Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/17/2017 in all areas

  1. 40 points
    What interview? We don't even have any Dmitry in our marketing team.
  2. 28 points
    I'm seeing too many "this was a good decision because balance" and too few "is this actually historically accurate?" comments about the Kpz 70
  3. 24 points
    APDS Shells appear to be using their old unreliable Laser Beam damage where they barely spall 45% of the time and even then, this spall barely does damage. Compare this to to even the tiny 57mm APHE shell of the ZSU, which appear to be twice as lethal as an 105 APDS shell spraying out 100mm worth of broken armor plate from penetration. Or does Spall only apply to Magic Fins Gaijin?
  4. 24 points
    Honestly, I'm really disappointed with tier 6. The meta at this tier is absolute trash, and is poorly suited to the vast majority of maps we get. Most are too small (with the exception of maps like fulda) and end up playing like some CoD style twitch shooter when combined with the speed and stabilisers of tanks at tier 6. It's rare to actually be rewarded for playing carefully, or for attempting to outsmart your opponents. Instead, everyone just rushes in and either gets slaughtered or wins outright in the first 5 minutes. If you want to take a more thoughtful approach to the game you'll find yourself doing nothing for the whole match because it will already be over before you even see an enemy tank. When your team wins, you'll find yourself competing with them for kills more than with the enemy (particularly on the mbt/kpz 70 teams). When you lose, you'll be torn apart and there will be nothing you can do about it. Even during the few minutes before a match is decided when you're in the melee it's just a complete mess, and is more about being in the right place at the right time than actually outplaying anyone. There's very few kills I've had in the kpz where it genuinely felt like I outsmarted my opponent, and there's very few deaths I've had which felt like I was outplayed. It feels like it's more down to luck than anything else, simply because the gameplay here is so brainless. Despite the kpz being considered OP by many (stats wise it seems to be at least borderline OP), I actually perform far worse in it than in other tanks. In the leo, my K/d is far higher than the kpz, even though (in theory) they should play to similar strengths. However, none of the strategies that work in the leo work at tier 6 because of the mindless rush meta at this tier. Now there are exceptions, and I find that bigger maps like fulda are definitely better suited to the more mobile vehicles, and allow games to be more drawn out. However, these maps are few and far between, and another problem with tier 6 is the small teams. When it's just 6 v 6 on such a large map, it makes for an even more boring game than just brainlessly driving around a small town hoping you'll catch someone by surprise. Overall, this tier just really isn't fun. The only way I could see it improving is adding more maps like fulda, because most maps are simply too small for the vehicles we have. A kpz 70 can drive straight across abandoned factory and be at the enemy spawn in a minute or two, and even the t-64 is a very fast tank compared to the tiers below.
  5. 22 points
    This will be a long detailed post - everyone is welcome to bring their own point of view but I ask you to read first and bring solid arguments, don't derail this thread nor start a flame war. The souce is ThunderSkill (http://thunderskill.com) The german line up between 3.3 to 4.3 is simply very hard to face, and unless you carry hard you'll lose. Just a quick look to what they can field and you'll see they can use german, british and even soviet vehicles. As anyone can see here, there's a huge variety in what they can field; that isn't necessarily a problem per se but most of this stuff is really undertiered. I'll go into detail to adress their winning rate while comparing to what other nations in that BR have against them. PZ IV F2 - 70.21% PZ IV G - 72.23% PZ IV H - 64.02% PZ IV J - 69.61% Dicker Max - 59.14% Wilberwind - 54.84% 88 Flak 37 - 63.59% STUH 42G - 62.16% STUG III F - 63.21% Stug III G - 66.29% T 34 754R - 74.37% Churchill - 67.05% PZ IV M - 65.36% KV II 754r - 72.27% Pretty high for most vehicles, some are past 70% winning rate, which is a clear sign they're really overperforming. Now let's see what other nations can field in that same range. Cromwell V - 37.67% Cromwell I - 34.45% Sherman II - 38.07% Archer - 23.97% Churchill MK III - 37.02% Achilles - 39.22% Crusader AA MK II - 37.09% Cromwell RP-3 - 37.29% Very apathic winning rate for the british, almost all tanks are in the 30% WR or even lower, nothing like the germans. M24 - 38.92% M4a1 - 35.3% M4 - 38.69% M4a2 - 42.34% M15 - 35.87% M4a5 - 36.73% T14 - 50.51% M10 - 39.57% Calliope - 54.43% American don't really have many options in this range and most their tanks are 4.7 since the last BR update. As I pointed out, their winning rate is also problematic, with the highest winning rate being around 50% but most stuff is still around 30%. KV-1E - 47.02% KV1 L11 - 40.62% KV1 S - 46.4% KV1 ZIS 5 - 45.6% T-34 Premium - 43.56% T-34 1940 - 38.18% T-34 1941 - 38.46% T-34 1942 - 42.73% T-34 STZ - 43.46% T-34-57 - 43.7% KV-2 1939 - 47.2% ASU-57 - 44.21% SU-122 - 39.14% 94KM ZIS-12 - (couldn't find data on it) 29-K - 36.83% SMK - 40.96% ZIS 43 - 37.53% The soviets are pretty much the same here, though they have higher winning rates in comparison to other nations, they still around 30% and 40% for the most successful vehicles. Nothing like the 70%+ My point is, we need to rebalanced these range completely; tanks like Panzers shouldn't be in this range and must go higher, they're pushing the german winning rates to over 70% while all nations struggle with 30% WR. If making them go higher can't be done then really increase to cost to spawn again because it makes little sense playing anything in that BR that isn't german - most of my games there virtually end around the 5 minute mark after the first clash and it's clear who has the upper hand. Some of those TDs could see an increase in BR like the 88 flak and Dicker Max. I remember when Gaijin decided to bring those panzers down and I knew they'd be way too strong there - still, the community outcry made them take this decision, which was a very bad one What do you guys think ? ANyone playing that range that could bring a different point of view ? Most important, any ideas on how to improve balance ? Edit: 1-Edited the post to remove a little rant 2- These are the stats of Realistic Battles [RB]
  6. 22 points
  7. 22 points
  8. 21 points
    Enduring Confrontation The amount of fighters which are covering AI bombers and AI attackers has been changed from 4 to 2. Now each player can be attacked only by one covering fighter (the second must continue to escort until the second hostile player arrives or until the first fighter is destroyed by the player). The accuracy of gunners for AI attackers and AI bombers has been reduced by 40%. The firing accuracy of AI fighters has been reduced by 40% too. AI bombers, AI attackers and AI fighters are now the target for anti-aircraft artillery and the AAA will open fire on them. A pair of AI controlled aircraft which are covering the airfield will now attack AI bombers and attackers which flew into the zone of their responsibility correctly. A bug that lead to the disappearance of AI attackers and fighters when the map border has been reached has been fixed. Now the aircraft crossing the map border will disappear one at a time. In the past the whole group disappeared when the first aircraft crossed the border. Efficiency for anti-aircraft artillery which is not apart of the airfields defences has been reduced by 2 times. AAA on the airfields still has the highest possible efficiency. A bug where the player aircraft was not destroyed when landing on enemy airfields has been fixed. Amount of the simultaneously active tasks has been reduced. The time for issuing new tasks has been increased (pause between tasks). The amount of victory points awarded to the team for completing the task depends now on the type of the completed task (previously any task brought 5000 points): Destroying the bombing zone — 2000 points; Destroying the airfield — 3500 points; Destroying the spotter aircraft — 3500 points; Destroying the convoy — 5000 points; Destroying the AI bomber — 5000 points; Destroying the AI attacker — 5000 points; Victory in the ground battle — 5000 points; Discovery of a new task for your team still brings 1000 points. The amount of the victory points given to the team for completing the task now depends on the activity of the players on this task. If the activity during the task was 25% or more, the award in points will correspond to the values from the table above. If the activity of the players was less than 25%, then the task will bring only 1000 victory points. Tasks which will be covered by this rule: Covering the attackers (activity: be near the attackers while they are performing the task); Destroying the attackers (activity: destroying the enemy attackers); Covering the bombers (activity: be near the bombers while they are performing the task); Destroying the bombers (activity: destroying of the enemy bombers); Covering the spotter aircraft (activity: be near the spotter aircraft while they are performing the task); Destroying the spotter aircraft (activity: destroying the enemy spotter aircraft); Help in the ground battle (activity: destroying the enemy vehicles which are near the friendly vehicles); The maximum distance of players from the covering target at which the activity will be counted depends on the rank of battles: 1st rank — up to 3000m; 2nd rank — up to 4500m; 3rd rank — up to 6000m; 4th rank — up to 7500m; 5th rank — up to 9000m. A bug in the initial display of the front line because of which in 90% of cases the Allied team received a tangible advantage over the territories has been fixed. Now the generation of the front line though random no longer gives such an advantage to the Allies. A bug with detection of enemy airfields has been fixed (source). A bug where the airfield that was in enemy territory as a result of the front line shift was not destroyed has been fixed (source). For three types of airfields which will be used in Enduring Confrontation missions the positions of the appearance of the aircraft have been re-arranged. Due to this it was possible to increase the take-off length by 120 meters for two types of airfields with a length of the take-off line of 1200m and by 60 meters for airfield with the length of the take-off line of 1400m. Bugs in the appearance of antiaircraft artillery which are covering the bombing zones have been fixed. Also the antiaircraft artillery will correctly disappear when the base is destroyed or if it disappears as a result of a shift in the front line. All types of the aircraft missions Now after the destruction of light stationary vehicles (artillery, anti aircraft artillery) or permanent fire positions during the first 9 minutes, there will be light smoke which will facilitate the visualization of destroyed targets in SB (in the past the target was burning the first 45 seconds after being destroyed, after which all effects disappeared). 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!
  9. 19 points
    A late production M6A2(90) alongside a Tiger H1 during 5th War Loan Drive Parade in New York, 9 June 1944 M6A2(90) was an American heavy tank "in service" in 1943. The 2nd iteration of the M6 Heavy Tank series, formerly designated as experimental T1E1 heavy tank, it was a sub project of the T1 heavy tank alongside the M6 (T1E2) and M6A1 (T1E3) developed to find a suitable transmission for the high powered Wright G-200 engine, with the T1E1 utilizing gas-electric drive train as an alternative to the more conventional torque converter transmission. It used the same cast hull of the M6, with apparent curved side armor instead of flat. All M6, including the M6A2, used Wright G-200 radial engine developing 960 HP at 2300 RPM. Having a recorded top speed of 43 km/h, with the M6A2, by using electric transmission, is capable of achieving top speed at both directions (forward and backward). Armor specification changed from time to time, with the earliest version forwarded from May - October 1940: Further development continued until the T1s (T1E1, T1E2, T1E3) were standardized as M6s (M6A2, M6, M6A1). To evaluate the tank for possible future service as heavy tank, modernization was issued to the M6s which had outdated armor specification. The first upgrade was in February 1942: Since the Services of Supply had directed in June that the procurement of heavy tanks be increased from 115 to 230 with the additional tanks allocated to International Aid, the end result was that all of the M6A2 would be in use by US Army, while the M6 and M6A1 would be for Lend-Lease program.Heavy tank production would consist of 50 M6s and 65 M6A1s for Britain, while 115 M6A2s for America. Royal Armored Corps sent a specification for export version around the summer: In November 1942, a production M6 tank was tested at Milford Proving Ground with the following measurements: The US reviewed all previous armor specifications, and finalized a new armor setup for the late production M6s in late 1942 following the measurement at Milford: (The armor upgrade weighed 9,500 lb (4.3 ton)) Unfortunately, the mass production schedule was not met and the opinion was shifting against the use of heavy tank. Recommending the cancellation of the heavy tank program, General Devers reflected the opinion of the Armored Force that it was preferable to use the available shipping for two 30-ton medium tanks rather than one 60-ton heavy tank. The Services of Supply approved the termination of heavy tank production, and capped the total vehicles at 40 units, with the latest production starting in December 1942 using the final armor installation weighing up to 4.3 ton. The 76 mm M7 gun was considered inadequate for a heavy tank by the Armored Force, deemed inferior to the German Tiger I in term of firepower (8.8 cm KwK 36). This criticism had been anticipated by Ordnance Department and a test was conducted to install a 90 mm M3 in the pilot T1E1 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in early 1943. The firing tests were satisfactory with the tank providing a stable gun platform. Although the 90 mm gun installation was recommended for future production, the M6 was Declared obsolete by December 1944 with a total of 40 tanks built, but the Army still continued to use the remaining production tanks as test beds for improved engines, transmissions, suspension components, and armament, especially the M6A2. A late production M6A2 was spotted carrying 90 mm gun in a fully active tank, demonstrated during 5th War Loan Drive Parade, 9 June 1944. It was rearmed during the maintenance period by a heavy tank company stationed at Fort Knox in late 1943 - early 1944. Reports from the crew said the M6A2s were the easiest tank to maintain and gave the least problems compared to M6 and M6A1. 76 mm sponson ammo rack was not enough to contain 90 mm shells, so a new arrangement for 90 mm armed M6 was required by storing the rack on the floor hull in similar arrangement like the T25. Up to 48 rounds can be stored in the hull, + 4 rounds in the turret. This new arrangement was also done later in the M6E1 heavy tank, as it was to have the requirement to mount T26 turret and 90 mm gun. Some advantages over M6A1: 90 mm gun Easier mobility control Full speed reverse at 43 km/h Comparison: I'm not entirely using Hunnicutt tank datasheet, because it contains some mistakes (while also being a secondary source). There are enough primary sources to cover the deficiencies. Specification: Manufacturer: Baldwin Locomotive Co. Combat weight: 61.83 ton (57.37 ton) + armor upgrade weighing 4.3 ton (9,500 lb) = 61.67 ton (61.67 ton) + weight of 76 mm M7 (0.903 ton) conversion to 90 mm M3 (1.03 ton) adds 127 kg increased weight = 61.79 ton (61.79 ton) + weight of 75x 3" shells (75x 7 kg = 525 kg) conversion to 52x 90 mm shells (52x 11 kg = 572 kg) adds 47 kg increased weight = 61.83 ton Crew: 6 (commander, driver, assistant driver, gunner, loader, loader) Engine: Wright G-200 Model 795C9GC1 Cyclone, 9-cylinder radial engine Engine power: 960 hp at 2300 rpm Power-to-weight: 15.52 hp/ton Transmission: General Electric electric transmission, 2 speed forward, 1 reverse Steering: Controlled differential Suspension: HVSS Turning diameter: Pivot Top speed: 43 km/h Reverse speed: -43 km/h Turret traverse: 20°/s Vertical guidance: +30 / -10° Armor: Hull: Front Upper: 101.6 mm (30°) Middle: 95.25 mm (45-60°) Lower: 127 mm (0-45°) Sides Upper: 76.2 mm (0°) Lower: 76.2 mm (0°) Skirts: 25.4 mm (0°) Rear Upper: 50.8 mm (25°) Lower: 50.8 mm (0-45°) Top Front: 44.45 mm Hatch: 38.1 mm All: 25.4 mm Floor 25.4 mm Turret: Inner Mantlet 50.8 mm (the elevating mantlet attached to the gun) Outer mantlet / Front 101.6 - 250 mm Sides 101.6 mm Rear 101.6 mm Top 34.925 - 41.275 mm Armament: Main gun 90 mm M3 L/53 Stowage: 52 rounds (Main rack, floor hull: 48 rounds) (Ready rack, turret: 4 rounds) Muzzle velocity: 808 m/s Rate of fire: 8 RPM (7.5 seconds) Ammunition: M77 AP M82 APCBC-HE M304 APCR M71 HE Secondary gun 37 mm M6 L/53 Stowage: 202 rounds Muzzle velocity: 884 m/s Rate of fire: 30 RPM (2 seconds) Ammunition: M51B1 APC M74B1 AP M63 HE Tertiary gun 2x 12.7 mm M2HB (Bow) 1x 12.7 mm M2HB (AA) Stowage: 1800 rounds US Ground Forces tech tree doesn't have many true heavy tanks in the game at mid tier, with some tanks like M4A3E2(76) Sherman Jumbo serves as a medium assault tank than a dedicated heavy tank packed with firepower. Having a late production series M6A2 with reinforced armor and 90 mm gun would be a better fire support to the US heavy tank unit to a significant degree of firepower and protection. Another M6A2 in different event. Later production models had minor additions such as lifting rings for the machine gun mounts Primary Source: Royal Army Corps - Technical Situation Report No. 2, 1942 Royal Army Corps - Technical Situation Report No. 21, 1944 TM 9-721 - Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1, 1943 Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development - Heavy Tanks and Assault Tanks, 1945 Secondary Sources: Hunnicutt: Firepower - A History of the American Heavy Tank Fifth War Loan Drive Parade Video Record
  10. 19 points
    Aircraft engine sounds are extremely loud as far as you will go deaf within days. The problem is if you turn down the sound you can't hear a tank. I think there should be different options for tank and aircraft engines
  11. 18 points
    Break? Explain me how it breaks? T-64A does not break? 7.1s vs 6.0s reload 2 types of APFSDS vs slower APFSDS and rockets which can do sh** anti-everything armor vs one hit kill tank (hesh - EZ, russian APHE - EZ) mobility little bit better for KPz/MBT
  12. 17 points
    Leopard 2 Prototype Leopard 2 Prototype PT-16 chassis with PT-14 tower with automatic charger On 1 August 1963, two years before the launch of the Leopard 1, the US and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a government agreement to co-operate on the development of a new tank, which was to replace the combat armor M48 from 1970 onwards. The project was named "MBT / KPz 70". After six years of development, however, it was clear that the project would not have a successful conclusion for several reasons. This realization led to the termination of the development work. In Germany, the beginning of the national program began in the course of the study "Keiler" with the conceptual considerations for its own tank concept. In 1971, the first two test organizers were available. Experiences gained with the Kampfpanzer 70 were integrated into the project, so that a first prototype left the production halls under the name Leopard 2 K in 1972 In the following three years, Krauss-Maffei built further prototypes: with 105 mm and 120 mm smoothbore guns, with a total of 16 different chassis and no fewer than 17 different towers. The other developments were among others. under the influence of the experiences of the Yom Kippur War, the NATO Agreement on Standardization of Combatants, and the comparative testing with the American prototype XM-1. In October 1977, the public finally received a series-ready result and Krauss-Maffei was commissioned as a general contractor to build the new combat armor. In October 1979, the first series models of the KPz Leopard 2 were handed over to the German Panzer Group (PzLehrBrig). The prototype Leopard 2 tower (module T-14) was built at the same time as the Leopard 2-AV PT 19 / T-19-AV Prototype. while the PT 19 / T-19-AV was used in the USA for comparative testing of leopard 2 AV and XM-1, Leopard 2 with T-14 Mod was available for testing only in Germany for testing purposes. Equipped with the 120mm direct channel cannon, stabilized primary target devices and an existing AEG fire control system, important technical data have been developed. The main component of the fire control system, however, was a completely new passive remote control (principle of correlation removal). the two fliders show the T-14 Mod. with the tub PT 09 in the technician for the Schilben in June of 1976. Notable features of tower 14 mod. are: the protection of the missing armor to the left and to the right of the blind. The view head of the correlation removal device with the three windows in the left view around the tower. The two external views form a small base for the correlation section. The average view was for the night. There is no more jogging system on either side of the tour. the front of the crosswindmebrad in the tower. Test field. Here you can see Leopard 2 in germany Here you can see Leopard 2 automatic loader system, very reminiscent of AMX Leclerc charging system Photos of the prototype of leopard 2 at the museum WehrTechnische StudienSammlung source:
  13. 17 points
    I was playing my American T-29 and I was able to kill the IS-6 from the side, which is totally inaccurate. The IS-6 was 100% unkillable from the front and sides. It needs another 150mm of armor on the sides, so that tanks such as the T-29 can't kill them from the flanks. It's already too easy to kill it from the front through the hull, much less the cupolas or the optics. If we are going to keep the frontal weak points, then it at least needs to be unkillable from the side. Especially by a lower BR tank- those aren't supposed to reliably be able to fight at higher BRs anyways. Though I do appreciate the ninja-buff of the cupolas, I've shot those many times with my T-29 and other tanks, and they no longer die so consistently from those weak points. That part, I am totally on board with, but the side armor needs to be buffed.
  14. 17 points
    I'm not a "helper", friend, I run the store and obviously know what is coming or not.
  15. 17 points
    You are right but MBT and KPz are experimental. They havent been used once so shouldnt gaijin model tanks according the expected designs? I mean if rheinmetall autoloader has 10 rpm why we get 6 now?
  16. 17 points
    I suspect Dmitry is on his way to gulag for disclosing sikret plans
  17. 16 points
    Since the sale everybody and their mother have a RU-251 it's literally insane to se at least half a team of them closing down the map and laying ambush with the rofl heatfs, tanks that are way above it are completely trolled by it frontally. Don't get me started on the railgun same an 8.0/8.3 glass cannon downed to 7.7 so it can print cash easily. Im glad that Mk103 30mm is getting a nerf, I feel like Iraqi T-55's in desert storm lately. Not only that but Gaijin actually took a liking to putting Germans+Russians vs everybody else. I haven't had more than 5 wins out of around 30 games played while using the Centurion Mk.10. How is it that light tanks have almost to none spalling when hit? Why is APDS broken and acting like a needle when APFSDS is a shotgun? Why are ammo racks going black and not detonating? Why are direct hits from APDS turning crewmembers yellow while killing the one behind them? (funny the gunners always survive). How come 6.7 is non existent due to the recent compression of the Leopards and M60s? Please make ground forces enjoyable for everybody for once, it goes from broken to broken. CAS, IS-6, HESH nerf, sales with unicorn spam, ammunitions getting tweaked all the time making tanks unconsistent and only season worthy, idiotic BR changes that fix nothing and suck lower tiers upwards. Seriously fix this game. PD: And there still are shameless scrubs who dare to say that the FV4202 is Op because it has an stabilizer. Gaijin you should start playing the game in real everyday matches and realize how unconsistent and broken everything is. I was seriously thinking about dropping another 50$ on this game but I feel Im not getting enjoyment for the money paid. It's a shame you still get loads of money from people who exploit whatever it's unbalanced in the current season.
  18. 16 points
    Summary from Russian Alconafter's Q&A livestream with BVV_d: Something big (presumably either French or Italian tanks) is going to be announced in the next few weeks Early T-72s and M1s are very likely to be added to the game Custom sight toolkit is going to be expanded very very soon, making it possible to replicate fully functional Tiger- and T-64/T-72-like sights Two more "naval" maps for destroyers are going to be announced by the end of the year, "naval" CBT with tech trees is likely to start around the same time (i.e. end of the year) There will be more BMP-1->BMP-1P-like upgrades, namely ERA; dynamic BR based on researched modifications is unlikely as it's very hard to code, fully-upgraded vehicle is taken into consideration when choosing BRs instead Hard-kill Active Protections Systems are possible, but as they don't require any player input, aren't necessarily going to be added
  19. 16 points
    From your past fake shops I think you should ask for your money back.
  20. 16 points
    I aint no cat. I am weird cat-dog creature (I am the one in the front)
  21. 16 points
    lol the whole update is just He 177s. You get the: He 177 A-0 He 177 A-1 He 177 A-2 He 177 A-3 He 177 A-4 He 177 A-5 He 177 A-6 He 177 A-7 He 177 A-5 Grosszerstörer He 177 B He 177 British captured He 177 French captured He 177 American captured & 1 or 2 other nations planes/tanks.
  22. 15 points
    Aircraft: Fw 187 A-0 “Falke” Classification: Twin-engine, two-seat fighter Visuals: Description: The development of the Fw 187 (nickname “Falke” - Falcon/Hawk) started on Focke-Wulf’s own initiative in 1936. Kurt Tank had high hopes that the Fw 187 would please the RLM (Ministry of Aviation) so that a serial production would be ordered. The Fw 187 was designed from the start as a twin-engine, low-wing, all-metal aircraft. The initially intended powerplants were DB 600 with 960 PS but due to unavailability of these the next powerful engines (Jumo 210) were chosen. The first flight of the first prototype (V-1, WNr. 949) took place on the 10th April 1937 in Bremen. In the following tests Hans Sander (FW’s head test pilot) was very satisfied with the performance of the aircraft. Especially the speed was that impressive - the V-1 was about 35-40 kph faster than Messerschmitt’s Bf 109 with the same engine - that FW decided to built a Fw 187 to break the speed records of the He 100 and Me 209 (however the attempt on the record was never realised). In 1937 the next prototype V-2 (equipped with the same Jumo 210 D) were built, followed by the V-3 (Jumo 210 G). At the beginning of 1937 the RLM decided that a serial production wasn’t needed because the Fw 187 didn’t fit the RLM’s requirements as a multi-role heavy fighter. However the performance impressed the RLM so that Focke-Wulf was allowed to continue with the construction of a two-seat version - the Fw 187 V-4 - intended as a heavy fighter that would be placed between the Bf 110 and 109. The V-4 (WNr. 1966) was also the pilot run for the A-0 (five A-0 were built in total) and test flights were conducted from October 1938 until February 1939. The V-4 were followed by a few more prototypes (V-5 to V-8) with different engines (Jumo 210 G, DB 601 E/V, DB 605 A) - although non of the prototypes with DB 605 engines were completed. Initially the armament of the A-0s consisted of 2 MG17 and 2 MG151 without the MG81 in the rear. Later this was changed to 4 MG17, 2 MG/FF - also the canopy got changed later (after tests on the V-6). The A-0 saw service in FW’s factory defense unit (with at least one confirmed air victory: pilot Wolfgang Stein shot down a Spitfire in May 1943) and with a heavy fighter Unit in Værløse, Denmark. [1,2] My proposed place for the Fw 187 A-0 in the German Tech Tree would be the premium line - maybe even as an event vehicle in tradition of the Fw 189 Uhu. Engine Data: Manufacturer: Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke Designation: Jumo 210 G Engine Count: 2 Configuration: liquid-cooled inverted vee Number of Cylinders: 12 Displacement: 19.7 liter Dry Weight: 465 kg Gear reduction ratio: 1.75:1 Fuel Type: B4 (87 Octane) Supercharger: two speed supercharger Power Data: Takeoff Power: 1.30 ata - 700 PS @ 2700 RPM @ SL Combat Power at SL: 1.26 ata - 630 PS @ ~2630 RPM @ SL Max Continuous Power: 1.10 ata - 555 PS @ 2500 RPM @ SL Power at 3900 m: 670 PS @ 2700 RPM Power at 4600 m: 605 PS @ 2700 RPM Propellor Data: Type: VDM Blade Count: 3 Blade Diameter: 3.1 m Dimensional Data: Length: 11.20 m Height: 3.85 m Wing Span: 15.48 m Wing Area: 30.20 m² Wing Loading: 165.56 kg/m² Fuel and Oil Data: Internal Fuel Capacity: 1 fuselage tank (620 l), 1 tank in each wing (245 l); total capacity: 1110 liter Oil Capacity: 2 x 48 liter in 2 tanks; total capacity: 96 liter Weight Data: Empty Weight: 3402 kg Gross Weight (combat): 4900 kg General Performance Data: Max Speed (clean condition): 545 kph @ 4600 m Takeoff Distance (combat condition): 154 m Range: 1450 km Service Ceiling: 10000 m Maximum Speeds (clean condition): At SL: 466 kph At 1900 m: 515 kph At 2900 m: 507 kph At 4600 m: 545 kph At 5000 m: 541 kph At 6000 m: 528 kph Rate of Climb: At SL (T/O Power): 12.10 m/s Time to Altitude: 0-2000 m: 2.8 min 0-4000 m: 6.2 min 0-6000 m: 10.4 min Armament: Option I: 2 MG17 (1000 RPG), 2 MG/FF (60 RPG) facing forward; 1 MG81 (1000 RPG) facing the rear Option II: 2 MG17 (1000 RPG), 2 MG151 (280 RPG) facing forward; 1 MG81 (1000 RPG) facing the rear Option III (overload configuration): 4 MG17 (1000 RPG), 2 MG151 (300 RPG) facing forward; 1 MG81 (1000 RPG) facing the rear Sources: [1] Hermannn, Dietmar ; Petrick, Peter: Focke-Wulf Fw 187 : der vergessene Hochleistungsjäger ; Aviatic, 2001. ISBN 3-925505-66-0 [2] Schulz, Martin ; Tanks Meisterwerk - Focke-Wulf Fw 187: Der herausragend schnelle Jäger ging nie in Serie, Klassiker der Luftfahrt ; Motor Presse Stuttgart, 03/2004. [3] Motor-Prüfdaten Jumo 210 G (Link)
  23. 15 points
    Bonjour, En l'honneur de la France qui a finalement obtenu son arbre technologique si mérité dans le jeu, je voudrais personnellement faire un cadeau à un de mes amis français qui, ne pouvant acheter un pack, ne peut participer au triomphe de la France dans War Thunder. Pack de démarrage Dewoitine D.371 H.S.9 Un simple concours, en voici les règles: Postez une photo dans ce topic montrant votre fierté pour l'armée française L'image doit respecter toutes les règles du forum (rien de malsain ou grossier s'il vous plaît). L'image n'inclut pas forcément que des avions. L'image ne doit pas forcément être issue du jeu mais ce serait appréciable. Si vous possédez déjà ce pack de démarrage, que vous êtes rattachés à un compte DMM (Compte Paypal japonais) ou que vous avez un compte PS4, je ne peux pas vous offrir ce cadeau, mais n'hésitez pas à partager votre fierté, en précisant que vous avez déjà l'avion ou que vous n'êtes pas éligible. Un poste sera choisi le 11 novembre (samedi) et cette personne recevra le pack de démarrage D.371 H.S.9. Je posterai le nom du joueur gagnant ici. Ce cadeau n'est pas offert par Gaijin, c'est juste ma manière de souhaiter la bienvenue aux français dans le cercle des nations de War Thunder et de les féliciter. Donc, amusez vous bien, soyez créatifs et bonne chance!
  24. 15 points
    something can kill glorious tanks with ease? nerf it quick it's warthunder way of proceed pathetic
  25. 15 points
    Enduring Confrontation Overhaul Recent EC changes prove that Gaijin started working on improving EC battles. They do it in chaotic way currently applying Arcade concepts into Sim battles. However they are doing something. I think it is time to re-think the whole concept of Dynamic battlefield and how missions are generated, before causing even more chaos with AI flights with no purpose and missions that nobody really care or take ownership of. I would like to introduce the idea of Mission Manager concept, that will improve playablity of EC. Current task issues system will solve: Tasks on map screen are in form of a list that you have to scroll and are not really either readable or encouraging players to bother about them. AI flights are not connected with tasks, they pick up targets of opportunity but don't represent sortie focused on specific battle mission. Players are not encouraged to complete tasks together. They don't have tool to group into sorties for specific missions, they usually fly alone as a result of this organizational chaos. 1. Mission Selection Screen When joining EC battle the player is presented with mission selection screen: On this screen there is a list of all generated missions available to player. The mission description contains: - Mission type (Recon, Ground Attack, CAP, Strike, Scramble) - Mission difficulty (1-5 stars), depends on target number, AAA in area, distance to frontline, enemy air presence - Number of players already signed up for mission / total number of slots available - Mission start countdown: it decreases with every player joining mission by 30s. If no player joins and countdown reaches 0, the mission is played by AI. If all slots are taken by players, the mission starts immediately. Player can see all current missions on the map screen. Clicking on any mission is opening the mission details (briefing) screen. 2. Mission Briefing Screen This screen shows the details of mission, objectives, route to target area and other players participating. It allows player to choose a slot and sign up for a mission. Example: Cap mission Briefing Cap mission briefing above contains: - Difficulty and mission start timer - Objective description - Player list: 2 slots are taken by players and 2 slots are free to join, in this example player can choose free slot only if he has fighter selected - Target area and altitude: grid D2-D3 at 3000m - Time to complete: at least 10min patrol - Route planned on the map with waypoints and headings Example: Ground Attack mission briefing Ground attack missions are made of 2 wings: attackers and escort. The screen contains: - Mission type, difficulty, number of players and start time - Objective description, (AAA strength at the target area not included in screenshot but also should be there) - Attack wing slots with 2 taken by players and 2 empty, only allowing to choose if player has ground attack type of airplane selected - Escort wing slots with 1 taken by player and 1 empty - only fighters allowed - Route to target plotted on the map: Ingress Point at WP.1 is indicating optimal entry point for starting attack, Exit point at WP.3 is indicating exit point after attack. The waypoints are not mandatory to reach for mission completion, however they show the optimal approach to target and are automatically created over AAA free areas relatively safe. Example: Strike (Bomber) mission briefing: Ground attack missions are made of 2 wings: bombers and escort. The screen contains: - Mission type, difficulty, number of players and start time - Objective description, (AAA strength at the target area not included in screenshot but also should be there) - Bomber wing slots (2 empty and 2 taken) only bombers allowed - Escort wing slots (2 empty) - only fighters allowed - Route to target and altitude, while it is not mandatory to follow, it shows the optimal safe altitude and route to target. Ingress point is set up in a way that following it will provide the best angle and heading towards target, giving plenty time to prepare for drop 3. Mission Start and Progress When the mission timer reaches 0 or all slots are populated by players the mission starts. The players spawn at mission airbase in selected types of aircrafts and proceed with the mission. Slot 1 - flight leader Slot 2 - leader wingman Slot 3 - 2nd pair leader Slot 4 - 2nd pair wingman All empty slots that are left are being populated with AI. For example if only 2 bomber slots are populated with players and other 2 are empty - they are populated by AI wingman who will follow players. The AI wingmans spawn in the same aircraft types as players and follow players mimicking their behaviour. When mission is in progress, the mission screen displays only data relevant to this mission and doesn't display any other missions, objectives, flights etc. Example: Mission in progress CAP CAP mission screen contains: - Objective description - CAP patrol time criteria - the timer starts as soon as any airplane in flight enters assigned grid, and stops if no airplane from wing is present, it counts down from min time set as mission objective - Completion reward - shows percentage of SL/RP points as a bonus for fulfilling the time objective, - Enemies shot down - shows count and bonus percentage for the whole wing, for number of enemies destroyed in CAP grids. - Player list- it shows player name, airplane type, position and status: grayed out players were shot down. Position and altitude helps identifying where the whole flight is. Example: Mission in progress Strike: Strike mission progress screen contains: - Mission Objective description - Area destruction - for bomber missions it shows percentage of target destroyed. It translates to reward bonus for completion of obj. - Bomber alive bonus - this is fighter escort objective, it adds bonus for each bomber surviving mission - Interceptors killed - number of enemy airplanes killed by escort within 2km vicinity of bombers. It adds additional bonus to mission result. - List of players: shows position and status of each airplane participating in mission For CAS missions the screen is similar to above, the Area Destruction objective changes to Ground Targets Destroyed percentage. 4. Mission End The mission ends when player lands back on airbase or crashes. The total score is based on mission difficulty, participation time, mission result, additional bonuses and players status. For example a player who flew whole mission and landed back at base will receive full mission reward plus additional bonuses. A player who crashed or was shot down, will only get reward up to the point of his death. Crashing before reaching target will give no reward for target destruction or any event that occurred after his death. If mission objective was not reached, the mission returns to the main mission pool and players can pick it up again. 5. Mission Types, objectives and generation mechanism: At any point during whole EC time, the system generates missions based on human players that are participating. The formula is: 75% human players + 25% AI. So if 8 players are currently in game the EC system will make sure that there are missions for 12 players available(or in progress) all the time. All Ground Attack missions are only generated after specific targets were reconed first. CAP and Scramble missions are generate based on enemy activity in area (simulating intelligence work, radar stations reports etc). At the begining of EC match, only Recon and CAP missions are available as there are no ground targets identified. CAS missions are deployed against ground battles that pop up on map. Mission types: Recon Recon missions are 1-2 players flying with unarmed aircraft of choice. It simulates photo cameras installed instead of armament. All forward firing weapons, bombs and rockets are disabled so players cannot engage enemies. Only gunners work as normal. Allowed are all types of fighters, 2-engine bombers and ground attackers. Objective is to fly unarmed recon over target area (1 grid) and return to base with photos. Recon flight has to end by flying back and landing at base. If Recon plane crashes, the photos are lost and target doesn't pop up on the map. Exception to this are crash landings within 10km from airbase - photos can be retrieved from wreckage. However pilot will lose full bonus for mission completion. Cannot take photos through clouds. Recon missions pop up randomly over enemy targets and difficulty is based on distance from front line and target defenses. Scramble Scramble missions are airbase defense missions for 2-4 players. Scramble mission pops up when enemy bombers are spotted 5-7min from airbase that was already reconed by enemy team. Fighters only. The objective is to reach altitude and intercept incoming enemy airplanes. Bonus for each bomber shot down. CAP Combat air patrol missions are 2-4 fighters missions that pop up over strategic areas on map. Usually over front line or at predicted approach routes to various targets. CAP is high-altitude air dominance mission and its objective is to keep advantage over enemy airplanes for specific time at specific grids. Only targets destroyed within CAP area count towards mission bonus. CAP difficulty is based on distance from front line and AAA threat. Ground Attack (various targets) Ground attack missions are made of 4-6 players divided in 2 wings: attackers and escort. Attackers can be any ground attack airplanes, dive bombers (up to 2 engines) or fighter-bombers equipped with ground attack ordnance. The type is specified in mission and mix of attackers/fighter-bombers in 1 wing is not possible. Fighter-bomber sorties will get less escort. The targets are various: vehicle columns, artillery positions, bridges, pillboxes, armored vehicles, trains. Escort wing bonus is added for each ground attack plane that made it back to base and for each enemy airplane shot down within 2km from attack wing. Mission difficulty is based on distance to front line and AAA defence. Strike (various targets) Strike missions are made of 4-6 players divided in 2 wings: bombers and escort. Bomber wings allows only 2-4 engine bombers with bombsight. Fighter wings - any fighter. Strike missions are high altitude level strikes on various targets: Industrial areas, Army bases, Air bases. Escort gets reward for each bomber landing back at base and for each enemy airplane shot down in 2km vicinity from strike wing. With this system there is more coordination, more representation of realistic battlefield. AI chaos is over as AI takeoff and fly specific missions, either as player wingmans or on their own. Players within one mission can communicate using "Team" channel and only see pings and messages from within the same mission. Missions have ownership and players are rewarded for team effort. New players life is easier, no more questions "what to do?" or "where is enemy?". You will always see a list of missions and can pick up one with precise description what to do and what are your objectives. Ground attackers life is easier as even if 1 player joins a mission for 4 players, he will get 3 AI wingmans of the same type flying with him. Salute! Sputnik
  26. 14 points
    Well it looks like the ISU's are gonna come down in BR now..... Since as soon as someone complains about the USSR tanks they get fixed with a couple of weeks... If you think they're overtiered you should play almost 3/4 of the US tree... BTW the extra 5 seconds is great if you have an expert crew maxed out loader as well you'll get close to the same reload as the IS6, and I'm sure you know how effective that is.
  27. 14 points
    Aircraft: Bf 109 K-6 Classification: Single-seat bomber interceptor, fighter Visuals: Introduction: While the last definitive production version of the Bf 109 was the K-4, the actual last Bf 109 to be made and readied for testing was the Bf 109 K-6, which had a few notable distinctions from the K-4. The primary improvement of the K-6 over the K-4 was the new wings, which allowed it to mount MK108s internally, thus eliminating the significant wingpod drag which hampered speed on pod-equipped K-4s. Due to internal cannon mounting, the K-6 doesn’t experience the significant speed loss of “podded” K-4s, and should be considered a worthy addition to the game as the separate model designation would suggest.The K-6 utilized the same engine as the K-4, and would thus retain the excellent characteristics of the definitive Kurfurst. Description: (Note that this is a paraphrased and improvised translation to English from the original source book which is in German. The original German and literal English translation has been spoilered below.) The Bf 109 K-6 design was conceived and developed in mid-1944. The armament was made considerably stronger than the K-4 and now consisted of one MK 108 motorkanone, two MG 131 13mm machine guns mounted on the cowling, and two additional MK 108s mounted as in-wing armament. This aircraft was intended to be used as a “Sturmjager”. Prototype wings with two MK 108 cannon were originally tested on the a Bf 109 G-6 at the “E-Stelle Tarnewitz” test site, which was used to test "Schrägbewaffnung" before. In September of 1944 new wings were fitted and adjusted by Messerschmitt’s engineers, who made changes to the belt feed and discharge system. After these changes, the wing-mounted armament functioned without major issues. Messerschmitt designed the belt deflection plate modification for the wing-mounted MK 108s in mid-October 1944. The first K-6 was presented in Regensburg at the beginning of December in 1944, although it wasn’t fully equipped like the intended serial production aircraft, as it excluded mainwheel gear covers wince they posed some issues with the adjustment of the internal wing-guns. Due to the problems Messerschmitt encountered with the engine in this prototype, trials were halted in mid February 1945. However, by the end of the month, an airworthy example was prepared after being equipped witht he EZ 42 reflector gunsight sent to the 1. Fliegerdivision. This example was likely intended for field tests with a fighter unit. The Bf 109 K-6 was extremely similar to the K-4, and ran the identical DB 605 D engine, MW-50 injection as standard equipment, fully retractable tail gear, and the gun camera which was typically found on K-4s as an R6 modification. According to performance calculations dating to December 12th, 1944, the K-6 equipped with a DB 605 ASCM/DCM engine would’ve reached 608 kph at SL and 728 kph at 8000 meters - speeds that were more or less identical to those of the K-4. The Bf 109 K-6 was planned to be built at the Wiener Neustadt factory starting in 1945, while the Erla and Regensburg factories would built K-4s. Production was slated to be a 2:1 ratio of K-4s to K-6s. Engine Data: Manufacturer: Daimler-Benz Designation: DB 605 DC Engine Count: 1 Configuration: liquid-cooled inverted vee Number of Cylinders: 12 Displacement: 35.7 liter Dry Weight: 745 kg Gear reduction ratio: 1.685:1 Fuel Type: C3 (100 Octane) Supercharger: single stage, variable speed supercharger Power Data: War Emergency Power (“Sondernotleistung”): 1.98 ata - 2000 PS @ 2800 RPM @ SL Military Power: 1.45 ata - 1370 PS @ 2600 RPM @ SL War Emergency Power (“Sondernotleistung”): 1.98 ata - 1800 PS @ 2800 RPM @ 4900 m Military Power: 1.45 ata - 1285 PS @ 2600 RPM @ 6800 m Max Continuous Power: 1.35 ata @ 2400 RPM Propellor Data: Type: VDM 9-12199 Blade Count: 3 Blade Diameter: 3 m Dimensional Data: Length: 9.02 m Height: 3.37 m Wing Span: 9.92 m Wing Area: 16.05 m² Wing Loading: 224.3 kg/m² (using gross weight) Fuel and Oil Data: Internal Fuel Capacity: 400 liter (0.296 t) MW-50 Capacity: 85 liter (0.0765 t) Oil Capacity: 36.8 liter (0.046 t) Weight Data: Empty Weight: kg Gross Weight (combat): 3600 kg Note: all following data is calculation based according to Messerschmitt/RLM official estimates and calculations made in preparation for K-6 trials. General Performance Data: Max Speed (clean condition): 716 kph @ 6000 m Takeoff Distance (combat condition): Unknown Note that the K-4’s t/o distance is 380 meters, and the K-6 is only 200kg heavier Range: 575 km (under 3100 kg) Service Ceiling: 12500 m Maximum Speeds (clean condition): At SL (WEP): 604 kph At SL (Military Power): 524 kph At 6000 m (WEP): 716 kph At 8000 m (Military Power): 686 kph Rate of Climb (WEP): At SL: 22.2 m/s At 1 km: 22.2 m/s At 2 km: 21.3 m/s At 3 km: 20.3 m/s At 4 km: 19.3 m/s At 5 km: 18.4 m/s At 6 km: 16.0 m/s At 7 km: 13.0 m/s At 8 km: 10.5 m/s Time to Altitude (calculated from RoC per every 1K meters): 0-1000 m: 45.45 sec 0-2000 m: 92.40 sec (1 min, 32.4 seconds) 0-3000 m: 141.66 sec (2 min, 21.7 seconds) 0-4000 m: 193.48 sec (3 min, 13.5 seconds) 0-5000 m: 247.83 sec (4 min, 7.8 seconds) 0-6000 m: 310.33 sec (5 min, 10.3 seconds) 0-7000 m: 387.25 sec (6 min, 27.2 seconds) 0-8000 m: 482.49 sec (8 min, 2.5 seconds) Armament: Identical as K-4, with 1 MK108 of 40 RPG mounted in each wing, giving: 2x MG131 13mm MGs (cowling mounted): 300 RPG 1x MK108 30mm cannon (engine mounted): 65 RPG 2x MK108 30mm cannon (in-wing mounted, 1 per wing): 40 RPG Sources: Griehl, Hermann (1987): Flugzeug Profile Messerschmitt Bf 109 G/K - Die Geschichte eines legendären Jagdflugzeuges. (Unitec-Medienvertrieb), page 40-42 Hermann, Dietmar / Ringlstetter, Herbert (2017): Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Vom Prototyp bis zur Bf 109 K. (GeraMond Verlag), page 182 Prien, Jochen / Rodeike, Peter (1997): Messerschmitt Bf 109 F/G/K/ Series. An Illustrated Study. (Schiffer Publishing), page 177 Radinger, Willy / Otto, Wolfgang / Schick, Walter (2011): Messerschmitt Me 109. das meistgebaute Jagdflugzeug der Welt; Entwicklung, Erprobung und Technik; alle Varianten: von Bf (Me) 109A bis Me 109K. (Aviatic-Verlag), page 133 Leistungen 8 - 109 K4 und K6 mit DB 605 ASCM/DCM A/IV/294/44 Maximum speeds - DB 605 D Sondernotleistung with MW, Steig- u. Kampfleistung, with thin blade prop. 9-12199 Climb rates - DB 605 D Sondernotleistung with MW, Steig- u. Kampfleistung, with thin blade prop. 9-12199 Maximum speeds - DDB 605 DC/ASC without MW for base-setting 1,98ata and 1,8ata with prop. 9-12199 and 9-12159. Start- u. Notleistung, Steig- u. Kampfleistung Climb rates - DB 605 DC/ASC without MW for base-setting 1,98ata and 1,8ata with prop. 12199 and 12159. Start- u. Notleistung, Steig- u. Kampfleistung (9-605-2290/91) Maximum speeds - DB 605 DB/ASB Sondernotleistung with MW, Steig- u. Kampfleistung, Start- u. Notleistung with thin blade prop. 9-12199 Climb rates - DB 605 DB/ASB Sondernotleistung with MW, Steig- u. Kampfleistung with prop. 9-12199 and 9-12159 (9-605-2271) Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K-4 mit DB 605 D. (for info on the thin-bladed prop) http://hyperscale.com/2007/features/bf109k632ms_1.htm (source for modeling pictures)
  28. 14 points
    Last year and for previous years there has been an article on the main website regarding November 11th or Remembrance/Armistice Day. I hope there will be an article posted this year despite it being a weekend where few posts are posted on the main website. Nevertheless, Lest We Forget
  29. 14 points
    And now go and please read the forum rules before I lose patience.
  30. 14 points
    Ah yes, here comes the name calling. Ironic from someone that only plays one nation then throws a fit when someone calls them out.
  31. 14 points
    Fro Good ATGM? Good ATGM is RK Hot 2, because of his 800mm penetration XYZ-70 armor effective? Of course, it can be easly penetrate from every tank 6.7+
  32. 13 points
    Aircraft: Grumman F7F-3N Tigercat Classification: Twin-engine, two-seat nightfighter Visuals: Description: The F7F-3N incorporated all the improvements of the -3 model, namely more powerful R-2800-34W engines, an enlarged tail fin for greater stability, and increased fuel capacity. However, the -3N was a further adaptation to fit the night fighter role, and was fitted with the SCR720 radar, a second cockpit integrated within the fuselage for the radar operator, and the deletion of the 4x 12.7 machine guns in the nose to make space for the radar. Although the production count of the F7F-3N totaled only 60 aircraft, it saw service in the Korean war as a fighter-bomber where it saw service with the Marines until the mid-1950s. A F7F-3N of VMF(N)-513 shot down a Po-2 biplane on Sept. 23, 1951 after making radar contact with it - the sole aerial victory for any Tigercat during the type’s service. Fuel and Oil Data: Internal Fuel Capacity: 375 gallons Oil Capacity: 42 gallons (2x 21 gallon tanks) Engine Data: Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney Designation: R-2800-34W Engine Count: 2 Number of Cylinders: 18 Configuration: Double-row Radial, air-cooled Supercharger: single stage, two speed supercharger Prop Shaft Ratio: 0.45 ADI Fluid Duration: ~12 min Power Data: Takeoff Power: 2100 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ SL Combat Power at SL: 2380 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ SL Combat Power at 1000’: 2400 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ 1000 feet Combat Power at 9500’: 1790 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ 9500 feet Combat Power at 15500’: 1850 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ 15,500 feet Propellor Data: Manufacturer: Hamilton Standard Blade Count: 3 Blade Diameter: 13 feet, 2 inches Dimensional Data: Length: 46 ft, 10.5 in Height: 16 ft, 7 in Wing Span: 51 ft, 6 in Wing Area: 455 sq. ft Wing Loading: 47.2 lbs/sq. Ft Weight Data: Empty Weight (calculated): 16400 lbs Gross Weight (combat): 21476 lbs General Performance Data: Max Speed (clean condition): 435mph (700kph) Stall Speed (gross weight, combat condition): 90.9mph (146.29kph) Takeoff Distance (combat condition): 637 ft Service Ceiling: 40800 ft Maximum Speeds (clean condition): At SL (combat power): 369mph (593.85 kph) At 22000 ft (combat power): 435mph (700.07kph) Maximum Speeds (combat condition with faired wing bomb racks and sway-bracing + fuselage shackle) At SL (combat power): 355mph (571.31 kph) At 5000 ft (combat power): 372mph (598.68 kph) At 10000 ft (combat power): 393mph (632.47 kph) At 15000 ft (combat power): 388mph (624.43 kph) At 20000 ft (combat power): 413mph (664.66 kph) At 25000 ft (combat power): 420mph (675.92 kph) At 30000 ft (combat power): 405mph (651.78 kph) Rate of Climb: At SL (combat power): 4580 ft/min (23.27 m/s) Time to Altitude: To 10000 ft: 2.2 min To 20000 ft: 5.2 min Armament: Guns: 4x AN/M3 20mm cannon (800 rounds) Bombs: 1x 2000lb or 1x 1600lb under fuselage 2x 1000lb, 2x 500lb, 2x 250lb, or 2x 100lb under wings, 1 each Rockets: 1x 11.75” AR ‘Tiny Tim’ mounted under fuselage 2x 11.75” AR ‘Tiny Tim’ mounted under inner wings, 1 each 8x 5” HVAR mounted under outer wing panel Torpedos: 1 MK-13-3 Torpedo mounted under fuselage Sources: Airplane Characteristics & Performance Model F7F-3N, 1 March 1946 (NAVAER-1519B Rev.9-44) Pilot’s Handbook for F7F-1N, F7F-2N, F7F-3, F7F-3N, F7F-4N Airplanes (AN-01-85FA-1), revised 1 July 1949 Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons Volume 1: The History of VA, VAH, VAK, VAL, VAP, and VFA Squadrons by Roy A. Grossnick, Washington 1995 1st Naval Historical Center. ISBN 0-16-045296-1
  33. 13 points
    Dear players, Using the rules of squadron battles where you can utilise any available vehicle (up to rank 4) - of course it makes sense that players will only use the most efficient and high-rank machines. Thus squadron battles are not as diverse as they could be and any possible tactics are limited. We decided to bring more variety whilst keeping the balance. What we are planning to do - primarily we will use the BR system instead of ranks, we will also allow any vehicles to be used with the maximum available BR being increased throughout the season of the squadron battles. Thus we will unlock some of the more interesting vehicles and at the same time players who have not yet researched top rank machines will still be able to participate. The commanders will be able to implement a variety of tactics and the players will be able to join the battles with their favourite vehicles. The next season will be conducted according to these experimental rules and we will watch the resuts closely whilst taking part in these highly competitive battles ourselves. Here’s the season’s schedule: Weeks 1 and 2 max BR 6.0 (01.11 — 14.11) Weeks 3 and 4 max BR 7.0 (15.11 — 28.11) Weeks 5 and 6 max BR 8.0 (29.11 — 12.12) Week 7 and till the end of the season max BR 9.0 (13.12 — 31.12) These rules will apply to both Arcade and Realistic modes The War Thunder Team
  34. 13 points
    Because despite this game myth, sloping armour is not all good. Unlike the US or Russia, Japan's industry starting falling right before Pearl harbour. In the industry was at its peak, and in a decline. Tanks use flat armour, because its cheap, and creates less weight. Sloping armour causes intense stress on the tank, not only increasing weight but also prevents the engine from preforming to its fullest. Japan's tanks focused on being lightweight. You are sending them island to island, on terrain thats not suited for vehicles. This is why Japan stuck to the method that worked. The Sherman tank had numerous issues in the pacific, and was a failure. The thickness of the tanks was not an issue. Ignoring Light Tanks, the Chi-Ha's armour was suitable against AT fire from infantry and small AT guns. It was not made to prevent other tanks from penetrating as tank on tank combat was not like it had been on the European front. Japanese tanks ambushed, not encountered. I don't know your source, but thats not true whatsoever. The Chi-Ri was a complete redesign. The 75mm gun was not just made bigger, it was made into an actual anti tank gun. Unlike the 57mm, the 75mm was made to penetrate tanks. The 57mm, was not. The only tank with a hull mounted 37mm was the Chi-Ri II, an experimental design. The actual Chi-Ri did not use this. And was placed in the II's hull for infantry support. Increasing engine power, thats just done to make it bigger? That increase is needed to make the tank preform decently in its mobility.. Again, its a large tank with a large autoloading mechanism. 5 Crew was needed.. At this point its clear you know nothing about tank design, and only look at something and make assumptions based on no actual knowledge of how these tanks work. The transmission "step", with the frontal trans is done to save weight and allow Pacific terrain operating. Because all Japanese tanks were built to be used in that terrain, so its logical to have an identical setup that works. The "hull cheeks" are made to increase armour effectiveness. Because actual tanks dont slope their hulls like you do in video games. You CANNOT fit a coaxial machinegun in the turret. the turret mount is ballpoint, so the gun has free traverse. A machinegun gets in the way, as they found out when testing it on the Experimental Chi-Ho. Excuse the japanese for actually using their brain to prevent issues in the field. Machine gun in the hull, really? So something almost all tanks had at the time? It's hard to take you seriously.
  35. 13 points
    There are only a few maps that suit Russian medium tanks. And those that exist in the game are almost never seen for some strange reason. We need more maps that allow Russian medium tanks to shine: Small CQB maps that afford ample opportunity for flank shots leveraging the superb turret traverse speeds and nuclear tipped APHE rounds. What we do not need is even more open maps with the accursed head on engagements where armour protection, Rate of Fire and penetration values are the dominant factor. We also do not need maps that are not flat (even small ones) as this would make gun depression a factor. Which is not fair or proper. I used a special algorithm (not unlike WarThunders map rotation algorithm) to randomly pick images from the internet and I believe these would all make good inspiration for a bunch of new maps that could be added to WarThunder Ground Forces. I trust these will win the broad approval of the WT GF player base:
  36. 13 points
    Then Tiger IIs should go too... If T29 goes to 7.0
  37. 13 points
    M60A2 should have probably 13missiles but currently the only primary source gives 7 (don't worry if I will find better source of info on M60A2 I will create specific bug report) and no... 4prm and 5 rpm is BETTER than 4rpm and less than 2. good is this the final result of at least M26 and M46 should have 8rpm so its "work in progress" or this is "final" ? kindly thank you gaijin for listening to your "faithful servant"
  38. 13 points
    Aircraft: Vought F4U-5 Corsair Classification: Single-engine monoplane carrier fighter Visuals: Description: The F4U-5 represented the culmination of Vought’s experience and design with the Corsair series. The F4U-5 was by far the best and most advanced Corsair, and retained the advanced features of the F4U-4 while making significant strides in improving performance, versatility, and pilot’s creature comforts. Speed, rate of climb, altitude performance, and carrying capacity all improved noticeably over the -4, but the F4U-5 also boasted hydraulic, spring-tabbed control surfaces that proved to be 40% lighter to operate at high speeds for the pilot. The F4U-5 was also developed into the F4U-5N night-fighter and -5NL winterized night-fighter which saw service in the Korean War with VMF(N)-513 alongside F7F-3Ns. The F4U-5 was finally retired from service with the US in 1956. Fuel, Oil, and Water Data: Internal Fuel Capacity: 236.1 gallons (234 in tanks, 2.1 trapped in system) Oil Capacity: 33.1 gallons (16 in tanks, 17.1 trapped in system) Water Capacity: 28 gallons for combat power Engine Data: Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney Designation: R-2800-32W Double Wasp Engine Count: 1 Number of Cylinders: 18 Configuration: Double-row Radial, air-cooled Supercharger: single stage, two speed supercharger Prop Shaft Ratio: ADI Fluid Duration: ~12 min Power Data: Takeoff Power: 2300 BHP @ 2800 RPM @ SL Combat Power at SL: 2760 BHP @ 2800 RPM Combat Power at 23000’: 2440 BHP @ 2800 RPM Military Power at SL’: 2300 BHP @ 2800 RPM Military Power at 30000’: 1800 BHP @ 2800 RPM Normal Power at SL: 1900 BHP @ 2600 RPM Normal Power at 30000’: 1500 HP @ 2600 RPM Propellor Data: Manufacturer: Hamilton Standard Model: 24E60/6837A-O Blade Count: 4 Blade Diameter: 13 feet, 2 inches Dimensional Data: Length: 33 ft, 6 in Height: 14 ft, 10 in Wing Span: 41 ft Wing Area: 314 sq. ft (including ailerons) Wing Loading: 41.01 lbs/sq. Ft Weight Data: Empty Weight: 9691 lbs Fuel Weight: 1404 lbs Gross Weight (combat): 12901 lbs General Performance Data: Max Speed (clean condition): 408 knots (755.6kph) Power-off, flaps-up Stall Speed (gross weight, fighter condition): 93.0 knots (172.24kph) Takeoff Distance (combat condition): 642 ft Service Ceiling: 43500 ft on military power, 40000 ft on combat power Maximum Speeds (clean condition): At SL (combat power): 347 knots (642.64 kph) At SL (military power): 319 knots (590.79 kph) At SL (normal power): 282 knots (522.26 kph) At 27000 ft (combat power): 408 knots (755.62 kph) At 33200 ft (military power): 398 knots (737.1 kph) At 36300 ft (normal power): 393 knots (727.84 kph) Rate of Climb: At SL (combat power): 4840 ft/min (24.59 m/s) At SL (military power): 4100 ft/min (20.83 m/s) At SL (normal power): 3200 ft/min (16.26 m/s) Time to Altitude (combat/military/normal power): To 10000 ft: 2.1 min / 2.6 min / 3.2 min To 20000 ft: 4.7 min / 5.4 min / 6.7 min Armament: Guns: 4x AN/M3 20mm cannon (924 rounds) Bombs: Centerline fuselage pylon: Up to 2000 lbs Wing pylons: up to and including 1600 lbs Rockets: 2x 11.75” AR ‘Tiny Tim’ mounted under inner wings, 1 each 8x 5” HVAR mounted under outer wing panels (4 per wing panel) 8x 3.5” HVAR mounted under outer wing panels (4 per wing panel) Torpedos: Sources: Detail Specification for Model F4U-5 Airplane, SD-261-5-1B Report No.8 Corsair 5 - Information Booklet and Pilot’s Manual
  39. 13 points
    Well, Dmitry from the Marketing team did say some things, From that interview, Italy will come for a Winter/New Years patch. And will contain the Italian Ground Forces tree. Which will be less Italian and rather a mix of multiple countries tanks to fill the large gaps.
  40. 13 points
    I just want to make a list of all the nerf to the US tanks: M60A1 and M60 gun shield in the breach: the gun shield got reworked and now is a tiny circle that does not cover anything and before it was a square that give us some protection. M60A1; a few days a extensive post about the gun mantle got rejected by gaijin, so we still have 127mm of protection M60A2 and sheridan: the ATGMs were nerfed with the bounce chance (bouncing of Obj 906 or 120 front hull plate) now unnerfed M60A2 and Sheridan: the ROF for ATGMs were nerfed from 15 seconds (expert) to 35 seconds (expert) M48: the 82mm plate behind the 152mm gun mantle got removed, making all the armor weaker. All this nerf make by Gaijin where they didn't provided any sources to us about that (in the M60A1 report post there was a lot of sources, even a lot measurements) Thanks gaijin What do you think ?
  41. 12 points
    The ISU-122, ISU-152, and ISU-122S are all criminally overtiered. The ISU-122 at 5.3 in AB is actually fine, but at 5.7 in RB/SB it's the same BR as the IS-2 whilst having no advantages except an ever so slightly less painful reload, and yet has a lengthy list of disadvantages including worse mobility, no turret, and worse armor. The ISU-122 should be at 5.3 in all game modes. The ISU-152 is horrendously overtiered at 6.0 in AB, a full BR above the SU-152, despite trading tons of mobility in every single way for a marginal increase in armor and 2 seconds shaved off of the already terribly long reload of 26.5 seconds, and a HEAT shell that's once in a blue moon useful. It's BR placement should be at 5.3 in AB like it is in RB/SB, it's ridiculous to see the ISU-152 placed at a BR higher than tanks like the Waffentrager or Sturer Emil and possessing a gun worse in every single way, even its post pen damage is not as good as you'd think as I frequently pen Tigers through the turret and they're still left alive with 1 or 2 crewmembers. It's laughable to suggest that this tank needs a BR higher than that of either T-34-85 in AB, it cannot even pen half of what it faces on uptiers. The ISU-122S is actually placed higher than the IS-2 in all game modes at 6.0 simply because it cuts down on the reload time by 5 seconds to make it roughly 19 seconds instead of 24 like on the ISU-122. That's it. There's no way that warrants a 0.7 BR increase and being placed above it's more armored, mobile, and turreted counterpart. The ISU-122S should either be at 5.7 if a strong case can be made that the 5 seconds off of reload time is really that big of a deal, or at 5.3 and treated as a slight upgrade over the ISU-122 but not enough to warrant a BR increase, like the Tiger E. I don't know why Gaijin so frequently overtiers tank destroyers to orbital degrees.
  42. 12 points
    The German P-47D and the Russian P-47D-27 have to be moved to the 4.0 battlerating as the American P-47D-25, as they are identical in performance, they are too strong to fight against 2.7 BR aircraft, and they have a 70% win rate for the German and 58% for the Russian respectively, totally unbalanced at this battlerating
  43. 12 points
    This Japanese prototype made by the Komatsu factory, with 105mm Cannon. very interesting Japanese prototype to enter the war thunder
  44. 12 points
  45. 12 points
    Just had a few matches. The Kpz now has a reload slower than the T-54. Congrats on making an autoloader load slower than a peasant. Great job.
  46. 12 points
    I'm all for corrections but not very happy with the changes to the MBTs/Kpz 70. Did we just go from 6sec reload time to 10 secs?? I mean if its historical ok but Many places I read everything says 6 sec reload (10 rounds a minute). If that be the case, than the Kpz 70 should not be firing ATGMs.If it is historical and be 10 rounds per minute. The two tanks need to have their historical differences. Yes it was a joint program between the two countries. But if the Kpz can get a different engine/model for engine than give it its historical auto loader and may it not fire ATGMs. We will see big report fast on this one.
  47. 12 points
    Unfortunately, it is indeed an obvious fake. This is what that folder actually looks like. Production server Dev server
  48. 11 points
    Sometimes there's no vehicle that catches your interest in Warbond shop, or you simply have them all already. My idea is to provide alternative by allowing players to purchase talisman for vehicle of their choice, at price of warbond premium vehicle. How would it work? Blank talismans are avaliable in shop same as premium vehicles are. Talismans have ranks (1-3) and can be applied only to vehicle of same rank. When purchased they drop into inventory. They are applied to vehicles via normal talisman process. When purchasing talisman, player who has blank talisman of appropriate rank will be given choice to purchase talisman with GE or with Blank Talisman. If he choses use of Blank Talisman, it will be consumed in process. Proposed requirement: 12 Special Task Medals (same as for all premium vehicles) Talisman for T1 vehicle: shop level 3, 2700 WB (price of cheap premium vehicle) Talisman for T2 vehicle: shop level 4, 3000 WB Talisman for T3 vehicle: shop level 5, 3300 WB (price of expensive premium vehicle) Q: It's OP, everyone will jump it! / It sucks, why would I bother? A: Rate of getting talismans is same as with premium vehicles. While you can pick vehicle you like, unlike premium vehicles, talismaned ones have no SL boost, so it's something for something. It might be plenty of help with nations like Italian plane tree, or British/Japanese tank trees, that are very short on vehicles that could be used as warbond premiums. Q: Why no Rank 4 talisman? A: Rank 4 vehicles are VERY rare in warbond shop (only 1 or 2 since introduction of system), it's safe to assume Rank 3 is the limit of Gaijin's generocity with them. What do you think? IMO more options is always better than less, but I might've miss something.
  49. 11 points
    Ludzie chcą grać kultowymi maszynami, które służyły. Natomiast wynalazki pokroju XYZ-70, które w boju miały by mniejsze szanse od rowerzysty nagle okazują się przeciwnikami nie do pokonania. Bambo nie każdy tak jak Ty gra tylko maszynami, które są na daną chwilę maja przewagę nad przeciwnikiem. Dla Ciebie ważny jest wynik i to Twój osobisty, nie całej drużyny, dla innych przyjemność z prowadzenia kultowej maszyny.
  50. 11 points
    The OP has never played a single round of US tanks but somehow has an in-depth understanding of how high tier US tanks are so OP.