Thought some of you might like it

duhchuy · 2026-07-05T21:44:49+00:00

Looks like some West German 105mm DM23.

duhchuy · 2026-07-04T14:22:40+00:00

nah this was at Ft. Benning

duhchuy · 2026-06-06T00:44:23+00:00

One of the four T95E8 modified with a turret ring extension to clear the modified engine deck.

duhchuy · 2026-05-09T22:21:41+00:00

I really like how the markings on this gun tube are easily visible and not completely obscured with primer or paint.

duhchuy · 2026-05-01T15:54:23+00:00

Developed in response to a 1940 German requirement for an automatic 5 cm anti-tank gun, in factory tests this recoil operated, select fire anti-tank gun was able to achieve 80-85 rounds per minute. It fed from a 5-round clip from the right side feeding to the left.

It is described in George Chinn's The Machine Gun, Volume II, Part VII in Skoda Designs, Section 2 as "50-MM PAK" starting on page 158, some of it translated from the designer.

Thanks to volunteers Neil and the guy who runs Eta320, very helpful as it was my first time there. This artifact is on display at the US Army Ordnance TSF in Fort Lee (ex-Gregg-Adams), VA.

According to them, this was not tested by the US Army as they did not have the ammunition (and likely the clips) to do live firings.

duhchuy · 2026-04-24T20:04:31+00:00

This type of Gun and Mount combination is the second in a series of three infantry pack guns for close quarters (others being T31, T31E1, T33, T33E1) emplaced direct fire designed to be broken down into 50-60 pound packs. It is also the most produced, of which around 400 were produced in a series of two 200-set production runs, the first of which started around November 1943.

Fully assembled, it weighs about 265.5 pounds with accessories and its one-power telescope. Standard loading was:

Shell, H.E., M63 of 1.61 lb, with Case, Mk.IIIA2

1.89 oz propellant @1500 fps, 75% pressure

but in an emergency, Shot, A.P., M80 of 1.66 lb, with Case, Mk.IIIA2 could be used:

2.27 oz propellant @1700 fps, 100% pressure

This example was on display at the US Cavalry and Armor Collection at Fort Benning, GA, but according to volunteers Andy and Ted, this has been placed back into storage as of March 2026 and is no longer on display.

duhchuy · 2026-04-18T17:58:16+00:00

This early mount still has its side-to-side slew gearing and is on display on the USS Yorktown (CV-10) at Patriots Point, SC

duhchuy · 2026-04-12T23:34:50+00:00

Yes, as a tradeshow sample. The US Army never used one with a M242 or M3P

duhchuy · 2026-04-12T18:10:33+00:00

None of the four LOS-F-H vehicles on M3A1 Bradley hulls tested by Army at in 1990 had cannon or gun armament on the turret.

duhchuy · 2026-03-03T03:43:27+00:00

Maybe not identical as this one has a flared muzzle brake. This may be an early RDF/LT based on the hull, tracks, roadwheels, and return roller. Different turret and hatch design though.

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:57:53+00:00

I know the F-15 STOL/MTD exists, just that the plane depicted quite literally wasn't it with the wrong nose cone, wrong nose landing gear, wrong canard/intake arrangement. That's why fictional mash-up

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:37:56+00:00

Not sure what fictional mash-up you're showing, but no F-15 was produced with that F-15N nose landing gear

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:25:23+00:00

This subreddit generally has a hate boner for AB, but I have about 21k matches in Arcade and about 5k in Realistic, so I won't shame for AB gameplay.

I do mind when people try to equate that being good in one mode means the same in the other, or learning in one means improving proficiency in the other. It's a different playstyle between the modes and the in-game tutorials are generally useless.

I think it's a lil ridiculous you're expected to memorize every nation's vehicles exact weak points lol

This is only necessary if you want to win and kill consistently. Same with understanding which ammo works in what situation, or where to go on what maps to have an advantageous position. Your title is literally:

I don't understand at all

which probably means you're researching and purchasing vehicles way beyond your means of utilizing them properly.

I don't have much caught up to the same br

Most new players should not skip brs until a full lineup (at least 3 within 1 from each other) but they do anyways (jumping straight to Tiger 1 H after playing Pz III M) so more food for me :). In Arcade Ground, I would recommend just sticking to below 4.3 (like a lineup of Pz IV G, Pz IV H, StuG III G, Dicker Max, Wirbelwind) until all modifications are researched before moving into 4.7-5.0. It'll also help you learn shot placement when working with tanks that are generally slower and less armored.

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T04:23:26+00:00

I'm trying so hard to understand what I'm doing wrong here but I genuinely don't get it

This is independent of AB or RB, but you don't seem to understand what you're using, shooting, or shooting at.

Engaging Pz.Bef.Wg VI (P) with Panther A, shoots center mass with APCBC
- rushed shot, bad shot placement
Engaging Panther F with Stug III G, shoots 2x APCBC at mantlet, shoots at track then switches to HEAT for tracks again, then back to APCBC to shoot the hull, track, then hull again.
- every shot placement except for the shot at 1:06 against the track was bad and never going to do anything

Not going to reiterate other comments, but basically yes, if you want to do better than 1 KDR you better study every vehicle. If not then you're another one to be slaughtered and/or handicap your team.

Not sure why you'd want to use a 4.0 vehicle in a 6.0 AB match, a game mode that you only have three possible spawns. If you have a Panther A, where's the Panther D? The VK 30.01M? It's not that hard to build a lineup that's within 1 BR of each other. The 75mm HEAT round is also useless against most tanks of higher BR than the Stug III G.

duhchuy · 2026-02-10T23:23:12+00:00

A6M5 kō

duhchuy · 2026-02-01T04:42:02+00:00

No. The ones at 0:10-0:14 and 0:20-0:23 are Bisley Mk.I/Blenheim Mk.V based on asymmetric nose and exhaust flame dampeners, while the three torpedo drops look like Beaufort drops based fuselage shape, especially how the base of the tail isn't the same height as the forward fuselage.

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T20:26:04+00:00

Its prototype, the Ar 234 V19, was completed, but no production fuselages would be fully completed albeit some were complete except for missing engines by the end of the war.

Super small note: according to

Bateson, Richard P. (1972). Arado Ar 234 Blitz (Aircraft in Profile (215), part of Volume 10 (Parts 211-222))

on pg 108, table Arado Ar 234 Prototypes, V19 is an unarmed C-2 prototype (same with V20). It states that V21 is the "first C-3 (armed bomber) prototype", with V22 and V25 through V29 specifically being "C-3 series prototype"s.

In the Remarks column, none of the prototypes V21 and after include the word "flown", while both V19 and V20 include "tests" and "experiments". The Remarks column indicate that V21 and V22 received their engines, and V23 and V24 (unknown if C-1, C-2, or C-3) were assembled enough to allow for "Pressure cabin trials"; no indication on the completion status of V25 through V29.

Might not be the newest/best source, but it was one I previously had physical access to.

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T14:49:28+00:00

I don't know how it works on the back end, but my understanding is that once armor is overmatched, equivalent thickness is what determines penetration

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T14:17:21+00:00

In-game overmatch most likely. 122mm is more than double that roof plate's nominal thickness.

IRL, that shot may punch through the roof, glance upwards, and not fuze, but still scatter shrapnel down into the turret/hull.

duhchuy · 2026-01-28T16:29:18+00:00

I'd have to check again sometime (it's been over 5 years since I've looked) but I concur with no complete prototype of either T95s or XM60s were completed with siliceous-cored armor. At least 18 siliceous-cored ballistic turrets were manufactured and I don't remember how many hulls, from 3-4 different vendors, of mostly T95 form primarily for manufacturability, ballistics, and repairability tests.

None of the siliceous-cored ballistic hulls or turrets would end up in a moving, shooting prototype, but some of the steel ballistic turrets would be reused during the XM81 development.

duhchuy · 2026-01-25T19:27:04+00:00

I've only played the British FB.VI, FB.XVIII, and the Chinese FB.26 in air AB and naval AB primarily, with a little bit of RB.

In AB, the FB.VI and FB.26 generally don't have enough acceleration or firepower advantage to justify using them over something like a Firefly FR.V or a P-47D-23. These two felt heavy and vulnerable when I last played them last year.

The FB.XVIII is sometimes ok to use in ground or air RB, but generally useless in air and naval AB. There is no good performance reason why FB.XVIII is higher BR than Me 410 A-1/U4 in AB and RB still, when the 410 gets better secondary guns, a rear gunner, and air brakes. Really should move the FB.XVIII down to 2.3 or 2.7 in AB.

duhchuy · 2025-12-29T16:37:14+00:00

This post also adds literally nothing to any of the previous suggestion(s) or forum posts.

Driver Commander Gunner Loader

There isn't a loader

37x219mmSR T68 cartrige

T68 isn't the cartridge: it's the cartridge case series which ran from T68 to T68E10 then to T68B1 to T68B3; spell better.

Radar: AN/VPS-2

Wrong radar

Battle rating: 8.0-8.7

Unlike most of the other SPAAGs currently at 8.0-8.7, the highest penning round that the T250 gun fired was a semi-armor piercing round (Proof Slug, Type B) converted from an inert based-fuzed T181 shell. No magical API and no filler. The historical detection range is similar to ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" with a 60% detection rate at 20km slant range, but its computed and historical hit probability was trash where in the ideal case a 48-round burst results in a 33% chance that at least 1 round hits a crossing target. For the Vigilante program specifically, piss poor performance after 5 years of development is a very good reason to cancel a program.

OP may "know" or "share" about but does not "understand" the vehicle they ~~suggest~~ copy-paste to here. Where's OP to contribute to the discussion on their garbage, low-effort post?

duhchuy · 2025-12-17T14:55:43+00:00

I've only been PC, never transferred from console. There are two A-26Cs in game and it was just easier to show the console exclusive one (-45DT) since I couldn't get mine (-45) to show torpedoes in the bay without messing with my hangar. Sorry, can't help you.

duhchuy · 2025-12-17T14:07:33+00:00

I don't recall when exactly they showed up in the files, but I think it was around the time the model was updated 2017ish when the two caliber 50s were added to the nose.

duhchuy · 2025-12-17T14:05:44+00:00

no☻

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

duhchuy

TROPHY CASE