This member has provided no bio about themself...

Comment History  (120 - 150 of 215)
The_Integral Sep 4 2013, 9:21am replied:

The aerospace industry is ridiculously protective of trade secrets. I've personally found it practically impossible to get even remotely detailed technical information on commercially available aircraft from the manufacturer (luckily, as it turns out, a lot of pilot's manuals get leaked onto the internet), and I can't imagine the defense industry is any less protective.

There is still a significant amount of speculation (trying to use aircraft geometry to estimate speeds, ect.) even within respectable periodicals like Jane's, and they tend to contain data that is, at most, lacking of any useable context such as cruise speed or minimum turning radius. In particular, conventional measures of acrobatic ability, such as the behavior of short-period oscillations, are practically never provided. Ultimately, the root of all information on non-operational military aircraft is the military, and the they rarely have any incentive to be truthful or thorough in what they release.

+2 votes   media: Suspected photo of China′s SAC F-60 prototype
The_Integral Sep 3 2013, 1:47pm replied:

There's not much to discuss... The Chinese military doesn't have much of a need to justify its funding to the public since the country is autocratic, and as a result almost nothing concrete is released to the public about any of its military equipment under development.

Not that I put much trust into anything that's posted to this group (people here seem to be vastly over-confident in their knowledge of highly secretive combat aircraft, including ones not even out of early developmental phases), but with western and Russian aircraft there's at least some semi-reliable information available from official sources. Any discussion of new Chinese aircraft is basically going to be pure speculation, making it rather pointless.

0 votes   media: Suspected photo of China′s SAC F-60 prototype
The_Integral Jul 10 2013, 2:53pm replied:

Just because they're not at any physical risk does not mean that drone operators don't face a great deal of stress. For reference:

It is maybe understandable to worry about leadership (which itself has never been at risk) being more ready to use airstrikes against targets when there is no risk to any allied soldiers, as with the extensive drone operations in areas such as Pakistan. However, those operations have resulted in extremely few civilian deaths relative to conventional military operations, and I'm happy for any development in war that reduces death toll.

+3 votes   media: MQ-9 Reaper
The_Integral Jul 10 2013, 10:46am replied:

As odd as it might seem, the exact opposite is true. Speed is one of the primary defenses of conventional aircraft, so they tend to drop in, attack their target, and leave so quickly that the pilot doesn't see the effects of the bombing.

Drone operators on the other hand often will watch a target for hours prior to bombing it, and will stay to confirm that the missile hits. The result is that not only do they see the people they're killing, given the current use of drones, they often see them acting like normal people rather than acting as soldiers. In fact, the US military has had a significant problem with drone operators suffering psychological problems (PTSD, ect.) due the high stress nature of their work.

+6 votes   media: MQ-9 Reaper
The_Integral Jun 11 2013, 9:28pm replied:

Overall they were probably the most successful AFV of the war, being much cheaper than comparable tanks while still being very effective in AT and infantry support roles. Most of the well known German aces are known for driving the Tiger or Tiger II, but actually spent most of their careers in StuGs.

+5 votes   media: have some tanks
The_Integral Jun 8 2013, 9:43am replied:

Nobody believed the F-313 because, frankly, Iran simply does not have the industry to design a home grown fighter that would rival those of major world powers, and its announcement came just after the country was caught faking missile launches.

The realty is that one can't really predict the performance of a stealth aircraft simply by aircraft geometry. Anyone with an undergrad aerospace engineering degree knows how to build a UAS, so the pictured aircraft could effectively be anything from a couple of engineers' pet project they built in their free time to the most advanced aircraft ever built. China's military is notoriously opaque to the public (which has some advantages and some disadvantages), so there is no point speculating on the performance of any of its aircraft that are currently in development.

+2 votes   media: "New" Chinese Stealth Drone: Sharp Sword...
The_Integral May 25 2013, 9:07pm replied:

The B52 was already introduced in the 50's. A more appropriate statement would be a B52 from the 40's.

+5 votes   media: Convair B36
The_Integral Mar 31 2013, 8:57am replied:

I've heard having the turret backward shifts the CG closer to the center of the tank and thus put less stress on the suspension.

+4 votes   media: Leo 2E sights
The_Integral Jan 12 2013, 11:34pm replied:

The Germans made plenty of strategic blunders, but all nations made their share of mistakes during the war. The worst German mistakes are nothing when compared to those made by the Soviets during the first few years of the war, for instance.

+5 votes   media: Maus heavy tank
The_Integral Jan 2 2013, 11:22am replied:
Quote: it outmatches every U.S. fighter except the F-22 (Said by pentagon)

Needs a citation. I'll eat my hat if the pentagon actually had a press release saying that.

Saying the aircraft outmatches the F-16, which was designed almost half a century ago, is a little more reasonable, and that's not what people were dubious about I think.

+1 vote   media: CAC FC-1 Xiaolong
The_Integral Oct 31 2012, 8:58pm says:

With the turret turned backwards it looks kind of like a Crusader.

+2 votes   media: Two awesome T-55 upgrades.
The_Integral Oct 24 2012, 9:48pm replied:

On modern aircraft there really is nothing that is not complex.

+2 votes   media: J-20 picture dump.
The_Integral Oct 13 2012, 8:46pm replied:

Presumably it's during testing and they're gauging its ability to cross shallow creeks, flooded shell holes, ect.

+5 votes   media: M103 Heavy Tank
The_Integral Oct 12 2012, 10:41pm replied:

That's what it's primarily intended to combat, but this type of ERA does provide some protection from kinetic penetrators as well. It has armored plates above it that shear off at an angle when activated and that can damage the round or knock it off center, increasing the chances that the conventional armor will survive the impact.

It's not without its problems, but it's a very good way to cheaply improve the protection on aging designs like these.

+4 votes   media: Bangladesh Army Type 69 Mk. II “Gai”
The_Integral Aug 14 2012, 5:04pm replied:

There were a few specific units that averaged above 10 armored kills per Tiger lost. It was not common, but it was also far more than a handful of commanders that managed to knock out more than 9 tanks for each one they lost. If you're only looking at the top handful of German tank commanders (most of whom used StuGs admittedly) then you'll get numbers much, much larger than 9 kills per tank.

+5 votes   media: T-34 model 1943
The_Integral May 29 2012, 8:07pm replied:

The turret is real, it's one of the early Pz.IIIs armed with a 37mm gun. The tank is still fake though.

+2 votes   media: Pz.I Ausf.A mit Pz.Kpfw T-III
The_Integral May 29 2012, 8:05pm replied:

It's armed with a recoilless rifle so the recoil should be low, but presumably it's meant to be fired stationary and the motor bike is just used to transport the gun.

+7 votes   media: Vespa the Tank
The_Integral Mar 28 2012, 9:41pm replied:

Could have kept some around for propaganda purposes, or it may be a anti-partisan or garrison unit, since those sometimes kept tanks in use far longer than the regular military.

+1 vote   media: T-28
The_Integral Mar 11 2012, 7:58pm replied:

Agreed. It'd fit right in fighting robots in some Japanese anime.

+1 vote   media: More pictures of T-72M2/Moderna
The_Integral Feb 26 2012, 4:53pm replied:

Probably Mechanized Combat Vehicle. That's what it stands for the the Warrior's name(MCV-80).

+1 vote   media: MCV14 High Survivability Test Vehicle-Lightweight
The_Integral Feb 22 2012, 2:57pm replied:
Quote:It's ridiciously unrealistic, atleast when I played it. Shermans can easily take out Panthers and what not...

In earlier versions angle wasn't accounted for, reducing the effectiveness of tanks like the Panther that have heavy frontal armor but weak side armor. However, there's still nothing unrealistic about a Sherman destroying a Panther.

Quote:how about damage values and critical damage? Can you blow of the tracks, kill the driver and all WoT has but made it suck because it's based on dice rolls?

There's no component damage due to engine limitations unfortunately.

+1 vote   media: Forgotten Hope 2 / Battlefield 2 mod
The_Integral Feb 21 2012, 9:55pm replied:

It's about as realistic as possible given the engine. Angle is accounted for and armor values are all realistic, including weak spots like the shot trap on the lower mantlet of early Panthers.

+2 votes   media: Forgotten Hope 2 / Battlefield 2 mod
The_Integral Jan 14 2012, 9:08am replied:

I'm not sure where you're getting the 45mm number, the 44/45 refers to a time period(1944-1945), not an armor thickness.

I do agree the armor of the Panther still gave it some advantage against the T34 and Sherman, though, since HVAP and other ammunition that allowed these tanks to reliably penetrate the Panther's frontal armor at medium-long ranges was still quite rare through the end of the war. The Panther was never designed to be invincible like KV or Matilda II were early in the war, rather it was meant to be able out range other tanks and to some extent it could still do that. However, the 17 lber is in a different league than the 85mm and 76mm guns, and could easily penetrate the armor of any German tank with the exception of the Tiger II at long range.

+3 votes   media: Flakpanzer Panther
The_Integral Dec 20 2011, 8:41pm replied:

I'm pretty sure it's just the back of an IS-2. The mod(Forgotten Hope 0.7) has a mini mod called Secret Weapons that adds a ton of new content and may include the rest of the IS series though.

The_Integral Nov 6 2011, 9:45pm replied:

It's not really much of a shot trap since the lower surfaces on the T34's original turret had very thin armor anyways, and thus most serious anti-tank weapons would penetrate it regardless. This is how most early T34's were lost, since the tank's hull armor was too thick to be penetrated by most German guns. Furthermore, this played a significant role in the design of some variants of the Sherman, as statistics showed most Soviet tanks were being lost to shots to the turret and this is why the Sherman's turret was generally much more heavily armored than the rest of the tank.

That being said it is one fine looking turret though, especially compared to the blocky (albeit much improved) turret that replaced it

+1 vote   media: tanks old and new
The_Integral Jul 22 2011, 6:17pm replied:

Granted, it won't be a huge difference, but it's not necessarily useless. For instance, if the plane is on the ground at an airfield, camouflage will play a factor in concealing the plane since radar and other traditional sensors any enemy aircraft are using will have much more difficulty differentiating it from its surroundings then they normally would were the aircraft in the air.

+3 votes   media: bestest camo or what?
The_Integral Jul 4 2011, 8:41am replied:

The thing that would be exploding would be ammunition, not the engine. Seeing as the Ratte using a turret from a battlecruiser it probably would have a similar magazine, and naval magazines cooking off create a pretty gigantic explosion. Having seen it in game it looks like a small atom bomb and is no doubt exaggerated, but it would be a pretty large explosion in any case.

+2 votes   media: Ratte's explosion
The_Integral Jun 1 2011, 9:18pm replied:

Why do so many people here not understand that depleted uranium is not radioactive...

+2 votes   media: LOL UNBALANCED T80 VS M1A1
The_Integral May 15 2011, 10:53pm replied:

Flan is a custard, it's kind of like a creme brulee without the hard sugary crust.

+1 vote   media: Delicious flan
The_Integral May 6 2011, 12:28pm replied:

Different things for different people, I personally like FH2 a lot better than FH.7. It has less total content and tank combat is a little off, but infantry plays so much better than in .7 it completely makes up for it.

+1 vote   media: Tank Fails
The_Integral May 5 2011, 9:32pm replied:

It's the Forgotten Hope mod for 1942. It's an amazing mod that adds a ton of new content if you still play 1942(and it still has players online I hear), but there's also a version for BF2.

+1 vote   media: Tank Fails
The_Integral Apr 11 2011, 9:00am says:

Take off the text, it's redundant since moddb already puts text on top of the banner.

Otherwise it looks good, and not stretched like the other ones were.

+9 votes   media: Header Idea.
The_Integral Mar 11 2011, 8:34am replied:

About 200 will be built, but they're not attached to their own squadrons. The plan was never to completely replace F-15s, rather it was to integrate F-22s into the existing structure. The production halt means now there will be about a 1:3 ratio of F-22s to F-15s in a squadron, rather than the originally planned 1:1 ratio.

+2 votes   media: Some HOT mil jets
The_Integral Mar 9 2011, 10:28pm replied:

The source of the photo said it was taken in the Austrian Alps.

+1 vote   media: T34 and Sherman
The_Integral Feb 24 2011, 6:14pm replied:

I'm pretty sure the suspension is from a Pz.I

+2 votes   media: Strange German tank
The_Integral Dec 2 2010, 7:06pm replied:

The side skirts are also removed though. My guess is that their just in the process of doing some sort of maintenance work on it. If it was just missing some wheels that is the type of thing they would probably use reproductions or similar parts from another vehicle for.

+1 vote   media: Jagdtiger Bovington HD/HQ
The_Integral Nov 19 2010, 5:46pm replied:

It was probably primarily political, as they may not have wanted to continue using captured German tanks when they didn't need to.

+1 vote   media: French Heavy Tank ARL 44 1946
The_Integral Nov 19 2010, 5:42pm replied:

The front of the hull looks wrong as well. It really does look like an Abrams, but I think it must be some other tank.

+1 vote   media: nevermind, it's just a bush
The_Integral Nov 17 2010, 8:10pm replied:

Forgotten Hope 1/2 is about the only FPS I play regularly, and that's more realistic than any main-stream WW2 game. But then again, games are very poor thing to cite as what is realistic, even ones that strive towards realism.

And of course there is camping in WoT, but there is other play styles too. Camping is ALL that real tank combat is. There would be no artillery, you would need about 10 guns to even hope at hitting anything. There would be no scouts or light tanks (well, they were used but not for long). No special ammo (except HVAP/APCBC/PzGr39, ect, which would be all incredible overpowered, and HEAT which would be the ONLY thing most howitzer armed tanks could hurt anything with). Oh, and yeah, no tanks could really go 60 kph off-road, let alone through 2m deep water. Combine that with the fact that aiming was extremely accurate on most tanks when stationary, but difficult when mobile, camping would be all there was in game too.

And lets face, would you really be happier if you could kill a Tiger in 1 shot with a T34, but 5 out of 6 times(Going by the losses as Kursk) it shot you before you got with a kilometer of it? Or on the flip side, would you like spawning in a city map with your fancy Tiger only to find it's useless because everything can kill you in 1 hit anyways, and it doesn't even matter because your engine gives out before you even see an enemy tank?

+1 vote   media: World Of Tanks
The_Integral Nov 16 2010, 8:13pm replied:

Realistic tank combat would be pretty lame, as it would just be a massive camp-fest. The HP system makes the game playable at the ranges in which it is fought and increases diversity between tanks.

Plus, you should not be using the 76mm gun on the T34. Its 57mm gun is probably the best gun in the game, given its tier.

+3 votes   media: World Of Tanks
The_Integral Nov 6 2010, 9:43am replied:

It's too big and the suspension is wrong for it to be Universal Carrier. I'm guessing it was built off of a M113, which is a pretty common vehicle to use for mock-ups.

+1 vote   media: A METAL BOX!
The_Integral Oct 28 2010, 8:05pm replied:

Could easily be none of those. Quality control wasn't so great in WWII, least of all in Germany, so the steel on this Tiger could just be significantly stronger than what it was assumed to have during whatever testing or analysis used to determine if a 122mm gun could penetrate it.

Plus, it could have just been lucky. Those armor penetration tables are good for averages at best, one can't look at one and conclude a shell would penetrate so much armor every time.

Seconding that it was only hit with AP though. HE makes a kind of flower shaped spattering where it hits, and certainly wouldn't bore into the armor like that.

+1 vote   media: 122mm & 85mm guns failed to penetrate Tigers armor
The_Integral Oct 22 2010, 6:00pm replied:

Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 show IMO exactly how tanks and infantry should coexist. Tanks are extremely powerful, but if used improperly are just as fragile as infantry, and infantry are essential in any case for holding onto territory.

It's much more realistic than games where armored units are simply more powerful in every way.

+1 vote   media: GDI Infantry!
The_Integral Oct 1 2010, 6:23pm replied:

Ramelle Neuville is a fictional battle from SPR, so this map is completely based off of the scene from that movief.

+5 votes   media: Ramelle
The_Integral Aug 22 2010, 2:37pm replied:

The Iraqi army wasn't entirely modern, but it wasn't weak or ill equipped either. Sure the AC-130 wouldn't fair very well against AA or fighters, but the US has no shortage of other aircraft to ensure those things aren't a problem.

Plus, it's for lending fire support for ground troops, which means it doesn't operate deep in hostile territory where it would be easy to hide SAM sites and the like.

+5 votes   media: Ac-130
The_Integral Aug 5 2010, 11:40am replied:

Yep, the M2 Browning .50 has been is use since before WWII, and has only seen relatively minor upgrades since then. The US army has only recently begun looking for a replacement, and even that is supposed to be little more than a lighter weight version of the same thing.

+1 vote   media: M4 SHERMAN
The_Integral Jul 16 2010, 3:05pm replied:

Haha, sloped armor goes a lot further back than Soviet tanks. The old ironclads used during the American Civil War employed it, and you really could trace it back into the middle ages if you were generous with your definition of it.

+5 votes   media: T-95 Black eagly
The_Integral Jul 4 2010, 10:05am replied:

I believe it's a T-60.

+3 votes   media: I don't feel like telling you what this is...
The_Integral Jun 26 2010, 11:06am replied:

I think the word you're looking for by "barrel holder" is mantlet

+2 votes   media: Russian tanks in WW2
The_Integral Jun 16 2010, 10:17am replied:

...We can read the description too you know.

0 votes   media: Convair B-36 Peacemaker
The_Integral Sep 12 2009, 4:37pm replied:

You can't fire well standing up, but guns are insanely inaccurate for about 1 second after going prone, so dolphin diving is quite rare-I think I've only gotten killed once by a dolphin diver since 2.2 came out.

There are also tripod versions of the gun which can be fired standing up, but require the gun to be set up which takes a few seconds.

+1 vote   media: Previewing 3d ironsights
The_Integral Nov 5 2010, 5:51pm replied:

Seconding that the vast majority of these images look like the result of bombings.

Not this one though, I'm not sure what's going on here... The more I look at this one the more I'm confused. At first I thought the StuG just fell through a bridge, but there isn't anything a bridge would be going over. It looks like it may have partially fallen through and gotten stuck in the roof of some sort of dugout or bunker, but it wouldn't make any sense to drive onto something like that.

It may have driven onto the rubble and then was destroyed by something else, but all the nearby terrain is clear, so it would have been stupid to drive onto a big pile of logs that's likely to damage the vehicles suspension or get it stuck. Plus, it's facing a wall, which it probably wouldn't be doing if it was just trying to cross the rubble, or if it was in combat.

+1 vote   media: German tanks on Eastern Front...
The_Integral Nov 5 2010, 7:42am replied:

Impressively Google translator actually translated that correctly, however in general automated translators do not work well.

Plus, everyone here can read English while relatively few can read Russian, so it's rude to post something in Russian.

+1 vote   media: Тигр танк выбил
The_Integral Nov 1 2010, 6:29pm replied:

Here's a M4A2.

Plus, the turret on the Staghound and Grant didn't have such a large bulge where the mantlet is mounted.

+1 vote   media: m1 thompson on M4 Sherman tank gun
The_Integral Oct 30 2010, 4:22pm replied:

I thought so for a second too, because the mantlet isn't like that of most Shermans. However, now I think it's a M4A2, which basically wasn't ever used in US service, and which somewhat explains why it looks a bit odd.

+1 vote   media: m1 thompson on M4 Sherman tank gun
The_Integral Oct 29 2010, 4:28pm says:

Anyone know what's with the stripe painted across the turret? I've seen it a lot on pictures of M3 Grants but can't recall seeing it on a Sherman.

+1 vote   media: m1 thompson on M4 Sherman tank gun
The_Integral Oct 19 2010, 6:09pm replied:

Don't do it!

Unless you really want a t-43, and don't have enough gold to convert free xp, don't bother with the t-34-85. It's pretty much worse in every way than the t34 w/ the 57mm gun. It looks cooler but that's about all it's good for.

+1 vote   group: Tank Lovers Group
The_Integral Oct 17 2010, 3:05pm replied:

Depends on the engine and whether the devs are willing to redo a lot of coding and mapping. Anyways, if Dice uses Frostbite for BF3 FH3 will almost certainly not happen (or at least not on BF3).

+1 vote   mod: Forgotten Hope 2
The_Integral Oct 8 2010, 6:43pm replied:

It may not be falling. The pilot sits at the top, right in front of the dome turret, but I can't really tell if the cockpit is intact. If it is, there aren't any critical components in the nose so it could still be flying.

+2 votes   media: B-17's nose & cockpit blown off
The_Integral Oct 8 2010, 6:28pm replied:

Supposedly a lot of even newer aircraft don't have particularly advanced onboard computers or flight controls, simply because of how fast most of it becomes obsolete. B-2's flight computers, while there are built in versions from the 90's, are essentially laptops.

+1 vote   group: Aircraft Lovers Group
The_Integral Oct 5 2010, 5:46pm replied:

They have realistic traverse rates, but the M10 is the only really slow one.

+1 vote   mod: Forgotten Hope 2
The_Integral Oct 5 2010, 5:41pm replied:

I'm pretty sure everyone here knew what they are(it even says in the description), they were just laughing at how ridiculous they look.

+2 votes   media: Action...
The_Integral Oct 3 2010, 11:18am replied:

I had the same problem with my Hetzer. The 105mm gun was awesome for its tier but for some reason it gets grouped in with tanks way higher level than it is, making it pretty awful.

I still have it but I only use it if both my t-34/57 and Leopard are stuck in battles.

+2 votes   group: Tank Lovers Group
The_Integral Oct 1 2010, 6:14pm replied:

Most of FH2's more recent trailers are like this, where it cuts out right before the action starts. I kind of don't like it, but honestly I think it's the best choice for the devs, as filming the game's combat doesn't do it justice. The ragdoll deaths always make it look rather stupid when filmed, even though one doesn't really notice them in game.

+1 vote   article: Road to Forgotten Hope 2.3: Part 2.5
The_Integral Sep 23 2010, 7:32am replied:

The KV-1/-2 are pretty lower tier, you shouldn't have to grind much to get them. If you save up enough gold to get premium it should only take a few hours of playing.

+1 vote   media: My KV-2-107 (KV-2 with 107mm gun) in W.o.T
The_Integral Sep 8 2010, 6:50pm replied:

The Pershing was only classified as a heavy tank for morale reasons, in weight it was lighter than a Panther. You can't compare the two anyways though, as one was a very late war tank and the other was mid-war.

+1 vote   mod: Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
The_Integral Sep 5 2010, 8:47am replied:

The Type-100 SMG was based off of the German MP-18, and is actually older than the Sten. I'm doubtful of the other comparisons you made as well, particularly the Arisaka which has a different bolt than that of the Lee-Enfield series.

That be said though there is still no doubt the Japanese infantry weapons were cheap crap. Not to mention their tanks, which were even worse.

+1 vote   mod: Pacific Thunder
The_Integral Sep 1 2010, 7:00pm replied:

At least it makes more sense than the ones who don't wear a helmet at all...

+3 votes   media: Omnio
The_Integral Aug 27 2010, 6:11pm replied:

I play in Windows 7 and it runs fine, I don't even have it in compatibility mode.

Anyways, what exactly is the problem? Are you getting error messages?

+1 vote   mod: Forgotten Hope 2
The_Integral Aug 27 2010, 6:02pm replied:

I thought so too, as I've never seen a picture of one with a roof gunner, but I'll trust the devs on this one since they've been pretty accurate with their other stuff. Plus, they already have the remote controlled ones in game.

+1 vote   media: Monthly Overview - Auguast 2010
The_Integral Aug 26 2010, 6:18pm replied:

In real life if they were attacked by infantry they'd just shut the doors on the roof and try to get out of there. There's no point in using a mortar in close quarters.

+3 votes   media: Monthly Overview - Auguast 2010
The_Integral Aug 2 2010, 3:13pm replied:


+1 vote   media: Who remember's this?
The_Integral Aug 1 2010, 4:45pm replied:

Terran armor is only bigger relative to the person in the armor. According to fluff SM are a lot bigger than normal humans.

+1 vote   media: another crossover...
The_Integral Jul 29 2010, 8:05pm replied:

Problem 2 on this page

+1 vote   mod: Forgotten Hope 2
The_Integral Jul 29 2010, 8:04pm says:

Has anyone tried out the alpha for this game? I was wondering how playable it was since it sounds like it wasn't too close to a public release.

This mod looked so promising too :(

+1 vote   mod: Rise
The_Integral Jun 6 2010, 8:36am replied:

You may be able to play it without buying CR though. IIRC DoW 2 is like CoH in that people who don't have the expansions can still play against those who do, so you should have all the game files someone who bought CR has if you have your game patched.

I'm sure the devs would know more about this though.

+1 vote   mod: Dawn Of Warhammer 40k 2: Warpstorm Over Aurelia
Offline Since
Jan 25, 2015
United States United States
Member Watch
Track this member
Comment Statistics
Posts per day