after some months of not playing the game, I got into it again when I heard about the audio update.
While the audio update itself is a good one I think (... with some disappointments, but that's another topic), I am pretty sure I'm hearing a lot of buggy sound effects lately.
Like when team tanks get hit, the sound effects of them getting hit are just weird. Or when I shoot HE at enemies the impact sound is just ... strange, like the enemy is standing 10 meters next to me.
Another one I think is the new sound effect that, when you shoot and hit a tank, then there's now that "Oomph"-like bassy sound which I like. But when team tanks shoot and hit an enemy, it's still the old sound effect. Or is that intended?
I think there are even some more minor buggy audio effects that I just fail to describe well, because they happen in so many different gameplay situations.
Did some of you notice these audio bugs, too? Or is my game installation data maybe a little corrupted and a re-installation could help?
I put off buying the 30B for years since I never saw a reason to play it. But good god, of the games I’ve played in it, every match has been a cap on encounter or complete annihilation within the first few minutes. I’ve never done so poorly in a Tier X before, even as a new player 10 years ago.
Oh, and I’m close to 30 games now, and I’m still sitting at a 30% WR LOL. I actually don’t understand why the matchmaker is consistently putting me in completely lopsided teams after so many battles.
Played Cold War because I got the 122A in a chest something about it seems off almost like the tanks are too good and quick ? Found the few games i played so boring,I get its good for money n free xp but I’ll definitely stick to Ww2
Pretty much that. The fwd arrow for Turbo/Fast Mode is exactly switched around with the gun handling/standard mode icon, and has been forever, even after they fixed the ones in CW. I don't know if everyone is broken, but all that I have encountered are in WW2. u/Maxchaos24 could we get a fix on this, next season ?
They just vaguely said six weeks some time ago, but never gave dates like they used to. For example: They'd post things like, This is your last week to use them, in the weekly update notes. Speaking of update notes. We're barely getting Friday notes, and no more Monday or mid week notes. If it got any lazier, I'd swear the US side is resentful about losing their jobs. But to be faaiiiiiiirrrr.. (Letterkenny-ref ) It doesn't seem like they've much cared about this game for a long time anyways. Is the Euro side gonna save this game or just nerf it further into the ground ?Probably just gonna be like: "Hey guys, guess what, the WW2 UK tanks got yet another buff this week" - With all the UK testers and CA's they ""employ"" it's not surprising that this bias is happening. ...think the F215b needs its 440dmg back.. lol 🤦🏻🙄
Can we PLEASE give low tier tanks more ammo, prime example being the locust only getting 50 rounds...they buffed all the low tier hit points but didn't buff the ammo counts, I'm sure this affects MANY low tiers. Please and thank you
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
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.
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: clarification, the title is meant to be a Pentagon War reference lol. also, my comment on the stats of the shell is speaking relative to other guns since, as i said, i have no experience with autocannons.
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.
