Jump to content


gun rammer types don't make sense


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

HassenderZerhacker #1 Posted 19 September 2017 - 10:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23545 battles
  • 1,958
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

Tiger I and SP nr. VI mount 88mm guns and use large rammer, T25 mounts a 90mm gun and uses medium, Nashorn uses medium for 88mm gun and Pz IV H uses medium inspite of it mounting a 105mm gun...

 

it makes no sense at all.



Matcorr #2 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22575 battles
  • 744
  • Member since:
    04-24-2013
While I'm not 100% sure, it's probably something to do with the size/weight of the tank rather than the gun.

Balc0ra #3 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:26 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,399
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 19 September 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

Tiger I and SP nr. VI mount 88mm guns and use large rammer, T25 mounts a 90mm gun and uses medium, Nashorn uses medium for 88mm gun and Pz IV H uses medium inspite of it mounting a 105mm gun...

 

it makes no sense at all.

 

On some tanks, it's based on class more so then caliber and tier. Just like vets etc. Unless you say the M4 and Pz 4 should have a large caliber rammer, because they can mount an 105 derp. Just like vents on a tier 4 B2 HT costs as much as it does on the Type 5. As that to is more based on class, more so then tiers and size of the tank.

Exozen #4 Posted 20 September 2017 - 06:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30946 battles
  • 1,068
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

The Rammer equipment should already been removed a long time ago, its an equipment you use on every tank that can use it which pretty much just adds 500.000cr to any tank price, its also makes all tanks that can mount them have a disadvantage over autoloaders since they dont need one so they can run Vstab , vents , optics, on all other tanks you have to sacrifice someting for that rammer and in 9/10 cases its the vent.

 

TL;DR Remove rammers they are stupid.


Edited by Exozen, 28 September 2017 - 10:33 AM.


K_A #5 Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13566 battles
  • 4,656
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

And then there's the infamous Black Prince that has a 76.2mm gun but uses a large caliber rammer even though the Churchill VII one tier lower uses the exact same caliber gun but mounts a medium rammer.. :rolleyes:

 

EDIT and Chinese meds use a medium rammer on a 122mm main armament all the way up to tier 9 and then suddenly the tier 10 needs a large rammer for the same caliber.. :P


Edited by K_A, 20 September 2017 - 08:11 AM.


Homer_J #6 Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:18 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27068 battles
  • 27,695
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 19 September 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

 

it makes no sense at all.

 

It's based on class, calibre, tier, and how much coffee the balance department have had that morning.



CaptainThunderWalker #7 Posted 20 September 2017 - 09:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

View PostHomer_J, on 20 September 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

 

It's based on class, calibre, tier, and how much coffee vodka the balance department have had that morning.

Fixed.

Do you really think that Wargaming's Balance Department drinks any coffee?

 

:trollface:



leggasiini #8 Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:16 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9619 battles
  • 5,807
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

It should "depend" upon the class and tier a bit but the rammer types indeed make no sense.

 

  • Black Prince, tier 7 HT, 17pdr (76.2 mm) gun, mounts LARGE gun rammer
  • TOG II: tier 6 HT, same gun as Black Prince, mounts medium gun rammer (okay its tier lower, its undertandable, but...)
  • FV201, tier 7 HT (same tier as Black Prince), same gun as Black Prince, also mounts MEDIUM gun rammer (wtf?)

 

Also:

 

  • JT 88, tier 8 TD, 88 mm gun, mounts large gun rammer
  • AT 15, very comparable tier 8 TD with 84 mm gun, mounts medium gun rammer

 

Surely the 4 mm difference is enough to reason medium instead of large?

 

  • FCM 50t, tier 8 HT, mounts 90 mm gun, is even basically a fat medium tank, mounts large gun rammer
  • AMX M4 49, tier 8 HT, mounts 100 mm gun, has super-heavy levels of frontal armor, mounts medium gun rammer

 

This has literally no logical explaination behind it. Also, ARL 44 and AMX M4 45 mounts a 105 mm gun that is much shorter than M4 49's 100mm and are generally lighter tanks and tiers lower, yet they also mount large gun rammer

 

  • Caernarvon, tier 8 HT, mounts 84 mm gun, mounts large gun rammer
  • T26E5, tier 8 HT, mounts 90 mm gun, mounts medium gun rammer

 

Comparable heaviums (if you can even count caern as one), Paytriot has bigger gun but medium gun rammer instead of large.

 

  • VK 3601 H, tier 6 HT, 88 mm gun, mounts medium gun rammer
  • HT no VI and Tiger 131, tier 6 HT, 88 mm gun, mounts large gun rammer
  • M6, tier 6 HT, 90 mm gun, mounts medium gun rammer

 

VK 3601 H has same gun as HT No VI and Tiger 131 and is even very similar to them...yet it mounts medium instead of large. M6 with larger gun than any of these also mounts medium rammer instead of large.

 

  • STG, tier 8 MT, 122 mm gun, mounts large gun rammer
  • T-34-3, tier 8 MT, 122 mm gun, mounts large gun rammer
  • WZ-120, tier 10 MT, 122 mm gun, mounts medium gun rammer

 

WZ-120 is basically identical as the T-34-3 in appearance, has more powerful version of 122mm gun and is tier higher, yet it has medium gun rammer for some reason.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by leggasiini, 20 September 2017 - 10:30 AM.


Aikl #9 Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,013
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postleggasiini, on 20 September 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

Comparable heaviums (if you can even count caern as one), Paytriot has bigger gun but medium gun rammer instead of large.

 

Spoiler

 

 

At least the Patriot is based on a medium tank - and I suspect was planned as a non-PMM Super Pershing replacement - before it went through the marketing department.

 

And, as illustrated in Dilbert, marketing might impact the product of balancing (=engineering) a fair deal.



Spurtung #10 Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:39 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60085 battles
  • 5,479
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostExozen, on 20 September 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

The Rammer equipment should already been removed a long time ago, its an equipment you use on every tank that can use it which pretty much just adds 500.000cr to any tank price, its also makes all tanks that can mount them have a disadvantage over autoloaders since they dont need one so they can run Vstab , vents , optics, on all other tanks you have to sacrifice someting for that rammer and in 9/10 cases its the vent.

 

TL;DR Rammers should be removed from the game and all tanks that can mount them should get the -10% permanantly , to keep up with autoloaders equipment " bonus " of not needing one. I would say the same for quite alot of the Equipments and the fact that they still cost 10g to remove is just straight out retarded for everyone that doesnt partey in clanwars or other E-sports leauges that reward gold.

 

I would equip a rammer in an autoloader if I could (some could, like the 59-16). I don't see vents as that big of an advantage over it, if anything, it's the next best thing.

malachi6 #11 Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:18 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 48609 battles
  • 3,086
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostExozen, on 20 September 2017 - 06:43 AM, said:

The Rammer equipment should already been removed a long time ago, its an equipment you use on every tank that can use it which pretty much just adds 500.000cr to any tank price, its also makes all tanks that can mount them have a disadvantage over autoloaders since they dont need one so they can run Vstab , vents , optics, on all other tanks you have to sacrifice someting for that rammer and in 9/10 cases its the vent.

 

TL;DR Rammers should be removed from the game and all tanks that can mount them should get the -10% permanantly , to keep up with autoloaders equipment " bonus " of not needing one. I would say the same for quite alot of the Equipments and the fact that they still cost 10g to remove is just straight out retarded for everyone that doesnt partey in clanwars or other E-sports leauges that reward gold.

 

 

Your TLDR is as long as your point.



Snake_Keeper #12 Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8393 battles
  • 678
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
Start looking at the torsion bars, and notice how many variants those have even in the same RL prototype line. Can't mount the bars from a Tiger (P) to a Tiger II cause they named entirely different. Even though they have very much similar treads.

Homer_J #13 Posted 20 September 2017 - 12:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27068 battles
  • 27,695
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostSnake_Keeper, on 20 September 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

Start looking at the torsion bars, and notice how many variants those have even in the same RL prototype line. Can't mount the bars from a Tiger (P) to a Tiger II cause they named entirely different. Even though they have very much similar treads.

 

They have completely different suspension, that's why.  Just look at the roadwheel layout.  It has nothing to do with the treads.

Snake_Keeper #14 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8393 battles
  • 678
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostHomer_J, on 20 September 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

 

They have completely different suspension, that's why.  Just look at the roadwheel layout.  It has nothing to do with the treads.

 

Different suspension layout, but the Tiger designs shared torsion bar design. Panther II was going to also have the same torsion bar design as Tiger II.

Also, the treads & roadwheels are laid out in the same pattern. Tiger II simply has 5 outer wheels while Tiger P has 6.

 


Edited by Snake_Keeper, 20 September 2017 - 01:24 PM.


BP_OMowe #15 Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24743 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostSnake_Keeper, on 20 September 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

Start looking at the torsion bars, and notice how many variants those have even in the same RL prototype line. Can't mount the bars from a Tiger (P) to a Tiger II cause they named entirely different. Even though they have very much similar treads.

View PostSnake_Keeper, on 20 September 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

Different suspension layout, but the Tiger designs shared torsion bar design. Panther II was going to also have the same torsion bar design as Tiger II.

Also, the treads & roadwheels are laid out in the same pattern. Tiger II simply has 5 outer wheels while Tiger P has 6.

 

Porche (Tiger P) lost all competitions to Henschel, so it's no wonder his designs aren't compatible with the series production vehicles.

HassenderZerhacker #16 Posted 28 September 2017 - 01:01 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23545 battles
  • 1,958
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

I was reviewing my tanks in order to find a large caliber rammer for my 88mm SP Nr. VI gun, but my Grille uses a medium caliber rammer for its 150mm gun... :amazed:

same for the GW Panther

KV-1... also medium rammer despite 122mm gun


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 28 September 2017 - 01:08 AM.


Spek_en_Bonen #17 Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:38 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 31492 battles
  • 6,808
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

 

Each round would require different rammer equipment (total length of the round (casing + projectile) or the thickness will require different equipment)

Even though this is just an example of .50 Cal rounds, the same goes for  AT weapons.

 

88mm Flak uses a different round from the 88mm KwK on the Tiger or the 88mm L71 (on the Tiger 2).

Also take a look at the 75mm rounds. Totally different.

 

 

But, considering it's WG we are talking about, it could just be "lazy" just as easily.


Edited by Spek_en_Bonen, 28 September 2017 - 09:39 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users