Profile of Leutnant

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 28

General Information


Thread: KT, Why?3 Jul 2016, 22:39 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jul 2016, 14:31 PMLatch Why does this tank still not require all buildings to be present rather than just 'built'? It's utterly retarded. As soon as you kill their Panzer HQ you can almost guarantee a KT because they certainly aren't going to build it again. Why not let them rebuild it at a reduced costs / MP only cost (not inc truck as to punish forward placement) and require all buildings up for KT. Is there a reason I'm missing as to why this is still here? EDIT: And while I'm at it, why dont all call in's require that tech structure to be up? max teir for OST Anvil for Brits etc. Wouldn't this make for less BS tactics? Stall for tiger, stall for crock etc etc. seeing as how crappy su-85, shermans, jacksons, fireflies.etc can penetrate it in this game and it has lower HP than the churchills (LOL) its ok i usually dont play allies but when i ran into a KT my 3 su-76s (with gun that could barely pen more than 80mm armor IRL) and sturmovik call in killed it instantly so In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Opinion on the M4A3 Sherman?30 Jun 2016, 08:19 AM its an allied tank so it can load AP bullets and nuke panthers then load HE bullets and nuke infantry and while its nuking infantry the slobbering retard can drive into the infantry and crush them to death In: Strategy Desk
Thread: OKW Infantry30 Jun 2016, 02:55 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Jun 2016, 02:52 AMDakkaIsMagic Now you know the SU struggle with conscripts. I can't wait for you to tell me otherwise. yes because u are forced to use conscripts when you have spetsnaz battalions and maxim heavy assault rifles In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF mortar29 Jun 2016, 03:36 AM how to beat as OKW since i dont get a mortar and this USF one is powered by mac sauce and fires as fast as kids can glitch their shermans with combined arms so i cant even use cover without having to dodge and get shot to pieces by riflemen In: Strategy Desk
Thread: USF mortar29 Jun 2016, 03:28 AM how to beat this blatant bullshit. ty In: Strategy Desk
Thread: Need some Lesser Known Cool Facts About WW227 May 2016, 00:12 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2016, 15:10 PMAvNY Known by WW2 aficionados but not by a lot of others, one of the best planes of the war, the DeHavilland Mosquito, was designed to be built by furniture makers. Metal was in short supply, but there was a huge cottage industry of skilled furniture makers in England, and DeHavilland had already been designing "wooden" planes for a while. So they melded the excess available skill and the need for a new plane. It had long range and the same payload capacity as a B-17, flew faster than a Spitfire, could be armed with MGs, cannons, and eventually night-fighter radar. Due to little metal had a very low radar signature. And some 8000 of them were built. Lots of documentaries about it on Youtube. First off the Mosquito could not carry a bomb load anywhere near that of a B-17. Second, it could only go faster than contemporary Spitfires at extremely low altitudes, and all Spitfires except for the Mk. XVI were some of the slowest low altitude fighters of the entire war. But yes, it was a very good bomber, and didn't do war crimes like the B-17 and Lancaster did. In: The Library
Thread: Destroying a Myth: the 17 Pounder AT Gun26 May 2016, 17:37 PM To turbotortoise, the rounds I used for comparison were fielded in 1944 on the 17pdr. If I were to compare the 17 pdr ammo that was contemporary to the KwK 42's 1943 AFV debut, the KwK would have come out on top vs. the earlier AP rounds the 17 pdr had. The 17 pdr was only effective enough to warrant production because the Brits had literally nothing else. This is why the 20 pdr was built (but this gun could not pierce the hull of it's contemporary opponent, T-54, beyond very short distances. This is why the L7 was mounted on Centurions in 1959). And wow, 4 WHOLE Tigers were ambushed in the area of operations that saw the shortest range tank engagements of the war? 17 pdr OP! Cute, but data is data. In: The Library
Thread: Destroying a Myth: the 17 Pounder AT Gun25 May 2016, 14:27 PM Yes, it's performance is a myth. And here's why. Raw penetration: 17 Pdr: Long 88 and Panther gun: 90mm M3 found on Pershing and M36: Observations: The 17 pdr is the best British AT gun fielded during the war, yet the the British cutting edge has: - Only 3mm pen advantage over the earlier KwK 42 at 100m when comparing full bore ballistic capped AP rounds (apples to apples) - APDS on the 17 pdr is better than the APCR on the L/70. We will get into why this round in particular is utterly useless in a bit though. - The KwK 43 completely crushes the 17 pdr in APCBC performance. - vs. armor below 30 degrees in slope the KwK 43 completely crushes the 17 pdr APDS in penetration performance. - The regular 90mm has similar APCBC performance to the 17 pdr. - Higher APCR pen over 17 pdr APDS but with worse performance vs. sloped armour. - Long 90 found on Super Pershing is superior. - Soviet D-10 (which I didn't list) has similar APCBC performance to the KwK 43, but loses pen a bit faster over distance. This gun crushes the 17 pdr APCBC as well. So as you can see, the penetration performance of the 17 pdr is not even close to good by German standards, and we didn't even compare it to the best gun of the war, 128mm KwK 44. Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery But here is the real joke of it all. The 17 pdr's accuracy (this goes for the Comet's gun as well as it is a shortened 17 pdr). At 1000 yards, the 17 pdr has a 14% chance to hit a target 5' wide by 2' high (Panther turret size basically) with APDS. At 800 yards (around avg. engagement distance in Western Front) it has a 21% chance. 1 in 5 shots from APDS slinging 17 pounder has a chance of even hitting a hull down Panther. This means a Panther could get in up to 4-5 shots on average on the Firefly before it is even struck. Lol. The APC fares a bit better, but is still really bad. 52% chance at 1000m. This trash accuracy (coupled with some other issues like garbage HE shell) is why the U.S did not adopt the 17 pdr over their 76mm M1. Keep in mind the average ammo load for a firefly was 6% APDS out of all it's rounds. At longer ranges the APC shell had no chance of penning a Panther, and with APDS, no chance of hitting it. Vs. A Tiger II, it has no chance of penning it's turret because it can't hit it with APDS. Vs. a Jagdtiger, no chance. Vs. smaller targets like StuG and Jagdpanzer IV, even APCBC will have trouble hitting at far range. Source: http://www.panzer-war.com/page40.html Like most British armoured tech of the war, the 17 pdr is a underwhelming but has a legendary reputation from non stop propaganda and fanboys. It was a good gun by British standards, a meh gun by American Standards, a bad gun by Soviet standards, and an utterly worthless gun by German standards. In: The Library