1.95 Rumor Round-Up and Discussion

[Stridswombat 1,089]

Just now, Stavroforos said:

 

You didn't disprove anything, you just posted your typical revisionist history. Germany and Finland were co-belligerents in a war against the Soviet Union. The way you justify this is up to you, but that doesn't change history. 

 

Soviet teams do get paired with German teams. 

Fighting the same enemy =/= allies or being axis. That's a pretty big stretch of logic there. They would be fighting the Soviets regardless and they did too in the Winter War. You're not refuting it by spouting revisionist history, that's just lazy on your part.

[NokturnalFin 1,099]

Sir christopher lee was a volunteer in the winter war... were we also allied with a) the british b) isengard

[Stridswombat 1,089]

The Continuation War, simply put, was Finland being (understandably) miffed the USSR attacked them and they wanted a bit of payback now that they had recovered from the Winter War a bit. Germany had nothing to do with it, they were just around. 

[Ainen 284]

On 31/10/2019 at 01:47, Packal said:

Kronstad BC  welcome to "hope" and "wish" world of blueprints  

Other "main trees" do just fine with MBT/Kpz-70s, 2Ks and all other sorts of T-32s in the middle of the trees.

If others can spot unfielded prototypes - why Soviets can't?

 

Sure, i personally dislike all of those, but it doesn't change the fact that it's already a reality we live in.

19 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

Fighting the same enemy =/= allies or being axis.

Fighting against the British also doesn't count too, apparently. As does planning operations together and having german troops on Finnish ground till 1944.

Almost an allied power! Just a well hidden one.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Ainen

[Guinespsj 1,003]

29 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

I've already disproved this, something you're now ignoring. The Continuation War was a continuation (its in the bloody name) of the Winter War which was fought separate from Germany and before they were involved in any war. They just happened to be fighting the same enemy at the same time. There's no alliance here unless you want to somehow convince me they were allied in the Winter War too before they Germany even fighting anyone.

 

Please just stop spreading myth of "Finland fight along against same enemy". Finland was in very close relationships with Germany during 1940-1944 and we can say that these countries were in military alliance. You cant deny that.

 

During Continuation War Finland was divided in two fronts:

 

Spoiler

 

Like this map shows how it was done: 

 

- In Lapland German army was in charge of attack towards Murmansk.

- In south Finnish Army was in charge of attack in Karelian Isthmus and East Karelia.

 

And when USSR started its major attack towards Finland in summer 1944, Germany send major weapon support in form of:

 

- Panzerfaust

- Panzerschrek

- Detachment Kuhlmey

 

Heck Germany even send 303 Mechanized Brigade to help Finland to stop this summer offensive.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guinespsj

[Stavroforos 15,367]

27 minutes ago, Stridswombat said:

Fighting the same enemy =/= allies or being axis. That's a pretty big stretch of logic there. They would be fighting the Soviets regardless and they did too in the Winter War. You're not refuting it by spouting revisionist history, that's just lazy on your part.

It's not revisionist history if it's widely accepted historical fact. You're the one that's basically saying "Germany and Finland just happened to invade the Soviet Union at the same time, and purely by coincidence some German troops were in Finland and also somehow Finland had German weapons."

[Genewen 690]

7 minutes ago, Ainen said:

Other "main trees" do just fine with MBT/Kpz-70s, 2Ks and all other sorts of T-32s in the middle of the trees.

If others can spot unfielded prototypes - why Soviets can't?

Because the other prototype vehicles you named were actually completed and this one was essentially just a partially built hull?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/KronshtadtUnderConstruction1June1942.jpg

This is how it looked like when construction was halted after the begin of the German invasion. Barely 10% completed.

 

So yeah I'd consider that a valid reason to not have it in the game. I mean, I am pretty sure that more than 10% of the parts needed for Tiger 2 10.5, the Panther II and the Coelian existed, yet they were removed for being paper designs. Not complaining about the removal (I have all of them anyways), but same rules gotta apply for everyone: if they weren't built, they are not valid. If they had a prototype (or at the very least something very close to being done) then it's a valid addition. Or else we can open up the roster to anything that has ever had ~10% project completion.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

2 minutes ago, Genewen said:

Because the other prototype vehicles you named were actually completed and this one was essentially just a partially built hull?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/KronshtadtUnderConstruction1June1942.jpg

This is how it looked like when construction was halted after the begin of the German invasion. Barely 10% completed.

 

So yeah I'd consider that a valid reason to not have it in the game. I mean, I am pretty sure that more than 10% of the parts needed for Tiger 2 10.5, the Panther II and the Coelian existed, yet they were removed for being paper designs. Not complaining about the removal (I have all of them anyways), but same rules gotta apply for everyone: if they weren't built, they are not valid. If they had a prototype (or at the very least something very close to being done) then it's a valid addition. Or else we can open up the roster to anything that has ever had ~10% project completion.

Others have made the case that the same standard should not apply to ships, especially ones which had had their keels laid down, because the nature of constructing a large ship can make it much more volatile to external and internal pressures, and that it would have followed a set plan, and using the blueprints and values doesn't require any further testing for gameplay purposes, as in the form of flying characteristics and the like. 

 

I don't know how I feel about it personally, I'm almost always going to be opposed to paper and prototype ships, but since it seems clear we're going to be going into BB's at some point next year probably, not every nation can compete equally. 

 

Of course my solution in these cases is simply to not have that nation show up at all. but I feel that's a very minority opinion. 

[Ainen 284]

6 minutes ago, Genewen said:

Because the other prototype vehicles you named were actually completed and this one was essentially just a partially built hull?

Ships tend to require more time to be built, but it was intended to serve with the navy. And MBTs-KPZs, on the other hand, were failed&rejected prototypes.

Which, by the way, substantially shifted game balance, because thanks to them we've never got to properly play European scenarios from 1970s, prematurely jumping into 30hp/t madness instead.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Ainen

[Stridswombat 1,089]

20 minutes ago, Ainen said:

Other "main trees" do just fine with MBT/Kpz-70s, 2Ks and all other sorts of T-32s in the middle of the trees.

If others can spot unfielded prototypes - why Soviets can't?

 

Sure, i personally dislike all of those, but it doesn't change the fact that it's already a reality we live in.

Fighting against the British also doesn't count too, apparently. As does planning operations together and having german troops on Finnish ground till 1944.

Almost an allied power! Just a well hidden one.

The same British who planned to invade Norway, but then did a 180 when Germany beat them to it, you mean? Those British? The ones who abandoned Norway to fight on its own after causing the invasion when France was attacked? I dunno, they don't seem like they were particularly friendly to the Nordic countries during WW2. Why should Finland not fight them when they clearly didn't respect the Nordic countries or their independence during the war?

 

Finland fought enemies to Finland during WW2. Britain just wasn't very friendly towards anyone in the area at the time.

11 minutes ago, Stavroforos said:

It's not revisionist history if it's widely accepted historical fact. You're the one that's basically saying "Germany and Finland just happened to invade the Soviet Union at the same time, and purely by coincidence some German troops were in Finland and also somehow Finland had German weapons."

What's widely accepted is they fought the USSR. That doesn't mean they would be allied or friendly to Germany if they hadn't also been fighting what was Finlands enemy at the time. Also doesn't make Finland axis. Again, this is an enemy they fought before Germany was involved. That doesn't change just because Germany is suddenly fighting them too.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

1 minute ago, Stridswombat said:

Finland fought enemies to Finland during WW2. Britain just wasn't very friendly towards anyone in the area at the time.

What's widely accepted is they fought the USSR. That doesn't mean they would be allied or friendly to Germany if they hadn't also been fighting what was Finlands enemy at the time. Also doesn't make Finland axis. Again, this is an enemy they fought before Germany was involved. That doesn't change just because Germany is suddenly fighting them too.

Again, you're just creating your own history here. I don't know why it's so important to you that you have this mythology but it's clearly deeply ingrained so there's nothing we can do to change your mind if you want to be a revisionist and denialist. 

[Stridswombat 1,089]

24 minutes ago, Guinespsj said:

 

Please just stop spreading myth of "Finland fight along against same enemy". Finland was in very close relationships with Germany during 1940-1944 and we can say that these countries were in military alliance. You cant deny that.

 

During Continuation War Finland was divided in two fronts:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Like this map shows how it was done: 

 

- In Lapland German army was in charge of attack towards Murmansk.

- In south Finnish Army was in charge of attack in Karelian Isthmus and East Karelia.

 

And when USSR started its major attack towards Finland in summer 1944, Germany send major weapon support in form of:

 

- Panzerfaust

- Panzerschrek

- Detachment Kuhlmey

 

Heck Germany even send 303 Mechanized Brigade to help Finland to stop this summer offensive.

 

 

If I was fighting someone and someone offered me free weapons to fight them, I wouldn't say no to it either. I'd gladly accept to kick their arse. Regardless of the source.

 

If Finland was so in bed with Germany they would not have refused a German invasion of Sweden through Finland. I also don't believe they wouldn't have capitalized on the fact that Russia was losing when they stopped advancing after reclaiming Finnish territory. They had their own interests and not that of Germany.

1 minute ago, Stavroforos said:

Again, you're just creating your own history here. I don't know why it's so important to you that you have this mythology but it's clearly deeply ingrained so there's nothing we can do to change your mind if you want to be a revisionist and denialist. 

You're spending more time telling me I'm creating my history than making an argument against it and that's a very poor substitute for disproving something. If you have an argument against it then presents your facts instead.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Stridswombat

[Genewen 690]

11 minutes ago, Stavroforos said:

Others have made the case that the same standard should not apply to ships, especially ones which had had their keels laid down, because the nature of constructing a large ship can make it much more volatile to external and internal pressures, and that it would have followed a set plan, and using the blueprints and values doesn't require any further testing for gameplay purposes, as in the form of flying characteristics and the like. 

 

I don't know how I feel about it personally, I'm almost always going to be opposed to paper and prototype ships, but since it seems clear we're going to be going into BB's at some point next year probably, not every nation can compete equally. 

 

Of course my solution in these cases is simply to not have that nation show up at all. but I feel that's a very minority opinion. 

Hey, wasn't me who drew the parallels to tanks! If someone asks "but we have this and that in the game and they are prototypes" and then compares COMPLETED prototypes with something that still had 90% of it's construction work unfinished then I respond to that.

 

Of course there's the question where you make the cut. Completed designs? Nearly finished ones? Partly finished ones? If so, where's the cut? Would Germany get the H 39, for example, even if construction didn't get far? Or are we going as far as taking in pure blueprints?

 

10 minutes ago, Ainen said:

Ships tend to require more time to be built, but it was intended to serve with the navy. And MBTs-KPZs, on the other hand, were failed&rejected prototypes.

And yet they were completely built and tested plenty unlike this cruiser.

 

 

Edit: Guys can you take your discussion "Finland and Germany - allies or not" somewhere else? This aint the place to go at each other about that.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Genewen

[Stavroforos 15,367]

1 minute ago, Genewen said:

Hey, wasn't me who drew the parallels to tanks! If someone asks "but we have this and that in the game and they are prototypes" and then compares COMPLETED prototypes with something that still had 90% of it's construction work unfinished then I respond to that.

 

Of course there's the question where you make the cut. Completed designs? Nearly finished ones? Partly finished ones? If so, where's the cut? Would Germany get the H 39, for example, even if construction didn't get far? Or are we going as far as taking in pure blueprints?

 

And yet they were completely built and tested plenty unlike this cruiser.

I've always been of the opinion that prototypes and even blueprints if necessary should be judged by a "believability" factor. How believable is it that x nation would have actually produced and fielded y vehicle? 

 

It's more of an academic question which makes someone look at the situation of a country at a given point in time and it's obviously speculative, so I can understand why Gaijin wouldn't want to use this criterion. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

So?

Make sure that the other old nations have been completed (have br 1 to 10.3) after beginning a new nation.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

Just now, Mertral said:

Make sure that the other old nations have been completed (have br 1 to 10.3) after beginning a new nation.

Why? Because you say so?

[Genewen 690]

7 minutes ago, Mertral said:

Make sure that the other old nations have been completed (have br 1 to 10.3) after beginning a new nation.

Well I wouldn't go as far as demand completion - that'd mean that every nation would have every single viable vehicle in that BR range in the game. But I'd sure like to see every nation having a decent lineup of comparable strength at each full digit BR (so 1.x, 2.x,... 9.x, 10.x, you catch my drift?). What I regard as a "decent lineup" is: every nation has three battle tanks and one SPAA/SAM of comparable performance. They have competitive planes in the three main categories I'd see - fighters, ground attackers/fighter-bombers, bombers. They have helicopter support available at the same BRs (not one nation getting them at 8.0 and other only starting from 9.0).

 

Before that isn't achieved, I am looking unfavourably at new trees or the upwards expansion (powercreep) of existing trees.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Genewen

[Ainen 284]

21 minutes ago, Genewen said:

And yet they were completely built and tested plenty unlike this cruiser.

Yeah, and proven themselves uncapable of their expected performance ;-)

I'd rather see proper NATO setups from the 1970s, especially since i think they were fully capable of fighting T-64As and T-72s, but we already have that we have.

Since it's already this way - Kronstadt's unfinished status isn't a problem. 

[Genewen 690]

1 minute ago, Ainen said:

Yeah, and proven themselves uncapable of their expected performance ;-)

Most were simply abandoned because the need for them disappeared (end of WW2) or new developments turned them into outdated proposals. Or, like in the case of the MBT/KPz 70, ever-expanding costs on a multinational project (and all the issues coming with that) made partners bail out of the project.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Stavroforos said:

Why? Because you say so?

France before was ONLY 9.0 with only 2 rank 6, 2 subsonics 

 

China was already at 10.0 with a mach 2 jet

 

France was there 1 year ago

Same for Italy 

China was just implemented in 2 months

Just make things right, let the other nations being complete and AFTER put a new complete nation

[Охраняет-Камни 6,650]

10 minutes ago, Mertral said:

France before was ONLY 9.0 with only 2 rank 6, 2 subsonics 

 

China was already at 10.0 with a mach 2 jet

 

France was there 1 year ago

Same for Italy 

China was just implemented in 2 months

Just make things right, let the other nations being complete and AFTER put a new complete nation

I believe China got their 10.0 only because almost identical plane was added into the Soviet tree

[TOMSONE 1,213]

15 minutes ago, Mertral said:

France before was ONLY 9.0 with only 2 rank 6, 2 subsonics 

 

China was already at 10.0 with a mach 2 jet

 

France was there 1 year ago

Same for Italy 

China was just implemented in 2 months

Just make things right, let the other nations being complete and AFTER put a new complete nation

And france got self build and designed mach 2, not like china.....

[Baske_74 465]

On 29/10/2019 at 14:57, CK_16 said:

My guesses are....

 

Helicopters

- YAH-64 as the rank 6 premium Helicopter for the USA

- AH-64D Apache for the USA tech tree

- WAH-64 for UK

 

Tanks

-T-72B (possibly with Obr 1989 upgrade) for Russia

-M3A2 CFV for USA

-Marder 1A3 for Germany

- Another Leclerc(?) for France

- Another Type-90(?) for Japan

-SPAAG's for China

 

Aircraft

- F-104 for Italy

- Miriage III for France

- MiG-21 for Germany

- F-104 for Japan(?)

- Q-5 for China

You want to add a 2003 modifications to oppose the 1980 ka-50? Granted the tiger is even newer but comes nowhere near the destructive potential of those two.

 

The longbow allows it to shoot atgm from behind cover with lock on after launch feature.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

12 minutes ago, Baske_74 said:

You want to add a 2003 modifications to oppose the 1980 ka-50? Granted the tiger is even newer but comes nowhere near the destructive potential of those two.

 

The longbow allows it to shoot atgm from behind cover with lock on after launch feature.

Dates don't matter in War Thunder. 

[Genewen 690]

48 minutes ago, Baske_74 said:

You want to add a 2003 modifications to oppose the 1980 ka-50? Granted the tiger is even newer but comes nowhere near the destructive potential of those two.

 

The longbow allows it to shoot atgm from behind cover with lock on after launch feature.

I mean, they've completely castrated the Tiger's capabilities (OSIRIS target tracking, multi-target salvo and homing capabilities on the PARS-3 as well as it's anti-helicopter use), else that one would also be way stronger than how it currently performs in the game.

 

A similarily castrated Longbow would not be much different.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Genewen