Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 16/09/18 in all areas

  1. 100 points
    Hey guys !!! This is a petition topic, not a topic for discussion, show your support and the reason that you support the addition of these two tanks. To discuss, use this topic please: Well, I have an idea. But for this I need all possible support. As we well know, clan battles currently limited to 5.3 are favoring Soviet tankers. Because they have 3 great alternatives. (T-34 85DT, IS-1, KV-85) My idea is that we make a campaign asking the gaijin to add the VK3601, and the VK3002M. In the case of the VK3002M, it was completely assembled, and would be well-balanced in 5.3. It would be an ideal opponent for the T-34 85DT It is only a Panther D with 20mm less shielding to 5.3 In the case of the VK3601, it had its chassis built, its turret built, its guns built, but it was never completely assembled. In this particular case he has two options of weapons. My question is this ... October is the month of War Thunder's birthday. And this topic would be like a petition, requesting the tanks. I believe that if we reach 5,000 signatures, we could be heard right? Come on, guys! Who would be interested in participating in a marketing campaign asking to add these two tanks to the game? PS: I have a facebook page, about tanks, with over 300,000 followers, and I'll ask people to write at least "+1" here on the topic. https://www.facebook.com/DivisionHauptmannGewehr/ What are you waiting for ? If you approve this petition Leave your "+1" and the reason to support Call your friend to support the petition. Remember that a united community has a lot of strength. Show your strength, help this petition. The 5.3 campaign video As a form of incentive, the team Division Hauptmann Gewehr will raffle 5000 golden eagles among all the supporters of the German 5.3 petition. The golden eagles package will be raffled when we reach 5000 signatures. (Well, my intention is not to buy support, but just to give an incentive. I play since 2014, and this gap (5.0 ~ 5.3) has never been fixed. To various updates we only see modern machines. I'm not against having an Abrams or a T-80, but what about WWII content? If you analyze, the 5,000 golden draw is practically insignificant, because within a universe of 5,000 supporters (which is the goal), only 1 will win the golden eagles. The real prize that every German tanker will have in supporting this idea is to reduce Soviet clubbing in 5.3)
  2. 36 points
    As the title says, the US is currently roflstomping at top-tiers, which honestly seems suprising given the fact that not too much has changed. Among the issues that have become apparent are: Helicopters spawn camping the opposing team from the very first minute. M1IP has gotten stronger armour from the Dev to Live server. Other nations now have their ''Newbie'' premium tanks, T-55AM's and Leopard 1 L/44's are now easy pickings for M1's. XM-1 is still under-tiered quite massively. FJ-4B's picking off tanks that don't really have any defense. M1's still have the strongest combination of firepower, protection, survivability and gun handling in the game, and now there's two of them. The reduced spawn costs of this patch has meant that the already strong line-up the US have can now be almost infinetely taken advantage of. Though individually these might seem like minor things, together they've basically made US top-tier easy-mode right now, I would not be suprised to find the M1IP's Thunderskill winrates to be in the mid/high '70s next month. Also, for some reason these things have gotten ridiculously difficult to kill, lower glacis shots hardly deal lethal damage, the turret cheeks are ofcourse immune and the mantlet is one of the smallest mantlet weakspots of the top-tier MBT's, even the XM-1 somehow doesn't reliably die upon having it's bustle area detonated from the front of the turret (third image). So, solutions?
  3. 35 points
    1. A detailed description of the issue you have encountered. It is also important that you describe how we can reproduce the issue, if you are able to reproduce it. The composite armor featured on the Improved Performance/Product M1 Abrams provides insufficient and inconsistent kinetic protection. 2. If applicable, the full name(s) of the vehicle(s) affected. Improved Performance M1 Abrams (IPM1) and probably anything (United States and British only) with "NERA elements." 3. If applicable, the difficulty setting (e.g. Arcade) in which the issue occurs. All difficulty settings as this is an issue with the armor protection. 4. If applicable, an attached screenshot showing the issue, as well the client reply file and the server replay. Currently the improved armor protection of the Improved Performance M1 Abrams only offers ~15mm of additional kinetic protection on the frontal turret (when compared to the base M1 Abrams), and NERA elements are inconsistently modeled against kinetic energy projectiles. 5. Attach the Client Log of the session in which the error occurred. If the problem is persistent, attach the latest one available. Not applicable to this issue. 6. Attach your system's current DxDiag Log. Not applicable to this issue. 7. If possible, link a short video showcasing the issue. Not applicable to this issue. 8. Detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including references that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented. The turret armor should have approximately 50-80mm of additional armor protection against kinetic penetrators at least. There is also an inconsistency in the "NERA elements" modeling against kinetic penetrators, which will be greatly expanded upon below. Alright, this will be a very big and descriptive bug report. I'll put the sources first and then the calculations on NERA elements after. However, first I'd like to show you the overall arrangement of Burlington composite armor (also called "Chobham" composite armor). You can see how every single "plate" in the composite consists of steel armor (rolled armor and/or cast armor) followed by a non-steel material (in this case, plastic) with air pockets in between each layer of the steel-plastic sandwich. I would also like to say that I will be using the term "Chobham" for any composite armor mentioned, since it has multiple nicknames (such as "Burlington"). Sources (for the Improved Performance/Product M1 Abrams armor): Now we get to the NERA elements part of this report. First will be a comparison between the normal M1 Abrams composite modifiers and the Improved Performance/Product M1 Abrams composite modifiers. I would like to note that all calculations are based on the flat armor protection, not angled armor protection. It is also based on kinetic protection. Furthermore, all protection values are based off of the M68A1 cannon's M774 APFSDS. The composition of the base M1 Abrams (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~308mm using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 32mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~32.32mm) 600mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.28x on the base M1 = ~168mm) 101mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~102.01mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~134.33mm of protection. That means ~173.67mm of protection is offered from 600mm of NERA elements. So 173.67 divided by 600 equals 0.28945, giving us a lowest estimate of 0.28x of kinetic protection. The composition of the Improved Performance/Product M1 Abrams (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~315mm using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 32mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~32.32mm) 800mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.22x on the IPM1 = ~176mm) 101mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~102.01mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~134.33mm of protection. That means ~180.67mm of protection is offered from 800mm of NERA elements. So 180.67 divided by 800 equals 0.2258375, giving us a lowest estimate of 0.22x of kinetic protection. Considering the base M1 Abrams currently has "correct" modeling according to Gaijin, then NERA elements on that (being ~0.28x) should be what is used on the IPM1. If we used the base M1 Abrams NERA modifier (x0.28 versus the x0.22 on the current IPM1), then that would correct this inconsistency issue and raise the kinetic protection quite a bit (but still would be insufficient — ~224mm or ~358.33mm in total). Angles I used, composition of composites: Earlier I said how the Chobham in the M1 Abrams (and by extension the IPM1) is very similar, so let's compare the Challenger Mk. II's kinetic protection and M1 Abrams' kinetic protection. Challenger Mk. II (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~325mm (it's a really weird turret, ranges from ~78mm (which obviously can't include the second 110mm plate) to ~457mm, so I think it's using the ~325mm protection value as it seems the most realistic) using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 50mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~50.50mm) 300mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.54x on the Challenger Mk. II = ~162mm) 110mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~111.10mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~161.6mm of protection. That means ~163.4mm of protection is offered from 300mm of NERA elements. So 163.4 divided by 300 equals 0.5446666666666667, giving us a lowest estimate of 0.54x of kinetic protection. Original M1 Abrams (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~308mm using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 32mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~32.32mm) 600mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.28x on the base M1 = ~168mm) 101mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~102.01mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~134.33mm of protection. That means ~173.67mm of protection is offered from 600mm of NERA elements. So 173.67 divided by 600 equals 0.28945, giving us a lowest estimate of 0.28x of kinetic protection. Angles I used, composition of composites: As you can clearly see, that's a massive discrepancy (M1: 0.28x KE vs Mk. II: 0.54x KE) between the American Chobham and British Chobham, despite the American version being "improved" according to any and all sources I've seen. So, now that we see a huge difference between these two (which would make sense if they were different composites, but they're really not), let's look at other parts of just the M1 Abrams (which uses the same composite armor all around since it's all on a single tank from the same nation - the United States). M1 Abrams' side turret armor (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~116mm using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 32mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~32.32mm) 300mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.28x on the base M1 (used from the frontal turret armor) = ~84mm — keep this number in mind) 101mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~102.01mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~134.33mm of protection. That means-wait, that doesn't make any sense. The side armor composite clearly only provides ~116mm of protection, yet the RHA plates are thicker than the protection. So even the rolled homogeneous plates aren't performing right, and NERA in this case offers nothing (or a negative value?). Angles I used, composition of composites: That's very odd. Let's check out the turret's bustle armor (the sides of the ammunition compartment). M1 Abrams' bustle turret armor (with modifiers which would offer the current protection of ~61mm using the War Thunder Wikipedia page). I am going off of flat protection to make it easier. 13mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~13.13mm) 350mm of NERA elements (NERA is not listed on the Wiki — estimated to be ~0.28x on the base M1 (frontal turret estimate) = should be ~98mm, actually provides ~31.5mm with a modifier of 0.09x) 13mm of rolled homogeneous armor (modern RHA: x1.01 = ~13.13mm) Rolled homogeneous armor alone offers ~26.26mm of protection. That means ~34.74mm of protection is offered from 350mm of NERA elements. So 34.74 divided by 350 equals 0.0992571428571429, giving us a lowest estimate of 0.09x of kinetic protection. Angles I used, composition of composites: So NERA is clearly not performing right, at least in terms of kinetic protection. I added this to this IPM1 report because if NERA were properly modeled, there's a good chance the IPM1 would have sufficient kinetic protection.
  4. 22 points
    If you go through protection analysis and start comparing Russian APHE shells to those of other nations, you'll soon start to notice something. While many Russian APHE shells seem weak, they for some reason seems to negate around 40 degrees of angling on any armor they hit, regardless of thickness. Which is massive since many American tanks end up basically no better armored than the Panzer IV because of this. This seems rather, BS, to put it lightly and it is making many Russian vehicles grossly overpowered since even though their angled armor penetration and penetration in general seems weak, it performs far better than shells with better pen since they simply just, ignore armor sloping, even when its the same thickness or thicker than the shell. The simple physics of that seems ludicrously impossible since its literally pulling extra energy out of its butt that allows it to somehow lose zero energy with somewhere around 40-45 degrees of supposed normalization. This is a pretty game breaking issue as it allows the Russian tanks to just lolpen things they really, really shouldn't be able to at ridiculous ranges when the shells pen stats suggest that they would struggle to even do it at point blank.
  5. 22 points
    Name of Affected Vehicle: Challenger 1 Mk 2 Gamemodes: All Description of the Problem: The composite armour of CR1 Mk 2 is currently performing well below the stated minimum protection (500mm KE, 800mm CE) within the frontal 60o arc. The glacis armour has also been modeled on CR1 Mk 1 which did not feature composite protection, just spaced armour, leading to it being far below the minimum 500mm KE it is supposed to have (it can be penetrated by 128mm APHE currently). The exterior plates are also missing their Hardened RHA modifier of 1.25, instead being modeled as standard RHA with a 1.01 modifier. Fix: Change the armour profile of CR1 Mk 2 to the values generated further in this bug report based upon the real life minimum protection values of the vehicle. Minimum KE armour values of CR1 Mk 1 and Mk 2: The documents above list the minimum KE protection for the turret of both CR1 Mk 1 and 2 as 500mm. This means that the minimum KE, and CE protection on the turret, for all CR1 variants, is the lower turret cheek at a 30o offset from centre (therefore negating the secondary angle of the turret face). These values are for the frontal 60o of the tank, just like it is for all other NATO tanks, as is reinforced by the images below. Source and Diagram: Taking 500mm KE and 800mm CE as baseline values and using the armour modifiers and array layouts from in-game, I have created protection estimations for the entire vehicle at 0o (strongest point) and at 30o (weakest). To find the modifiers of the NERA block the following formula was used: Modifier = Protection from NERA/LOS NERA Protection from NERA = Minimum Effective Protection - Effective Protection Steel Plate Effective Protection Steel Plate = (1.25(50/COS(52))+0.98(110)) This gives armour modifiers for NERA of: KE = 0.60 (0.5965) CE = 1.21 (1.211) Using these modifiers, we can then calculate the effective protection of each composite protected portion of the tank: ^^^ At 0o ^^^ ^^^ At 30o ^^^ Armour Summary Screenshots from Excel Sheet: Compare these valves to those of the CR1 Mk.2 currently in-game: As you can see, all the composite portions of CR1 Mk.2 are under-performing massively against both KE and CE munitions from WP and NATO vehicles. The only armour sections with correct, or slightly over-performing protection (partially due to my not including structural steel in the calculations), are the non-composite areas of the lower glacis and hull sides. As far as the hull array is concerned, CR1 Mk 2 is stated as having a minimum KE protection of 500mm on the hull as well as the turret. This is an improvement over the Mk 1 which has a minimum KE protection of 275mm. The minimum KE area can be found from the 38mm plate, just above the glacis and right below the turret cheeks, which almost gives 275mm exactly. The LOS thickness of this plate is equal to: 1.01(38/COS(82)) = 275.77mm RHA, where 1.01 is the RHA modifier and 82 is the angle from vertical. This 38mm plate also seems to have been thickened on the Mk 2: CR1 Mk 1 appears to not have been fitted with Chobham in the hull, leaving it as a spaced armour array. This is backed up by the fact that the effective KE of a 50mm HH Steel - 200mm Air - 80mm RHA (as the outer plates over the arrays are stated to be High Hardness) gives 306.6mm effective KE and 306.6 CE, more than weak enough to be penetrated by Soviet 125mm APFSDS and ATGMS, while the upgraded array comes in at just over the 500mm KE minimum. The fact that CR1 Mk 1 just had spaced armour is reinforced due to the mass change between it and Mk 2. Mk 1 weighs 59.5 tons, while Mk 2 weighed 62 tons. This means that even though a section of composite was removed to fit TOGS (which is much lighter than the armour), the vehicle gained 2.5 tons. This, along with the increase in hull protection indicates the fitting of special armour in between the hull plates.
  6. 22 points
  7. 21 points
    A couple of weeks in and I believe the consensus is this patch has already lost its excitement. Helicopters are difficult to play in the current Meta, as anyone who has ever actually worked with gunships could have told you. There was a dearth of vehicles for most of the Nations. Insufficient fixed wing aircraft. Too many high tier vehicles. Another paper plane (referring to the gun pods) for the Germans when the Japanese can't get a new tank because of "lack of information." Yet another delay on the long awaited Italian Tank Tree. Top tier Premiums that aren't nearly as good as the XM-1. Air RB sees no fixes. Naval battles see no fixes. For constructive criticism, might I recommend that instead of adding things to the game we aren't asking for, perhaps you could address the things we are asking for. And you might want to hire somebody who knows how helicopters are actually used in combat. Your spawn point is at too high an altitude. They are too loud, especially to the fixed wing aircraft flying anywhere within 5 kilometers of them. They have a two man crew for a reason, something that is not sufficiently accounted for with the missile guidance you use. The sounds are nice though. Really nice.
  8. 19 points
    1. A detailed description of the issue you have encountered. It is also important that you describe how we can reproduce the issue, if you are able to reproduce it. The Improved Performance M1 (IPM1) Abrams should not have M735 APFSDS as a stock shell, nor should it have M774 as an upgradable kinetic penetrator shell. 2. If applicable, the full name(s) of the vehicle(s) affected. Improved Performance M1 Abrams (IPM1) 3. If applicable, the difficulty setting (e.g. Arcade) in which the issue occurs. All difficulty settings as this is an issue with the ammunition selection. 4. If applicable, an attached screenshot showing the issue, as well the client reply file and the server replay. Currently, the Improved Performance M1 (IPM1) has M735 as a stock shell, with M774 as an upgradable shell. 5. Attach the Client Log of the session in which the error occurred. If the problem is persistent, attach the latest one available. 2018_09_20_12_48_14__8604.clog 6. Attach your system's current DxDiag Log. Not applicable to this issue. 7. If possible, link a short video showcasing the issue. Not applicable to this issue. 8. Detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including references that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented. M735 APFSDS should be removed from this vehicle entirely, and should be replaced by M774 APFSDS. Sources: First of all, let's just get the dates of some stuff. The normal M1 Abrams reached "initial operational capability" by 1983, it was in full-scale production at that point. The Improved Performance M1 Abrams was produced until 1986. Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons by Colonel Timothy M. Laur and Steven L. Llanso, edited by Walter J. Boyne The United States already had intentions of replacing M735 with M774 all the way back in 1977. StateDeptcable1977-69363 The United States was cutting back production of M735 APFSDS all the way back in 1980 in favor of M774, which would end up hitting the field in 1981. This further supports that M774 should be the stock shell for the IPM1 at least. U.S. Intelligence and Soviet Armor, dated 1980 "In the early 1980s," M833 was "being used at the time by the Abrams tank." The only 105mm M1 Abrams tanks that existed was the base M1 Abrams, and the Improved Performance M1 Abrams (well, the IPM1 is more mid-1980s than early). At least the Improved Performance M1 Abrams deserves this shell, since it appeared in the mid-1980s. Lessons from Army System Developments I also found this document. Try finding even any mention of M735 (not the artillery fuze, the shell itself) anywhere in this 1983 document. It also appears they were already upgunning the 105mm to M833 quite quickly, never mind M774 (for reference, the base M1 Abrams holds 55 shells, so this much M833 by 1983 would result in ~1,745 M1 Abrams being full of M833 (96,000 divided by 55), which a M1 Abrams would never have actually been equipped with either). Descriptive Summaries of the Research Development Test & Evaluation, dated 1982 M774 was first fielded in 1981. M735 was meant to be replaced by M774 as soon as possible (since the military denied the M735E1 interim DU round). The Improved Performance M1 Abrams is a 1984 tank. Army's Decision Not to Contract for Penetrator Production at the Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, OH, was Justified M774 production also started to be cut back in 1983 in favor of M833 production. Selected Proceedings ADPA Conference — Base Modernization, dated March 15, 1984 The military even theorized that M774 would be considered obsolete by 1983, and be superseded by M833 (also by 1983). This theory is proven to be correct when you look at other sources (which is also found in this post), specifically the high production numbers (which were exceeding military expectations/requirements). Mission-based Analyses of Armor Training Requirements. Volume I. Final Report, dated April 1982 The M1 Abrams training manual also mentions nothing about M735 APFSDS (aside from the title of a reference), and only references using M774 against heavily armored targets (like the T-80). M1 Tank Gunnery: A Detailed Analysis of Conditions, Behaviors, and Processes The M1 Abrams' service ammunition: A Progressive Resistance Weight Training Program to Improve the Armor Crewman's Strength M1 Abrams at War by Michael Green Termination Liability Curve Study, dated December 1984 Lessons Learned M1 Abrams Tank System, dated November 1982 Technical Manual 43-0001-28 — Army Ammunition Data Sheets Artillery Ammunition Guns, Howitzers, Mortars, Recoilless Rifls, grenade Launchers and Artillery Fuzes (FSC 1310, 1315, 1320, 1390) From this website (since it is a .org website it should be rather reliable) From this website (since it is a .mil website it is a reliable source of information) From this website (since it is a .org website it should be rather reliable) Nondestructive Testing of 105mm Depleted Uranium Penetrators Department of Defense Appropriations for 1983: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session, Issue 28, Parts 5-6
  9. 17 points
    There is no way to justify those equivalent protection numbers, if cutting the end off a shell to make it flat was some sort of silver bullet to negate armour sloping everyone would have done it IRL.
  10. 16 points
    I-225 - focus shift with flaps fully extended has been recalculated. Landing with minimal fuel will now be easier. I-185 - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been increased. Rudder deflection simulation has become more accurate (deflection at high speed is now smoother) Hs 123A-1 - the engine modes have been updated. Thermodynamics, engine start and stop time, and landing gear shock absorber elasticity have been updated. Та 152 (all modifications) - Propulsion system (prop & engine) inertia, as well as its start and stop timings, have been tuned. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate (deflection at high speed is now smoother). G.50 (all modifications) - Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.200 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.202 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.205 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. F4U-4, 4B - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated, rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate. F4U-4B - Speed has been increased by 16 km/h as the outboard wing weapon mounts have been removed. Gladiator (all modifications) - The engine’s RPM when the throttle set to 100% has been changed to 2,650 instead of 2,400. The flight model’s propeller width has been increased. The ‘combat’ position for flaps has been removed. Propeller spin up speed has been tuned. Rudder performance has been updated. The tail fin angle has been changed to compensate propeller momentum in cruise mode. S.M.79 Sparviero (all modifications) - Aerodynamic characteristics of the wings, fuselage and tail have been corrected and the fin and flight polars have been tuned. The propulsion system performance has been reworked. The influence that the weight of different aircraft components have on the behaviour of the aircraft has been recalculated. Fueling and combat loading will now more accurately affect the mass centre alignment. Thermodynamics has been updated. Cooling efficiency at flight speeds has been implemented. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated. Leave feedback here
  11. 15 points
    I-225 - focus shift with flaps fully extended has been recalculated. Landing with minimal fuel will now be easier. I-185 - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been increased. Rudder deflection simulation has become more accurate (deflection at high speed is now smoother) Hs 123A-1 - the engine modes have been updated. Thermodynamics, engine start and stop time, and landing gear shock absorber elasticity have been updated. Та 152 (all modifications) - Propulsion system (prop & engine) inertia, as well as its start and stop timings, have been tuned. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate (deflection at high speed is now smoother). G.50 (all modifications) - Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.200 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.202 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. C.205 (all modifications) - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated. Rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate, engine start and stop times have been updated, and and elevator surfaces and their deflection at different speeds have been redefined. F4U-4, 4B - inertia of the propulsion system (prop & engine) has been updated, rudder deflection simulation is now more accurate. F4U-4B - Speed has been increased by 16 km/h as the outboard wing weapon mounts have been removed. Gladiator (all modifications) - The engine’s RPM when the throttle set to 100% has been changed to 2,650 instead of 2,400. The flight model’s propeller width has been increased. The ‘combat’ position for flaps has been removed. Propeller spin up speed has been tuned. Rudder performance has been updated. The tail fin angle has been changed to compensate propeller momentum in cruise mode. S.M.79 Sparviero (all modifications) - Aerodynamic characteristics of the wings, fuselage and tail have been corrected and the fin and flight polars have been tuned. The propulsion system performance has been reworked. The influence that the weight of different aircraft components have on the behaviour of the aircraft has been recalculated. Fueling and combat loading will now more accurately affect the mass centre alignment. Thermodynamics has been updated. Cooling efficiency at flight speeds has been implemented. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  12. 15 points
    I was at first excited about Germany getting M48 - but of course Gaijin has to make its BR higher at *8.0* when all the other M48s are 7.7 - even the premium M48 that has reactive armor is 7.7! This makes no sense - heck; even the first M60 is at 7.7!
  13. 15 points
    The full name of the vehicle affected. If the problem is isolated to one difficulty setting (e.g. Simulator), specify which. Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 105mm Gun M1IP, All difficulties A detailed description of the issue you have or what you see as being erroneous regarding its representation in-game. The Dev server Model of the M1IP is missing it's historically accurate M833 APFSDS round, while still using the outdated M735. This missing munition was present in all M68 and m68a1 guns in the tech tree. Unless the data is taken from an official Gaijin statement, please provide a documented test and provide the Client Log from that session. Screenshot of the modifications: Client log here: A detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including reference that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented: The M833 should be implemented to the M1IP with corrected performance. In pursuing the same decisions made by Gaijin with the Leopard2a4 upon it's release to the live server, I request that the m774(similarly performing to the DM13 120mm) should become the stock ammunition and the, M833 in a corrected state, becomes the new tier 4 modification with it's corrected performance (like how the dev server DM23 120mm round has it's realistic performance and is a tier 4). The current M833 hidden in game files is over performing massively. The M833 is not as overpowered and game breaking as once thought due to new sources and calculations discovered and made to verify the M833 since it's current flat angle performance is impossible. And it is these new sources and calculations that should justify the M833 finally being added to the M1IP at very least since the Round is actually weaker than previously thought and we must pursue historical accuracy with better detail. sources: "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-92" by Steven J. Zaloga reads "IN 1983, the US Army began acquiring a significantly improved round, the M833, which used a longer and heavier DU penetrator. This round could reportedly penetrate 420mm of steel armour inclined at 60(degrees) at 2000 meters" page 9 Data sheets here from the United States Army, along with a Gunnery Manual: The M833 is even awknowledged to exist by Gaijin but was not implemented (at the time this was for balancing the 1.77 M1 Abrams). The screenshot is from Mike_10d's 1.77 datamine on Reddit confirming that it exists but is not implemented as it should. https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/82f9yl/psa_105mm_m833_apfsds_is_in_the_dev_server_files/ here is the picture of the M833 in a .blk file within the game: performance of the m833: Conclusion: the "in-game" but unimplemented m833 is severely overperforming. in fact, it shouldn't match up to even the equivalent Turret armor of an export T72 source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/TJD.htm Primary source: 1. Dean, Scott D. and Benjamin E. Schemmer, "General Tells Lawmakers New Soviet Tanks Make U.S. Systems "Obsolete"", Armed Forces Journal International (May 1988): 17. I have also done some of my own research into the effectiveness of this longrod, here are the results based off of the documents already provided above using Gaijin's Modern RHA armor, I am continuously waiting for somebody to point out any inaccuracies with it. EDIT 9/13/18: I have removed both charts and replaced them for one chart that uses the original test plates parameters and made changes to the M833's density, source: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballistics/Term/Armor_Material.htm M833 VS MIL-DTL-12560H 280BHN Here is an official chart providing velocity vs distance for the m833: Now below here is the performance of this round assumed in Gaijin's statcard format. I have used Zaloga's stated performance of 420mm at 60 degrees 2000meters as a second data coordinate to determine the slope of the Graph. This same figure is also relfected in this source: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/1990/MAR-APR/pdfs/MAR-APR1990.pdf page 40 data table. links to graphing calculator used: https://www.desmos.com/calculator Slope of penatration/distance is -0.008225 resulting in the function y=-0.008225x+(point blank figure at given angle) Since the M833 is considered a long rod, be sure to apply the modifier to the above table's performance values All this should be a more than satisfactory compilation of proof that the True M833 APFSDS did exist as a standard round in the 105mm gun Abrams models. If there are any issues with this nice collection of sources please let me know. I have other users eager to help me add more information I may have missed. I also hope this calms down those who once thought the M833 was an overpowered "LOLPEN" APFSDS, as the above data shows very much otherwise. EDIT added more documentation on APFSDS performance mathematics in case more information is needed for the M833: PDF for more information about MIL SPEC RHA used by the US Army: I hope this is enough and up to standards set for a proper bug report. Please let me know if you need anything more! Edit september 13th, 2018: I have once again further improved the accuracy of the data provided, new source: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballistics/Term/Armor_Material.htm provides Alloy density of 1980's DU and the density of American MILSPEC(1976) RHA,
  14. 14 points
    I think M18 appropriate BR would be 1.0. Then I will finally be able to destroy it in less than 3 seconds, instead of wasting over 60 seconds not hull-breaking it with IS2.
  15. 14 points
    hi 2 more french moderns camouflages are coming with the 1.81patch. The FORAD "CENTAC" camouflage (black and blue) and falsely named just FORAD in the Dev server The FORAD "CENZUB" camouflage (urban camouflage, the middle one in the pic) But where is the most important one? The "Centre-europe" camouflage (CCE)? For vehicles it's a 3-tons camouflage with NATO colours and was introduce in 1991. It's the regular camouflage for french vehicles. For the game you can add it for AMX 30B2, AMX 30B2BRENUS, AMX 30 DCA et AMX 40. The second one is the "DAGUET" camouflage. It's a desert camouflage introduce in 1989 and who equiped the french vehicles in the gulf war. For the game you can add it for AMX 30B2, AMX 30B2BRENUS, AMX 30 DCA et AMX 40 as well. http://www.milinfo.org/article-camouflage-daguet-par-jerome-hadacek-124797600.html Ad here there is some others camouflages from others countries for the AMX 30:
  16. 13 points
    There was no point in raising the M18 to 5.3 BR All this did was mess up the 4.7 BR Lineup for U.S There's already a Tank Destroyer in the 5.0+ BR's, the M36 GMC.
  17. 13 points
    In this recent Update, 1.81 "The Valkyries" the Developers have changed the Spawncost of vehicles by half, even tough the Research point gain has been reduced by about 30% this is still a significant change. This change in my oppinion completely revises how tank Realistic Battles work. It feels more like a 2nd Arcade battle mode without markers. Tank RB for me and I guess many others aswell was the gamemode where you weren´t just able to blindly drive out into the hand of the enemy, this would quickly result in you going back to the hanger or taking out a SPAA vehicle. Capturing a point was essential early game if you wanted to ensure some Spawnpoints and flanking the enemy team usually paid of well, the problem now is that there´s just a forever oncoming wave of newly spawned tanks. This changes the pase of the game. Realistic was always the type of gamemode which was slower than arcade, you had to be carefull with your moves or think about strategys. While is is still somewhat true, it´s much harder now, you flank the enemy team, kill a few, "no Problem for them" they just respawn again in a potent tank and know where you are, you always have to watch out for your flank or rear because there most certainly will be a freshspawn right behind you and aware of your location. One players was able to change the outcome of a game, I bet many of you had at least some of those long lasting games where there were a few equally good players on each team, working hard together, beeing 20 minutes into the battle or more trying to ensure the victory. Now the battles just last artifically longer due to the fact of players easily beeing able to respawn even tough they´ve made (dumb) mistakes. My idea why Gaijin did this is so the gain of Research Points and Silver Lions will be higher, by ensuring yourself a safe 2nd chance and making the battles last longer with more targets overall to shoot at, which I do understand. But at the cost of "Making Ground RB a 2nd Arcade mode?" They could aswell increase your overall RP gain in Ground Battles and lower the Repair Costs, this is a long know bane of tank battles.
  18. 13 points
    The AP Cap on apcbc shells isn't for normalization. It's purpose is to absorb impact energy, and prevent the nose of the projectile from shattering against hard or face hardened plate. APCBC Shells in general during ww2 were designed to be used against face hardened armor or high hardness armor, the type that the panzer III, IV, Stug's were made out of.. High hardness being the type that the T-34, KV-1, IS-# etc, were made of. APCBC also was effective against the very high hardness armor the Russians were using for the same reason. The ap cap would absorb the impact energy and shatter the outer face of the armor, allowing the normal nose to more effectively pass through the rest of the plate. At angles above 40 degree obliquity, apcbc is no better or slightly worse than regular sharp/round nose AP. Where as at angles of 40 or below, uncapped AP had problems with nose shatter. At least in the real world. In game is a different story. The Blunt nose APBC that the Russians used was good against greatly under matching armor at high obliquity. But, once you the plate T/D ratio got over about 0.5, the sloped performance would drop off significantly. This is of course against RHA. Cast armor at high angles is much weaker. Pretty much all of the slope modifiers in game for full bore shells are messed up. Some are over performing by a great deal (apbc) (apcbc) others are under performing or a mixed bag (AP). Godman isn't the one who reported the slope modifier issues. He reported the HE effect part of the aphe shells. I am the person that originally reported the messed up slope modifiers. Long before I became a tech mod.
  19. 13 points
    Until the 8th of October at 09:00 GMT We have prepared special bundles with 50% discounts dedicated to the German Unity Day. On the 3rd of October 1990, the former socialist German Democratic Republic ("Deutsche Demokratische Republik") officially joined the Federal Republic of Germany ("Bundesrepublik Deutschland"), ending the political division in East and West Germany that existed ever since the end of World War II. Bundles contain unique decals and titles which will not be available after! The final price of the bundle will depend on whether you already have some of the packs or not. Be sure to login to the store to see your individual price! Upon purchase, you will receive the included vehicles, a sum of Golden Eagles and Premium Account time from packs that weren’t deducted from the bundle price. "German Unity Day 2018" Bundle The Kit Includes: Dora Pack King Tiger Pack Naval Pack Z-20 Karl Galster Unique decal: Wolf’s Head, Hawk’s Head Unique title: Wall Breaker 119.97 / 59.99 Store "Spoils of War - Army" Bundle The Kit Includes: T-34-747 (r) (Rank 2 Germany) Pz.Kpfw Churchill (Rank 3 Germany) KV-II 754 (r) (Rank 3 Germany) KV-IB 756 (r) (Rank 3 Germany) Unique decal: Wolf’s Head Unique title: “Grasping” 48.7 / 24.35 Store "Spoils of War - Air" Bundle The Kit Includes: IL-2 (1942) (Rank 2 Germany) Wellington Mk Ic (Rank 2 Germany) P-47D Thunderbolt (Rank 3 Germany) La-5FN (Rank 3 Germany) Tempest Mk V (Rank 4 Germany) Unique decal: Hawk’s Head Unique title: “Vigilant” 86.9 / 43.45 Store Note! You can also get unique titles and decals, if you log in to the game from the 3rd of October to the 8th of October and gain at least one victory, and at the same time you have previously purchased all separate packs or have all vehicles which are included in one of the bundles above (e. g. you have all 3 vehicle packs included in “German Unity Day 2018” Bundle). Title and decal will be assigned after the 8th of October to all users who have fulfilled these conditions. The offer is valid for PC, Mac and Linux users only.
  20. 12 points
    Composite armor is nothing compared to the power of the stronk Stalinwood!
  21. 12 points
    You might ask why? Because compared to other 5.7 tanks its superior then them in a few ways. Let's say compared to panther. Panther D: Pros -Very good Hull armor -Decent Turrent armor(the only frontal weakspot) -Powerfull gun with good HE filler in shells Cons -Very tall(hard to hide) -Not very fast(Slower compared to some mediums and most lights) -Horrible turrent rotation speed -Overall a big tank Then let's look at the mk1 Pros -Almost impenetratable turrent -Very well armored Hull -APDS that can melt tru anything -Very good gun velocity Cons -Slower then Panther -Doesn't have HE filler in it's deadly APDS shell Overall the mk1 is in many ways superior to the panther D,one of which is the armor. The soviet 85mm for example can go tru the panthers weakspot,while the mk1 can wiggle a little bit and it is going to be impenetratable. The APDS allows the mk1 to easly deal with all tanks it will face and while the lack of HE filler isn't pleasant,it doesn't really matter when one of the mediums at the same BR cannot even pen you. My suggestion is to move the mk1 to 6.0 where it will be more comparable to the Panther A/F models,because compared to other 5.7 mediums it's very much superior.
  22. 12 points
    Sur le forum de War Thunder, les discussions concernant l'utilisation de modifications illégales et logiciels tiers, ou le ciblage de joueurs susceptibles de tricher sont interdites. Toutefois, à la demande d'un grand nombre de joueurs de la communauté, nous allons présenter ici un petit tutoriel sur l'utilisation du replay server pour reporter un joueur au comportement douteux ou anti-sportif. Cet outil, qui est actuellement en version bêta, a déjà permis à un grand nombre de joueurs de nous aider dans la lutte contre les comportements anti-sportifs. Nous les en remercions. Ces efforts conjoints se traduisent régulièrement par l'exclusion de joueurs du jeu: I) - Où trouver les replays server? 1) En jeu Vous pouvez retrouver les replays serveur pour vos 30 dernières parties directement en jeu en ouvrant l'onglet "messages", en bas à droite dans le hangar et en cliquant sur batailles: Vous ouvrirez alors la page qui vous permettra de lancer directement la partie (Cf. III) - Lancer un replay) 2) Sur le site de War Thunder Les replays peuvent être recherché sur le site web de War Thunder https://warthunder.com/fr Cet outil permet de retrouver toutes les parties de tous les joueurs (jusqu'à la dernière mise à jour rendant impossible le lancement du replay avec la version actuelle) II) - Retrouver un joueur dans une partie précise 1) Limiter les replays à ceux auxquels vous avez participé. 2) Préciser le pseudo du joueur que vous souhaitez retrouver. Vous avez, en cliquant sur l'onglet "Search by incomplete nick", la possibilité de proposer un pseudo incomplet. Vous avez la possibilité de préciser le mode de jeu, le type de bataille pour affiner votre recherche. En cliquant sur "FIND", vous disposerez de la liste de toutes les parties répondant aux critères que vous avez spécifié, et vous allez donc retrouver celle ou le comportement du joueur est susceptible d'être hors des règles du jeu. III) - Lancer un replay En sélectionnant la partie que vous recherchez, une fenêtre s'affiche détaillant le mode de jeu et le type de bataille, mais surtout la liste des joueurs ayant pris part à cette bataille. Notez le point d'exclamation situé à côté de chaque joueur que vous utiliserez après avoir visualisé le replay. Le visionnage de la partie est essentiel: Vous disposerez d'une vue de la bataille "côté serveur" gommant les possibles décalages liés à la distance du client serveur (vous et les autres joueurs et, surtout, vous pourrez repérer le temps approximatif où des comportement douteux se sont produits. C'est essentiel pour permettre aux game master d'aller directement aux moment de la partie ou le problème se produit. Si ce n'est déjà fait, lancez War Thunder et connectez-vous, puis cliquez sur "View replay". Le replay se lance en jeu... Vous pouvez vous placer sur la vue du joueur de votre choix, ralentir ou accélérer le déroulement de la partie. Arrivé aux instants qui vous interrogent, n'hésitez pas à vraiment ralentir le replay, voire à l'arrêter (touche espace) et à changer de vue, de joueur, pour bien visualiser ce qu'il se passe. Lorsque vous détectez un comportement suspect, notez à quel moment cela se produit, vous aurez à le préciser dans votre plainte. IV) - Reporter un joueur Une fois le comportement hors règles validé par le visionnage du replay, il est très simple de reporter un joueur: En cliquant sur le point d'exclamation à côté du joueur concerné, vous ouvrez un menu contextuel qui vous permet de le reporter. Précisez le type de l'abus; Décrivez la nature de cet abus dans un court texte (en anglais de préférence) Précisez l'instant dans la partie (min - sec) Cliquez sur "COMPLAINT" et le joueur est signalé au staff. L'équipe War thunder
  23. 12 points
    US APBC are performing worse than documented against sloped armor, Soviet ones performs better than documented. That was established long time ago, why bother discussing it for the tenth time?
  24. 11 points
    Name of Affected Vehicle: Challenger 1 Mk 2 Gamemodes: All Description of the Problem: The composite armour of CR1 Mk 2 is currently performing well below the stated minimum protection (500mm KE, 800mm CE) within the frontal 60o arc. The glacis armour has also been modeled on CR1 Mk 1 which did not feature composite protection, just spaced armour, leading to it being far below the minimum 500mm KE it is supposed to have (it can be penetrated by 128mm APHE currently). The exterior plates are also missing their Hardened RHA modifier of 1.25, instead being modeled as standard RHA with a 1.01 modifier. Fix: Change the armour profile of CR1 Mk 2 to the values generated further in this bug report based upon the real life minimum protection values of the vehicle. Clog: 2018_10_08_17_53_32__12640.clog Minimum KE armour values of CR1 Mk 1 and Mk 2: The documents above list the minimum KE protection for the turret of both CR1 Mk 1 and 2 as 500mm. This means that the minimum KE, and CE protection on the turret, for all CR1 variants, is the lower turret cheek at a 30o offset from centre (therefore negating the secondary angle of the turret face). These values are for the frontal 60o of the tank, just like it is for all other NATO tanks, as is reinforced by the images below. Source and Diagram: Taking 500mm KE and 800mm CE as baseline values and using the armour modifiers and array layouts from in-game, I have created protection estimations for the entire vehicle at 0o (strongest point) and at 30o (weakest). To find the modifiers of the NERA block the following formula was used: Modifier = Protection from NERA/LOS NERA Protection from NERA = Minimum Effective Protection - Effective Protection Steel Plate Effective Protection Steel Plate = (1.25(50/COS(52))+0.98(110)) This gives armour modifiers for NERA of: KE = 0.60 (0.5965) CE = 1.21 (1.211) Using these modifiers, we can then calculate the effective protection of each composite protected portion of the tank: ^^^ At 0o ^^^ ^^^ At 30o ^^^ Armour Summary Screenshots from Excel Sheet: Compare these valves to those of the CR1 Mk.2 currently in-game: As you can see, all the composite portions of CR1 Mk.2 are under-performing massively against both KE and CE munitions from WP and NATO vehicles. The only armour sections with correct, or slightly over-performing protection (partially due to my not including structural steel in the calculations), are the non-composite areas of the lower glacis and hull sides. As far as the hull array is concerned, CR1 Mk 2 is stated as having a minimum KE protection of 500mm on the hull as well as the turret. This is an improvement over the Mk 1 which has a minimum KE protection of 275mm. The minimum KE area can be found from the 38mm plate, just above the glacis and right below the turret cheeks, which almost gives 275mm exactly. The LOS thickness of this plate is equal to: 1.01(38/COS(82)) = 275.77mm RHA, where 1.01 is the RHA modifier and 82 is the angle from vertical. This 38mm plate also seems to have been thickened on the Mk 2: CR1 Mk 1 appears to not have been fitted with Chobham in the hull, leaving it as a spaced armour array. This is backed up by the fact that the effective KE of a 50mm HH Steel - 200mm Air - 80mm RHA (as the outer plates over the arrays are stated to be High Hardness) gives 306.6mm effective KE and 306.6 CE, more than weak enough to be penetrated by Soviet 125mm APFSDS and ATGMS, while the upgraded array comes in at just over the 500mm KE minimum. The fact that CR1 Mk 1 just had spaced armour is reinforced due to the mass change between it and Mk 2. Mk 1 weighs 59.5 tons, while Mk 2 weighed 62 tons. This means that even though a section of composite was removed to fit TOGS (which is much lighter than the armour), the vehicle gained 2.5 tons. This, along with the increase in hull protection indicates the fitting of special armour in between the hull plates. Thank you for your time and I hope the Challenger 1 will finally be fixed. O7
  25. 11 points
    Hate mixed battles in all tiers. I just return to garage after i see that i got mixed battle. No fun fighting the same tank that you are driving. I would rather wait 10 minutes to get a proper battle than 5 secons to get mixed.