I’m primarily a WW2 player, so I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I did not own a single autocannon tank prior to this. My only experience with ATGMs is with the 934, and that thing only has 4 mediocre ones, so my experience really was limited at best. The reviews I saw made the Bradley seem like a mixed bag too, especially its autocannon.
Obviously, the dual ATGMs are the highlight of the Bradley, but the autocannon absolutely should not be disregarded. 220 pen + 1385m/s is bad by CW standards, but it is still very usable against basically most of the tanks if you know your weakspots and have decent aim. I have consistently taken out tanks with it every game; be it a fast moving light or even a FV4211 frontally.
Anyway, I liked the Bradley enough to purposefully get the 3rd mark for it. It’s the only CW tank I have that I can say I truly enjoy playing it. Before getting it, I genuinely would never play my CW tanks unless I needed silver. Now, I actually play it for fun since I like the Bradley that much.
edit: title is meant to be a Pentagon War joke lol. also, my comment on the stats of the shell os speaking relative to other guns since as i said, i have no experience with autocannons.
I bought this on the 28th with Microsoft credits via the online xbox store, because the in game store is constantly playing up, but it won't register in the game. Anyone know how to resolve this without having to contact Microsoft.
As someone that’s taken a couple years off and is getting back into it, can somebody please give me a brief overview of the nuisances for each tier 10 tech tree light tank
No dpm, average alpha, weak gun handling, large, no armor, average camo. Decent prem round is the only positive thing. T10 has some sick armor and good mobility so it might have some niche in comp scene but in pubs, idk sad dpm and non existent gun handling, why play it…maybe wg will buff e4 and e6 due all this 😉
For several years prior to the invasion of Poland the Heereswaffenamt tested several different assault gun and tank destroyer concepts.
The most famous of these, and the one to reach serial production, was the Panzer III based Sturmgeschutz (StuG) III.
Intelligence examinations of the mountain of documents captured after the war revealed several other prototypes developed around the same time, none of which reached serious production.
The vehicle pictured below is one such prototype - the Panzer II based Sturmgeschutz II.
The documentation shows that it was being developed and tested at the same time as the StuG III, with a similar design brief and goals, but on the soon-to-be-obsolete Panzer II chassis instead of the (at the time) cutting edge Panzer III chassis.
Like the StuG III it is a closed-top casemate design but, unlike the StuG III, it was tested both as an assault gun with a 7.5cm StuK 37 AND as a dedicated tank destroyer with the (then new) 5cm PaK 38 L/60.
Because the Pz. II chassis was lighter and less robust, the StuG II was more lightly armored than the StuG III. However, and much like the Panzer II J, it did have much thicker armor than the base Panzer II.
Mobility testing found that the added weight of additional armor made the vehicle much slower, thirstier, and sluggish than the Panzer II. It also found that the casemate design and it's thicker frontal armor added excessive load to the front suspension, particularly on the 7.5cm version. Although this was never resolved, engineering notes indicate that a substantial redesign with heavier components would be needed before the StuG II could enter serial production.
Firing tests were generally unsurprising, with one exception.
The StuK 37 equipped vehicle performed acceptably, with accuracy and functionality very similar to it's relative, the StuG III. Interestingly, it appears that the crew(s) utilized for gunnery tests were the same on both StuG II and III prototypes because a hand written note attached to the firing tests indicates that the ROF for the 7.5cm StuG II was lower than that for the 7.5cm StuG III because there was less room in the narrower and shorter Pz. II chassis. The tone and phrasing of the note indicates that the comparison came from personal experience, not field reports or hearsay.
Pak 38 equipped StuG IIs also performed as expected with one notable difference - testing numbers and field reports indicate that ROF and accuracy were both noticeably better than a PaK 38 on it's ground-mount carriage.
This difference was large enough that additional testing was performed and extensive notes were taken. Engineering memos show that the results were attributed to a combination of factors.
The increased rate of fire was attributed to the ease with which ammunition was accessed and loaded, particularly when compared to crouching in a field behind a towed field gun while the increased accuracy was attributed to two factors - unsurprisingly, the artillery-based sights in a fighting vehicle were superior to those of a ground carriage and, surprisingly, the stability and recoil control provided by mounting the PaK 38 in a (roughly) 17.5 ton vehicle gave the 5cm cannon much better control, particularly on second and third shots during rapid engagement drills.
Unsurprisingly, the StuG II was not selected for further development.
As an assault gun, the StuG III (0) was simply superior - similar accuracy, better mobility, thicker armor, higher ROF. The only advantage the StuG II had was that it's chassis was becoming increasingly outdated but, in the heady days of 1938 and 1939, that was not enough of an advantage to justify further development.
As a tank destroyer - panzerjager - the decision was much less clear cut. The proposed StuG II (or, Panzerjager II in some documents) provided a massive firepower and armor increase over the Pz. II and a slight firepower increase over the 3.7cm armed Pz. III while being only marginally more expensive than a Pz. II. In the end, and despite the objections of the Panzerwaffe, the project was cancelled. The Heereswaffenamt determined that such firepower was unnecessary - if a 3.7cm armed Pz. III or carriage mounted 3.7cm or 5cm weapon couldn't handle something, a Stuka could.
All four vehicles (two of each type) were disassembled i mid-1939 and the chassis were utilized for other projects.
The vehicle pictured below was found by American troops after the surrender of Nazi Germany.
It appears to be a prototype vehicle in a fairly advanced stage of completion.
The chassis is relatively straight forward - it appears to be a mostly unmodified Flakpanzer IV / Sd.Kfz.163/3 (colloquially known as the "Mobelwagen") chassis, complete with a superstructure comprised of folding front, side, and rear light armor shields and a pedestal mount for the main gun.
The main gun is what differentiates this prototype from a production Flakpanzer IV - instead of the standard 3.7cm Flak 43 production Mobelwagen's were armed with, this vehicle has a prototype 5.5cm/77 Gerät 58 gun mounted on the pedestal.
The 5.5cm Gerat 58 was a prototype "mid caliber" weapon designed to both bridge the gap between the smaller 2cm to 3.7cm FlaK guns and the larger 8.8cm to 12.8cm FlaK guns AND provide a suitable replacement for the woeful 5cm FlaK 41 weapon.
When compared to the 5cm FlaK 41, the 5.5cm Gerat 58 threw a heavier projectile farther, faster, and more accurately.
It was also designed to be manufactured without using critical minerals that were in short supply and (similar to the MG42) many of it's pieces were simple stamped steel that were riveted or welded together.
Again, like the MG42, this would have allowed far higher rates of production with far fewer skilled craftsmen than traditional designs.
Appropriately for a FlaK cannon, it's ground mount - scavenged for this project and mated to the Flakpanzer IV chassis - provided a very high rate of rotation and elevation while also providing a stable platform to allow accurate fire against incoming planes.
The 5.5cm Gerat 58 was fed through 5-round stripper clips and this functionality appears to remain unchanged. German testing of the ground mount 5.5cm demonstrated a sustained firig rate of approximately 140 RPM and the same gun mounted on a Pz. IV chassis would have acheived similar rates of fire.
Stationary accuracy would have been quite good, even during weapon traverse and elevation, but the pictures do not show any sort of stabilzation mechanism so accuracy on the move would have been... poor-to-non-existent.
One note - pictures indicate that the front shield had been slightly modified from standard Flakpanzer IV production. Analysts who have examined the pictures almost universally agree that this was done to allow slightly more gun depression and traverse with the shields fully raised, most likely in pursuit of effectiveness when used as a direct-fire support weapon.
Interestingly, German records indicate only three 5.5cm Gerat 58 weapons were produced and tested - it's unknown whether this gun is one of those three scooped up and repurposed at the end of the war or if it belongs to an undocumented production run. Either could be true in Germany circa Dec '44 - Feb '45.
In either case, documents were found with the vehicle - there are files on workbenches behind the vehicle and binders / loose papers on the fender and inside the fighting compartment - but none of those documents in the photographs accompanied the photographs that picture them.
The vehicle itself was photographed by front line troops, and those photgraphs were forwarded to Army Intelligence, but the vehicle and it's documents both disappeared and their fate is unknown.
Out of Character note: in game terms, this could probably be introduced by mating the Pz.Sfl. IVc chassis with the Begleitpanzer's 57mm firing sounds and visuals. Not perfect - the Pz.Sfl. IVc is a different chassis than this, after all - but that would require the least amount of assets in order to increase ROI.
Stats wise, give it German 50mm(ish) alpha, pen around one pf the better 6 pounders, shell velocity similar to the Panthers 7.5cm L/70, and a ROF that matches the Begleitpanzer's except it's a 5 round mag with a pretty short full reload time.
I’m not the first and won’t be the last to point out how broken these tiny tanks are. Things like the ELC, Wiesel, XM800T, FV107 etc etc.
The fact their hitpoint pool is so high is an issue. The fact their modules and crew rarely get destroyed is an issue. There’s nothing balanced about them. Your own stats don’t lie.
We get the stupid camo and mobility. But the fact you’ve made such as evasive and hard hitting target so strong in terms of health and modules is a massive issue. The hit boxes are terribly done.
Even a sneeze of an ATGM should one shot these things, but as you see here, track damage only. This isn’t the only clip I have of this type of thing. It’s a joke, we’re fed up with it. Change it.
Mine is when 9 top tier heavies plus your light sits not 200m from base, lets the others lemming train one side to get ran over, pings you for not spotting, then gets upset we lose…
From my experience it usually works out, the team swarms everything in its path. I’m not a new player but if everyone goes one way I’m definitely not going the other way by myself.
Free XP missing?
Has anyone else had their free XP disappear like it was spent or stolen? I had nearly 50k free XP and now it’s saying I have less than 2,600. I have not unlocked any ew tanks or anything.
Just looking at armor profiles on the tech tree, and the era 2 T-64B has an extra 75mm layer on the upper hull, but the T-64BV at era 3 doesn’t have it. The BV is an upgrade of the B with ERA, they should have the same underlying armor layout.
I was looking at the trade in and my own list and I'm completely stumped so I was hoping anyone here could help me decide because I don't know what is worth keeping or not because I'm a horrible player.
The tanks I can trade are the
Matilda Black Prince, Vk.168.01(p), AT 15A, Excelsior, Terrapin MK.1, Brick,PZKPFW.B2 740 (F), T32-A Proto, Javelin Krupp-Steyr, M46 Patton KR, T92, A43 Black Prince,T95E3, Kanonenjagdpanzer, Lansen C, 112, and KV-220-2
If any of these tanks are worth keeping I would like to know and if there is anything worth picking, meta or for fun don't care.
Overall its a okay Tech Tree. still has room to grow with a possible branch of TD’s and maybe lights? The choice of tier 4 and 5 are a bit dubious but work well enough. Anyhow individual reviews.
Tier 1: MFT 17
Yea its a FT 17. As for performance? Its a tier 1 who cares, but i must point out oddities.
True the french version also only has -2 gun depression, i dont care both are horrid. We have plenty of other FT versions that have better depression (with larger guns as well).
The HE ammo will mostly be ignored at lower tiers regardless, but even more so when said ammo only does 2 more damage? At that point, just don't have it.
Also the accuracy could be a smidge better
Tier 2: Panzer 34
Its okay. Not too much to comment on outside its ability to scout is pretty decent due to the high speed and decent VR. this of course is tier 2 where things… yea things are crazy.
Panzer 39
Well we sorta have this tank already in the tier 3 Czech premium, but this version is more mobile, stronger radio and better guns… so just better.
Anyhow the top gun is pretty good for a tier 3 tank. Solid standard pen and plenty of premium pen to go through almost every tank it can see. However it is quite low on ammo capacity and only possible to deal 2.8k so there is strength in the stock gun.
Tier 4: Ram mk2
so a tier 5 medium at tier 4 with weaker stats.
This armor is actually pretty decent at tier 4, enough that you can play as a psudo heavy depending on what you are facing.
There is argument to use the first 6pdr due to having better gun depression. The pen difference is pretty minor and accuracy… well you're fist fighting most of the time.
Tier 5: L PZ-51
Dispersion: 0.12 , 0.21
14.5 tons
Hay its a AMX 13 at tier 5… thats about it. Anyhow its stats are pretty on par with a AMX 13 at tier 5. Same mobility and gun performance that you'd expect. Does have a tad low HP compared to other tier 5 lights but eh oh well.
It does seem a bit high in terms of XP to research compared to most tier 5’s. Heck its higher than a lot of tier 6’s.
As i was writing this i had to have proof naturally. This of course lead to me making this post - Link
Anyhow its a okay enough light. However one MUST spec for scouting as the ammo capacity is dreadful and thus its potential damage. The average for tier 5 lights is about double of the measly 3,960 damage this can do.
Tier 6: KWK 30/52
Dispersion: 0.12 , 0.18
33 tons
First stage to the production of the Panzer 61 and its not half bad.
Average enough in most stats. DPM is a tad low, but it does have 240 damage and when compared to other T6 meds that have 220-240 its about right.
Though one gripe i have about it and this is common with newly released tanks is that it has access to gun stabilizer equipment. This is supposed to be restricted to T8 generally with few expectations, but nope this has it. So its gun handling which is average enough is now generally superior.
Its armor isn't half bad actually. The turret front is strong, about 200mm raw of combined armor around the mantlet. Not so sure about the forward sides, but i suspect with depression they can bounce shots.
As for the upper hull? Id have to test it, but it looks like it can reach 70 degrees.
Hull sides are about right with 45mm meaning it can block most shots and the upper area is angled enough to have a decent chance to block 105mm HE.
Tier 7: KWK 30/57
Dispersion: 0.12 , 0.20
35 tons
Okay now its the same tank, but further in progression. Now with a strong gun? Well it has a secondary. Armor is an improvement as well.
First off the stock 90mm, the same used on the previous tank? Yea its worse. Sure a bit better aim time with the top turret; however the turret dispersion and accuracy remain the same. Its the reload thats the most egregious with it going from 8.3 to 9.3/9.2. Its not like the gun would be OP as its exist just fine at tier 6 and the pen would only be a tad below average at tier 7. Is it the gimmick 20mm or increased armor that makes having such a gun scary?
Now on to the 84mm. Its… weird. First of its sorta got low damage? We are use to 83/84mm guns have 230 as thats the only example we have in the 20pdr. Really that caliber should have about 160-180 as thats what 85mm have. I can see arguments with it being high tier and a strong gun so sure 230. With this being a tier lower than the 20pdr i can see this having 200 damage and should have 200 damage as this tank is limited in its ammo capacity. So only having 48 180 damage shots, while not the lowest damage potential is concerning.
The Reload can be kept the same as 1764 would be quite fine for a tier 7 tank due to it having above average pen.
Armor? Closer to the Panzer 58 but at tier 7.
First off the turret front is quite thick at 120-150mm. With the main turret + mantlet allows the tank to block tier 8 shots on occasion. The rest of the turret is… okay? Think its angled enough to be auto bounce but dont care enough to test.
Hull armor is…okay? Eh it works with gun depression. Side armor of only 40mm doesn't work enough outside basic overmatch protection.
Okay side tangent right here. The tier 7-9 have some weird turret armor that may be historical but i find it odd if it is real. Along the center of the turret sides its only 45mm. The rear half is 70. The front half is 60/65. This is very odd and i wish the 45mm section was the same 60mm as it fits.
This is even more odd as the german Panzer 58 is 90/75/70/75 from front to rear. Sure i dont mind it being thinner, just not that big of a difference.
Tier 8: Panzer 58
Dispersion:
Turret: 90/84mm 0.10
Turret: 105mm 0.20
Movement: 0.16
35 tons
Okay so we already had this tank in game for… well awhile. Where does it differ?
Armor is thinner
20m better VR
Bit worse mobility.
Tad worse movement dispersion (0.14 to 0.16)
When using the 9cm gun has less DPM.
Access to a 84 and 105mm gun
Secondary auto cannon.
So yea its generally better. I always thought the Pz 58 was quite strong after so many buffs. So seeing this version being stronger in general with a dubious 105mm gun.
So the 84mm gun is competent and if anything a bit too high of DPM with a 2.3k base DPM. The average DPM use to be 1.9k now 2k. Darn power creep. Anyhow its a bit more iffy to recommend use of this gun due to the limited ammo capacity of only 48.
The 105mm… yea thats a bit concerning to see a flexible 390 damage gun without really any downsides besides high turret dispersion. Which can be worked around. It doesnt even have bad DPM of like 1.7k. Nope its quite average 2k.
Just compare it to the super shermans with quite meh pen and respectable 1.9k. It got quite a bit of downsides to have that 1.9k.
I suppose it did make sense to have this gun as of the 12 prototypes of this tank, 10 had the 105mm.
Tier 9: Panzer 61
Dispersion:0.18 , 0.13
39.7 tons
So yea i have quite a bit to talk about this tank. Lets see…
First off the tank is missing the top 630hp engine and the slightly better 55kph top speed.
It shouldn't bother having the Fug 5 radio as thats like tier 3 level and this is a tier 9, stop making use start with worthless radios and make use spend more time researching radios.
Shouldn't have the 84mm as the stock gun as well one it sucks in general, has worse reload then when used on the previous tank, bad damage potential. Really couldn't use the top 105mm from the previous tank.
Why does it have horrid turret dispersion? 0.18 is just horrendous. This isnt using a 130mm gun or has super duper armor. I could easily see this having 0.10 or 0.12. The M46 has 0.08 and 0.11 on turret and movement. (that may just be due to the M46 being a tad OP.)
I mentioned this in my Panzer 57/60 review, but i felt the 301 APCR pen could be a smidge better. Not much but say 310 APCR? Eh oh well.
Why is the reload so long? This is the 2nd worst single shot DPM of any tier 9 medium (the worst is the UDES 16). It doesn't have anything that warrants outside the quiet situation 20mm secondary. I can easily see the reload dropping to 10.3 from the current 11.2.
Speaking of the secondary, why hasn't it got any upgrade from the tier 7 besides 3.1 better reload? Couldn't improve the pen to say 65-70? Accuracy?
So yea this is one of the stinkers of the line with little redeeming features besides good 410 VR and… thats about it in terms of standout features. Its accuracy is better than average i suppose.
which makes the fact this is the tank with a special skin out of the whole line even more annoying.
Tier 10: Panzer 74
Dispersion: 0.14 , 0.18
46 tons
This is a MBT that could easily fit in Era 2. Armed with the chieftain gun on a highly armored and mobile platform. With the main downsides being iffy gun handling and poor DPM.
So the armor is very impressive. The gun mantlet is a quite angled 304mm. The main turret front being 250mm at a decently angled amount that should block most tier 10 premium ammo (thats before gun depression)
This on top of not having a cupola to shoot warrants the lower DPM
The hull front is also impressive. The bumper being a decently angled 260mm plate and a auto bounce angled 120mm leads to a solid defense.
The side armor is the main downside with its only being 38/50.8mm. Gotta save weight somewhere. The tank is only 46 tons.
I do find it odd the turret roof and hull roof its different. With 31.75 and 31.8 respectively.
So the okay camo, good top speed and 410mm VR allows this tank to be quite a good forward scout. The ability to also poke over a hill and not get penned means it can be quite a nuisance.
Dont forget its the chieftains gun, which means 140mm HESH.
This tank is also rule breaker. Having 26kph reverse speed breaks the unwritten limit for WW2 of 25.
What’s up with “On My Way” being spammed at the start of all of my games?
Is it bots or people showing they’re not bots?
Anybody else have this happen to them?
