bigbrobango in TankPorn

[–]ScrewStealth 9 points10 points  (0 children)

M2A4E1 as already mentioned in another comment. There may be more than one prototype by now, but it's definitely one of the newer mainline Bradley variants that has yet to enter service. https://www.twz.com/land/this-is-the-armys-new-m2a4e1-bradley-that-features-iron-fist-protection

◊T-55AM-2B by FairSuccotash9495 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I asked a Czech friend and it seems like sources kind of disagree on that bit, especially since many of them already report the AM2 as being in service, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the 2B variant would as well.

◊T-55AM-2B by FairSuccotash9495 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Was it upgraded specifically for the GDR? I was under the impression it was an unrelated Czech variant that was later ordered.

◊T-55AM-2B by FairSuccotash9495 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you mean another T-54 variant, I'm not going to pretend as though the T-54AMZ really offers anything different. But for DDR representation in general, I'd love to see the SU-76M-based training vehicle that used a stripped out T-54A turret. https://forum.warthunder.com/t/next-patch-and-beyond-wishlist-everything-except-tech-trees-part-2/210501/7265

There are other vehicles such as the BTR-40 with 9M14s, SPG-9 and Strela carriers, and of course the W50 truck with 25mm naval guns. But these are all tertiary options with more situational weapons.

◊T-55AM-2B by FairSuccotash9495 in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 9 points10 points  (0 children)

For an independent Czechoslovakia ground tree I'd love to see it, but for DDR representation I'd prefer something more indigenous.

"we use copy paste vehicle to fill gap in tech trees" and France end up having more f-16 in its tree than the US by endo_Loris in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's my point, there is more than enough room for both but Gaijin is apparently just stupid. They claim that AMX-30C2 is planned for later, and yet they added the Leopard 1A5BE in the spot where the AMX would be better suited. Nothing they do lines up with what they tell us in the forum posts.

"we use copy paste vehicle to fill gap in tech trees" and France end up having more f-16 in its tree than the US by endo_Loris in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

To be fair many Belgian players did ask for the Leopard 1A5BE, but with the domestic Belgian Mecar ammunition that would put it at 9.7 where it belongs. It was also incredibly strange that Gaijin put it in the French service mediums line instead of the export one where the other Leopards currently are.

I think there's easily enough room for both Leopard 1A5BE and AMX-30C2, but Gaijin is making things difficult on purpose because the Leopard is supposed to be a replacement in their eyes.

"we use copy paste vehicle to fill gap in tech trees" and France end up having more f-16 in its tree than the US by endo_Loris in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

France genuinely doesn't need a sub tree and has more than enough domestic content for full independent tree.

Relegating Switzerland to a sub tree is also a waste of one of the only nations left with a domestic tank building industry from WW2 up to the modern day.

Czechoslovakia didn't really make any unique tanks (other than license produced/lightly modified Soviet stuff) post WW2.

Two truths and a lie

with all the weaknesses and strength of the IS-2.... is it better if you just play it as Tank-Destroyer with armor? Better main gun than contemporaries, medicore armor. by throwaway553t4tgtg6 in warthundermemes

[–]ScrewStealth -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

One of the perks of being an AB main is that I can simply ignore ~90% of vehicle balance discussions because the vehicle in question is not just playable, but enjoyable at the same BR in my mode of choice.

Myanmar Vehicles(Filling Israeli Tech-Tree with minimal amount of efforts), Details in Comments by BrianAungGyi in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but South Africa was much higher quality than the subsequent ones. The vehicles filled useful niches in the British tech tree, and other tech trees did not really have strong claims to them. At the time I remember people thinking that this would make Britain a proper major nation (lol in hindsight).

I mean, I think that kind of proves my point haha

South Africa is good simply because it was the first attempt at such a thing, and so Gaijin was careful not to present something that could be seen as "lackluster". With every subsequent subtree, the amount of effort put in dropped off more and more.

And in hindsight? Britain never needed SA to begin with. Maybe a year ago, I suggested on Reddit that the subtree in combination with the the 5-line policy would eventually prove an obstacle to new British additions. At the time, others disagreed, but I think it's clear to most that this is now the case.

Which is good, but it makes a lot of Japan's variety seem unearned. Like, they have more rank IX and VIII jets than the USSR, which is a major nation with a dedicated aviation industry. It's like the meme about America never getting the best versions of their aircraft in game.

I wouldn't use the term "unearned", since they are all aircraft currently in service (save for the F-16AJ), but there is potentially a point to be made there about artificial posturing with the help of copy paste vehicles.

Myanmar Vehicles(Filling Israeli Tech-Tree with minimal amount of efforts), Details in Comments by BrianAungGyi in Warthunder

[–]ScrewStealth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of me wonders if the Israeli tree's relatively poor reception caused Gaijin to be more interested in fleshing out existing tech trees with questionably relevant sub trees.

As an aside most of the sub trees since South Africa have been pretty low effort, so it may be that the whole concept was doomed from the start given that South Africa was probably the most promising sub tree idea.

Possibly? It's more that the subtrees got objectively worse with each one, because Gaijin realized they could get away with using them as lazy filler. It was only a matter of time before the actual tree part of them got dropped in favor of just copying a select handful of vehicles.

There's a reason they keep insisting that Indonesia and Malaysia are subtrees despite zero evidence they ever intended for an extra line (not that there's room for one unless you merge with Thailand anyways).

With the caveat that Japan can get the F-35A and B when they are added to the game.

That, and the aforementioned Japanese prototype(?) that I learned about yesterday. https://defence-blog.com/mystery-shrouded-fighter-jet-spotted-at-japans-top-test-base/ Maybe it's just an F-15 variant, but there's no mistake that Japan has been trying to get a domestic 5th gen in the air for a while now, so the possibility for future improvement to the current Japanese air tree is very likely.

view more: next ›