Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/28/2017 in all areas

  1. 52 points
    Hello, I would like to solve the long lasting issue with M60A1 gunshield thickness, and its construction behind the actual shield. It would be best if the issue would be solved along with this report, as it affects the same part of the tank: The issue was reported also on Russian forum some time ago, and I was told the report was rejected because there is no information about inside of the gunshield - is it hollow, or solid. Unfortunately, I don’t know the details of the report, as it’s now unavailable for me to see it: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/197743-utochnenie-tolshchiny-bronirovaniya-maski-tanka-m60a1/&do=findComment&comment=5903278 After a few months of my own investigation, I have finally found a way to check the hypothesis of hollow mantlet. My investigation was long and not easy, so the bug report is unfortunately quite big, I will do my best to organize it well. Tank affected: M60A1 Issue: Incorrect modeling of armor behind the shield Investigation 1: SLEP patent drawings First source would be patent from M60A1 SLEP, which shows M60A3 gunshield modified to mount 120 mm gun. US9194664.pdf Although the drawings may not be necessary to scale (9th page of pdf file, 2nd row, 21 row) we can see the interior of the shield casting. The patent is an idea of how to mount 120 mm gun into M60 tanks at low cost. The base is existing M60A3 shield (9th page of pdf file, 2nd row, 62), with drilled bigger openings for gun and gun cradle, lightening holes, MG and optics ports, and then inserting new flange, cast shroud (to protect the flange and mimic the shape of original 105 mm shield) and new tubes for optics and MG. One of the best examples of what is inside the mantlet is presented on Fig. 3, 3rd page of pdf file. It is a view of the shield cut in half exactly in the middle, and we are seeing bottom half of it (view is shown on Fig. 2, the same page). I’ve copied the drawing to explain the whole idea. 1 is the original drawing. 2 is the combined drawing of shield and shroud, red arrows pointing where the shroud would be fit inside the drilled hole. Orange color is marking lightening holes 3 is the view of how the shield would look like before drill. Orange is again lightening holes, and green is estimated amount of drilled steel. The whole area marked with stripes, along with orange and green areas is solid steel in original M60A1/A3 shield. Notice, that behind the flange (yellow color) there is large open space, which is also enlarged recoil chamber. As stated in “Abstract” (1st page of pdf file) the shield have “through hole”, which means it is drilled from the front to back. Also, we have no holes for mounting the 105 mm gun cradle. The new holes are in the flange (yellow color), and this is the place where 120 mm gun cradle is assembled (page 10th of pdf file, column 3, row 36). On page 4 we have Fig. 6, which is a view on the shield from its rear, with view 7 marked - it is cutting the top of the shield, over the gun tube. We can see what’s inside on Fig. 7 - again, whole shield is solid (stripes), except lightening hole (orange color), which is part of SLEP project. Original shield don’t have this hole, it’s solid at entire area of cut. As we can see in every cut view in the document the only hollow places are drilled lightening holes (non existent in original shield), extended gun port and enlarged and partially removed recoil chamber (whole back of the chamber is missing). This document alone proves that there are no hollow spaces in M60A1/A3 gunshield cast. But I want to prove it beyond any doubt. Investigation 2: Gunshield volume Next source is TM 9-2350-215-34-2-1 https://books.google.pl/books?id=k1oYAAAAYAAJ&dq=m60a1 gun weight&hl=pl&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 1-14 we can see the weight of the gunshield - 3108 lbs, which is 1409,8 kg. At the same page we have shield thickness - 4,5 inch. To prove that the whole gunshield is made of solid steel, without internal hollow spaces, we need to compare volume of the gunshield we can calculate from sources, and volume of the gunshield we can get knowing it’s measurements. Documented weight of the gunshield is exactly 1409,8 kg. The steel weight is 7850 kg/m3, so the volume of the gunshield is 179 592 cm3. This is documented value. Now we need measured value for comparison. A few members of WT community voluntarily measured the tanks they had access to (M60A1 and M60A3). Thanks to that we can calculate the volume of the gunshield. The fact that both tanks are using the same shield was previously consulted with @FryingTigerWT Measured values @ACE_OF_ACES Gun tube circumference - 69,215 cm Thanks to that we can calculate gun tube diameter at gun port entrance - 22 cm In mentioned bug report on Russian forum the taken measure was 64 cm, but that was taken some distance from gun port, and the gun tube is getting thicker the closer we are to gun breech. Mantlet width - 76 cm Recoil chamber width - 42,5 cm Recoil chamber edge - 3,25 cm Thanks to that we can calculate chamber opening diameter - 36 cm MG port length, with extend on the front and gun mounting inside the tank - about 30 inches = 76 cm @FryingTigerWT Clay haven’t sent me any photos, but I’m sure his measurement is trusted source even without photographic evidence. Distance from gun to side of shield - 17,5 inch = 44,45 cm Collar thickness - 1,5 inch at top, 2 inch at bottom, average 1,75 inch = 4,445 cm Side collar width - 4,2 inch per side = 21,3 cm Optics port inner diameter - 4 inches = 10,16 cm @*Lightening_Drake Side collar length (shield height, but including the slopes) - 106,5 cm Inner shield width - 70 cm Shield width - 97,79 cm Documented values Gun port diameter Next document will be TM 9-1000-213-35 https://books.google.pl/books?id=gfkXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false On Page 1-7 there is drawing of “centering tool”. This tool should be manufactured for machining the tube supporting sleeve. The sleeve have to be put on the centering tool during machining process, so the outer diameter of the centering tool is about equal to gun tube diameter where it enters the sleeve, so - exactly between recoil chamber and recoil mechanism. Thanks to that we know the gun tube is 8,9 inch = 22,6 cm when it enters the recoil mechanism. There is a little space between gun tube and gun port. We know that gun tube diameter is in range 22 - 22,6 cm, so the average gun tube diameter is 22,3. I will use 22,5 cm as average gun port diameter. On page after page 4-39 (page has no number) we have drawings showing where exactly the gun supporting sleeve is. Here I copied this page, and marked two things - sleeve internal diameter with red circle - at this point gun tube is about 8,9 inch (22,6 cm). The whole area marked with blue color is entering the recoil chamber. This part, along with mounting plate (yellow) is currently used as additional protection behind 127 mm shield. As we can see it is lot thinner (mounting plate) than we have currently in game, which was also reported: Inner shield thickness Average thickness of the shield (4,5 inch) was already taken from TM 9-2350-215-34-2-1, but it is also confirmed in Ballistic Protection Analysis on M60 Series Tanks, Final Report on page 20. (A2 is gunshield) In the same document, on page 3 we have information, that this is average value (point 5.) Estimated values Gun port length In previous gunshield bug report I’ve calculated that center part of the shield should be 218 mm, which was only theoretical calculation based on average angle and 254 effective thickness. This high resolution picture proves that it could be even around 240 mm, and definitely proves it is at least calculated 218 mm. For shield thickness I’m going to use average 4,5 inch, but for calculating the gun port volume I’m going to use 22 cm length. Mantlet side area This part is probably the most complicated to calculate. I need to carefully use proportions on M68 gunshield picture from Warsaw “Fort IX” Museum to calculate the side area of this part. http://www.warsawtour.pl/en/tourist-attractions/czerniak-w-fortress-fort-ix-czerniak-w-161515.html Area calculations: The picture is affected by perspective error, objects closer to camera are bigger. We need to find and correct the results. For that I’m going to compare gun support construction. Closer pipe’s inner measure is 1013 pixels, while farther’s - 912. Those lines are directly below sides of mantlet, and the error between them is 10%, which means error between mantlet closer side (the one we need to evaluate) and center of gunshield (where gun tube is) is 5%. That means that everything we can measure on the mantlet side we need to correct by 0,95 factor to achieve accurate results. Figures 4 and 5 are matching the gun tube position, that will help us calculate the mantlet thickness at this area. I also used that method to calculate height of the shield, but finally I got that value measured by Lightening_Drake. My value was 107 cm, which is only 0,5 cm less than real value, so the method is quite accurate. I’ve separated the area into 6 figures - 5 trapezes and triangle. I’ve carefully read the exact measures, corrected them by 0,95, and knowing that 203 pixels = 22 cm I’ve estimated every of the trapezes top, base and height, as well as triangle base and height. Thanks to that I’ve calculated the estimated side area of the part. Calculations To make it easier, I will divide the whole part into 3 sections: shield, mantlet and recoil chamber. SHIELD This is the part we would have if we would cut shield from mantlet along with side collars. This part we also need to divide into two: inner shield, and collar (collar is actually separated in the game). Inner shield is the actual shield with 4,5 inch average thickness. Inner shield This is the frontal shield without the collars. Its frontal area is almost the same as mantlet frontal area, only width is a bit smaller.. It’s thickness range is from 4,445 cm (equal to collar average thickness) to 21,8 cm at the center (calculated in previous report). Average value would be 13 cm, which is bit over 5 inches, but the edges have more area than the center, so the average value is surely smaller. I will use documented average thickness here - 4,5 inch = 11,43 cm. Collar This would be easy to calculate. We know the area of the whole gunshield, and we know the area of inner shield. That gives us collar area, and we already know average thickness - 4,445 cm. Openings - MG and optics openings are calculated in mantlet volume. As stated earlier, for gun port diameter average value 22,5 cm will be used. MANTLET We know the width thanks to measurements, and side area was precisely estimated. Openings - we know that the whole tube for MG and optics are about 30 inches long from ACE_OF_ACES photos. However, this includes additional mounting inside the tank, and extent of the port on frontal shield. The extent is sticking out of the shield for about four inches (bottom part), and the internal mounting looks about the same. So we have 76 cm total, minus 10 cm for extent and 10 cm for internal part. This is roughly approximated, but the inner diameters of the openings are small enough that the possible error in my approximations is not making almost any difference for the final result. I used the same length for optics port, only different diameter. CHAMBER This part is 42,5 cm wide and high, and the edges are 3,25 cm, which gives us 36 cm of inner diameter. As the recoil mechanism is going inside here, the opening we can see at the back should not be smaller inside. The whole part is simply a box cut in half. Side area is half of 42,5 x 42,5, and the length values is most probably also 42,5 cm All calculations are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16gEyuPJaYBE7OpjNP5IaYKrtatlab-jydS0PKgZIUkE/edit?usp=sharing Calculations.pdf All calculated parts have 179 024 cm3. Comparing results As we established earlier, the documented volume of this part is 179 592 cm3. According to calculations, the measured volume is 178 067 cm3, which is 99,68% of the documented volume. I have calculated every known empty space inside the gunshield: gun port, MG and optics openings, trunnions, recoil chamber. A bit lower volume of measured gunshield might be caused by small errors in measurement, and probably not every gunshield is identical in weight, I assume that 1-2% difference is acceptable. Note, that calculated mantlet volume is almost 98 000 cm3, and weight is 769 kg. If only half of it would be hollow, the mantlet weight would be almost 400 kg less than documented! Final conclusion Measured volume is almost equal to documented volume of gunshield, with small difference in favor of documented one. Any additional empty spaces inside would make difference in favor of measured one, not documented. Possible errors could not affect the final result by more than 3-5%. If hypothesis about mantlet being partially empty inside (assume 50%, 385 kg), would be true, then the error would be about 27% (385/1410). Total number of 22 values was used to calculate the gunshield volume. This includes: 13 values directly measured, or taken from documents 4 values calculated from measurements or documents 5 values estimated from pictures, but 3 of them (lengths of main gun openings) as a sum are close to what was measured. As You can see, most of the values are documented or measured values from real tanks. Taking everything into consideration I am absolutely confident that hypothesis of mantlet being partially hollow is not true. Calculated volume of the gunshield is matching the expected volume value, known from documented gunshield weight. Also the SLEP patent descriptions and drawings are proving that there is no hollow space inside the original M60A1/A3 shield. Therefore it was proven, by two separate investigations, that the whole M60A1 gunshield is solid steel. Proposed Fix: Remodel current gunshield, and divide it into 5 parts: 3 parts of the frontal shield, according to previous bug report ID 0058085: Upper shield - 156 mm Central Shield - 218 mm Lower Shield - 180 mm Behind those parts there should be another 2 parts: Upper mantlet - 365 mm (this part is exactly behind upper shield) Lower mantlet - 330 mm (this part is behind central and lower shield) Values are taken from mantlet side estimations, and averaged: 148, 440, 458 and 415 mm is giving 365 mm. 415, 343 and 233 mm is giving 330 mm. All values are in the google spreadsheet linked above, in "Mantlet Side" sheet. Exact place where upper and lower mantlet should be divided is top of the gun barrel. This is the same place where central and upper shield should be divided. Central and lower shield should be divided at the bottom of gun barrel. Additionally, consider dividing collar polygon into two parts - top and bottom collar, to match exact measurement from FryingTiger. Upper collar - 38,1 mm Lower collar - 50,8 mm In-game gunshield suggested remodel view: SPECIAL THANKS to all guys that helped me with this report: @ACE_OF_ACES, @*Lightening_Drake for measuring the tanks. @FryingTigerWT for measurements and consulting It would not be at all possible without You guys! If anything is not clear, or there is need for more photos or explanations, please contact me. Thank You!
  2. 33 points
  3. 31 points
    How about we get current game content working properly. Mind you, only been saying that for over two years.
  4. 25 points
    Scenario 1: Spawn in, lumber into a position at the speed of smell, get into a long distance engagement with an opposing tank. Uh-oh, their ammo can melt through your turret like a knife through warm butter. Now your turret crew is dead, your gun breach and turret ring are both fried, resulting in a ~1min repair time with only two crew members left. You pop out of cover to aim, but while your gun is still stabilizing, BLAM! You're sent back to the hangar by a 120mm hamburger of freedom delivered straight your mouth by the US of A! Scenario 2: Spawn in, push towards the cap. Uh-oh, enemy tanks are already there. Blam! Blam! One through the turret, one through the LFP. Back to the hangar with you, fascist scum! Scenario 3: Spawn in, slowly try to creep around the side of the map. Fortunately for you, through some miracle your giant hunk of steel wasn't seen. You now have a nice vantage position to defend from and maybe get a kill or two. Things seem to be going well...and then you hear the sound of airplanes. You look up and see the sky is filled with five, six, or seven enemy planes. Blam! Uh-oh, A salty pilot spent their entire rocket and bomb ordnance on you. Turns out this has also happened to the rest of your team, so you decide whether or not it's worth it to keep trying or just to j-out of your next vehicle and return to the hangar. Scenario 3A: You spawn in an AA because the only vehicles worth driving cost a high amount of SP and slowly try to get to an area where you can shoot aircraft. BRRRRT! Uh-oh, your AA crew has been mowed down by 50's and hispano's and then BLAM! You've been rocketed to death. Scenario 3B: You spawn in an AA and manage to get an air kill or two, but it simply isn't enough. The rocket and bomb stuffed fighters just keep coming to where it seems like there isn't enough ammo to spend on them. With the skies swarmed, your team is quickly wiped out in a matter of minutes. Scenario 3C: You spawn in a fighter and take the fight to them on even terms, but then the superior spitfires shred your 109 or 190 with ease, outmaneuvering and outgunning your heavy and sluggish plane designed for bomber intercept. OR, you spawn in an attack aircraft because Germany lacks any fighter truly capable of carrying worthwhile ordnance. However, your twin engine plane is far too heavy and slow to defend itself, requiring the escort of other fighters to succeed. But, if this happens, this means your allies have no presence on the ground, and alas the match is lost anyways. Scenario 4: You're on an urban map, and at this point you're questioning your will to even try. However, you're no quitter so you bite the bullet and try to make the most of it, pushing into the streets of Poland. Carefully checking corners, you move in with the rest of your team to secure a capture point. You round a corner into a flat-as-a-skate british tank. While your tank is rocking back and forth like a ship at sea, he steers along his merry way and sends a rock hard 84mm crumpet at the speed of light right through you, going out the rear of your turret, into space, and through the moon as well(some say it is still traveling to this day!) You're sure you can hear muffled posh laughter coming from inside, and can smell the musky scent of cigar smoke coming from the barrel, but alas you have no time to evaluate that as he plants another shot right into you, ending your match. Scenario 5: You spawn in and find that the soviets are allied with you. With the might of one IS-6, the Russians are able to carry you through break the US and British, resulting a rare and precious victory that occurs once every hundred years when the planets align and the angels in heaven sing the Russian national anthem. A crumb doth drop from the table up on high this day!
  5. 24 points
  6. 24 points
    First, the new result screen. I don't like it, it's boring and it doesn't fit the game. Just add the button for next battle to the old one, I would like that a lot more. Also, the changes to the way ammo racks are filled and used should be reverted ASAP. To clarify, because it's not in the patch notes, after the update, the ammo racks with the highest priority are the ones in the turret. It's impossible now to not have ammo there. When you start with a full loadout, they are the last ones to empty and if you don't take a full loadout, all you ammo will be stored in the turret. Not only does that mean that all tanks with turret racks were nerved, but it also removes a certain amount of skill form the game. You could always tell apart a good from a bad Tiger II driver, because the good one has learned to not take all the ammo into battle to empty the turret racks to reduce his chance to die from a turret shot. That is no longer possible now. I really hope that will be changed back to how it was before this patch, the new mechanic makes no sense. Edit: Also, I just had my first game crash since ages ago.
  7. 24 points
    Currently, tanks steer by applying the brakes to one side, say you're driving your Leopard 1 at 40 km/h and you want to turn right 90 degrees, you hold ''D'', which in turn applies the brakes to the right side track, causing the tank to pivot, but since you're applying brakes, you're also burning a massive amount of your momentum doing so (perhaps you'll have slowed down to 19 km/h in this simple turn), regenerative steering works by reducing the power to an individual set of track, without resorting to the brakes, this causes the tank to turn more gradually and with significantly less loss of momentum. Notice how the Chieftain turns without coming to a halt, meanwhile, in War Thunder it's been modelled so incredibly poorly, you get this: Can't even properly perform the most basic of turns on flat medium terrain. This is basically why almost every single Tier V tank currently has under-performing mobility, and it seems rather strange that something so basic has as of yet not been implemented.
  8. 23 points
    So, no unreleased information unless given by an official Gaijin employee and nothing related or based on data mining. Will you delete the OP or should I do that myself?
  9. 23 points
    The text at the top of the page clearly states "No instruction related to data mining or any similar topic here." Instructions, not results. We always discuss results of datamining in this thread. What else would it be for, individual pieces of official news have their own topic for discussion.
  10. 22 points
    Werent we talking about Star Destroyers? Im up for that.......
  11. 22 points
    I am a huge fan of War thunder and have 4,000+ steam hours (probably about 500 afk) played in the last 3 years, I have spent a lot of my money on this game but lately I have stopped playing nearly all together and have not spent a penny since the Japanese ground forces have been added. Being an old player of War Thunder I have played up to rank 5 on nearly all nations both ground forces and aircraft excluding Italy, so its fair to say I've seen/explored most of the game. Getting straight to the point, I think the sounds in War Thunder really need some love, I've seen very, very few changes in the game with relation to sound, there are a few major changes I can remember to the Aircraft weaponry quite some time ago (around ground forces release I believe) and a change to plane engines from the outside, then theirs the addition of the British and US ground forces which brought a whole bunch of new sounds into the game, this was probably where I collected most of my game hours. But after that, that's it. I am going to list what I think needs to be changed with it: After the plane engine sound change I couldn't wait for the jet engines to be changed too, but it didn't happen, prop planes are much much louder than the jet engines now and its just unrealistic and underwhelming, jets have been the same since I've started playing we have seen new and more modern jet fighters and even bombers with multiple engines be added into this game and yet anything with a jet and/or a rocket sound the exact same, to be honest for a game that is partially based on aircraft the jets sound pathetic and badly need to be louder and more realistic so you can really get excited about getting your first jet powered aircraft. Aircraft weaponry still sound pretty bad, its at the point where some guns don't even sound like guns, the British 7.7's are a example. What I think would fix that problem was if there was more crackle added in the sound of every gun sound, It just sounds really old, theirs no dynamic sound, you pull the trigger and you hear the exact same sound every time, and while firing long bursts with some guns/cannons you can hear the sound looping. An example of the sound not being dynamic is when you go cockpit view or play sim and fire your weapons, its literally just a muffled version of the 3rd person sound, no shaking or rattling of the plane and in the case of planes with guns in the cockpit (e.g A6M2) theirs no sound of the belt feeding into the guns or anything, just the plain 7.7mm sound. A lot of guns and cannons in game have a copy and pasted sound and this is what turned me off the game, it got so bad that the Japanese ground forces were added without a single new sound besides the tank mounted 7.7 (which is the same as the aircraft 7.7 except with a little echo after it) I couldn't believe it when I hit rank 5 japan ground forces, and had yet to hit a single new sound, This is particularly bad in ground forces, it seems a guns sound in War Thunder is purely based on the width of the shell, e.g ALL Russian 122mm guns have the same sound, regardless of barrel length, era, version of the cannon/gun or shells being fired. We're seeing WW2 era 122mm Howitzers sound the same as anti tank Cold war era 122mm guns. There needs to be variety, This isn't the only example, all German 75mm guns sound the same, all 88mm guns sound the same, all Russian 85mm guns sound the same Its just boring and to make matters worse these sounds are pretty poor anyway. And then we see just silly things like the FV4005 with its 183mm gun ( BIGGEST IN THE GAME!) sounding the same as the conquerors 120mm gun, I mean, its the biggest gun in the game that gun if any should have a unique sound.Now I know most 122's on the Russian side and just variations of the same cannon (D-25T D-25S) but there are completely different 122's that should sound different one example being the M-62-T2S. When playing a ground forces battle in game it really doesn't sound like a battle, you just hear 'Puff' 'puff' in the background with the odd crackle of a nice sounding gun, ( like the 105 L7 gun and the 122's sound nice at a distance) guns of all sorts need a deeper sound, the KugalBlitz is louder than id say 90% of cannons in the game.The one sound though that really bothered me was the M551's ATGM shell, my face dropped when I fired it for the first time, its so quiet for a 152mm missile, its literally a copy & paste of the aircraft missile sound, No sound of the missile igniting or coming out of the barrel (which could sound similar to a grenade launcher followed by a loud pop, if you've ever watched any videos of ATGMs being launched). I know sound is not at the top of the list in terms of priority, but the game bores me, no matter how many new tanks are added, I'm not up for spending weeks researching a vehicle of top rank when I know its going to sound like the one before it, there are some exceptions however, the new top rank AA's are refreshing with their deep sounding cannons, I think if the developers plan on keeping players interested in the game there has to be new content both visual and audio wise. Other than the sound, the game is beautiful and has a massive variety of vehicles. Its just such a pity the sound is so neglected. I would love to see a big change in sound, I really think it can refresh war thunder and bring back a lot of players.
  12. 20 points
    Changes in “Assault” PvE mission In ground “Assault” friendly AI SPGs have been removed. Now instead of allied SPGs being destroyed the friendly team will lose points - after each successful wave the team is rewarded with some points. New ground PvE mission - Sinai - has been added. Players will be opposed by British AI ground vehicles. Two new aircraft PvE missions have been added - Berlin (players fight against Soviet aircraft) and Ruhr (players fight against U.S. aircraft) Ground Vehicles Fixed a bug where the sound of shots from AI-controlled vehicles were not always reproduced (source). A bug where a ground vehicle being hit by enemy fire without achieving penetration caused a fire on some vehicles (mainly German and Japanese ground vehicles) subsequently causing significant damage to armoured components of the turret and hull (roughly equal to damage caused by 10 rockets, or 20 shells, or more than 10,000 small bore rounds) has been fixed. Now on vehicles with multiple crew reloaders, the load time is correctly displayed, this is dependant on the number of reloaders that are conscious at the moment of reloading. A bug, where by switching to the rear view camera it would show the inside of buildings, has been fixed. (source). Maus, E-100 - the thickness of the material on the breech is corrected (increased) from 10mm to 60mm. Added smoke grenade launchers for the following vehicles: Tiger Ausf. E Pz.III Ausf. E / F Pz.IV Ausf. C / E / F1 / F2 Aircraft PB4Y-2 - Names for the weapons that are on pylons have been corrected. PB4Y-2 - A bug where research of pylon weaponry modifications led to incorrect bomber presets being opened has been fixed. PB4Y-2 - The elevation angles on the side defensive turrets have been adjusted. PB4Y-2 - Armour has been improved. Armour elements have been added. G-50 AS serie 7 - German bomber preset has been changed to the italian 2x GP.50. SM 79 (all modifications) - The preset with 12х GP.100 bombs has been added. He 112v5, B-0, B-2 - Injection module has been added. He 112A 0 - Injection module has been removed. Il-4 - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. DB-3B - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. Bf 109G-14/AS - An inability to create custom camouflage has been rectified. Breda 88 (P.XI) - The module “Wings Repair” has been moved to the 3rd rank of module research. TBF-1c - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. Tu-4 - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turrets has been adjusted. Z.1007 (all modifications) - Bomb drop order has been changed. B-29A-BN - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. G8N1 - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turrets has been adjusted. H8K3 - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. BR.20 DR - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. A-20G-25 - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. Ju 87 (all modifications) - The elevation angles of the upper defensive turret has been adjusted. G.56 - The ammunition storage for wing cannons and engine-cannon has been adjusted. MG 151/20 from 200 to 250 shots for wing cannons and from 250 to 300 shots for engine cannon. Interface Updated debriefing. The main parameters tab in the game settings has been changed. Now it includes interface settings, and all parameters are now divided into categories. Fixed an issue where display of a window with a combat trophy was not represented. FM changes He 112 (all modifications) - Specified calculation for airflow on the horizontal tail surfaces, Inertia calculations updated and damped in all axes, aerodynamics and balance have been corrected. Flight model and engine characteristics have been corrected. Detailed information can be found in the data sheet Ki-49 (all modifications) - FM and thermodynamics have been updated. Stalling has been corrected, the system of separate fuel filling and consumption of fuel from tanks has been switched on (first the main tanks are filled then the additional). Fuel consumption has been updated depending on the power conditions Ki-100 (all modifications) - maximal speed, climb rate over 6,000 metres, stalling have been corrected. Fuel consumption has been updated depending on the power conditions according to factory data. Detailed information can be found in the data sheet Fiat G.91R/1 - The working modes of the engine have been changed: 101% — 10120 rpm, 15 minutes at 730C, 96% — 9920 rpm, 30 minutes. 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. Leave comment here!
  13. 20 points
    From today, 222 additional accounts have been permanently banned for using third-party modifications in violation of the user agreement - use of prohibited modifications. (EULA). The introduction of the reporting system has again proved key in allowing players to participate in keeping the game clear of players who insist on trying to gain unfair advantage. The modification detection algorithm continues to improve. Having an account permanently banned will result in a player losing everything in that account - Be warned! Thank you guys for your vigilance. o7 List of banned accounts Discuss it here!
  14. 20 points
    Members of the pre-beta test will be able to test this destroyer in one of the future tests, and results of this test will taken into account for the future development of our fleet. Captains, a brand new vessel is being launched from the drydock to join the ranks of the Imperial Japanese Navy - the Yūgumo class destroyer is making its way to the naval battlefields of War Thunder in one of the upcoming test sessions! History In the mid 1930s, Japan started devoting more time and resources into further developing and expanding its navy. During this process, construction of light units such as PT-boats and destroyers, was emphasized as these units would form the backbone of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Part of the efforts to increase the size of the navy were a set of requirements issued by the Japanese admiralty that intended to standardize the development of destroyers. These requirements called for all future destroyers to have a top speed of at least 36 knots and a range of 5000 nautical miles at 18 knots. Furthermore, the dimensions of future designs are not to exceed the size of the Fubuki class destroyer. The first class that was following these new requirements was the Kagerō class. However, as the first ships of that class were being built, a follow-up design was already in the works that closely matched the specified requirements and performed better than the Kagerō - the Yūgumo class. This class, which the Japanese designated as Type-A destroyers, differed from the Kagerō class by a slight increase in dimensions, some structural differences and improved anti-aircraft capabilities. The new design adopted a new, more efficient propellor design, which required the aft end of the ship to be elongated by 0.8m. Among other tweaks, the bridge was reshaped to lessen wind resistance and the six 127mm dual purpose cannons were fitted into the new Type D turret which allowed the guns to be elevated up to 75 degrees, making them better suited for anti-air duties. The lead ship of the class, Yūgumo, whilst being used extensively throughout the war, rarely ever engaged in proper combat. Her routine missions usually revolved around escorting large task forces or transporting troops. The first proper taste of combat would also be her last. In October 1943, whilst being involved in evacuation operations around the Solomon Islands, Yūgumo was engaged by a small US task force. After managing to sink one US destroyer, the ship’s fate was ultimately sealed after taking heavy damage from gun fire and a subsequent torpedo hit. A total of 19 Yūgumo class destroyers were built. 12 of which were built in 1941 with the remaining 7 being completed in 1944. All 19 ships were sunk in combat during their operational service in WW2. Fortunately for our own aspiring naval commanders, Yūgumo will take on a much more central role in the naval engagements of War Thunder. Yūgumo class destroyers cover distances slower compared to other nation’s counterparts, but compensate for that by having a relatively low silhouette and a vast array of weaponry, making versatility one of its main attributes. Two turbines, powered by three steam boilers, produce 52,000 horsepower, which in turn allow the Yūgumo to reach a top speed of 35 knots (65 km/h). Yūgumo’s crew consists of 228 sailors, including officers, most of which are manning the various weapon systems on deck. This wide selection of weapons will surely provide Yūgumo’s captains with a plethora of options and opportunities when it comes to deciding which targets to engage. The primary armament consists of six 127mm cannons fitted in dual mounts, one on the bow and two on the stern of the ship. These cannons can both be used against enemy vessels as well as enemy aircraft, thanks to their dual purpose nature. Yūgumo also possesses two quad 610mm torpedo launchers which can fire off to either to either side of the ship, thanks to their convenient placement mid-ships. Besides all of this, Yūgumo also features a combination of single, dual and triple 25mm anti-air cannons and 18 depth charges at its disposal for those unexpected close encounters. Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 Captains of the Yūgumo will require a great deal of flexibility and awareness in combat as they will be taking on a supportive role both in offensive and defensive operations. Whilst using the Yūgumo, players should be focused on supporting their allies at all times as performing “lone wolf” actions will likely result in a quick and sudden one way trip to the bottom of the ocean. Provide artillery support during gun fights and cover your allies, block off choke points with a torpedo salvo if the enemy is breaking through, or make the most out of your dual purpose cannons by keeping the sky clear of enemy aircraft. Yūgumo captains are sure to have their hands full during a fight, think you’re up to the task commander? Stay tuned to the news to find out more about the latest developments for War Thunder’s naval forces! Check previous Development Blogs: Project 7U Destroyer Tribal-class destroyer Fletcher Class Destroyer Check more pictures and leave a comment on our website!
  15. 19 points
    Can you stop doing dramas please? We are trying to allow you as much as we can, be be aware that this forum is OFFICIAL WT forum. Whatever you will post on Reddit or any other Nexus is less important than things published here. You like it or not, WT forum is first forum that WT players are checking when they decide to go into web and read what's new in War Thunder game. Posting random content found in CDK and saying "whoa, Star Destroyer in 1.71 confirmed" is no-go. Simply because you cannot know what will be, and what will not be used in game. It's great thread, it shows us what you think will be in future update, and in some way what you would like to see in future update. And at the end of the day, by posting all that mined content, you somehow spoil surprise to users who would like to get that info in better quality, than 144p screen from CDK (think about it like on spoiling a movie to a random user on 9gag by posting a (spoiler alert)Darth Vader return from crappy photo taken in cinema on day 1). Yes, if they do not want to get spoilers, you should avoid internet, but it's 2017, it's really hard to do it We discussed posting content in this thread, and we decided to do not take actions against players who post content found in CDK. It's our bow to the players who "live" War Thunder and simply want to know all they can about it. But please do not abuse this. I hope that all is clear now. PS.Forum Moderators who asked you to stop posting that kind of content was simply trying to protect you from my broom
  16. 19 points
    I would like to propose an alteration to the FW 190 D flight models specifically for AIR ARCADE BATTLES. Ever since their nerf about a year ago the 190 D models have been a chore to use in arcade. They are sluggish vehicles whose performance is not on par with their competition. As someone who has grown to understand the meta of arcade props through thousands of games I can confidently state that the 190 Ds are no longer competitive with their counterparts at the respective BRs. For example, the FW 190 D 13 at a BR of 6.0 must compete with planes such as the Tempest MK V and II, F8F 1B, La-9, and Ki-84 Hei/Otsu. In the past with its snappy rudder and elevator it could compete with these planes. It could effectively stay out of their guns and kill them despite its inability to outclimb and out turn many of these adversaries. Its rudder allowed it to react faster than any other plane, creating amazing snapshots that would save the vehicle from fatal turn fights or races it might not win. This quality made it competitive and fun to play. I propose that the flight model of this plane be returned to its pre 1.59 state when it could effectively battle other fighters at its BR. Why should Gaijin take interest in this idea? The answer is relatively simple: it will make the player base happier and they will enjoy the 190 Ds more. I personally lost a large piece of my enjoyment for the game as a whole. As a final note, I would like to state that arcade mode should be “arcadey.” The planes should handle in an unrealistic manner because that is what makes the mode so unique, fast paced, and fun to play. The 190 Ds were the embodiment of that statement. They were unrealistically snappy but that is what made them so enjoyable. I hope that a number of players find this change as important as myself and if you want this idea to gain some traction, please upvote it and/or leave a comment.
  17. 18 points
    So, Gaijin has decided to nerf the T32's turret armor. The cheeks are supposed to be 298mm tapering to 195mm at the sides, with the sides of the turret being 195mm and tapering to 152mm at the rear. Instead of fixing the sides, they reduced the cheeks back down to 152mm, recreating an old weak spot that should not be there. Because of poor modeling on the lower plate, you have to play hull down. Now you can't play hull down as people will just shoot your turret cheeks again. Why can't they get this tank right? Worst part is they don't even include it in the patch notes. This was from Mike10D's unofficial notes. I guess they don't want to bring attention to their nerfs.
  18. 18 points
    A good analogy for Ground Forces is a house. No, seriously; A man buys a house; it needs some work done, but it looks like it could be really nice once it's finished. It has some leaks, mould in the bathrooms, damp patches on some of the walls, and wiring problems- but once these are fixed the house can have more things added to it. In War Thunder's case, the man keeps adding extensions, conservatories, garages- all manner of new things to his house- without fixing the key problems which it had to begin with. War Thunder needs an overhaul with fixes to existing vehicles & gameplay, not a bunch of modern day tanks which would be a nightmare to balance, and would require made-up or estimated stats in some cases.
  19. 18 points
    There is no need WHATSOEVER to resort to insults if you do not agree with someone... really... Members warned for the actions, and they will have some time away to think about the Rules of our Forum.... Notes for others that also contributed to the Thread derailing... This is for rumors and discussions of said rumors.... This is NOT for Discussion of Tanks, Planes or Ships nor other technical aspects.... this is best suited for other parts of the Forum in the appropriate areas... or you can just take it to PM... There is no need to take on Moderating the Thread, that is our job! if you have issues with a post, then report it and we will check it out and if need be we will steer the Thread in the right direction.... again.... So.... respect each other please..... everyones opinion is important, and yes the Forum will be heated at times... its to be expected, but... just think twice before sending a reply if its going to be made in haste.......... you may regret saying somethings... and if we catch it them, yes, warnings maybe in order! so take it easy!.... Take off Topic to the appropriate areas, and just respect each other! o7
  20. 18 points
    Knight of France, featuring a Baguette 14 attacker silently flying towards the German tanks that are nearing Paris.
  21. 17 points
    Looks like the Hangar structure to me, I'll update it with the Grizzly seen as that's what everyone thinks Updated with Grizzly
  22. 17 points
    Whats the point of this topic then?
  23. 17 points
    So, things in tier 5 got pretty unbalanced. Now that HEAT-FS is a joke, the meta heavily panders to nations with 'specific' ammotypes. How can Gaijin even think that changing the entire meta of tier 5 (which was HEAT-FS) would hit all nations equally hard? No, not at all. Germany is pretty much useless now. HEAT-FS was what kept the Leos rolling. Yes, Leos have HESH, but it seriously limits the capabilities of the Leos, since they were built around HEAT-FS and APDS. For a long time I could say BR 8.0 was quite balanced. The Leos might have been the best tanks in the game, but they were so with a reason. Now that Gaijin took away their most important asset, they're pretty much a free RP bag. And not only did this HEAT nerf hit Germany, USA got hit in the lower BRs as well. The M47/48 were really good counters for the Russian roflstomp at 7.3. Now you are lucky if you can kill one crew member of an IS-6 with a HEAT shell. The Leopards filled a gap in tier 5. Since Germany is basically out of the game, it's became quite rare to encounter them. That's why almost every match with Soviet I now fight US+UK. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's a lost fight. Soviet tier 5 performs on APHE mostly, and older tanks like T-54s and IS tanks were able to get kills on Leopards. Now it's become quite hard for them. Most of the times Soviets lose. The Leopards are desperately needed to counter the current Chieftain paintrain. Compare that with the ridiculous amount of rockets the allies are spamming right now with lazor accuracy, and the game's not very enjoyable at 8.0 right now. Just my 2 cents. I hope Gaijin takes time to think about such a major change next time (which I highly doubt). And do not think I want US or UK nerfed, but rather HEAT-FS buffed again to give currently useless tanks a chance again.
  24. 16 points
    A bug which would cause reload times to increase a significantly large amount after a vehicle’s loader was eliminated, has been fixed (source). A bug related to the display of the ground forces damage cam, where the accompanying damage/crew death log text would be incomplete, has been fixed (source). A bug related to the distribution of shells in the ammunition compartment of ground vehicles has been fixed. 14.5mm KPVT MG bullet ballistics have been fixed. Client stability has been improved. 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. Leave feedback here!
  25. 16 points
    The PzKpfw II Ausf. L Sd.Kfz. 123 It is somehow a Panzer 2H with a 2cm KwK38 L/55, it would be nice to add it in the game as a premium like the panzer 2H. It had a maximum road speed of 37mph (60km/h) and a cross country maximum speed of 26mph (42 km/h). the large hull enabled bigger fuel tanks to be fitted so the Luchs had an increased range of around 180 miles (290 km). It had a six speed gear box plus revers. It was armed with a 20mm KwK 38 L55 cannon and could carry 330 rounds. The Lynx tank crew's job was to spot enemy units, radio their position and then retreat, unseen if possible. Its 20mm gun could not knock out an Allied tank but it could take on soft skinned vehicles, gun emplacements and infantry. For additional protection it also had a coaxial 7.92mm MG-34 machine gun. The Luchs had a new chassis that was slightly longer, taller and wider than previous versions of the panzer II. Its length was 4.63 m and was now 2.21 m tall and it was 2.48 m wide. Its armour was improved to 30mm thick ness on the sides and front. The tank was fitted with an improved radio, the FuG12 MW receiver and 80-watt transmitter, which meant it had a better range on the battlefield. These tanks fought on the Western against the advancing Allied armies and on the Eastern Soviet front up until the end of the war. Service Data:In Service: 1943 to 1945Production Data:Manufacturer: M.A.NChassis No: 200101-200200Number built: 100 and 4 convertedTechnical Data:Type: Light TankCrew: 4 menLength: 4.63 mWidth: 2.48 mHeight: 2.21 mWeight: 13,000 kgFuel Capacity: 285 litersEngine: 1 × Maybach HL 66 P 6 cylinder inline liquid cooled petrol engine producing up to 180 hp at 2,800 rpmGearbox: 6 forward 1 reverseSpeed: road 60 km/h cross country 42km/hRange: road 290 km cross country 175 kmArmament: 1 × 2 cm KwK 38 L/551 × 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gunAmmunition: main 330 roundssecondary 2,250 roundsElectronics: FuG 12 and FuG Spr aOperators: Heer Armor : You could add this tank with the Camouflage "Spots" that german tanks usually have in war thunder. https://panzerfabrik.net/panzer-ii-ausf-l/ http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/panzer-II-luchs-german-ww2-tank-pzkw-sdkfz123.html http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/heer/panzer-ii/panzer-ii-ausf-l-luchs.htm Sources:German Military Vehicles.ISBN-10: 087349783XArmoured Fighting Vehicles of Germany World War II.ISBN-10: 0214203077Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World Two.ISBN-10: 185409518 If anyone find a technical manual about the PzKpfw II L "Luchs". Could you add it in the comments bellow or send it to me in PM. Thanks
  26. 16 points
    What makes you think that Gaijin, who can't even model HEAT & HESH properly, would actually do this?
  27. 16 points
    All I want from the upcoming patch is regenerative steering.
  28. 16 points
    Germany is lacking in this 4 and early 5 tier, not only is the only nation in game to have to wait untill 7.3 to get a already bad tank with expensive Heatfs that makes it impossible to earn Silver lions even with no deaths and many kills... No, Hesh, no Heatfs, no APDS... And germany is the only that suffers all of those 3 at the same time... How can a panther (any) counter a 5 second reload Hesh dispenser? How can a tiger survive when even its front armour becomes useless vs shots from Heatfs? I am still waiting for a more than a year (may 2016), when APDS munition was passed to be reviewed by devs... And still nothing, how can germany live if not even its damn heavy tank destroyer Jagdtiger can kill a is6 at 20meters? The amount of people who bought is6 makes its avaible every match playing the russians... And pls dont bring the ru251 issue, it requires skill to play that tank, it can be killed by 50.cals, and i agree it should be moved to 7.3, but if that happens, germany will do even worse against is6, brits and americans...
  29. 15 points
    Hi, yesterday i've started a "game" in the forum asking people a big list of planes/variants that are missing in game right now. The list below got these specs: -The plane must be built at 100% in all its parts (planes partially built aren't taken in consideration) -The plane must have been in service between 1936-1953 (some plane if built before 1936 but in service later can be taken in cosideration, in the list you'll find some plane post 1953 like the Thunderstreak but we have put inside the list too because it's very near to other planes specs) -The plane should be built/licenced from MAIN NATIONS already in game (so no Australian, Canadian, Romenian etc...) -Jet planes must not have afterburner -Prototypes are taken in consideration but only if 100% built, 1 test flight done with all their main features (tested without engine or armament are not valid) -Minor variants of the planes that has just too few changes between other production models aren't taken in consideration What to do now? The list is done (check it below) , choose 20 PLANES EACH country and write your wishlist! This topic will be open till July 31st! (then will be a new step of this "game") (Reggiane planes can't be taken in the wishlist because mabye they will come soon as showned in the release tree announcement) Total=477 ITALY (107) USSR (65) GREAT BRITAIN (79) JAPAN (49) USA (98) GERMANY (79)
  30. 15 points
    Thanks for your response @_Catweazle_63! I will warn custom locations/missions/vehicle makers not to use WarThudner's CDK. Going back to our main topic: I really wonder what's going to be the new Sukhoi attacker that we are supposed to get and if it will really come in 1.71. Anybody dares to guess?
  31. 15 points
  32. 15 points
    I've been playing this game for almost 2 years now.... and I just started getting tier 4 vehicles in my most played nations.... why on earth would I be inclined to reach the top tier when it has taken me this long to get a Tiger II or Jagdpanther? No, no more modern tanks, no more increase in tech tree length, until you fix this outrageous grind, it's too damn long.
  33. 15 points
    Krupp Steyr was a completed prototype.
  34. 15 points
    After some flying yesterday I've found one thing that is quite annoying when done by your teammates - this is especially true for US planes (due to their play style) but any team should read this: Imagine situation - you have enemy on your tail, he is shooting, there is stress, some rounds flying all over the place, things might fall of your plane. Your natural tendency would be to turn to remove yourself from enemy sights but is it best thing to do? It depends. If you are alone then yes, staying in enemy sights is only good for dying - do every crazy manoeuvre you can to get rid of the guy following you. But what if you are not alone out there? What if there are allies nearby? You obviously ping for help (T+4+2 and so) and there is a chance ally will arrive to help - now this is where important stuff happens. Sadly most people with enemy on their tail still keeps going in circles or do random erratic sharp turn. While this keeps you alive all it does is make it extremely hard for your ally to hit enemy and if he commits, he will most likely burn lot of speed in the process so he might save you now but you will both die when next enemy arrives seconds later with energy to spare. But what can you do? enemy is shooting at you - you can't just fly in straight line! Sure - that's true but how about roll? maybe flying scissors? or rolling scissors (wide barrel roll)? All those moves will throw enemy aim off but unlike turns they have one huge advantage - they keep your avg. travel vector roughly straight. This is hugely important for ally trying to help you as he can estimate where enemy will be not only in 2 but also in 20 seconds, he can plan to BnZ enemy and lastly he do not have to follow enemy all over the place but have him contained in relatively smaller cone and he burns less energy in the process and have easier time aiming. You may ask - what if ally is not on my tail but approach in perpendicular course or even head on? Well simple - as soon as I see allied plane (he ping his location or I see huge blue marker) I switch to bait mode: -if I see ally moving from the right I turn left - aim is to position enemy in front of my ally in parallel course so he do not have to burn energy turning 90 deg just to follow. -if I see ally diving on enemy from my rear hemisphere - i try to fly as straight as possible. If ally is still quite far but is much faster (you can assume so if he dives and I am not that fast) I might go into a steep climbing spiral - it will prop-hang enemy while he will have all the speed he need to finish almost stationary targets -if ally is coming head on I choose one side and turn toward it - idea is for me to make between 90 and 180 deg turn so that me and enemy burns energy and we are left in front of my ally as you can see idea is simple - main goal is to put enemy in front of your ally. it's much easier than it seems - all you have to do is put yourself in front of your ally an most likely enemy will follow you there. If he does not and he disengage - well, mission accomplished - you got rid of him from your tail. I hope this will be just start of the discussion where you all will share your thoughts. I personally will try to record something interesting from my replays and put it here to show what to do and what not to do. Hopefully someone will learn something and I will have less frustrating situations where I position myself for perfect BnZ to help ally and he suddenly do sharp turn removing enemy from my sights and giving e choice to either burn all energy or disengage and let ally die. Some illustrations on the subject: Let's start with how not to do it: And now how it should be done (in general): @badwolf87 added very valid point to the discussion - to be able to get help your allies need to find you first. Obviously you will call for help (T+4+2) but that's not where you should stop. In course of combat you will change position - you should (if possible) try to reach your AF (highest chance of getting help there - certainly higher than over enemy's base) but also keep repeating call for help every 20s or after you travel significant distance - some fast planes can cover few kms in 20s so ping more often if you are in high speed evasion. In this place I'd like to repeate advice for helpers - as @FourGreenFields said - if ally call for help don't just repeat "yes" but also call "follow me" so that he knows where are you, how far are you and on what alt. If you are in trouble and see just "yes" then it tells you nothing other than that someone worry bout you But you see where nearest help is you can choose to go there -you can change direction to get closer to help -if he is already near you can turn away from him to help bait -if he is lower you know you need to climb - even best pilot will not be able to help if he is 4km below you and baiting enemy nearhim can only make enemy switch target and kill your helper while you might already be damaged enough to be unable to help him
  35. 15 points
    This thing at 6.0 is fine. At 6.3 it would perform like a panther at 6.0..... You should compare this tank to any Panther at 6.0 BR and ask your self is this tank should really be at 5.7 ? Also you should point out what nations this tank will be facing. Centurion doesnt face m18 , T34, T29, centurion mk3 , FV4202 and overpowered British and 'Murican CAS(ill probably be stomped for this but it has to be done) Heavy tank should be always be better since you pay more for Spawn points for him(450 vs 310 at top br). Also This tank is so broken because i cant play T-34/85 as i have used to. Back in my days you had to flank heavy tanks to get kills , now you have to flank medium tanks to get kills(even at top br) RIDICULOUS.
  36. 15 points
    I have a nice rumor. This wont be fixed in 1.71.
  37. 14 points
    Additional update: A bug where a ground vehicle being hit by enemy fire without achieving penetration caused a fire on some vehicles (mainly German and Japanese ground vehicles) subsequently causing significant damage to armoured components of the turret and hull (roughly equal to damage caused by 10 rockets, or 20 shells, or more than 10,000 small bore rounds) has been fixed.
  38. 14 points
    It's a bug (already reported) and should be fixed soon™
  39. 14 points
    Hi, i would suggest a radical change about "Number decals" for all units. Right now it's possible choosing up to 4 numbers as decals or use some unique numbers as single decal already in game (the tank signs) and this is not so "fine" because if i choose 2 numbers , ex: 10 and i mirror them using the game function, in the other side will appear "01" and only white numbers are allowed. I would like to suggest a brand new system for this kind of customization. The new system is not a "normal decal" but a "put text here": Like using paint, a player can choose a decal slot and write manually up to 4 symbols (only numbers from 0 to 9 and + - / < are allowed) chosing the main style (read more on later paragraph) and colors, as for decals it can be mirrorized or scaled. In this way the customization will be more accurate and the mirror function will be right because all the text will be mirrored as a single decal. Players will have more possibility of customization using the other decor slots as they want (pinups, tactical signs or emblems) up to 4 (numbers included). Styles: as all text in all programs there are standard "fonts" that could be chosen by the user divided by category (and not country) Round numbers: numbers with round edges like russian tanks Square numbers: numbers with square edges like german ones Naval numbers: tactical numbers like the US navy style (with shadow) Special numbers: all the special numbers style used by a singular special camo (like the italic syle of the Italian PAN) The number style is just a mask, they can be resized or color changed The Colors: i think there could be these colors avaible, RED, BLUE, SKYBLUE, GREEN, YELLOW, WHITE, BLACK, MAGENTA. FAQ: Why only numbers and just few special characters avaible instead full text? -Because i know that people are "too smart" and they will write offences or profanity if letters will be avaible Will be "national limitations" with this feature? -No, all planes, ships and tanks of each nation will be able to choose the style, the player will be free. Why only 4 characters for each decal slot only avaible? -4 numbers will be very fine and give opportunity to write a large amount of numbers (ex 55-4), remember that players will have 4 decal slots, if they want they can put more and more numbers with this (ex: fusolage and tail number) Will Gaijin be able to improve text styles in other patches? -Yes, in this way they can add new "fonts" in game in a faster way when they will want
  40. 14 points
    These should really not be features that have to be unlocked or paid for with cash; it's just not a health game mechanic. These things should beavailible for tansk from the start, if anything has to be added in modification tree it should really just improve upon them, not be the first you can use them at all. An example would be the mod adds a second fire extinguisher, or  improve the repair kit effectiveness a small bit.   Making a necessary feature something that not everyone can use is just promoting extremely unfun scenarios and advantages for people.   A situation that is problematic. You have a tier 4 tank, its new, but you take it out and someone shoots part of your tank; but you damaged him to a crippling point. How he starts reparing, but you have to sit there. lIterally after waiting for like 3 and a half minutes he starts to move, rolls up behind you, and one shots you. This is one example of the many frustrating situations that I have come across; that are completely unnecessary.   Modifications that are aboslutely necessary to play on a fair, satisfying level should not be unlocked; instead they should focus more on modifications that benefit or compliment gameplay.   Some examples of this are the ammo types that they have already, but new thigns would be functional camoflauge such as real tree branches and such that tanks actually used, like the earth-nets they put on them, or weapon modifications, things that have a fun practical element that you WANT to unlock, not things that you NEED to play without tearing your hair out.     Thank you.
  41. 14 points
    Challenger 2 and T-90 vs Maus soon
  42. 14 points
    What does everyone think about the Dunkirk EC event? For me this event was simply... rubbish, to put it bluntly. Aside from the horrendous waiting time despite a full queue, there really wasn't much to do in the EC. You can do nothing aside from dogfight, bomb airfields and shoot down/protect recon planes. There is nothing going on over Dunkirk, the city that is the whole point of this event. There should be an evacuation fleet sailing to Dunkirk, standing by until the passengers embark and then sailing back to Britain that the British players should protect against the German onslaught. There should be a fortified line around the city and beach (some makeshift trenches, tank traps, machine guns, howitzers and so on) and German tanks and infantry attacking it. There should be waves of AI Stukas attacking the fleet that the Germans would have to protect, as well as heavier bombers bombing the city and the fortifications around it. Some random defences along the beaches of both France and Britain would've also been nice. And since the map is one of the largest map of War Thunder, this mode should've been available with 64 players. That would've made this event something truly spectacular and fun. Sadly, the absence of thing to do made it a huge, mundane miss Dear Gaijin, please don't make the same mistake with future events
  43. 14 points
    Portions of this have undoubtedly been suggested before. Long Story Short, stock tanks, especially in higher tiers, are just painful to work the bugs out of. This comes down to four specific modifications that are the source of the pain. Parts Fire Prevention Equipment Adjustment of Fire Elevation Mechanism It's probably most infuriating when your stock tank takes a hit and nothing's actually wrong with it except the gun barrel or breech being slightly orange. Or when SPAA go ham on your gun barrel only and are incapable of harming any other part of your tank. The solution for Parts is simple: all players should be able to repair, having the modification has repairs happen at double speed. Fire Prevention is usually not an issue in most cases. If you've been lit on fire you're most likely dead in the next shot anyway. But when an aircraft strafes your engine deck and turns it yellow and lights it on fire it's really annoying. When you're playing a Ferdinand and someone pens your UFP, the solid shot sails between the two drivers and hits nothing but somehow lights you on fire, it's even more infuriating. Or when playing a Maus and some American tank sprays .50cals at your turret and bounces them onto the frontal hull deck of the tank to light you on fire, it's downright insulting. The solution for this is simple: allow all tanks one use of FPE when stock and the modification gets you an additional one. The only thing worse than Parts & FPE are the Adjustment of Fire and Elevation Mechanism mods. The concept is interesting but how it's applied is really infuriating. Some guns have it so extreme that it makes zero sense whatsoever (17pdr, 20pdr, Pak46 on KT105). I don't think a gun would be accepted into service if it ever shot that erratically. The way to make it make more sense is based on how certain sniper video games (such as Hitman) work. When stock, wherever you aim, the gun barrel constantly moves in a smallish 5-degree circle around where you want to aim, accurately describing difficulty aiming at some particular thing. The gun will shoot straight at whatever it's exactly pointing at at any moment, but you can't easily hold it on one specific point. When you've gotten Adjustment of Fire, this is replaced by the sight visibly moving just up and down while still shooting straight at whatever it's pointing at when you press fire. With AoF and Elevation Mechanism, the sight doesn't move at all on its own. Same general result of stock tanks being less accurate without completely crippling certain vehicles dependent on long-range engagements (Ferdinand, Charioteer, KT105, just to name a few). Gun RNG is a very bad thing to have ingame and a massive source of frustration. It's bad with planes, it's bad with tanks. Frustrating people into spending money doesn't really work. A few might cave but most will simply play another tier or another game entirely. You can't get so greedy that the game ceases to be fun at all at the end of it.
  44. 14 points
  45. 14 points
    HIGH EXPLOSIVE Squash Head
  46. 14 points
    Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 [Enduring Confrontation] Dunkirk - Air Defence Available from July 21st 16:30 GMT to July 24th 7:00 GMT Operation Dynamo, 22nd May - 4th June 1940 France was falling rapidly to the advancing German army, the Allied forces were divided by the German advance from the Ardennes to the Somme. The Allied armies in the north were cut off and quickly becoming encircled. An evacuation of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) began on the 26th May whilst the Allies strengthened their defences against advancing German armour which met heavy resistance. More history: Heavy German bombing had rendered Dunkirk's harbour useless, and hundreds of thousands of men were stuck on the beach, hoping to be rescued. The Luftwaffe attacked the troops on the beach and reduced the town of Dunkirk to rubble whenever the weather was suitable. The RAF intercepted as many of the attacking aircraft as was humanly possible whilst being crippled by the distance they had to travel from Allied airfields to assist the beleaguered forces as well as pitting relatively inexperienced pilots against the more veteran German pilots. Despite the limitations, over the nine days of Operation Dynamo, the RAF flew 2,739 fighter sorties and an additional 822 reconnaissance and bombing missions. Fighter Command claimed 262 enemy aircraft downed for 106 of their own destroyed. On the 29th of May, the British public were advised of the evacuation, many privately owned boats started arriving at Dunkirk to ferry the troops to safety. This fleet of small vessels famously became known as the 'Little Ships'. The contribution these civilian vessels made and the bravery of the crews in their part in the evacuation set a source to the term 'Dunkirk spirit', an expression still used today to demonstrate the British will and the ability to rally together in the face of overwhelming odds. On the 4th of June, at the end of the operation, 198,000 British and 140,000 other Allied troops had been saved, while nearly all heavy equipment had been left behind. Although the Germans had taken over a million Allied prisoners in three weeks at a cost of 60,000 casualties, the evacuation has been seen as major morale boost to the British people and enabled the Allies to regroup for a fight that was to be joined in the skies over the “Home Turf” (The Battle of Britain), and to resist the anticipated German invasion of Britain (Operation Sealion). Available aircraft: Germany: Bf 109 E-1 Bf 109 E-3 Bf 109 E-4 Bf 110 C-4 Ju 87 B-2 Ju 88 A-1 Ju 88 A-4 He 111 H-3 Do 17 E-1 Do 17 Z-2 Great Britain: Hurricane Mk I Spitfire Mk I Spitfire Mk IIa Swordfish Mk I Blenheim Mk IV Wellington Mk Ic Do you like the event? Let us know in the comments below. We are eager to hear back from you! The War Thunder Team
  47. 14 points
  48. 14 points
    Great way of completely dodging the important part of the question
  49. 13 points
    The Ground RB matches are spammed too much by Air Vehicles. After some times, it doesn't feel like Ground RB anymore! The moment after they capture a point, ejects the vehicle and spawn with a plane and keep spamming until the end. And near end, the air is full with planes, few tanks in ground. If this is fair, don't call it 'Ground RB', make it 'Mixed RB'. IT'S NOT A FAIR GAMEPLAY! Change this mechanics fully or update with some constraints. It can't be going like this. Changing the Mechanics: No air vehicles is allowed. Only air vehicles will be controlled by AI which can be shot down by players. Update with constraints: A limited number of players will be allowed to spawn with Air Vehicle(no restriction on type). If the number is reached, next one can't spawn with Air Vehicle(he can play tank or leave the match). These will balance the number of Air vehicles in air. Also player can't spawn with plane before a specific time, which can be managed with a timer after the match starts. Other rules will be same as before.
  50. 13 points
    Sorry za 'click-bait' ale skoro już tu wbiłeś to rzuć okiem na ten tekst: https://krwiodawcy.org/ Dlaczego o tym piszę? To proste - sam oddaję krew i tak siedząc sobie dzisiaj przed kompem i czekając na kolejną bitwę, zajadając jednocześnie ze smakiem czekoladowy ekwiwalent 'utraconych' 4500 kcal naszła mnie myśl - a może by spróbować jakoś rozpropagować tą jak by nie patrzeć 'słuszną' ideę... zwłaszcza, że już teraz sytuacja wygląda raczej nieciekawie: - Stany magazynowe grup krwi w poszczególnych centrach krwiodawstwa z dnia 08.07.2017 ... a to dopiero początek wakacji, dlatego, jeśli jesteś pełnoletni, a do tego Twój stan zdrowia nie dyskwalifikuje Cię jako potencjalnego dawcy to wejdź na stronę swojego Regionalnego Centrum Krwiodawstwa i Krwiolecznictwa i dowiedź się więcej na temat akcji organizowanych w Twojej okolicy i w ten sposób uratuj komuś życie, zgarniając przy okazji czekolady i zyskując możliwość odpisania sobie tego od podatku Co prawda po 'wczoraj' muszę teraz czekać 8 tygodni do kolejnej donacji, ale może tym postem uda mi się zachęć choć jedną osobę do tego by oddała krew...