Jump to content


Another Chrysler K thread (with a different perspective)


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

Norstein_Bekker #21 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:23 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 17919 battles
  • 3,707
  • [CR0WS] CR0WS
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013

Block Quote

 1. Not "some", "one". The E75 comes for him, puts two shots in (through the upper plate without a problem)

 

Of course, that's not because your upper plate has armor that it's unpenetrable, he doesn't even angle it when the E-75 is shoting at him. It's just like VK 45 B, VK 72/PzKpf VII, AMX M4 49, what is the point of having an armor if you don't know how to use it. Sidescrapping with those tanks is bullshish because your stronkest armor (the frontal that is) is at a flat angle. It's not your sides you have to angle, it's your frontal, so yes, he does it wrong.

 

And of course a tank one tier higher has higher chance to pen him, but when you compare it to other tier 8 tanks, it's as much outstanding as Defender / Skorpion / AMX M4 49.

 

It's just like people saying "Maus get pen by golds, it's not OP" when they keep their turret facing the ennemy.


Edited by Norstein_Bekker, 19 May 2017 - 04:26 PM.


Strappster #22 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostBalc0ra, on 19 May 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

But as top tier hull down ...

 

Apart from the French, which tier 8 heavy tanks aren't strong when they're top tier and hull-down?

 

 

View Postbrumbarr, on 19 May 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Not all views are equally valid,  if I would say the arlV39 is the most OP tier6 TD, that  is not equaly valid as someone who says its the worst TD.

 

I don't really want to get into semantics but I believe this is relevant. When you say 'valid', do you mean 'correct'?

 

Someone who's only played French TDs may well have the opinion that the ARL is the best TD on tier 6 because their frame of reference doesn't include other nations. That doesn't make their view any less valid, it's their view based on their direct personal experience but it's a fool who doesn't re-evaluate their view of something when presented with new evidence.



magkiln #23 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:35 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18796 battles
  • 384
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

As an alternative, watch this one.

In a way, I'm sorry this tank has become so controversial even before it entered the game. I like the A-44 and this is kinda an A-44 on steroids


Edited by magkiln, 19 May 2017 - 04:40 PM.


Strappster #24 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNorstein_Bekker, on 19 May 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Of course, that's not because your upper plate has armor that it's unpenetrable, he doesn't even angle it when the E-75 is shoting at him. It's just like VK 45 B, VK 72/PzKpf VII, AMX M4 49, what is the point of having an armor if you don't know how to use it. Sidescrapping with those tanks is bullshish because your stronkest armor (the frontal that is) is at a flat angle. It's not your sides you have to angle, it's your frontal, so yes, he does it wrong.

 

And of course a tank one tier higher has higher chance to pen him, but when you compare it to other tier 8 tanks, it's as much outstanding as Defender / Skorpion / AMX M4 49.

 

It's just like people saying "Maus get pen by golds, it's not OP" when they keep their turret facing the ennemy.

 

Of course, if you watched the video for longer than two minutes you'll hear him explain that the first battle on Himmelsdorf was an abomination and that now he's going to look at the tank properly with replay from a battle on the Paris map where an E75 pens his lower plate from an elevated position. Of course.



Conor_Notorious_McGregor #25 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21480 battles
  • 7,548
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

 

Do you remember all the fuss when the IS-3A was announced, particularly how it was better than the IS-3 because it had APCR as standard ammo?

 

As it was, so shall it be.

 

Selective memory much? Anyone withy half a brain could see it for what it is. A slightly gimped IS3...

 

 



Strappster #26 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:45 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostConor_Notorious_McGregor, on 19 May 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Selective memory much? Anyone withy half a brain could see it for what it is. A slightly gimped IS3...

 

Yes, that was the usual counter-argument. And arty prevents camping.



brumbarr #27 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:50 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32760 battles
  • 2,677
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

 

 

 

I don't really want to get into semantics but I believe this is relevant. When you say 'valid', do you mean 'correct'?

 

Someone who's only played French TDs may well have the opinion that the ARL is the best TD on tier 6 because their frame of reference doesn't include other nations. That doesn't make their view any less valid, it's their view based on their direct personal experience but it's a fool who doesn't re-evaluate their view of something when presented with new evidence.

Well, this is ofcourse semantis and if we want to discuss this we will prob not ever agree.
There is an objective truth out there for most things. What we as humands try to do is approach that. By statistics, analysis etc. Just as science isnt the truth but build models to approach the truth.  So there is a valid and correct   view. But  likely most views will never get there. A correct view can only be obtained by having all variables in your frame of reference. So if someone who only has that tanks says its good, his opinion is less valid as he doesnt have any reference than someone who played all tier6TDs.   And even if you have all the facts but do noy use them wisely, then your view can be invalid.

 

Block Quote

 it's a fool who doesn't re-evaluate their view of something when presented with new evidence.

 I agree, but that doesnt mean everyones view is as valid.

 

I am not an native english speaker, so I might not use the word valid correctly. This is what I mean when I use it however.  The more valid someones view, the more it approaches the objective truth.



Nazgarth #28 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 898
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

Apologies for creating yet another thread and my second on the subject but this review popped up on YouTube and I'm not sure which of the outrage threads it best fits in. For those who don't know, Trobsmonkey is a US streamer (and unicum who insists that he sucks at the game) with a laid-back and irreverent approach to pretty much everything.

 

 

 


 

 

So this "unicum" of 58% w/r, says the chrysler is not OP cus tier 9s can pen it in the LFP when unangled.


Edited by Nazgarth, 19 May 2017 - 04:57 PM.


Gixxer66 #29 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18026 battles
  • 352
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostJahrakajin, on 19 May 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

I am tired of locking Threads all day for topics which already have their own Thread so...please tell me why I shouldn't when this could have been in another? :(

I'll go watch the video you linked and check in then.

 

More free speech suppression in bound. GG

Strappster #30 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postbrumbarr, on 19 May 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

I agree, but that doesnt mean everyones view is as valid.

 

In the same spirit of clarity when I say re-evaluate that's not the same thing as changing. You can re-evaluate your view and decide that it's fine as it is. If anything it might even be more valid because you've challenged it with new evidence and it's withstood that challenge.

 

 

View PostGixxer66, on 19 May 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

More free speech suppression in bound. GG

 

Maybe read a bit more of the thread rather than replying to the first thing that triggers you?



Strappster #31 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

So this "unicum" of 58% w/r, says the chrysler is not OP cus tier 9s can pen it in the LFP when unangled.

 

I can see from your signature that there's no pulling the wool over your eyes.



Nazgarth #32 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 898
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

 

I can see from your signature that there's no pulling the wool over your eyes.

 

 

 

You keep lapping Wgs sh!t right up don't you? Ph3lan said he didn't threaten to copyright strike Foch but lo and behold the next day screen shots of him doing exactly that.


 

So you compare its side profile to the O-Ho but at the same time neglect the traverse speed and the fact that O-Ho cannot depress its gun to shoot you when your along side. :facepalm: 52%er logic.


Edited by Nazgarth, 19 May 2017 - 05:34 PM.


Strappster #33 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:27 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

You keep lapping Wgs sh!t right up don't you? Ph3lan said he didn't threaten to copyright strike Foch but lo and behold the next day screen shots of him doing exactly that.

 

You better post up a quote of me commenting on that to support this otherwise it's more whiny white noise from a biased little dickhead with an axe to grind. It's completely irrelevant to this thread anyway. :rolleyes:

 

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

So you compare its side profile to the O-Ho but at the same time neglect the traverse speed and the fact that O-Ho can depress its gun to shoot you when your along side. :facepalm: 52%er logic.

 

Except that the O-Ho can't if you're side-hugging him and I know this because that's how I like to take them them on. Besides, I didn't say I'd be side-hugging them, I said I could shoot them in the sides; nothing about what range I'd be doing it from.

 

61%-er logic - "if I say it, it must be true". Dickhead. :sceptic:



Nazgarth #34 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 898
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

You better post up a quote of me commenting on that to support this otherwise it's more whiny white noise from a biased little dickhead with an axe to grind. It's completely irrelevant to this thread anyway. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Except that the O-Ho can't if you're side-hugging him and I know this because that's how I like to take them them on. Besides, I didn't say I'd be side-hugging them, I said I could shoot them in the sides; nothing about what range I'd be doing it from.

 

61%-er logic - "if I say it, it must be true". Dickhead. :sceptic:

 

You suggested that the wool had been pulled over my eyes.

Yes a typo on my behalf as obviously the O-Ho can't depress its gun.

Still waiting for a valid point as to why Chrysler isn't OP, so best get on with personal attacks.



brumbarr #35 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32760 battles
  • 2,677
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

Dickhead. :sceptic:

Someone got triggered. I am afraid we cant tolerate this kind of language, this needs to be stopped!



DeadM0u5 #36 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16051 battles
  • 85
  • [BB4] BB4
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

http://tanks.gg/comp...sler-gf~t26e5-p

 

This is my biggest problem with the new premiums that are coming out day by day and are absolutely destroying the tanks that you actually have to go out and grind for. This is absolutely moronic in this perspective. As in both the Chrysler and Patriot are better than the T32 in every way possible. Well done WarGaming, keep on power creepin'.

 

EDIT: The Chrysler and T32 don't even have the same gun, Chrysler has better accuracy, hidden dispersion values and premium ammo pen (245 /T32 versus the 260 on the Chrysler. This is ridiculous..

 


Edited by DeadM0u5, 19 May 2017 - 05:40 PM.


magkiln #37 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:50 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18796 battles
  • 384
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

View PostDeadM0u5, on 19 May 2017 - 05:39 PM, said:

http://tanks.gg/comp...sler-gf~t26e5-p

 

This is my biggest problem with the new premiums that are coming out day by day and are absolutely destroying the tanks that you actually have to go out and grind for. This is absolutely moronic in this perspective. As in both the Chrysler and Patriot are better than the T32 in every way possible. Well done WarGaming, keep on power creepin'.

 

EDIT: The Chrysler and T32 don't even have the same gun, Chrysler has better accuracy, hidden dispersion values and premium ammo pen (245 /T32 versus the 260 on the Chrysler. This is ridiculous..

 

 

That's partially because the T32 is south of mediocre. If you compare the Patriot to tier 8 heavies in general it's still good, but hardly spectacular. Compared to the Pershing, which it resembles more, it's a bit of a toss-up. Personally, I don't think the extra armour is worth the loss in mobility and reduced gunhandling.

Strappster #38 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:53 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19526 battles
  • 6,151
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

You suggested that the wool had been pulled over my eyes.

 

I see you're an irony-free zone.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

Yes a typo on my behalf as obviously the O-Ho can't depress its gun.

 

Of course it can.

 

 

Any questions? Both images were taken as screenshots from tanks.gg default display size so the scale might be a little off but the principle is the same. Besides, I said to shoot it in the side, not to side-hug it. You know you can aim your gun at weakspots from further away, right?

 

How did you get a 61% win rating? Did someone else play the account for you or did you have to send off tokens from a cereal packet or something?

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

Still waiting for a valid point as to why Chrysler isn't OP, so best get on with personal attacks.

 

Are you waiting for me to provide it? Because I never said it wasn't, I presented an alternative view. Try reading the words in the thread asking someone to explain the words to you slowly.

 

 

View Postbrumbarr, on 19 May 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Someone got triggered. I am afraid we cant tolerate this kind of language, this needs to be stopped!

 

Quite right and as soon as that dickhead stops telling me I lap up sh*t with no basis for such accusations, I'll stop calling him a dickhead.

Desyatnik_Pansy #39 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Bartender

  • Player
  • 12213 battles
  • 24,576
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

Secondly, someone (sorry for forgetting who) said that the CK wouldn't do anything that an O-Ho couldn't do better. "Aha!" I thought, "at least an O-Ho has side armour than my Type 64 can pen with its AP", grrrr, snarl, etc.

 

Yeah, I was way off with my reaction there. This thing has a much bigger area to shoot at and it's the same thickness all the way along, unlike the O-Ho which only has a limited area under the turret that's 105mm. So if I encounter a CK while playing my Type 64 I'll try to do what I try to do if I encounter an O-Ho and not engage it from the front.

 

Just one thing I wanted to comment on, not sure if anyone else already explicitly stated this part. The tank has a significantly easier to pen side compared to the O-Ho, yes, but you should also highlight just how much more mobile the Chrysler is to the O-Ho. The Chrysler has a tank traverse of 33.37d/s (with just a 100% Crew, IIRC, as tanks.gg uses those values) while the O-Ho has 19.81d/s. The Chrysler also has a p/w ratio of 20  to the O-Ho's 9.90, and then there's the other soft stats such as performance on terrain, everything clearly painting a significantly better picture for the Chrysler. 

 

The O-Ho is already one of those stupid Superheavies they've added that I can't stand, but IMO, the Chrysler is worse. Unless you're sniping at his side from a distance where he can't spot you and he never bothers to angle it slightly against you like a tool, the Chrysler is going to have an significantly easier time preventing you from penning him where it hurts than the O-Ho, even if there's much more to shoot at.

 

PS; didn't watch the video, got no interest in doing so. This whole situation's pretty entertaining tbh, y'think the other thread will kick up again and will finally usurp the O-I Thread? :P



Lordante #40 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27954 battles
  • 718
  • [OMGR] OMGR
  • Member since:
    03-20-2012
Another think.

Oho got a middle turret, and can't hit "down" right in front of him. It must often expose his side to be able to shot something in front of him.

This new premium got a rear turret, making is side much better, he can angle really less to get his target!

I think the problem is not the tank being killed by some T9-t10, the problem is this tank better in every way than other t8 regular tanks (seriously 35km/h !!!)




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users