Stop using wikipedia to model vehicles

[acidrain69 26]

Please do not use wikipedia for modeling in game data. Most of it is wrong or incomplete, or even completely made up.

I noticed several vehicles in game match wikipedia and other games, however all the official documents from military museums say otherwise.

Example, F2A-1 you have discontinued the operation of the wing mounted 50's. I know from "Fact" that Thach's Buffalo had 50's in the wings because I served on the replacement ship of one of the ships she was launched from, the "Saratoga CV-3". He tipped that F2A-1 Buffalo on it's nose and the picture was in the Pilots lounge on-board the Saratoga CV-60. After noticing this change in the game today, I went to the internet and the first official documents web search says that in 1939 when the first order was made quote" 1-50 and 1-7.62 in the nose, with 1-50 in each wing. You guys had it right the first time you modeled the plane, however you recently made in-operable the wing 50's but they of course are still modeled in the wing and you can see them with x-ray, but the tell sign is the large bumps you see on everyone that had the 50's in the wings. However several variants were made for the Finnish and others, some with removed 50's from the wings to reduce weight. This in turn prompted the manufacturer to make a revised model later that had increased fuel capacity, however due to weight issues those 50's were not put in the wings and the armor was removed from the planes plans. FYI- these were not self-sealing fuel tanks nor were the originals. This version without the 50's in the wings were used strictly as recon. not atk, not defend, only reconnaissance missions. Another variant that was made prior to their discontinuation was replacing the 7.62 with another 50 for a total of four 50's, 2 in the nose, 1 in each wing also lacking armor as the previous versions due to weight issues

 

(Let me clarify one question that was raised, I served on the Saratoga CV-60, the replacement for the Saratoga CV-3 which was the one used in WW II, which was used in an atomic bomb test in July 1946 as a target, she was a Lexington class ship. In 1956 the Saratoga CV-60 Forrestal class ship was commissioned. She was sent to scrape 2014 after being decommissioned in 1994. I hope I did not mislead anyone to believe I was in WW II or on the original ship which served in WW II. I served on the replacement Saratoga which was decommissioned in 1994.)

Edited June 26, 2016 by acidrain69

[Kocyra 5,742]

What years were you serving? 

Though general consensus is Gaijin uses "secret soviet documents" or something along that lines, rather than wikipedia, If the forum-goers are to be believed.

Edited June 26, 2016 by F7UCutlass

[DarthSpitz 148]

The documents used are really not that secret...the game designers of "Halo" use the same documents to pattern their game from.  Plus the fact that the WT designers most likely never served in their respective nation's militaries compounds some deficiencies

 

How when the loader gets wounded in a tank stop the turret from moving?  Don't know--loaders didn't have control of moving the turret--that's the gunners job....how is it the most prevalent crew critical the gunner getting hit?  Don't know--loaders/commanders/gunners sit behind the thickest part of the turret armor & if a round got through to wound the gunner in the fist place, a lot more "bad things" are happening in that turret--shrapnel bouncing around, ammo getting ignited while the whole crew is choking to death on smoke--just to name a few

 

A simple look on vehicle description in each nation's tech tree is the most glaring issue.  Year for year, plane for plane (mostly) the Russian planes are 100k/h slower then most other nations' planes and where lacking in other capabilities.  In the Korean Conflict some of those WWII Soviet pilots found themselves in an exception good jet fighter to only meet Western flyers and get the short end of combat.  It wasn't Russian superior planes and pilots that gave the Russians air superiority over the Eastern Front--superiority in numbers did. 

[fufubear 6,705]

Year for year, plane for plane (mostly) the Russian planes are 100k/h slower then most other nations' planes and where lacking in other capabilities. In the Korean Conflict some of those WWII Soviet pilots found themselves in an exception good jet fighter to only meet Western flyers and get the short end of combat. It wasn't Russian superior planes and pilots that gave the Russians air superiority over the Eastern Front--superiority in numbers did.

I was agreeing with you up until this point.

1. You are comparing top speeds at optimal altitude in that sense Russian planes will seem slower but the eastern front air combat happened mostly at low altitude where the Russian planes were as fast if not sometimes faster than other nations planes.

2. The mig 15 and mig 15 bis were in the Korean War from the start and enjoyed the performance advantage up until the F sabres were introduced in the end. So for the start of the Korean War the Russians did have the performance advantage.

[Sphynx311@psn 124]

I think they removed the Buffalo's wing .50s because it was way too OP for it's tier and BR.

 

It was a club-fest against bi-planes and the like.

[NightHawkF117 392]

Mainly taken away because after a test people where ROFL Stomping lower tiers easily. I played 3 battles and quit because it was so easy it wasnt fun.( ended up 21 and 1). So they balanced it, and it needed it bad.

[DarthSpitz 148]

Fufubear:

 

Altitude advantage is usually huge in air combat...

 

If for example a group of Russian planes are flying at 5000m and an enemy attacks from 7000m, the Russians have only two real options, hard bank left or right.  Attempting to climb just flies into the attack and diving is pointless since the attackers have the advantage of gravity and if they are German their planes on average are 100k/h faster anyhow.  The slower speed Russians have a turning advantage due impart to slower speed, but the German planes still enjoy over all tactic advantage of having energy to spare to maintain their altitude advantage to strafe and then circle immediately for another attack

 

The problem in historical terms for the Germans on the Eastern front was their lack of numbers and fuel shortages.  Still from a historical point of view, how many 100+ Russian Aces where there to the Germans?  The Lend Lease program from the US and help from Britain helped the Russians a lot.  Regardless how historians want to view P39s and Hurricane planes when pitted against German planes, its still a number of planes that matter since later on in the war both Russians and German pilots where in the same boat having around 100 hour flying time before joining their units

 

If one looks at the Russian victory there are a lot of untold heroes or not enough credit given.  The US sending over thousands of trucks...allowed the Russians to focus more on tanks then had Russia had to make all of themselves.  The Russians themselves...its not hard to find who lost more (military) lives.

 

But on a technological level...Germans had the edge there.  Will not find many rocket planes in the allied tech trees, nor actual jets before wars end...fantastic advances submarines...where ahead of everyone with magnetic mines.... doesn't even include the "V" weapons.  The fortunate and perhaps merciful fact is that all these advance came too little too late and there was plenty of stupid to go around in the German leadership

[Nope 10,634]

Fufubear:

 

Altitude advantage is usually huge in air combat...

 

If for example a group of Russian planes are flying at 5000m and an enemy attacks from 7000m, the Russians have only two real options, hard bank left or right.  Attempting to climb just flies into the attack and diving is pointless since the attackers have the advantage of gravity and if they are German their planes on average are 100k/h faster anyhow.  The slower speed Russians have a turning advantage due impart to slower speed, but the German planes still enjoy over all tactic advantage of having energy to spare to maintain their altitude advantage to strafe and then circle immediately for another attack

 

The problem in historical terms for the Germans on the Eastern front was their lack of numbers and fuel shortages.  Still from a historical point of view, how many 100+ Russian Aces where there to the Germans?  The Lend Lease program from the US and help from Britain helped the Russians a lot.  Regardless how historians want to view P39s and Hurricane planes when pitted against German planes, its still a number of planes that matter since later on in the war both Russians and German pilots where in the same boat having around 100 hour flying time before joining their units

 

If one looks at the Russian victory there are a lot of untold heroes or not enough credit given.  The US sending over thousands of trucks...allowed the Russians to focus more on tanks then had Russia had to make all of themselves.  The Russians themselves...its not hard to find who lost more (military) lives.

 

But on a technological level...Germans had the edge there.  Will not find many rocket planes in the allied tech trees, nor actual jets before wars end...fantastic advances submarines...where ahead of everyone with magnetic mines.... doesn't even include the "V" weapons.  The fortunate and perhaps merciful fact is that all these advance came too little too late and there was plenty of stupid to go around in the German leadership

 

The problem is that the Eastern Front was pretty damn cloudy. Trying for such an altitude advantage will result in German pilots having to dive in blind.

[fufubear 6,705]

Fufubear:

Altitude advantage is usually huge in air combat...

If for example a group of Russian planes are flying at 5000m and an enemy attacks from 7000m, the Russians have only two real options, hard bank left or right. Attempting to climb just flies into the attack and diving is pointless since the attackers have the advantage of gravity and if they are German their planes on average are 100k/h faster anyhow. The slower speed Russians have a turning advantage due impart to slower speed, but the German planes still enjoy over all tactic advantage of having energy to spare to maintain their altitude advantage to strafe and then circle immediately for another attack

The problem in historical terms for the Germans on the Eastern front was their lack of numbers and fuel shortages. Still from a historical point of view, how many 100+ Russian Aces where there to the Germans? The Lend Lease program from the US and help from Britain helped the Russians a lot. Regardless how historians want to view P39s and Hurricane planes when pitted against German planes, its still a number of planes that matter since later on in the war both Russians and German pilots where in the same boat having around 100 hour flying time before joining their units

If one looks at the Russian victory there are a lot of untold heroes or not enough credit given. The US sending over thousands of trucks...allowed the Russians to focus more on tanks then had Russia had to make all of themselves. The Russians themselves...its not hard to find who lost more (military) lives.

But on a technological level...Germans had the edge there. Will not find many rocket planes in the allied tech trees, nor actual jets before wars end...fantastic advances submarines...where ahead of everyone with magnetic mines.... doesn't even include the "V" weapons. The fortunate and perhaps merciful fact is that all these advance came too little too late and there was plenty of stupid to go around in the German leadership

You are relating this game to real life too much. Altitude advantage is important but there was no climb race irl. Just because you perform well at high altitude does not mean that will be a major advantage to you irl. Combat on the eastern front did not take place over 3000 meters very much due to thick cloud cover. At the altitudes that combat usually occurred the Russian planes were just as fast and climbed just as well.

100+ aces is a useless point. The Germans were much better trained and flew in better planes early on. There were also many more Russian planes going around for the Germans to rack up kills. Even if there was a Russian pilot who was better than every German pilot then he would still not be able to rack up the kills simply due to the lack of German planes to shoot down (this is also assuming he would never be rotates out like he soviets started doing).

Loss of military lives is also kind of a dumb point. Early on you have poorly trained Russian soldiers with low morale going against highly trained German Soldiers and then later on the Russians are constantly on the offensive and I hope you understand that it is much harder to attack than it is to defend.

Germany had a technological edge only in certain areas. Rockets planes are very dangerousand mostly useless which is why the allies didn't pursue it and Germany only had 2 jets operational by the end of the war. The Arado 234 and me 262 meanwhile most nations were at least working on 1 jet and if you were the British you would have the meteor mk 3, the vampire, and the meteor mk 4. Now you are just pointing out little details where Germany is more advanced. I could list some for other nations too. Germany never had any kind of advanced carrier aviation, carrier ships, capital ships,surface ship opitcs, piston engined aircraft on te level of the P51H and Hornet, etc

[_Sev_ 1,115]

You are relating this game to real life too much. Altitude advantage is important but there was no climb race irl. Just because you perform well at high altitude does not mean that will be a major advantage to you irl. Combat on the eastern front did not take place over 3000 meters very much due to thick cloud cover. At the altitudes that combat usually occurred the Russian planes were just as fast and climbed just as well. Its more like both Air Forces were focused on tactical air support, despite this both sides used a lot level bombers and its not like the SU was covered 24/7 the whole year in clouds.

100+ aces is a useless point. The Germans were much better trained and flew in better planes early on. There were also many more Russian planes going around for the Germans to rack up kills. Even if there was a Russian pilot who was better than every German pilot then he would still not be able to rack up the kills simply due to the lack of German planes to shoot down (this is also assuming he would never be rotates out like he soviets started doing). If you have more planes in the air it also means you can more easily gain air superiority and grind the enemy down, a case in which the VVS failed horrendously, but we were there before. There is a point, despite the VVS had a overwhelming superiority in numbers right to the end the german aces in the east were able to rack up kills right to the end while they Luftwaffe units in the west got annhilated. Even in 44 the VVS lost 3 planes for every german plane lost, quiet the opposite again like in the west. Rotating was the same on the allied side, in fact the UK and US had by a wide margin the best air forces at the end of the war.

Loss of military lives is also kind of a dumb point. Early on you have poorly trained Russian soldiers with low morale going against highly trained German Soldiers and then later on the Russians are constantly on the offensive and I hope you understand that it is much harder to attack than it is to defend. Its quiet the opposite the Soviets had in 41 their best trained soldiers and after they were gone the quality was degrading, even in 43 the German OKW noticed a ever degrading quality in the SUs infantry, with that loss rates not surprising since the Red Army was more like a revolving door were soldiers got thrown at the enemy in an ever increasing speed and number, despite this the german loss rates stayed more or less the same compared to the numbers thrown at them. Also it is a myth that the attacker has automaticly more losses, in fact its more the other way round and even the Red Army had less losses (but never went under 3:1 in germanies favour) the time it went over to attack. If attacking would be that costly no one would and you could not explain the Germans performance on the eastern front, the Brits in North Africa beating more than 200k with 35k soldiers, the US Islands campaign from guadalcanal on and several more. The factors like training, doctrine, equipment and leadership are more important as raw numbers.

 

[Hunter12396 3,520]

the Buffalo's extra .50cals were temporarily removed for balancing purposes

[fufubear 6,705]

Its more like both Air Forces were focused on tactical air support, despite this both sides used a lot level bombers and its not like the SU was covered 24/7 the whole year in clouds.

If you have more planes in the air it also means you can more easily gain air superiority and grind the enemy down, a case in which the VVS failed horrendously, but we were there before. There is a point, despite the VVS had a overwhelming superiority in numbers right to the end the german aces in the east were able to rack up kills right to the end while they Luftwaffe units in the west got annhilated. Even in 44 the VVS lost 3 planes for every german plane lost, quiet the opposite again like in the west. Rotating was the same on the allied side, in fact the UK and US had by a wide margin the best air forces at the end of the war.

Its quiet the opposite the Soviets had in 41 their best trained soldiers and after they were gone the quality was degrading, even in 43 the German OKW noticed a ever degrading quality in the SUs infantry, with that loss rates not surprising since the Red Army was more like a revolving door were soldiers got thrown at the enemy in an ever increasing speed and number, despite this the german loss rates stayed more or less the same compared to the numbers thrown at them. Also it is a myth that the attacker has automaticly more losses, in fact its more the other way round and even the Red Army had less losses (but never went under 3:1 in germanies favour) the time it went over to attack. If attacking would be that costly no one would and you could not explain the Germans performance on the eastern front, the Brits in North Africa beating more than 200k with 35k soldiers, the US Islands campaign from guadalcanal on and several more. The factors like training, doctrine, equipment and leadership are more important as raw numbers.

Never said it was covered 24/7 but it was a very prevalent issue to the point that you couldn't rely on high altitude combat. Never said the soviets never used level bombers either.

You are thinking of things too simply. Just because you have more aircraft does not mean they are all in the same area. If say the russians have 20 planes in the air on a front in teams of 4 and the Germans only have 1 team of 4 aircraft does this mean the Germans are going to see all 20 aircraft? Of course not, they will fly around and if they see more than 4 aircraft they will fly away but if they see 4 or less then they will attack it's a simple strategy used by all militaries in the past and to modern day. This is why even if there were russian pilots that were better than German pilots they would never have racked up the kills like the germans did. The difference on the western front is that due to the superior range of Western fighters (primarily US fighters) they could conduct long range fighter sweeps and actively pursue fleeing German planes.

I was mostly referring to the officer Corp that was purged.

[IndianaJones2 3,711]

Eh, no offence man, but it is you that is arguing a bit subcomplex here, and this was not the argument Ulatersk was making in the first place. A overall favourable force ration allows for establishing much more favourable force concentration at the point of main effort while maintaing minimal presence with economy of force elements elsewhere. In theory, the VVS should have dictated the fight in the air from at least mid 1942 onwards at leisure, but failed to do so almost consistantly.

Conversely, attaining local aerial superiority was something the Germans managed to archieve despite their crass numerical inferiority even in 1944 now and then. Also, the outnumbered party is by no means always at liberty (or willing) to simply evade prima facie unfavourable engagements, be that for strategical or tactical reasons. Ie. the Germans were almost always severely outnumbered in the ETO vs the USAAF and the RAF, but nonetheless typically decided to contest large scale raids to either protect strategic industries, bolster civilian morale, whatever.

 

Empirically, Ulatersk is quite right, by the way. The old adage that the attacker will necessarily suffer higher losses seems not to hold true in the age of mechanised warfare even at the tactical level.

[fufubear 6,705]

For air patrols (which I was referring to) the smaller unit would be able to avoid combat if they wish. Of course for large operations things would be different since each unit would need to accomplish their tasks for a success but the majority of missions didn't come from large operations.

In regards to attacking it is easier for the defenders since they should have a better or at least equal understanding of the terrain which allows them to set up traps and kill zones. Of course there are some occurrences where the attackers will take lower casualties but I wouldn't put it to the point that there is no bonus to the defenders.

[DarthSpitz 148]

fufubear...

 

The point I am making is if I wanted to be playing a science fiction game, I'd be play those which as it happens I have 2 on this particular PC.  _Sev_  provided more facts {fact and over statistical sharing of data I have found on these forums tends to fall on deaf ears}. 

 

What all of us are looking for is a good gaming experience.  I wasn't around in or near WWII and being something of a history nut this is the closest I'd get.  But I'd like is a challenge--and a chance to try different things, usually off the wall things--hard to do when some M4 with a 76mm can penetrate my Tiger from ranges out pass 800mm...at lost they should be able to TRACK my Tiger not cut a hole in the hull

 

The originator of this post had a gripe about a plane he KNOWs...if this game ever involves T62/64 or T72 even T80 tanks against NATO series tanks and there is something wrong--darn right I'll howl to the Moon about it

[Nope 10,634]

hard to do when some M4 with a 76mm can penetrate my Tiger from ranges out pass 800mm...

 

That's actually realistic silly

 

 

 

You're kind of giving off a wehraboo vibe there buddy

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

.  Still from a historical point of view, how many 100+ Russian Aces where there to the Germans?

 

while im not positive on this, i have heard thoughts that at least a few German aces had in flatted kill counts that weren't actually representative of what they actually did achieve,and where uped for propaganda purposes im not positive on it though ive just heard it thrown around from time to time 

[IndianaJones2 3,711]

while im not positive on this, i have heard thoughts that at least a few German aces had in flatted kill counts that weren't actually representative of what they actually did achieve,and where uped for propaganda purposes im not positive on it though ive just heard it thrown around from time to time 

There is no indication for that. That some German pilots, aces included, overclaimed, and might even have done so at times deliberately is hardly controversial, but this does apply to all belligerent airforces. At an institutional level, the German Air Force was among the more reliable claimers in the War, whereas ie. the VVS was on the opposite side of the spectrum...

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

There is no indication for that. That some German pilots, aces included, overclaimed, and might even have done so at times deliberately is hardly controversial, but this does apply to all belligerent airforces. At an institutional level, the German Air Force was among the more reliable claimers in the War, whereas ie. the VVS was on the opposite side of the spectrum...

ah alright, i didnt know for sure but thanks :)

[MrBader 516]

Hi,

Personally I think they should have raised the br of the f2a to balance. As a matter of fact I distinctly remember reading that gaijin doesn't nerf or buff for balance..they adjust BRS.

I wonder what happened there....it could be they were going by the Finnish models?

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

Hi,

Personally I think they should have raised the br of the f2a to balance. As a matter of fact I distinctly remember reading that gaijin doesn't nerf or buff for balance..they adjust BRS.

I wonder what happened there....it could be they were going by the Finnish models?

Finnish models had 4x 13.2mms. Not 1x 12.7mm and 1x 7.62mm.