US Ground Forces!!

It's funny that so many WW2 weapon systems had such high firerates that if you simulate every round and have many of them in a game scene they'll bring even the most modern gaming pc's to their knees with the sheer quantity of physics calculations - it is noteworthy that physics are not calculated per frame but with fixed intervals independent from framerate, common norm being 50 cycles per second, depending on the simulational needs of the project at hand.

Hence why the weapons usually seem puny in games and have actual hitting issues because the amount of simulated rounds is rounded up considerably - often it would be prudent to at least make each 'shot group' have a bigger radii and length to better emulate how such weapons saturate the air with rounds - and why it was an efficient tactic to simply take lots of lead and keep firing in a line in front of your target, once it flew through that line the target would still be riddled with bullets.

 

You have no idea how badly I want. We need this in a driving simulator.

Also, M16 Halftrack is going to be awesome. MG's don't work for tanks as things are right now. Hopefully with the 1.45 patch, we'll have working Coaxial MG's, turret-roof MG's on pintles for those pesky Ilyushins. The Coaxials will also help with taking on lightly armoured halftracks and flatbeds.

 

Btw, did they model in the couple weak spots of IL-2 such as the fuel intake? You could take the plane out instantly if you only hit it there. In some games the armored planes are made as if they were impervious tanks.

 

Spot on - or rather, not on.

I've shot an IL-2 with 37mm HEF-T rounds from my P-39 Airacobra... three shots successive - first hit didn't even register, second registered but only in so much that it gave me a hit marker, third hit: "Damaged Elevator" - he still flew like an aerobatics instructor.

Meanwhile, the 23mm cannons on an IL-2 can somehow shred a PzKpfw IV side-on... I was flying the IL-2, and it was using stock ammo.

 

Well, I suppose speaking ill of IL's weaknesses constitutes for treason or at the very least is unpatriotic. "And that shit won't fly"

"However, a single hit from a 37mm AA gun was usually enough to bring down an Il-2."
"While the Il-2 was a deadly air-to-ground weapon, and even a fairly effective interceptor against slow bombers and transport aircraft, heavy losses resulted from its vulnerability to fighter attack. Losses were very high"

Aces aware of vulnerabilities such as the fuel intake were able to multiple sturmoviks on rapid succession. Though, from the right angle it was indeed very well armored against lighter weapons - there are multiple records of individual pilots emptying all of their machinegun rounds on sturmoviks without achieving anything besides damaging control surfaces.

Firing with the heavier weapons is just lethal, 20mm is quite sufficient for causing heavy damage. Each hit, even if it didn't penetrate will damage the armor. If it were indeed a flying tank, how come they lost more than 10.000 of them?

 

I changed my mind, I'm interested in seeing/driving a Chaffee. Those things are adorable.

 

Why can't I like this more than once?

Yes - the super-light tanks in a game where position and mobility matters over hitpoints, very much yes, Chaffee and a Walker Bulldog will be very powerful adversaries.

They have yet to decide what's happening at Tier V though - will it be the M103 everybody is dreading, or the M29 (T29) prototype?

 

That's why I like having metagame and things like supply centers and vehicles and infantry on a campaign. The ridiculed light armored cars that were laughed at by 'competitive players' stop being funny when they raid your supply center and ambush your division headquarters on the move. In real war winning is all about achieving local superiority.

 

Even in the round-to-round tank vs tank arena of War Thunder, speed and position matter because you can deny areas wholesale and strike while your enemy's still trying to take position, putting them on the back-foot.

The Chaffee in this example, however cute (it really is cute), is also armed with a 75mm M6 main gun, more than enough punch through a KV's front plate at 90 degrees, or a Tiger's sides and rear. With the mobility it affords, you'll likely catch Tiger's on their sides as they rush off into their usual firing positions.

 

Oh, yea, Chaffee. I didn't quite remember it correctly, I'm least familiar with actual ground vehicles.

 

Early prototypes of M103 heavy tank were created in 1951-1954 to counteract the heavy tanks developed by the USSR. M103 was put on service in 1956 being the largest and the most heavily armed combat tank ever made by USA.
A total of 300 pieces of A1 and A2 modifications were built. These huge combat vehicles stayed in USMC service until 1973.

 

Er... meh... gurddd...

It's the M103! Now to listen to the lamentations of pimply young men as that 120mm gun fucks up everything!

 

It says in the entry both A and B models. The difference I believe was all internal, but it was significant internal layout and safety things. So Id' say it warrants an inclusion for both models.

 

That'd be the A1 and A2 Models - and yes, mostly layout and other things like the main gun's sight, the coax being taken from dual .30 cals to a single .50 cal - but there is one significant difference - the A2 has a more powerful engine and stronger drivetrain in it - making the whole package a lot more reliable.

 

That gun was designed to rip steel at long range. The Penetration values of that thing is off the charts (for those days).
The M358 APCBC round could penetrate 303mm RHA at ~1830m (or 2000yds).

The only downside would be that you only have two ammo choices, and APCR is not one of them - you get APCBC and HEAT.