Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/26/2017 in all areas

  1. 56 points
    In January, an additional 438 users were permanently banned for using third-party modifications in violation of the user agreement - use of prohibited modifications. (EULA). Recently, we introduced a system of reports based on replays. With its help you have not only reported suspicious players but also you have improved the modification detection algorithm. Such an algorithm is based on a machine learning system which allowed us to detect almost all remaining players who use forbidden modifications (even if they had not yet been reported). The specific patterns that we used are based on the difference in behaviour of a player who uses only “fair” information (real visibility) from the client and a player who also has server-side information on his monitor (such information contains more data). We have implemented this algorithm in a very conservative way, in order to avoid false positives. Every suspicious player was also checked by our employees after he had been detected by the program. We will continue to improve our algorithm and will make sure that your gaming experience remains comfortable. The War Thunder Team
  2. 50 points
    This is a joint work of @Ulatersk and me. I would like to thank @arczer25, @Hornet331 and @KH_Alan for help with this report. Hello, I would like to report a few incorrect behaviors of all armor piercing rounds with HE filler - I will refer to them as APHE rounds in this report, although it is not only about rounds labelled as APHE in War Thunder. In my opinion those issues are not only making those rounds' effects incorrect and unhistorical, but also giving them huge advantage over all other ammunition types. Considering that not every tank and not every nation is using APHE rounds, those issues are largely affecting the balance in the game. The main issues I would like to report are: - damage zone - the area where fragments from HE filler explosion are distributed - filler explosion power - ability to kill tankers by HE filler For starters - for all readers - short introduction and explanation of APHE type rounds. DESCRIPTION OF APHE The idea of APHE round is to combine penetrating capabilities of AP round with damage from high explosives. This is the example of the APHE round, the american M82 round. You can see the round has a shape similar to AP, but it's rear part is drilled to be filled with explosive material and it’s closed with fuze. The fuze is detonating explosives in some amount of time after round hits something, so the explosives will explode inside of the tank, not before penetration. In game we have this time delay transferred into distance after penetration of the armor, after which the round will explode. So the real distance between point of penetration and the point where round explodes depends on remaining velocity, which most probably is not calculated. For now, I’m going to ignore this issue, although it might be reported in the future - fixing it would require a lot of programming work and game changes, while I want to focus on issues that affects game the most. Now let's analyze the explosion itself. First, the amount of explosive power is very different for different rounds, for example the round caliber tells lot about the weight of explosives used (but that’s not the rule). Also the amount of explosives is correlated with round's penetration power - the more explosives are used, the less penetration the round has. That's why 100 mm Soviet round has less explosives than 85 mm, because designers started to care more about penetration. To illustrate the power of filler explosion from APHE rounds, please imagine a hand grenade attached to round, and exploding inside the tank. Standard Soviet hand grenade from WW2 was this one "F1 Hand Grenade". It contains 60 grams of TNT. The American "Pineapple" had two ounces of TNT (57 grams). It is dangerous weapon, but it's definitely not powerful enough to kill entire crew, or cause any explosion of ammunition or damage of parts like gun breech. 75 mm PzGr for KwK 40, which we will be using for testing has bit less than 30 g TNT equivalent, while 88 mm PzGr from Tiger has a bit more than 100 g. 1. DAMAGE ZONE One of the most important things that should be revised in HE filler explosion in WT is the zone of the fragmentation. According to fragmentation zones of HE explosives, we can see how explosion is "escaping" from the round. I'm using this 75mm T3 HE shell explosion zone analysis, because it's the most detailed one This image is taken from the document: Fragmentation effects of the 75 mm HE shell T3 (M48) http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0702233 The other document that contains similar analysis of explosion zones is: Handbook of Ballistic and Engineering Data for Ammunition. Volume 2 http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA955369 Interesting picture we can find on the page 26 of the second document. We can see how the explosion zone looks like, when HE round will hit the ground, and the ground is blocking the frontal explosion. In similar way the APHE nose should be blocking the explosion to the front, so the frontal cone is questionable, but not impossible, that’s why my proposal of new APHE damage zone contains two options for frontal damage zone. As we can see in the first document, on pages 30, 31 and 32, the damage zone depends on the round velocity - the higher the velocity, the bigger the front zone is, and the rear zone gets smaller. Side zones are equally big, just their direction is a bit different, being influenced by round movement. I want to make things realistic, but also simple, therefore I’m recommending using just the last graph to model APHE explosion zones. There is possibility that the round will detonate in stationary state, but this will not affect gameplay very much, because it mostly affects HE detonating on the armor surface. The crucial thing is to model correctly the explosion inside the tank, so when the round still has some remaining velocity. The 1085 ft/s, or 331 m/s is quite reasonable velocity of the round after penetration - it could be even a bit bigger. The 75 mm PzGr 39 from Pz IV F2 has 120 cm fuze delay in game. In fact fuze delay is given in time, and this round’s fuze delay is 0,003 second. That means that game is presuming 400 m/s velocity after penetration. The difference between 331 and 400 m/s we can ignore, the influence on the damage zone shape would be minor. This is fragmentation zone simplified to what we can easily implement to the game. Therefore, I’m proposing new APHE damage model, divided into three zones. Option 1: Front zone Cone angle = 20 degrees Fragments amount = 18 Range = 100 Side zone Zone is between 120 degrees cone and flat surface perpendicular to shell's axis Fragments amount = 39 Range = 90 Rear zone Cone angle = 40 degrees Fragments amount = 30 Range = 60 In this option the round is exploding completely, producing the frontal, side and rear cone of fragments. This is actually the fragmentation shown in the picture above. Option 2: Side zone Zone is between 120 degrees cone and flat surface perpendicular to shell's axis Fragments amount = 39 Range = 90 Rear zone Cone angle = 40 degrees Fragments amount = 30 Range = 60 In this option there is no frontal cone, but the round is still going through, with less penetration power (because of decreased mass). The remaining power should be about 50% of round’s power after penetration, but before detonation. Option 3: Front zone Cone angle = 20 degrees Fragments amount = 18 Range = 100 Side zone Zone is between 120 degrees cone and flat surface perpendicular to shell's axis Fragments amount = 39 Range = 90 Rear zone Cone angle = 40 degrees Fragments amount = 30 Range = 60 In this option the round is still going, like in Option 2, but also there is frontal fragmentation, like in Option 1. Please note that fragments amount, and range are taken directly from T3 HE graph, so they may be different for individual round models. All options could be used for different rounds, or just one can be picked - this is up to Dev Team. As we could see on fragmentation of M61 round, the nose of the round was not destroyed. In that case the round should be still moving forward after HE filler explosion, unlike it’s working right now. This is cross section of the APHE damage zones with use of Option 1 and 3. Option 2 would remove frontal cone and put the round to continue traveling. APHE 3D (2).PDF (You might need to download the pdf file to Your computer and open it with Acrobat Reader, some browsers are having troubles with 3D pdf files) Graphics made by @KH_Alan A little bit of physics to prove the point: After fuze will ignite the explosive material inside the shell, the explosion is causing a massive increase of internal pressure. We can easily assume that the pressure is equal in every fragment of HE filler gap. That also means, that pressure is creating force F that is applied to whole area of the filler gap equally. The force applied to small fragment of area is directed perpendicular to the surface of that fragment. All that what was said is giving us one important conclusion - most of the force, that is created by internal pressure, is applied to biggest surfaces of the HE filler gap. That means the shape of the gap is affecting the distribution of said force. That’s why hand grenade has usually shape of the ball - to equally distribute the force, and spray fragments all around the grenade, in every direction. Now, War Thunder is a game, and we have to make things simple. Therefore it is not a place for complicated calculations of the force distribution according to the shape of the gap. Fortunately, most of gaps in APHE rounds have similar shape - a tube with height greater than diameter, so the damage zones will be similar to each other. Not identical, but I think we can ignore the differences. This is simple graphical explanation of the force distribution. You can see that most of the force is directed to the biggest area of the gap - the sides. Red lines are representing a equal fractions of the force F created by pressure. Note, that if the force distribution would be drawn on 3D model, even more lines would be directed to the sides of the projectile. Of course many thing would affect the final shape of zones of fragmentation, like: gap shape, shell walls thickness, fuze thickness, size of the gap in relation to whole projectile size, depth of the gap in relation to whole projectile length, material used for the round, explosive material type and many more. But as I said - this is not an “explosion simulator”, it’s a game, and therefore it have to be simple, as long as simplification is not changing the nature of the event, or is not significantly increasing or decreasing the performance. Current model of HE filler damage zones is actually the example of such simplifying that changes the performance a lot. To accent the rate of the over performance - the overall volume of those three damage zones (proposed in Option 1 and 3) is only 28,8% of the volume of the current model - sphere. It means that current damage zone, in form of sphere, is covering almost 3,5 times more area than it really should! Think about APHE exploding in the middle of the tank turret. Currently the filler explosion would fill the whole turret with fragments, which usually kills everyone in the turret, damages a lot of turret modules. In proposed model about 2/3 of turret space would be safe, allowing more crew members to survive the shot. That would make APHE post penetration performance a lot more realistic and historical. 2. HE FILLER EXPLOSION POWER Second issue I would like to report is the HE filler explosion power. By “power” I mean ability to kill crew members and ignite the tank interior. The fires inside the tank is another complex problem, so I will address it in another bug report. Now I want to focus only on ability of HE filler explosion to kill crew members. What I'm going to do, is: Calculate average number of tankers killed by single APHE shot by using data from WO 205/1165 Evaluate the possible number of tankers killed by APHE explosion Perform tests in War Thunder using APHE rounds. Compare real life data with WT tests and draw conclusions. Verify the results with other documents CALCULATION OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF TANKERS KILLED BY SINGLE SHOT Using "A survey of casualties amongst armoured Units in N.W. Europe by Capt H.B. Wright RAMC and Capt R.D. Harkness RAMC" I’ve made a summary of post penetration effects of various German rounds, mostly 75 mm and 88 mm. I will refer to this document as "WO 205/1165 reports" or simply "WO". http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3186871 The document was put into digital data here: http://ww2talk.com/index.php?tags/wo-2051165/ I've picked only a part of cases, to achieve best possible results. Therefore I used this rules to filter the cases: Non-penetrating shots are not taken into account, because that would artificially lower the statistics. Penetrating shots that didn’t caused damage to crew compartment were also excluded. Mostly it was shot stopped by gearbox, or penetrated the engine compartment. In the second scenario tank always catches fire, but the crew was never hurt and successfully bailed out. Non-penetrating rounds that killed crew members (mostly by head injury, for example tanker was driving with his head outside) were excluded, as they are not a part of WT realm. The penetrating shots, where crew already bailed out, were not used. Basically, I’ve picked only the cases where gun-fired projectile hit the crew compartment, while whole (or almost whole) crew was inside. Tankers were divided into categories: unhurt, burned, wounded, killed by hit, killed by fire, killed, not in tank. Few rules here: Tankers are considered ‘killed by hit’ only if it was confirmed by description, with few exceptions where the report is not saying it, but it’s obvious - for example if the penetration was through machine gun port, and killed co-driver who is seated right behind machine gun. If the cause of death was at least partially uncertain, it was described as ‘killed’, which I will consider later as possible HE filler explosion casualties. If tanker was killed outside of the tank, he is considered as wounded/burned/unhurt - depends on what was his state when he was leaving the tank. Tankers burned and wounded are described as wounded The information I got from WO 205/1165 report: tank type type of round that penetrated the tank penetrated part of the tank (hull/turret, left/right/center/rear) effect of the penetration on every tanker occurrence of fire (minor fire was not considered as fire) direct hit to ammunition stowage short description or important information . From all cases described, I was able to pick 62 penetrating shots, and put the details into the sheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jUX4nTyHbwvc6b4QjH_-FqCIe9h0KpKzyx-5XQA6vEo/edit?usp=sharing The total number of killed tankers is 57, which is giving the average of almost 1 killed tanker per 1 penetrating shot. EVALUATION OF NUMBER OF TANKERS KILLED BY HE EXPLOSION Out of 57 killed tankers, 10 were killed by fire. Most of them didn’t manage to leave burning tank fast enough. Note, that 5 of them was killed in one particular situation. On average, only 0,16 tankers were killed by fire per shot, that is one killed tanker in six penetrations. Most common cause of death was direct hit by the round, or penetration fragments/spalling. 36 tankers were hit directly, so 0,58 tankers per shot. Every second shot killed one (in fact 1,2) tanker by hitting him directly. The rest of killed tankers is 11 soldiers. Their cause of death could be everything we’ve already discussed (fragmentation, spalling, fire, explosion, wounds), and also could be an effect of HE filler explosion. This is 0,18 killed per shot, which means every 5-6 successful penetrations of crew compartments one tanker was killed in uncertain way. Even if we would count all of them as victims of HE filler explosion, that means that every 5-6 successful penetrations APHE is killing one additional tanker (means - one more that similar AP round would). If those shots wouldn’t have HE filler, still 46 of 57 tankers would be killed. We can assume that all 11 tankers were killed by HE explosion, but we can also assume that none of them was killed by explosion, and they all died because any other reason given earlier. Assuming that all 11 tankers were killed by HE filler is too exaggerated, but that’s maximum difference between AP and APHE we could calculate out of those reports. There is also possibility that none of those soldiers would survive if tank would be hit by AP rounds. Summarizing those results, the conclusions are: AP rounds would kill at least 80% of tankers killed by APHE (46 of 57) AP rounds would kill at most 100% of tankers killed by APHE (57 of 57) Both extreme assumptions can be averaged (from 80% and 100%) to safe statement that AP rounds would kill about 90% of tankers killed by APHE shots WAR THUNDER TESTS - APHE Let’s see how those situation would be simulated in game, with use of 75 mm KwK 40 gun mounted on Pz IV F2 tank, the most common gun we can find in the reports. I’ve shot few variants of Sherman tanks 52 times. Shots were fired from the front and from the sides, to different parts of tank. First four shots to center of the hull are already giving dramatic results. 5, 4, 4 and 4 tankers killed. Next trial - upper part of hull center: 5, 4, 5, 4. Out of 62 shots in real life only six of them killed more than two soldiers! Shots to hull’s side parts of frontal armor produced a bit less, but still huge amount of casualties. 4,1,4,4 shooting to right side, and 3,3,2,3 shooting to left. 8 shots to low part of the hull, centered. 22 tankers killed. Then I’ve made shots to Turret’s front, 4 shots on the right side, four on the left, four on the various edges. 19 tankers killed in 12 shots. As we may expect, side shooting produced similar amount of casualties. 6 shots to hull - 20 tankers killed. 11 more tankers killed in 6 shots to turret’s side. Last 4 shots, to turret rings of M4’s - no less than 16 killed tankers. All shots, including extra tests with Tiger and 8,8 Flak are here: Let’s compare the results. Shots to hull from the front. WT tests: 3,375 killed per shot (81 killed in 24 shots) Reports: 0,375 killed per shot (3 killed in 8 shots). In those 8 shots two of the crew members were not in the tank. If we would add them to casualties (one of them we have to add, shot went through his seat) we have 0,625 from 5 killed in 8 shots. Shots to hull side. WT tests: 3,333 killed per shot (20 killed in 6 shots) Reports: 0,727 killed per shot (8 killed in 11 shots). Adding tankers that were not inside the tank (5) do casualties, we have 1,182 from 13 killed in 11 shots. Shots to turret front. WT tests: 1,583 killed per shot (19 killed in 12 shots) Reports: 0,714 killed per shot (5 killed in 7 shots). Adding missing tanker will give us 0,857 killed/shot. In one report there is more missing tankers, but they could not kill anyone beside commander (which was killed). Shots to turret side. WT tests: 2,7 killed per shot (27 killed in 10 shots) Reports: 1 killed per shot (5 killed in 5 shots). In this case, we have to add two tankers to casualties - we have 7 killed per 5 shots, so 1,4. As we can see, test’s hull shots produced 3,367 killed per shot vs 0,947 in real life. Turret shots produced 2,091 killed per shot vs 1,083 in real life. We can clearly see, that despite the differences are huge, the results are much more closer to each other when it comes to turret shots. The crew is much closer to each other in turret, so we could predict that it will give us more casualties per shot in real life (although the difference is very small). The biggest problem is enormous amount of killed tankers by shots to hull - this is because APHE fragmentation can spray around the whole tank including the turret, while shot exploding in the turret is limited by turret ring - still driver and co-driver are not completely safe. In real life no driver or co-driver was killed by shot to turret from any side! Please take a closer look at certain, similar situations: Shot between driver and co-driver Shot left or right side of hull's front Shot to hull's side (around the center) Shots through mantlet Shots to center of turret from side The differences are clear, and huge. WAR THUNDER TESTS - AP To prove the claim that HE filler should not be killing tankers in such numbers, I made tests with use of M3 gun mounted on M4 tank, shooting solid AP M72 shot. You can find the details of tests in the sheet below (as well as APHE tests details) but in summary we have: 16 shots to hull front killed 22 tankers, so 1,375 per shot 8 shots to turret front killed 9 tankers so 1,125 per shot 4 shots to hull side killed 9 tankers so 2,25 per shot 4 shots to turret side killed 6 tankers so 1,5 per shot All pictures from AP tests are here: This results are much closer to real life effects of APHE, which proves the point - APHE rounds were killing mostly tankers who were hit directly by the round or penetration fragments, or fire caused by the round. HE fragmentation of such small caliber wasn’t a significant cause of death It seems that APHE rounds were more efficient in causing fire, but the deadliest fires inside the tanks were caused by directly penetrated fuel tanks. We can see more similarities between real life performance of 75 mm APHE and WT 75 mm AP round, when we will compare the statistics about how many tankers were killed by single shot. You can see how the well proportions of WT AP effects are matching WO reports, while APHE data is completely reversed, and not related to reality. The table is also showing the distribution in efficiency for WT APHE, WT AP and WO. Again, WT AP and WO reports are very similar, and APHE is way off. There is big difference between number of shots that killed no one from WO and AP (23 against 8). This might suggest that in WT AP fragmentation is a bit too wide, but let’s leave it for now. Let’s assume for a moment that most of the shots that killed no one in real life were to edges to crew compartment, or some fortunate shots that I didn’t recreated in my tests. If we would ignore the shots that didn't kill anybody, we would have: WT APHE killed 147 tankers in 49 shots, so 3 tankers per shot WT AP killed 46 tankers in 30 shots, so 1,53 tankers per shot WO APHE killed 57 tankers in 36 shots, so 1,58 tankers per shot (This values are only to compare rounds, it should not be treated as real killed/shot ratio!) Again, WT AP performance is very close to WO reports. Details about WT APHE and WT AP tests You can find in sheets here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NZ11X0epzYPpH4aLMZIqaDfyrrKPHzwNg2gKY4rtU9Q/edit?usp=sharing VERIFY RESULTS WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS The average "1 killed per shot" value is confirmed in many documents, statistics and reports In the same WO 205/1165 we have a lot of statistics about casualties in tank crews. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/albums/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.205/ CHURCHILLS On this page we have a bit simpler version of "tank by tank" casualties for Churchill tanks. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16214/full&d=1368621734 Overall number is 21 tanks, but note, that in this summary we have only tanks destroyed with at least one crew member hurt, so average value of all penetrating shots might be a bit lower. Here we have only shots to the turret, to make comparing to game easier. Total number of 23 tankers were killed, so 1,1 tanker per shot. Very close to what we had from WO 205/1165. Unfortunately there is no detailed description of cause of death, so we can't assess which one was caused by hit, fire or else. Also, in next table (http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16215/#media) with penetrations to hull, with a bit more casualties (1,69 killed per shot), but there are situation with few penetrations (and no information about crew bailing out). Also, we have tankers killed by things not happening in War Thunder, like machine gun mounting driven through the tank with dramatic results, and quite often shots to ammunition. There is also a table where place of penetration was not known. It seems like it was the most catasrophic cases, where tanks were destroyed so much that it was impossible to find the place of penetration. It those cases 21 people was killed in just 10 situations. So all in all - shots to turret killed 1,1 tanker per shot. Shots to hull killed 1,69 tanker per shot. In what seems to be the report of most tragic situations - 2,1 tanker was killed by 1 shot. WT tests gave us 3,5 tanker per shot from 4 shots to turret. Two shots were to turret front, one to frontal top of the turret, and one to turret ring. Out of 14 tankers killed in tests, 3 of them were from the hull, which means 21%. In real life it was less than 9%. Again, the differences are huge. Another statistics about Churchills: http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16213/#media Casualties inside the tank - 19%. 19% of 5 crew members is roughly 1 tanker. CASUALTIES IN BURNING AND NOT BURNING TANKS This is VERY interesting. It shows us the tank casualties in two situations - in tanks that was burning after the penetration, and in tanks that did not catch fire. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16205/#media In first scenario (with fire) we have total number of 108 tankers exposed, which means we are probably talking about 22 tanks. 33 tankers were killed. In second scenario (no fire) we have total number of 104 tankers exposed, probably 21 tanks. 11 tankers were killed. We can clearly see that there is a lot more killed tankers, when tank catches fire, 1,5 killed per shot vs 0,52. But the most important part - all in all we have 44 tankers killed in 43 tanks. Again - average 1 tanker per shot! In addition, we can see some interesting things about APHE ammunition. First of all - this confirms my estimations, that APHE rounds would not kill much more people than AP rounds. I've said - AP would kill at least 80% of tankers killed by APHE. That means that APHE would kill 25% more than AP at most! Here the estimations are "even if whole excess of casualties was due to this (...) not more than 20%", so even less than I've said! Second thing - it is stated, that APHE rounds are not always exploding, which is also confirmed in one of the tank reports, where the commander found the not-exploded Panther round in his tank, on the turret floor. Adding small chance of APHE not exploding should be considered. But overall conclusion from this document is - in most cases AP rounds would cause the same amount of damage than APHE rounds actually did. Another statistics, with one important thing difference between 75 mm and 88 mm APHE rounds http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16196/#media Again - 19% killed by single penetration of 75 mm. 24% killed by non-disclosed APHE rounds (1,2 killed per tank), and 35% killed tankers by 88 mm APHE shots. We know that Tiger's shots were much more powerful than Pz IV. But 35% means 1,75 tanker killed by single penetration by 88 mm gun, while in War Thunder 75 mm gun is causing almost 3 kills per shot! This is summary of casualties form many differents type of rounds and guns. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/tank-casualties-survey-nwe-1945.16195/#media The sample is quite big - total number of tankers exposed is 593, and 143 were killed. If we assume the tank = 5 soldiers, then we have 119 tanks and 143 tankers killed. Ratio is 1,2. BIG SAMPLES OF CASUALTIES Another book is ORO-T-117, Survey of Allied tank casualties in WW II http://www.worldcat.org/title/survey-of-allied-tank-casualties-in-world-war-ii/oclc/21347186 We can see a big sample of tanks with casualties, and we have even smaller percent of tankers killed. I believe that this statistics are counting also situations like shot into engine compartment, which usually ends up with no tankers killed. I did not took those situations to my calculations or tests. If I would, most probably the results would be like here: 12-15%, so 0,6-0,75 killed per shot. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Basing on WO 205/1165 reports, I've calculated number of tankers in tanks of British Army killed by German AP rounds of 75 mm and 88 mm. The result is no more than 1 tanker killed per shot on average. This result was confirmed by few other statistics from the same report, it's also confirmed in other sources. It is clear that 88 mm projectiles are causing more casualties, but still the average number is smaller than 2 tankers per shot, while 88 mm projectiles had over 3 times more explosive power, and the round itself had more kinetic energy. Thanks to detailed descriptions in WO reports I've estimated that AP rounds would kill about 90% of the tankers killed by AP rounds, and not less than 80%. That means APHE could kill (maximum) 25% more tankers than AP, while WO reports have estimation of maximum 20%. Tests done in War Thunder with 75 mm AP rounds from M4 tank produced very similar results, with average of 1,2 tanker killed per shot. Tests done in War Thunder with 75 mm APHE round from Pz IV F2 tank produced 2,8 tankers killed by single shot. This is 300% of the real, historical values for this gun and this round. There are very small samples of killing power of other tanks, but still 2,8 is more than any German round from WW2 produced! Extreme examples: KwK 43, a King Tiger's gun shot down 9 tanks, killing 16 tankers. 1,8 tanker per shot. Flak 44 (most probably it's PaK 44, 12,8 cm Jagdtiger's gun) shot down 2 tanks, and killed 5 tankers - 2,5 tanker per shot. We used PzGr 39 for KwK40 - 1,86 MJ of energy and 30 g TNT equivalent. Jagdtiger was shooting PzGr for PaK44 - 12,1 MJ and 700 g of TNT equivalent. Problem can be solved in rather easy way: Because AP effects in War Thunder are almost identical as real APHE performance, HE filler fragmentation power should be decreased to the level where 75 mm APHE will not kill any tanker with HE filler explosion, only with penetration fragments/spalling and direct hit. Tankers should be wounded, and accumulation of wounds that would cause death should be rare situation - we know that AP would kill 90% of tankers killed by APHE, we can say that APHE should cause death for 1 out of 10 tankers wounded by filler fragmentation. This amount of power should be obviously higher for the rounds with greater TNT equivalent. Jagdtiger shot should probably kill most, if not all of the soldiers that would be hit by fragmentation. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to document this, but the killing power of Jagdtiger APHE rounds should be comparable to what we saw in tests, of course within the new damage zones. In WO reports we can find two cases when HE round were detonated inside the tank. None of them killed the whole crew, but first was detonated in the frontal part of hull, and hull crew was killed, the second time explosion was placed in the center of the hull, below the turret - and this time turret crew was killed, while drivers left the tank alive. SUMMARY Fragmentation zones for APHE round is incorrect PROBLEM: Fragmentation of HE filler explosion is incorrect WHAT IS INCORRECT: The HE filler explosion damage zone is in form of sphere. It means that explosion can scatter fragments all around the point of explosion HOW IT SHOULD BE: The explosion should scatter most of the fragments to the side of the round, and rest to the rear and to front in narrow cones. Also, the round should continue to fly (with less mass), because the nose should not be destroyed by explosion. PROOF: Damage zone of 75 mm HE round (T3), with addition of zones for: M42A1, M71 and M1 rounds. APHE fragmentation of M61 proves that the round nose is not destroyed by explosion. FIX: Change spherical damage zone of the APHE rounds into 3 sections of explosion - frontal, side and rear. Three Options are proposed: This can be also used to create HE rounds fragmentation (with additional frontal cone, a lot wider, but also very short). HE filler fragmentation is too powerful in terms of killing crew PROBLEM: Fragmentation of HE filler have huge damage power WHAT IS INCORRECT: The crew members and modules hit by HE filler explosion and fragments are being killed/damaged/detonated way too much than they should. Most of the crew members hit by even small amount of fragmentation are killed, which is unreal and unhistorical behavior. HOW IT SHOULD BE: The fragments from HE filler fragmentation should be only additional cause of damage, not main. The HE filler killing power should be reduced. Crew memeber hit by fragments of 75 mm PzGr 39 from KwK40 should be only wounded, not killed, unless he will be hit by massive amount of fragments (for example whole frontal cone), or by the round directly. This should be done for every round with similar (~30 g TNT equivalent) or lower explosive power. Projectiles with more explosive power should have adjusted killing power. Probably Jagdtiger's projectile should kill all tankers inside the damage zone. PROOFS: WO 205/1165 "tank by tank" reports shown the average 1 tanker per shot Various statistics from the same document are confirming 1 tanker per shot for 75 mm gun, 1,7 for 88 mm and 2,5 for 128 mm Detailed analysis of "tank by tank" reports showed that AP round would kill at least 80% of tankers killed by APHE, most probably about 90%. WO Reports gave APHE maximum 20% more casualties than AP rounds. War Thunder test results: 75 mm AP round killed 1,2 tanker per shot, but 75 mm APHE round killed 2,8 tanker per shot. This is around 300% of historical values. FIX: Change the HE filler fragments power as follow: PzGr 39 from 7,5 cm KwK40 (or weaker) HE filler power should be almost unable to kill tankers (unless tanker will be hit by massive amount of fragments, for example whole frontal cone). On average 1 in 10 tankers hit by fragments could be killed. PzGr from 12,8 cm PaK44 (or stronger) HE filler power should be killing all tankers inside the damage zone, with no exceptions. 10 of 10 tankers hit should be killed. All rounds with power within range 30-700 g of TNT Equivalent should have interpolated power between power of rounds from points 1 and 2. To make it simple, we could use inear interpolation, the results would be like this: 100 g of TNT equivalent - 19% chance to kill 200 g - 33% 300 g - 46% 400 g - 60% 500 g - 73% 600 g - 87% 700 g - 100% Those simple changes will make APHE round performance a lot more realistic and historical. Also, it would make the game much more balanced, because in current state APHE is way more powerful round than any other in the game, including most modern APFSDS or HEAT-FS. But our main goal is still historical accuracy. THE END Congratulations for all folks who have read it to the very end! Thanks for attention and Your time. Possibly, a few more works like this one will be made in the future Ulatersk & Godman
  3. 40 points
    In every field of human activity there is always people that their descendants rightly revere as a pioneer. So as we remember the Wright Brothers and their "Flyer"( an airplane of their own design) making the first flight to take off into the skies under it's own power in 1903. Or Yuri Gagarin The first person in the history to fly through space in 1951. So to do we remember Charles Elwood Yeager who in 1947 became the first pilot to break the sound barrier in level flight. Brigadier General Yeager was born on February 13, 1923 in the town of Myra, Lincoln County, West Virginia. The future conqueror of the sound barrier left his home in 1941 after leaving the army and joining the U.S. Army Air Corps. Yeager first became an aircraft mechanic, and rose into the sky as a passenger aboard the plane that he repaired. This first flight proved unforgettable and make him very seasick. Charles Yeager soon filed an application for flight school, not due to his desire to fly, but because of the his desire to become a Sergeant: as career and money were not superfluous in his young life. Instead, this careerist with his perfect vision, excellent coordination, as well as a true love of technology, went from mechanic to novice pilot in a short time. According to some researchers, Charles Yeager was a born a test pilot, but such assessments wouldn't come until much later. In the meantime, he trained in the 363rd Fighter Squadron on the P-39 Airacobra. Charles Elwood Yeager Source Yeager was on the front in 1944. On March the fourth he departed from a base in the UK in his P-51 Mustang and shot down his first enemy plane. However, on his next fight, he was shot down and was forced to parachute to the ground over German occupied France. Resistance fighters in France secured him a pilot that would then fly him to Spain and on to the safety of allied lines. By that time, the existing rule for pilots in regards to being shot down or captured was to return to the United States via the UK when they were recovered. Yeager upon his return to England contacted General Eisenhower and pleaded to fight on. After being returned to duty by January of 1945 Charles Yeager had already scored 11 and a half aerial victories. After transferring to the US Air Force base at Wright Field. Charles was in firm command of a new fighter to test, the Lockheed - P-80 Shooting Star. Successfully testing and working under Bell's leadership, Bell invited Charles Jaeger to fly the new experimental X-1. This aircraft, like a bullet, was the first American plane with a rocket engine that was specifically designed to achieve supersonic flight. To say that the new machine tests were risky is to not say anything. Ahead was the unknown, going off of only theoretical calculations to meet the goal. It turns out that the Bell X-1 was not equipped with an ejection seat. After the pilot took his seat in the cabin, and the hatch was closed, it was tightly bolted in place from the outside. In other words, the pilot in an emergency had no chance to bail out. The life of a test pilot, depended only on his skill, luck and the will of fate. October 12, 1947, two days before the record flight, Charles Yeager fell off a horse and broke two ribs. Hiding the injury from his leadership, on October 14th, and with the help of another pilot, he still managed to take his seat on the plane. Moreover, in order to reach some of the switches, as he could not turn around because of the broken ribs. He used a long stick that he took on every flight. He believed in luck, “Glamorous Glennis” was also good omen for him, Which was painted on the nose of his P-51. Charles Yeager in his P-51 Mustang Source When a Boeing B-29 dropped the X-1 at an altitude of 7,000 meters, Yeager began his flight Yeager ignited rocket engine of the X-1 and accelerated to as fast as could without breaking the plane as it neared the sound barrier. His faster than sound flight lasted only 20 seconds: at a height of 12800 meters, X-1 reached a speed of 1078 km / h, which at this height was equivalent to M = 1,015. As he later recalled, "we were flying at supersonic speed, but so smoothly and quietly that my grandmother would sit sipping lemonade." In total, three pilots were involved in this program to test the; Charles Yeager, Robert Hoover and Jack Ridley. The American public learned later about the record setting flight on December 22, 1947. When it was reported about in «Aviation Week» magazine. A Test pilot was the epitome of concentration, courage, intelligence, and the ability to improvise. Allowing man to turn a machine into an extension of himself. Yeager was indeed a fearless test pilot. All of the above listed qualities he demonstrated after a loss of control on the X-1A (violating the prohibition on exceeding Mach 2.3 and coming close to the value of 2.4) where he was able to regain control of the aircraft and perform a successful landing. Charles also tested a captured MiG-15, wanting to gain thorough knowledge on the Soviet fighter capabilities to develop tactics to deploy in combat against them. Yeager met with AI Mikoyan in 1959. The Soviet designer was somewhat surprised that Charles experimented with the dive limits on the MiG-15 and survived. Charles Yeager with aircraft X-1 Source Bell X-1. The first plane to overcome the speed of sound Source Charles Yeager held various positions in the ranks of the US Air Force. He also took part in the preparatory training of astronauts. His life was however changed in a catastrophic incident on the F-104 Starfighter. In the years 1966-1968 Yeager was involved in the Vietnam War, piloting a B-57 and later the F-4 Phantom II. Brigadier General Charles Elwood Yeager retired in 1975. But after that he remained in close connection with the sky, occasionally taking to the skies in different machines. The famous test pilot is alive and still as alive and his heroic life story is immortalized in the film "Right Stuff". US Air Force Brigadier General Charles "Chuck" Yeager with a F-15D «Eagle» of the 65th "aggressor" squadrons. Nellis AFB, 14 October 2012 Source
  4. 35 points
    Pilots and Tankers! Below are the planned changes to vehicle Battle Ratings for both Aviation and Ground Forces: Other planned changes: IS-2 mod. 1944 - BR-471D round will be removed IS-2 mod. 1944 “Revenge”- BR-471D round will be removed ISU-152: place in the research tree will be changed - it will be situated right after SU-152, before ISU-122 modifications Kugelblitz and Coelian will switch their places in the research tree. Changes for Simulator Battles are planned, but we cannot publish them yet. Please be sure to leave your thoughts and feedback in this thread! The War Thunder Team
  5. 35 points
    The British Centurion Mk I medium tank was the first serious attempt by the British to create a tank for a new era. We are proud to present the forerunner of the illustrious line of tanks in War Thunder. Every nation that was embroiled in the Second World War gained invaluable experience in battle, which had a material impact on the subsequent design and development of military technology. British engineers were no exception. In their first post-war tank, the British strove to move away from the outdated tanks classification (Cruiser and Infantry). Work on the new project began as early as 1943 and aimed to combine the best features of both classes. The result was the Centurion Mk I, the first British medium tank and the forerunner of an extensive series of new-style armored vehicles. The first Centurion was produced in a series of 100 vehicles between 1946 and 1948. Compared to the cruiser tanks of WW2 period, the tank’s armour was considerably improved – the upper and lower hull plates were now 76 mm thick and came together at a sharp angle. The turret was given mixed armor – a cast front section shifting to a welded rear section – that was up to 127 mm thick at the front and 89 mm thick on the sides. The Ordnance QF 17-pounder Mk 6 caliber 76.2 mm gun was selected for the tank, and became the new artillery standard in the British Army in the immediate post-war period. With its heavy armor and weight totaling almost 42,5 tons, the Centurion was never going to match the Comet for speed, and was in fact slow for its class. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 In War Thunder, the Centurion Mk I will take its place at rank IV in the British armored vehicle tech tree, right before the FV4202. For tankers researching the medium tank branch, the first Centurion will be a breath of fresh air – the first medium-rank British tank that you can play “from the armor” and take into tank duels with a chance of withstanding enemy assaults on the front of the vehicle. The reinforced armor is unavoidably offset by low speed and mobility. The Centurion has very swift and smooth turret rotation and vertical aiming angles of -12/+20 degrees. The famed 17-pounder easily dispatched a number of rank III opponents, but it is not as effective against rank IV, although it remains as accurate and dangerous as ever. On the whole, the firepower is more than sufficient to stand you in good stead until the Centurion Mk 3, which boasts more serious firepower, better armor and a more powerful engine. Due to its low speed, the Centurion Mk I is a single-direction tank on the battlefield. The Centurion serves well both in defense and in a fixed-position offensive. Guard the sides, meet opponents head-on with your robust cast front and the tanker gods will smile upon you! The Centurion Mk I will be available to research in the next major update coming soon – keep an eye on our news! The War Thunder Team
  6. 29 points
    Japanese planes still have biggest repair cost in-game. Yep not gonna use them even after these changes.
  7. 28 points
    *Addendum: treat this as a suggestion for the B-12A as a premium, whereby also allowing the B-10B to be non-premium. The B-10B was a very important aircraft, both for the history of aviation and the US Air Force. In the upcoming patch 1.67, the B-10B is slated to be a premium. This would be a tragic waste of this aircraft for three very good reasons. It is my proposal to make the B-10B a techtree vehicle, and instead have the B-12A as a premium. Reason 1: Their place in history, and production figures. 105 B-10Bs were built, 348 if we include the export variants. By the way, the aircraft is the B-10*B* because the B-10A was the prototype. The B-10B was the start of the United State's great history of building bombers. There were others before it, but none of them quite captured the "essence" of an American bomber. Developed by the Glen L. Martin company, the B-10B was the first bomber to be capable out outpacing a fighter. It was so revolutionary it won the company the Robert J. Collier Trophy. The B-12A was an improved version of the B-10B; it had more powerful engines and longer range. However only 25 B-12As were built, compared to the 105 B-10Bs. Reason 2: They would fill a very important roles in the tech tree. The B-10B would fill the role of "light heavy bomber" at BR 1.0 or 1.3. What does "light heavy bomber" mean? Well compared to the B-17, or Lancaster, the B-10B is a light bomber, but compared to the TBD Devastator or the Su-2, it is a heavy bomber. These planes sit solidly at BR 1.0; the B-10B would be important in the tech tree because it would be the US's equivalent of the SB 2M, Do-17, Beaufort, and Ki-21. The B-12A would be a much-needed low tier American bomber premium. Sadly, there are no other planes that could fill these gaps; and if the B-10B only is put in the game (as premium) the US Army/Airforce heavy bomber line would start at BR 2.0 with the B-18 Bolo. Reason 3: The future of the game. If the B-10B is made premium, then what happens in the far future, when the tech trees are mostly full, when the developers come back around to the B-12A? It would make a good premium because its an obscure design, and not many were built. But the B-10B already is a premium, so the B-12A would be redundant. They could solve this problems by making it a techtree vehicle, but now we have the more obscure, least produced version of the aircraft as the techtree vehicle, and the most important and most produced version as a premium. So for these reasons, my suggestion is to make the B-10B a techtree vehicle, and the B-12A, or B-12A Floatplane, a premium in its stead. The B-12A was a successor to the B-10B. The B-10B's Wright Cyclone engines were replaced with more powerful Pratt & Whitney Hornet engines. On January 17th, 1933 the US Army Airforce ordered 48 Martin Model 139s, that includes 7 YB-12s, the experimental version, and 25 production B-12As. The new engines gave the B-12A a sight speed advantage over the B-10B. The only other significant difference between the aircraft was that the B-12A carried and additional 265 gallon fuel tank in the fuselage. Visually the B-12A can be differentiated from the B-10B by its large exhausts. For coastal defense, a few B-12As were fitted with floats, on August 24th, 1935, one of these B-12A Seaplanes set a speed record for float aircraft. The B-12A served actively into the late 1930's, when it was replaced fully with the B-17 and B-18. Into the 1940's the B-12As were used to tow aerial targets, but not much else until they were retired by the end of World War II. The B-12A Floatplane, the perfect low tier American premium I am sure many people would be pleased with this outcome, and the B-12A, especially the floatplane version, would be a big seller. Sources: United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989 American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982 U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey
  8. 28 points
    I see too many cost increases but not many cost decreases. Russian tanks' repairs are still incredibly cheap (T-34-85 costs 1600 SL in AB while the Comet I was increased to 2980 and the Tiger H1 was only decreased to 3100). Kugelblitz still costs 17k SL to repair despite the meager cost decrease of 320 SL. Japanese planes are still incredibly expensive to fly in RB. All in all the changes seem irrelevant, to be honest.
  9. 27 points
    Suuuuure... This excuse is just lazy. You have no problem getting vehicles for Tier I and II. Tier III is the only tricky spot, but for Tier IV you have Spähpanzer I.C 75mm and Spähpanzer I.C 90mm and for Tier V the Ru 251 and Begleitpanzer 57. Hell, the Soviet light tank line has only 7 tanks, two of which aren't even light tanks, Germany could easily get the same amount. And the Tier III problem could be solved with a halftrack or armored car. This is the first time for a long while Gaijin seriously disappointed me.
  10. 26 points
    Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 The legendary A-26 Invader, a rare sight in the War Thunder skies and one of the most sought-after aircraft for our players, will be available to everyone in the regular US tech tree. Introducing the A-26B-51 modification, the out-and-out game leader for number of high-caliber machine guns: 14 frontal Brownings, plus another four in the turrets! But machine guns aren't enough for the king of attacker aircraft – you can also carry 14 HVARs or almost two tons of bomb load (4 x 1,000 pounds, 6 x 500 pounds, 8 x 250 pounds or 16 x 100 pounds). We can't wait for the A-26B-51 Invader to arrive in War Thunder 1.67, coming very soon! Previous Development Blogs: Spitfire Mk IIb: an old friend B-10B: The Racing Bomber Typ-Klasse 140 Jaguar: the Schnellboot Successor Centurion Mk I: A Tank for a New Era Type 87: The Japanese Gepard Spähpanzer Ru 251: The Fastest on land T14: The Ground Assault Tank Leave comment on our website!
  11. 25 points
    In one of the nearest War Thunder updates, we will significantly improve the visuals for tracers in our game. Players see tracers in every single battle - coloured “lights” of MG bullets, white flashes of tank rounds, multi-coloured lines of AA fire. In one of the upcoming updates we will introduce improved tracers for all types of ammunition. Tracers are now better optimized, they become visible much faster and from greater distances. The War Thunder Team
  12. 24 points
    Please post a comment or even a +1 to show your support. I think it the Elefant modification of the Ferdinand should be nested under the Ferdinand in the tech tree (like how the Pz. IV J and the Pz. II F are nested). Why? The increased stability and turning speed that widened tracks provide is useful, and the machine gun would be useful for marking targets/getting rid of bushes. Also, increased armor always helps. I think nested vehicles are always a good thing to add, as people aren't forced to research it. Besides, most of the tank is already modeled. Differences Between the Ferdinand and the Elefant Biggest changes: Increased armor thickness on the front MG-34 port Spare tracks on the rear of the tank Commander's cupola Periscopes Improved engine output (but increase in weight by 5 tons) Various armor changes around the tank Zimmerit paste Widened tracks Specifications While sources say that the front armor was thickened and the tracks widened, they don't say by how much (perhaps they are just talking about the plate around the machine gun and cannon)? I searched for hours on this. If anyone can find exact increases, please post. Everything else not described as changed above is identical to the Ferdinand's specifications. Sources http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerjager-tiger-ferdinand-elephant.htm http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=635 http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/04-Panzerjaegers/Jagdpanzer-Tiger(P)/Data/Ferdinand-Elefant_early.htm
  13. 24 points
    What is with the 262 now costing three times as much to repair than the Canadian Sabre? Its getting a bit silly in how they determine effectivness.
  14. 23 points
    Thank you very much for taking the time to create such a detailed report. This topic has been divided into two separate reports Fragmentation zones for APHE rounds are incorrect - ID: 0054325 HE filler fragmentation is too powerful in terms of killing crew - ID: 0054326 This thread will remain unlocked for one week (7 days) so that anyone with additional information\evidence\examples will have a place to post as well as if the Developers require more information. After this time the report will remain active but this topic will be move to Documented Bug Reports.
  15. 23 points
    R2Y2's are all still too expensive in RB (the most expensive planes in game by far, even though V3 is getting reduced by 21k lions, more than 95% of planes in game cost to begin with!!), and now the V3 is going to be cheaper than V2. P1Y1 needs a reduction in BR, a bugfix to its divebombing and a reduction in RB repair cost - 14k for a 2x500kg bombload bomber is far far too much (it was highest cost bomber in game, now tied with B-29 and 2k lower than Tu-4), especially considering it doesn't have pilot controlled weapons to add to its income potential. The 2x500kg bombload is barely better (more versatile) than the B7A2 that precedes it (that one only gets access to 1x800kg, like the P1Y1 also does) but in performance the B7A2 is far more able to defend itself, plus has cannons for pilot. The defensive gunners of P1Y1 have a blind spot directly behind the plane and don't have much of a firing arc elsewhere either. A good repair cost might be around 8k lions, which puts it in similar place as the Brigand who still has advantage of pilot controlled weapons. 50% increase to A6M5 otsu repair cost is too much, a 17k stock repair is far too much for a rank3 plane. J2M5 repair cost reduction is a good thing and appears to be indicative of it performing worse than the J2M3 whose price was similar to J2M5 before and they shared BR... but you're also going to increase the J2M5 BR now. Mixed signals being sent with repair reduction but BR increase, statistics haven't been collected with new BR. --- Japan now has 7 planes with a stock repair cost above 20k. Britain has 4, USSR has 0, Germany has 1 and USA has 0. Japan now has 22 planes with stock repair cost above 10k. Britain has 27, USSR has 21, Germany has 19 and USA has 14. Japan has the least planes in total yet seems to have a lions share of the ones that are expensive to repair. I may considering checking average repair costs per rank and type of plane later, but for now this quick check should be enough to raise suspicion.
  16. 22 points
    "shoot at T95 front..." well there you go
  17. 22 points
    The Spähpanzer Ru 251 is a German light reconnaissance tank developed in 1964 to replace the obsolete American M41 Walker Bulldogs in service in the Bundeswehr. It was designed on the basis of the German Kanonenjagdpanzer 4-5 tank destroyer. The final product possessed exceptional mobility and armament, but with the arrival of the more powerful Leopard 1, the Ru 251 was never put into mass production. The Spähpanzer Ru 251 light tank was conceived solely as a reconnaissance vehicle. In the early 1960s, the Bundeswehr were still using the outdated American M41 Walker Bulldogs in their armored scout battalions, however the time had come to replace them with something more modern. A program to develop a new light tank was launched in 1960. It was essential that the tank had excellent mobility and enough firepower to destroy the main Soviet tanks of the day. The first prototype was built in 1963, followed by at least one more by 1964. In 1964, the Ru 251 prototypes underwent intensive field tests, although by that time the Leopard main battle tank was already being readied for serial production and the Germans decided against ordering another tank so similar to the Leopard. The Spähpanzer Ru 251 was built based on the Kanonenjagdpanzer 4-5 tank destroyer, borrowing the majority of its components. Instead of a cabin, the Ru 251 was fitted with a cast rotating turret. The tank was also equipped with the 90 mm Rheinmetall BK 90 gun, the German version of the American 90 mm M36 installed on the M47 Patton IIs. Like its forefather, the Ru 251 possessed remarkable mobility and firepower, but lacked any shell-proof armor. The work on the Ru 251 prototypes was strictly confidential, and details of its development are still kept under wraps by the Bundeswehr today. Despite attempts to keep this scout under the radar, its path is now clear to join the battlefield in War Thunder. Soon every player will be able to feel the wind in their hair and relish breakneck speeds as the Ru 251 outstrips other tanks, evading shells and leaving opponents languishing in the dust. Yes, the Ru 251 will wrest the garland of victory from the muddy tracks of the M18 Hellcat and set a new landmark speed – 80 km/h! An impressive top speed is all well and good, but first you need to get there, and the Ru 251’s 650 horsepower diesel engine will make sure that you do. The power-to-weight ratio of this 25-ton vehicle is a meaty 25.4 horsepower per ton, and with such a formidable capacity, it’s safe to say that the Ru 251 won’t be dawdling in the rear guard. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 The tank’s armament is also nothing to be sniff at. Plenty of players are already familiar with the exceptional armor-piercing qualities of the 90 mm cannons on the KanJPz 4-5, so they’ll be pleased to see them again on the Ru 251. This weapon is already capable of piercing any SPG or tank available in War Thunder, but with an amendment to the mount on the rotating turret and the increased speed of its new carrier it will become an even greater threat. As before, the ammunition complement includes three shell types – APCRs, non-rotating HEAT shells and high-explosive shells – meaning that the Ru 251 has something for everyone. As a light tank designed for reconnaissance, the Ru 251 is not equipped for full-scale firefights with an opponent and its light bulletproof armor reflects this. The Ru 251’s 20mm of armor can comfortably withstand a burst from a high-caliber machine gun, but is vulnerable to anything bigger. This is understandable, however, as this tank is built to quickly move around an opponent from the sides or rear and deal a lightning strike before taking cover. Any excess armor would only hinder such maneuvers. This new addition in update 1.67, a superb steel scout, new land speed record-holder and all-around superb tank, will soon delight all fans of light armored vehicles and take its place at rank IV on the German tech tree as a premium. Wipe off your grimy speedometers and get ready for the Ru 251 – the fastest tank in War Thunder! The War Thunder Team Previous Development Blogs: Spitfire Mk IIb: an old friend Centurion Mk I: A Tank for a New Era Type 87: The Japanese Gepard B-10B: The Racing Bomber Discuss it here!
  18. 21 points
    Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 Introducing another aircraft model update, this time - it’s an iconic WW2 fighter - the Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IIb. The Spitfire Mk.IIb is not only one of the first aircraft in our game and not only a legendary fighter with a glorious military background. All pilots who chose to progress through the Spitfire research branch remember well that it is the first fighter with dangerous 20mm Hispano cannons. It is an Incredibly maneuverable, fast climbing aircraft - a true legend in the skies of War Thunder. We are happy to introduce the new model of our good old friend. Meet the newly refined Spitfire Mk.IIb that has been redesigned according to the highest quality standards that our artists follow. The new appearance of this elegant fighter will be liked by both veterans and new players of War Thunder The War Thunder Team Discuss it here!
  19. 21 points
    Please, reduce the HEAT-FS price for the T-54 1951 and M103. These tanks rely on those shells to be effective. 1400 SL per shot is ridiculous if you compare it to way better tanks like the Leopard or M60 that get HEAT for 1200 SL per shot. Also, please consider reducing T-54 3BM8 APDS, since it's also 1400 SL.
  20. 20 points
    We are discussing about it at the moment - lots of aspect of the tank are not finished. We understand the players concerns, give us a couple of days.
  21. 20 points
    You don't want to understand, do you? Yes, there are players who would prefer any premium vehicle on the standard tree. But the difference is, the German TD line can do without the Jagdtiger 88 for example, but the possible light tank line NEEDS the Ru 251. There's vehicles that players want on the standard tree because they don't want to pay for them, and then there's vehicles that are needed for a certain line on the standard tree. I don't complain because I will have to pay for the Ru 251. I (most of the time) like this game and I am willing to support it. But adding the Ru 251 as a premium kills the possibility for other light tanks I (and many others) want to see ingame.
  22. 20 points
    In all [Ground attack] missions for BR ranges between 3.3 and 5.7 all respawn points for fighters are now higher by 500m and for bombers lower by 500m. A greater number of bombs will now be required for base destruction at higher ranks (the strength of bases has been increased by 15%). In combined battles in the locations “Poland”, “Eastern Europe”, “Kursk” and “Tunisia”, the airfield has been changed by increasing the runway to 2km length. ZSU-57-2 - the ammo belt has been updated. Now uses APCBC-HE (instead of APCBC). Ta-Se, So-Ki - listed as SPAA instead of medium tanks. Breach repair speed has been reduced by 40%. Crew replenishment speed has been increased by 33%. Effect of armour slope (slope effect) for AP and APC shells when the calibre of the shell exceeds the armour thickness more than two times, has been fixed. DM for the lightly armoured vehicles has been updated: when damaged by HE or HEAT shells, as well as large calibre AP ammo. From now on lightly armoured ground vehicles can be easily destroyed with weapons of 75mm calibre or more whilst using HE or HEAT ammo by hitting hull, turret (if present) or gun barrel and mantlet. This works for the following vehicles: Flakpanzer 38t Gepard Flakpanzer I FlakPz.I Gepard Panzerjager I Nashorn Marder III Marder III Ausf.H Sd.Kfz.6/2 Sd.Kfz.9 Flak 37 Type 94 So-Ki Ta-Se Crusader AA Mk.II Crusader AA Mk.I AEC AA Mk.II Falcon T17E2 M13 M15 M16 M3 GMC M19 M42 M163 Vulcan M18 Hellcat M56 Scorpion ASU-57 GAZ-4M GAZ DShK GAZ-ММ 72-К PT-76B 94-KM ZiS-30 ZiS-43 ZSU-23-4 ZSU-57-2 ZSU-37 ZUT-37 The current provided patchnotes reflect the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates and fixes may be not listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving all the time and certain fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  23. 19 points
    The Type 87 anti-aircraft gun entered into service in the Japanese Self-Defense Forces as a replacement for the hopelessly outdated American Duster SPAAG. The specification and concept for the new anti-aircraft vehicle was based on the German Gepard SPAAG that our players know so well. The vehicle used a modified Type 74 tank chassis and was equipped with the Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon system as used in the Gepard. The vehicle was a success – more than 50 of these SPAAGs were put into production and several units remain in service today. In War Thunder, the Type 87 SPAAG will take its place in rank V of the Japanese armored vehicle tech tree. In addition to fighting against aerial threats, the Type 87 can try its luck by attacking ground vehicles – for these purposes it’s preferable to research APCR shells. It’s best not to attack enemy tanks directly head-on, but the lightly armored sides and rear of many top-line tanks are unable to withstand a heavy burst of 35 mm armor-piercing rounds. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 Needless to say, the Type 87’s place is not at the tip of the spear – its light bulletproof armor makes it easy prey even for aerial cannons, and it only has a three-man crew. But its decent mobility and speed, passed on from the Type 74, allow the Type 87 to quickly reach cover or attack opponents from the side – and a seasoned commander will make good use of this capability! The Type 87 SPAAG will be added to the game in a major update coming soon – follow the news! Discuss it there! The War Thunder Team
  24. 18 points
    Leopard 2-AV prototype 1976 Leopard 2AV Prototype 20 with Turret number 21with 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore Leopard 2AV is undoubtedly the most important German tank in the Cold War. December 11, 1974 a memorandum was signed between the US and Germany for a new MBT (after the Americans in 1973 acquired and investigated prototype hull №7). After analyzing fighting the Yom Kippur War, it was decided that the tank is necessary to further protect spaced armor. Design weight of the car was increased to 60 tons, in addition, changes have been experimental tower №14 - for its production using honeycomb steel armor with voids for the combined armor tabs. The new tower installed 120-mm smoothbore gun. After that the German manufacturers two new prototypes were ordered (№19 and №20), which were designated Leopard 2AV, as well as three towers to them. In addition to the combined armor towers, experimental tanks were other differences. On the prototype №19 installed 105-mm rifled gun L-7, which can be easily replaced by a 120-mm gun, and MSA Hughes Tool Company American company. The tower prototype №20 JMA and 120-mm artillery system were German, another prototype (№21) supplied MSA EMES 13 (Hughes joint development and Krupp Atlas Elektronik), and all of the same 120 mm of Rh-120 gun. In mid-1976 №19 prototype was sent to the United States together with the housing №20 (on him instead of the tower installed cylindrical weight dummy) and a special prototype, designed for firing. While Americans may not believe in the success of the 120-mm smoothbore tank gun and did not want to experience it. In August, the "cargo" was brought to the American ground, and 26 September to conduct comparative testing cycle began Leopard 2AV and XM1, which ended in December. Tests have demonstrated once again the Germans inability of Americans. It all started with the fact that the German side were allowed to attend only an observer, and all tank crews and service personnel were local. Then the German representatives outraged that "Yankees" have refused to establish a system of adjustment (debugging) of the barrel, is responsible for increasing accuracy of weapons combat. The Germans knew that the L7 gun heat up quickly in the process of shooting, resulting in increased dispersion of projectiles, so Leopard 2AV entered minute shooting stop after every tenth shot, during which make the adjustment (optical sight gunner and a collimator mounted on the muzzle). At its tanks, the Americans used the exact same tools (which they also produced under license), but they were able to neutralize the problem, and minute break does not suit them. True, the Germans, too, should not be considered miserable simpletons. During the tests it was found out that the fake tower prototype №20 equal to the weight of this tower ... which is not found weapons. Thus, the purity of the experiment violated. After the test the US military reported that Leopard 2AV XM1 and comparable in mobility, although the "Leopards" quickly dispersed, higher speeds and had a large reserve. Breaking they are also less likely to their American competitors (provoked criticism only support rollers, which were required to strengthen). Shooting Prototype №19 expected were slightly worse than those of American tanks. German experts have declared that they were not warned that a foreign field tests will be carried out by someone else's rules, but listen to their arguments, no one wanted. However, the OMS tank (remember the US) has proved to be excellent. American tankers impressed the possibility of fire from the tank commander, increasing responsiveness crew suddenly emerging threats. In addition, the Americans felt that Leopard 2AV booked worse than the XM1. When firing ammunition cumulative frontal armor of the German tank was estimated at 400 ~ 450 mm homogeneous armor, and the US - 450 ~ 470 mm. When firing armor-piercing projectiles, this gap is greatly increased. Leopard 2AV Prototype 19 with Turret number 19 with 105mm cannon Royal Ordnance L7A3 Two hulls (number 19 and 20) and three turrets (number 19, 20 and 21) were built in 1976, all using mild steel instead of armored steel. The Leopard 2AV had two main new features compared to the earlier prototypes: New hull armor New turret, based on the lessons learned from the PT 14 mod turret variant Both features considerably increased the protection level of the vehicle. The vehicle with turret and hull number 19 (furthermore referred to as Prototype 19) was equipped with an American fire control system by Hughes and a (originally British) Royal Ordnance L7A3 105mm cannon because the XM1 prototypes were armed with the same weapon. The Prototype 20 Leopard 2 was armed with the more advanced German EMES 13 fire control system and the same 105mm gun, while turret number 21 (to be tested on hull number 20) was equipped with the EMES 13 fire control system and the 120mm L/44 Rheinmetall smoothbore gun. Leopard 2AV Prototype 20 with Turret number 21with 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore Leopard 2AV 105mm cannon Royal Ordnance L7A3 Leopard 2AV 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore This is original video of the Bundeswehr army testing Leopard 2AV with 105mm and 120mm cannon Specifications: sources:
  25. 18 points
    The Heavy Tank T34 is another tank with the designation 34, but now this title conceals not a nimble Soviet medium tank, but a real American “heavyweight.” It features a massive gun, thick armor and almost an entire division of American tank crewmen on board. Get ready for a new unit that requires almost no introduction: the American Heavy Tank T34! The Heavy Tank T34 represented an eventual attempt by the US Artillery Department to enhance the firepower of the tanks from Project T29. In spring of 1945, two prototype T30 tanks (a T29 variant with a 155mm gun and a more powerful engine) were rearmed with 120mm guns and received the designation T34. The T53 120mm gun was essentially a version of the M1 anti-aircraft gun that was adapted to be installed on a tank and it was also the most powerful of all three weapons on tanks from Project T29. Eventually, due to problems with high levels of fumes in the cockpit after the gun was fired and the risk of generating a backblast when opening the hatch, a bore evacuator was installed on the barrel of the T53 cannon to expel lingering propellant gases. After the war ended, the pressing need to develop such heavy vehicles declined and in 1950, the entire Project T29 was permanently scrapped. Many players have already managed to acquaint themselves with the outstanding combat capabilities of the American T29, but until recently, it simply had no decent alternative in the main branch. There is now an alternative to the T29: the Heavy Tank T34, which already stands out when it comes to the peal of thunderous gunfire – the thunder of war. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 With a more powerful 120mm gun, a new 810-horsepower engine, and an additional 100 millimeters of armored plating welded to the rear of the turret, this tank is actually slightly superior to the deadly T29 in terms of its combat capabilities. This massive steel giant will be available soon at rank IV of the American heavy tank tech tree, and it will doubtlessly become one of the most sought-after new units in patch 1.67. Discuss it here! Previous Development Blogs: Spitfire Mk IIb: an old friend B-10B: The Racing Bomber Typ-Klasse 140 Jaguar: the Schnellboot Successor Centurion Mk I: A Tank for a New Era Type 87: The Japanese Gepard Spähpanzer Ru 251: The Fastest on land T14: The Ground Assault Tank
  26. 17 points
    War Thunder Weapons Target Training Range Development and School Academy Proposal Concept Proposal Explained Map Design and Proving Training Ground Targets Strafing Net and Stationery Military Targets Bombing Bullseye Target and Stationery Military Targets Development feature in Single-Player Training and Multi-Player Coordination Mission Training Weapons School Academy - Qualification Assessments - Weapons and Tactics Employment - Instructor Qualification Brief and Debreif - Level Qualification Objectives and Assessments and Scoring including an Replay Analysis Tool 1. Concept Proposal Explained The proposal suggestion is for a "War Thunder Target Training Range" in Simulation Mode / Realistic Mode/ Arcade Mode of play for the fun aspect offline/single-player and even to have online/multi-player coordinated training aka "Mutual Support Combat and JTACs" with other players and ground forces as part of the combat training Kinda of whats found on ED-DCS A-10C Simulator with the NTTR MAP Link:- https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1598945/ As a Single Player option mainly to use various aircraft or tanks and creating your own tactics or even training online before missions if at all possible as the game and maps develop further. A "War Thunder Training Range" is where you can fly to the training range and practice bombing and strafing runs on “Bullseye Targets” for example:- Old Trains Military Vehicles Abandoned Air Craft Hardened Targets like Tanks or Steel Shipping Containers Small Buildings Painted Bullseye Targets *** Including observation towers and look-out bunker in game views. Where you can even earn extra points for successful completion of satisfactory hits on bomb targets and strafing accuracy on target net and/ or other target types. Its also another avenue War Thunder could make revenue as a business, as long as there is also freedom for community free modding as promised by Scarpers reply post here:- https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/349920-countermeasures-against-forbidden-modifications/&do=findComment&comment=6749514 This might start off as one Training Range MAP free as part of the game and purchase other MAP Training Ranges from around the world with various terrains and mountain elevations and many add-ons objects to add to the ranges itself. As a revenue concept or simply purchase newer models for practice or other means of developing the concept financially. It might be as simple as just adding more to the game as content, building a larger customer base as a combat game in its own merit, and draw more revenue for current shop setup. They are your choices I guess as a business, but have provided some revenue ideas to consider. Its also where people can select maps or training ranges from their nation of choice and train in online competition scoring but also time in MAP or aka "Time on Station" needs to be increased to 30 - 45mins from the current time spent in MAPs. On average its 7 to 10 mins need more play time in all fairness. MAP design is critical here with the ability to take-off and land on air bases for rearming and refueling then heading out back to the weapons live fire training range. Again having various types of landscapes e.g. valleys, mountains, boulders, trees even snow, increases the level difficulty and intensity for the student/user to focus coming into target range like the "Pilsung Training Range" in South Korea where its tight and difficult to get to. Watch the "Pilsung Range" video below! NOTE:- The "Bomb and Gun Aiming and /or Sighting Arcade Feature" should be an option in the settings menu for more experienced simulated fun. The arcade target sighting circle helps in the beginning, to understand how it's done but it also gets you into bad habits of not flying in cockpit mode and using that as a guide from the nose down view. Google Search Reading Links:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_and_Training_Range https://wallyswar.wordpress.com/gunnery-course/ http://www.clui.org/category/ludb-keywords/training-testing-bombing-range http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rwbarnes/defence/ranges.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowry_Bombing_and_Gunnery_Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badlands_Bombing_Range Google Search Videos to Watch:- 2. Map Design and Proving Training Ground Targets Something like this....................... 3. Strafing Net and Stationery Military Targets 4. Bombing Bullseye Target and Stationery Military Targets NOTE:- Adding Observation Tower and Tank or Aircraft Views PLEASE NOTE:- I also consider this proposal added game concept for Tanks as a course proving and training grounds. This is in combination with this proposal to ensure you have "Situational Awareness" though effective camera views:- https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/351876-simulation-battle-mode-external-views-for-situational-awareness-sa-realistic-operational-requirement-checks/ 5. Development feature in Single-Player Training and Multi-Player Coordination Mission Training Single-Player would be non squadron participants or isolated practice running the program module to refine your own skills and experience as well tactical strategic knowledge of the game. Multi-Player would enable mutual tactical training and coordination training tactics and strategic knowledge of the game. Squadrons then have users passing "Initial Qualification Training" and better equipped at weapons for Tanks - Aircraft - Ships and tactics to use and participate in missions, campaigns and events. 6. Weapons School Academy - Qualification Assessments - Weapons and Tactics Employment - Instructor Qualification The School and Academy aspects is passing assessments and "Initial Qualifications Training and Missions" - IQT and IQM's. I will post more on that later if proposal is moved to be implemented, although you can research this online here is a start:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Education_and_Training_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAF_Weapons_School 7. Brief and Debreif - Level Qualification Objectives and Assessments and Scoring including an Replay Analysis Tool Briefing before going on Qualification Training Level task and passing expectations with detailed instructions. Then Debriefed and your assessment score displayed and suggested corrections needed using an Analytical Data Replay Tool showing your training performance. Something like TACVIEW:- http://www.tacview.net/product/about/en/ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So hoping that developers will consider development suggestion, please. Also aircraft like the North American Rockwell Bronco OV-10 link here.......... https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/327284-ov-10a-bronco/ i ............... its perfect for training range qualification missions. Gamers just want to have fun adding full realism and immersion and pure entertainment, so here's to all our dreams come true! Kind Regards SkyKnight
  27. 17 points
    A medium tank that can't just tank everything shot at it. Imagine that.
  28. 17 points
    Then WAIT for god's sake! Let the other nations catch up, and THEN add a light tank branch for Germany. Waiting another year for it would still be better than getting on of them as a premium and not getting the others at all. And meanwhile add some other German premiums, like the Einheitswaffenträger, Jagdtiger 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 or whatever.
  29. 17 points
    So after a lot of feedback from the community on the planned changes in the BR and the economy nothing will change? I have no words. I am very disappointed again
  30. 16 points
    On the naval side of things I've lost the heart to test these boats, they aren't my cup of tea at all and if they are indicative of anything Gaijin is coming out with in the future then I have no interest in WarThunder's Naval aspect.
  31. 16 points
  32. 16 points
    I didnt wrote that it's wrong add premium content, I just hate when someone said ''because it's prototype'' (while we have T92, T44-100, Panther F,... a lot of protorypes in normal tt) or ''because all nation have 5 branches'' when gaijin never told a maximum number of branches. Exist a lot of type of vehicles: light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, TD, open SPG, SPAAG, armored cars, ATGM and assoult guns. 5 branches are too few. The same happened with the Brummbar and Kv2 mod.40: 2 tanks that seen the mass production. Gaijin and all mods and devs should be more honest with the community because we are not stupid. This thing happend many time: - when gaijin modelled a wrong E100 with a short 128mm Kwk2015 and many mods covered gaijin with post like ''it's correct'' or ''e100 was planned with a short 128mm''. some days after BVV confirmed that the model was wrong - the same happend with stuka airbreaks or pods for the bf - H8K2 as premium at the beginning (fortunally gaijin changed it's mind) - reload time data of the panther found in the manual was german propaganda - maus amour values and A LOT of other bug reports with many documents that are still archived (we spend our times to try to report some problems or bugs or we try to find important documents but many times is useless because many of them remain unheeded) exc... Stop joke with us please, we dont deverse it Sorry for my bad english, i'm trying my best
  33. 16 points
    First postwar tank in Tier IV for germany and they add as premiun but object 906 and T-44/100 in regular tree ))))
  34. 16 points
    Your quite right. There are actually a few aircraft in game that have been in all Gaijin games from IL-2: Birds of prey, Wings of Prey, Birds of Steel and World of Planes which became War Thunder. All of those games progressively contributed to what is now War Thunder and are all "part of the family" so to speak. All of the Spitfires (before the Griffons and Mk IIa came to the game) were from the older games, as were the Bf 109 Emils, and the He-111s, Ju-87s, P-38s, He-162, Me 262, Me 163, A6Ms, P-47D, Blenheim, Avenger, Dauntless, Mustang Mk Ia and others. As you can see however, there is an ongoing processes of updating these models (as you can see from the improvements to the Spitfires, Bf 109 Emils, He-111s, P-38, F6F and He-162) to the new artistic standards of the game.
  35. 15 points
    Any way the A-26 Invader can get some real firepower?
  36. 15 points
    I want you firstly present problem what worry many players. It is very often bomber spam in Arcade battles. This problem making games shorter than 2-3 minutes. The biggest problem is in Ground strike mode what is the most often mode in AB games. Frontline and Dominations are quite OK. From my view any game shorter than 10 minutes it too short. Normal game time for me is somewhere between 10-20 minutes. Yesterday I made screenshots of battles for showing you what I talking about. You can see how many players took heavy or any bomber an finish game very fast. Here are 9 ground strikes with sreen what players took for first spawn and finnish screen for see how much time took them to finish game. It is 9 battles in a row no some 9 battles what can distort view of real problem. Problem with bomber spam starting somewhere in BR 3,7 and ending in 8.0 where are enought fast jets to eliminate bombers faster than they fall their load. Game starting with 25 min. countdown but you are spawned at time 24:35 and you going ahead to your opponents. You can see there only 2 games are longer than 10 minutes. And some are shorter than 5 minutes. This making this game mode so boring and lot of players stop playing normal random AB air battles. Some of us like me dont playing RB mode. They are more boring for me. And same saying many of my friends. So I ask you for making some changes to make this game mode fun again. I can give you some solutions for it. 1. In RB you set bomber limit 4. There is only one possible respawn so it is easy. But think it is possible to make it in AB mode too. It will be working little differently because you dont know what players will take from their line up. Limit in AB can work this way. Lets say 4 or 5 bombers will be limit. If there will be filled bombers spawn and another player will try take bomber it will warn him with message too many spawned bomber please choose different vehicle or wait in queue for the first possible respawn. After some of player lost his bomber it will make place for another bomber spawn.... 2. More target for bombers. Let make them more work to do and it will take them longer time to destroy all vehicles / bases. Make more bases or raise their durability 3 times + airfield 2 times. It will do enough time for fighter to kill bombers. 3.Do something similar like is in RB air battles. After 20 minutes are there light vehicles what can finnish battle. Here can be it little different. Lets do some Groung stages of targets. For example first stage will be bunkers and pillboxes. After players destroy them it will show up second group of targets. May be tanks with armored trucks. After they destreoy them can be third stage. It is up to tier of playing. Lower tier less targets. NEW : 4. If all ground targets will bombed ther will be still credits. Credits what can be lost only by destroing opponent planes. For exapmle. One destroyed plane will be -30 credit for opponent. There will be 1500 extra credit for it. Som if ground strike will have 30 vehicles it is 3000 + 1500 = There will be 4500 credits what can be raised down only killing opponents planes. Same will be with destroing base. All basses + airfield can raise down max 2000 credits and all other credits can be raised only killing planes and ground targets. I hope you will understand our AB comunity too. When RB players have complains for bomber spam it was very fast from your side to solve it. So I hope you will not let waiting us several months for some good solution. Also I asking other players to write down their view on it and if you have other good solution for it wrrite it downs. More views more they can choose
  37. 15 points
    Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 Unfortunately, we had to end the test early due to technical problems but don't worry, it will come back in a future test! Thanks you for your participation! Dear players! At 13:00 GMT February 23rd we will be launching a testing of the new event, where you can choose for yourself which battle you would like to join. Moreover after the battle ends you may still stay in the chosen room to join the next battle with the same team lineup.The mechanics are the same as in Custom Battles. Mode features: Besides an option to join a random battle players also has an opportunity to choose a specific room for themselves. The available room list shows only those battles that have vacant places to join. A player is able to enter a room only if they have the required vehicles in their hangar slots. They also have an option to choose a specific battling party in case there is no significant advantage in the number of players by the opposite party. After the end of a battle, the room remains open and the next battle will start after a period of time automatically with the same participants. The next battle won’t start if the number of players on either sides does not meet the balance requirements - In such a case, a countdown will begin and if the teams do not meet the balance requirements before it ends, the room will be disbanded. The room description shows the time passed after its creation. A player may join a room any time as soon as they meet the requirements. Battles created in such rooms provide the same rewards and achievements as in any other events. Features of this test: Pacific War battles (British aircraft vs Japanese aircraft and American aircraft vs Japanese aircraft) Several different events available Respawn mechanics are the same as in the Air AB The following vehicles are available: 1st - Aircraft of BR 3.7 - 4.7, 2nd - Aircraft of BR 5.0 - 6.3. Battles will be held in Simulation mode The test may be stopped at any time! The War Thunder Team
  38. 15 points
    I believe that's the case for a lot of people right now, I don't recall seeing even a single Youtube video on last weekends testing phase, To me the maps simply look awful, like they're straight out of *the other arcade tank game* (I.E. Karelia) and do not look interesting whatsoever, neither from a visual, nor gameplay perspective. I'm really hoping they find a way around the rather dull-looking point and click approach to the combat, IMHO they should've gone for the realistic battles approach and implemented a map similar to how it's seen on Norway: As I see it, there's so many advantages to a map layout like this: Immersion - The map would ofcourse require some down-sizing and perhaps an addition pathway for boats here and there, but other than that, it's far more expansive and much larger in scale than the current maps we've seen, allowing for actual flanking tactics (assuming the nametags wouldn't pop up in RB Naval Forces ofcourse) and proper longer range engagements instead of the nearly point-blank-range clashes we've seen so far, we (side) climb in our aircraft for several minutes, we drive our tanks towards our preferred position for several minutes, I don't see why Naval Forces should have such instant-action focussed maps, I don't believe that this is what makes people attracted to War Thunder. Objectives - The map already features realistic objectives, take the submarine base for example, this could either be used as a neutral objective that can be captured similar to how it's done in Tank Domination, capturing it would spawn small defensive positions such as AAA batteries and small unarmored SPG's, alternatively, they could hold stationary enemy ships that can be destroyed with torpedo strikes, causing significant ticket bleed to the opposing faction, the airfield could ofcourse contain important aircraft that can be picked off on the runway, anything is possible here, the more immersive and realistic targets are what matters to me (I.E. no magic white circle) Aircraft integration - The map also already features multiple airfields aswell as carriers, which could ofcourse alternatively be seen as objectives to destroy, but would also allow for player controlled aircraft to be easily implemented in Naval Realistic Battles, as previously mentioned, the airfield could act as a objective, however, it would be easier to conquer this objective (because I'd only require gunfire instead of torpedoes) in comparison to the Submarine base, a trade-off here could be that the owning team would be allowed to spawn their aircraft at this airfield closer to the combat area. Anyways, just my thoughts on how I could perhaps see Naval Forces work out, this is mostly just working around the rather dull combat mechanics, and perhaps finding a way to make the rest more engaging. Well, this post got about 10x larger than what I had initially planned, oh well.
  39. 15 points
    Good morning everyone! I would like to introduce you to the latest version of the famous Centurion Two types of weaponry were tested in this tank. The 20PDR and L7, however, the suggestion i present here is the L7 105mm, and would be a great tank on the British tree. Briefly it is just a Centurion MK.10 (Currently 7.0 in the game) with increased armor in the turret. The surviving Action X Turret. Armor With its larger armor in the turret, it can face stronger enemies like IS-3 and T-54. Perspective Source from: CENTURION: Modern Combat Vehicles 2 – November 10, 1980 by Simon Dunstan This tank may be the last link between the Centurion and the Chieftain. And I believe it would be a great 7.3 or 7.7 If you think this Centurion would be very welcome, give your support, show your interest. Voting is important, but explaining the reasons for having it in the game is even more important.
  40. 15 points
    Created in 1930, the American Martin B-10B high-speed bomber reached speeds of 333 km/h in testing. This meant that the bomber could outrun many of the biplane fighters at the time! As a result of the project’s success, Martin received the prestigious Collier Trophy for its contribution to aviation and an order from the government for 48 units, which later led to several more large orders. By the mid-1930s, the company’s Martin B-10B and B-12A made up the core of the USA bomber force. However, soon the race for technological supremacy shifted towards even more advanced designs. New fighters became faster and bombers more powerful, and the B-10B was eclipsed before its paint had even lost its gloss. From 1937 onwards, the B-10B was replaced with the more advanced Boeing B-18 Bolo. The bomber saw out the war in several US wings in the Philippines. But the B-10B still managed to see some action – the exported aircraft were used in the Dutch East Indies, China and Thailand both in local conflicts and in air battles in the Second World War. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 In War Thunder, the B-10B will take its place at rank I as a premium aircraft in the American tech tree. The domed nose turret and large canopy of the dorsal turret give the aircraft a distinctive appearance. One interesting detail: the engine and oil temperature gages and the engine-propeller air pressure gages were located directly on the nacelles, which allowed the pilot to read the instruments on the left and right through the canopy glass. For its rank, the B-10B possesses excellent speed and is capable of evading some, but not all, fighters. For pursuits, the aircraft was equipped with 7.62 mm machine guns, one in the nose turret, one in the rear canopy and a third in the ventral fuselage hatch. The Martin B-10B has several load presets of 250, 500, 1,000 and 2,000-pound bombs, its maximum payload is 2,000 pounds (just over 900 kg). This American bomber will be added to the game in the next major War Thunder update coming soon. Keep an eye on our news, we’ve got lots more in store! The War Thunder Team Previous Development Blogs: Spitfire Mk IIb: an old friend Centurion Mk I: A Tank for a New Era Type 87: The Japanese Gepard
  41. 15 points
    SDF did not give me the data for the prototype SPAAGs in the proper time order for Gaijin to use it before they started modeling the Type87. Albeit all they had to do was slightly change the 87 turret and place it on the Type61. Their mistake of adding this will now open all the chaos of composite armour tanks. Great job Gaijin, truly.
  42. 14 points
    With respect Pacifica, the fake HESH shell used by the Chieftain ingame is proof that Gaijin DOES put in words/scripts/numbers without factual data. Several members of this orum have PROVEN the shell Gaijin has given to the Chieftain is fake and the designation was used for the 105mm Abbot.
  43. 14 points
    Well, Mai_Waffentrager and Listy have access to all kinds of information on Japanese tanks, even the obscure ones. Yet people still argue with Mai about what they think is right and wrong, plus questioning the validity of her sources (one of which is the Japanese National Archives). You'd be surprised how often people will challenge you despite knowing the specifics.
  44. 14 points
    T34-85's Russian players shrug thier shoulders and get on with it. Panther II gets raised, it's suddenly useless, German players whine
  45. 14 points
    This time I have to agree with Smin, ranking vehicles based on their introduction time is not a good idea. All of the vehicles that typically come up in such a discussion (ASU-57, PT-76, etc) were not introduced in their armies because of their amazing fighting capabilities, but because of other reasons. The ASU-57 because it could be dropped from an aircraft. The PT-76 because it could swim. But these characteristics are not important ingame, sure, the PT-76 can swim, but that's not really an advantage. These vehicles should not face vastly superior tanks just because they were developed at a time where their only selling point was some sort of special feature/advantage not reflected ingame. Apart from that, if the RU 251 didn't have to be tier 4 because it's premium, I bet it would be a tier 5 vehicle anyway., and rightfully so.
  46. 14 points
    A bug where 3D decorations became covered in mud faster than other parts of any given ground vehicle has been fixed. Bug Report. A bug where the engine sound in cockpit view went silent after an airfield repair, has been fixed. Bug Report A bug where knocked-out crew members in a ground vehicle were displayed incorrectly in “hit cam” view has been fixed. Bug Report. A bug in server-side replays where the repair sound was randomly triggered, has been fixed. Bug Report. Water visuals have been improved. Tracer visuals have been improved for all guns of all vehicles. They also now reflect in water. The belt filling for the coaxial and AA 7.62mm-7.92mm MGs has been changed: now the belt contains ½ to ⅓ of the tracer or AP-T rounds. Universal belt filling for the ShKAS MG has been updated - the round with the T46 bullet has been removed, and the tracer belt round with the B32 bullet has been added. The belt filling for the Browning 7.7mm has been updated: The tracer belt now consists of T and AP-I ammo in the ratio of 1 to 1, and the stealth belt now has 2 AP-I and 1 I round. Client stability has been improved. Discuss it here! Note: This update applies to PC/Linux/Mac users. If applicable, PS4 Users will receive the update as soon as possible. The current provided patchnotes reflect the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates and fixes may be not listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving all the time and certain fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  47. 13 points
    Diagnosis: Inability to aim.
  48. 13 points
    I understand that, but choosing this out of all the possible German vehicles as a premium tank basically killed the possibility of a light tank line. There are lots of vehicles Gaijin could have chosen as a Premium, one of the Waffenträger for example, or the Jagdtiger with the 88mm gun, but no. Germany has more than enough possible premium vehicles, no need to put one that would be essential for a standard line in the premium section.
  49. 13 points
    Enough..... and yes all HUMANS can be WRONG if they do not have solid evidence to back up claims.... if Mai has data then we need to see it, if anyone has data we need to see it... Mai word is not LAW, we need proof.... no offense to Mai, but seems some keep claiming she knows all... Therefore there is no proof, so no Fantasy armour..... if there happens to be proof, then things can change.... find PROOF, and not from Wiki....... So enough of this nonsense, Warnings will follow if this keeps up.....
  50. 13 points
    There is still a great need for a rework of the ground forces rewards ratio in comparison to aircraft. Its abysmally low. As an example I played a pretty good game about a week ago in my Chi-nu II and Ki-100. I got 7 kills with the Chi-Nu II and made a grand total of 19,040 silver lions from those kills. having been knocked out by a dastardly SPAA I jumped into the Ki-100 II and scored 2 aerial kills. Those 2 aerial kills alone made me 18,340 silver lions. The fact that 2 air kills made me nearly the same amount as 7 tank kills shows that there is a MASSIVE disparity between ground forces earnings and aircraft earnings. Here is the link to my total earnings from that match. Keep in mind this is with the use of 2 premium vehicles, and a premium account. I regularly see on reddit screenshots of people without the use of premium vehicles and accounts receive almost nothing for their effort. We are talking about less than 2500 RP and sub 30k SL for similar results to mine. Now I am a very good player and am more than capable of getting back to back to back ace games on a regular basis. However for the average user without a premium account the earnings for Ground forces in comparison to air forces takes nearly three times as long based on both RP and SL alone. This is not okay. I understand that Gaijin is a business and at the end of the day you guys have to eat as well. BUT, the grind that war thunder ground forces requires in the long run is going to hurt you more in terms of number of new players lost. All I ask, for the sake of the average joe out there, is that you make ground forces if not the equal of aircraft, than make them at least 75% of the income that aircraft make. As of now its less than a 1/3rd of what aircraft make per match.