These shells do not explode until after they have penetrated the protective armour." Stuka Pilot Source 1: "They use a special ammunition with a Wolfram centre, supposed to penetrate any armour likely to be encountered. Rudel got most of his 500 tank kills in the G series it's a shame to see it designed so poorly. The spread on 3.7 cannons, as reported by Rudel in 'Stuka Pilot', was 20-30cm, in the game its about 2-3 meters, if you destroy a tank you did so because of a lucky shot on its ammo rack or a lucky shot on its fuselage, if you hit anything else on the tank usually nothing happens. You have and I've destroyed a few myself, but its not down to anything but luck. 'Ah!' I hear the apologists shout, 'I have destroyed many tanks with the G2!' War Thunder: It always penetrates but never does anything to seriously damage the tank. As i still lack time to build my models, of course writing reviews is not my priority at the moment.Historically: The 3.7s should be able to penetrate the flat side and rear of almost any soviet tank,if it penetrates it should destroy the tank or crit due to the wolfram ammo that explodes upon penetration. Even for a small resin cockpit set, it's way more than 1 hour for me. And then an admin (usually Kev) has to do the lay out and upload the pictures, which takes some time too. Yes, i have made a few reviews and it takes a lot of time : unpacking the kit or AM resin set, taking a lot of pictures, sorting them to keep the best ones, writing the review, linking the pictures to the corresponding text. While we do receive review samples from some manufacturers and vendors, that doesn't nearly keep up with the frequency and volume of releases, so we're back to square one there.Īs for myself, when I used to do a kit review, it was to show the finished product-a complete build with a couple of build-up steps, and I would get a check in the mail.Īlthough, for the reasons I explain above, I am attracted to this subject, I think I would find I would find photographing and describing a complete detailed unbuilt kit review so tedious and time-consuming that I would lose my interest in the build itself. As an example, I have no interest whatsoever in the Early Stuka, and therefore will never buy the kit, so my reviewing it is not too likely. first and foremost, someone willing to take the time to do those reviews adequately (we have what I believe are reasonably high standards), as well as procuring the kits. There are a few issues with compiling reviews. This number includes kits, decals, AM items (both resin and P.E.), books, figures and tools, with a few oddball items thrown in as well. ![]() The current database listing states 1786 total reviews so far for LSP. for $136.99, a $34.00 mark-down, so it is tempting! Edited Octoby Gigant ![]() I figure I could get by without worrying the pricey after-market metal legs like I did with my Hobb圜raft Wildcat, which had a lot more bracing then the typical under/inner-wing-stored types:Īt this time, the 1/24th is on special in the U.S. Unlike some, I am attracted to fixed-gear aircraft, especially in the larger scale because of their increased bracing as well as support by a full-length wheel-pant, when so equipped. In that facet, they are essentially the same, detailed enough, but the larger scale still might make the job nicer in order to have "more to show" size-wise. As a comparison, here are the ones for the 1/32 versionįor some reason you completely understood what I was looking for, and just like you said, except for minor details, basically it is simply the 1/32 kit made larger, which for my money, except for the 1/24th's decal markings and recommended paint scheme, might not be worth the differenceĪs for the landing gears, I would be looking at exposing a gear strut, etc., by carefully carving a panel off the pant-leg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |