Leaderboard

  1. NoodleCup31

    NoodleCup31

    Member


    • Points

      554

    • Content Count

      2,248


  2. Necrons31467

    Necrons31467

    Member


    • Points

      383

    • Content Count

      5,840


  3. Stona

    Stona

    Community Manager


    • Points

      379

    • Content Count

      13,731


  4. warrior412

    warrior412

    Member


    • Points

      291

    • Content Count

      8,512



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 28/06/19 in all areas

  1. 53 points
    Together with the planned economy changes, this update will affect vehicle modifications and costs of additional naval weaponry. With the introduction of the new vehicle ranks in War Thunder, we are systematically adapting the game economy - In this case, it is similar to one of the previous updates we’ve had, in which research was simplified, as was the purchase and training of crew for most of the top ranked vehicles, however in that update, vehicle modifications weren’t affected. In one of the updates coming in the near future, the RP requirements to unlock modifications will be reduced for most of the higher-ranked (but not top) vehicles, and this will allow us to smooth out the sharp increase in the complexity of modifications research that took place, for example, between the Me 262C-1a and Me 262C-2b. Table with modification cost changes: Additional Info: For vehicles placed as the final vehicles in the research tree, we will introduce a special multiplier which, in most cases, will allow for reductions of the requirements for modifications of previous vehicles of the research tree. If new top-ranked vehicles are implemented into the research tree in future, the RP requirements for researching the modifications for older vehicles will be reduced by 40%. As part of these plans, the costs of modifications in SL and GE will not be changed, although they may be subject to general economy changes. Table with battle rating changes: Additional Info: The Sturer Emil will switch places in the research tree with the Nashorn. R2Y2 Kai V1,V2,V3 will get airfield take-off only. It will get the ability to take off without bombs. I-301 moved to II rank To leave feedback for Battle Rating changes, please use this link To leave feedback for Modification cost changes, please use this link
  2. 26 points
    Planned Battle Rating changes - July 2019 Additional information: R2Y2 Kai V1/V2/V3 - airfield take-off. It will get the ability to take off from airfield without bombload. The Sturer Emil will switch places in the research tree with the Nashorn. I-301 moved to II rank If you think we should make some additional changes on other machines, or do not agree with listed changes, please support your suggestions with arguments! We read all your feedback, so it can take some time to approve your post. Thanks!
  3. 23 points
    The current bug where in some rare cases shells would pass through vehicles without interacting with them has been fixed. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated. Leave feedback here
  4. 20 points
    so you made the B-29 even more expensive... i dont see the point of it being this expensive, you succeeded no one plays it anymore
  5. 17 points
    I'm sorry, but at this point, someone from Gaijin (an actual developer, not a forum mod) needs to explain why they are making the B-29 even MORE expensive and why bombers continue to be so expensive. An explanation, and then a plan to make them viable, because at this point, they might as well be removed altogether.
  6. 17 points
    Hello, dear readers and people participating in the discussion. Here I'd like to discuss why Swedish ground forces are NOT a good idea to be brought into the game, at least as of now. Let's get going then, shall we? Reason 1: Other tech trees There are a lot of other tech trees who are in a big need to have their gaps filled and vehicles added. A great example of this are the Italians and French, as well as partially the Japanese (mostly in the regards to ground forces). If you've played the lower ranks of the Italians or the French it does become apparent that there are a few tanks, which are just not very good for starting players or generally. The H.39 is a great example for my case. As in real life, it is not a very suitable tank for combat against even early Panzer IIIs or IVs and thus will cause a lot of people to abandon the french ground forces early on, leaving the higher tier vehicles and their potential untouched. Most Italian low tier tanks are equally mediocre, yet capable, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. But this is the problem. Not all players who start their adventure with French / Italian tanks have played much previously and will end up frustrated, going back to more popular tech trees or perhaps (if national pride is involved) leave the game altogether. Another problem here is the gaps that occur in said trees. Both French and Italian tech trees have substantial gaps in their respective ground tech trees (French: 2.0-3.3, Italians: 4.3-6.0) and should rather have these gaps closed than news ones created in another tech tree. Reason 2: Sweden itself Italy and France were involved in a lot of action during WW2 and perhaps even a bit afterward. Sweden though, despite having sent a few volunteers to Finland, hasn't done much in the way of fighting during ww2 and thus has not gained a great deal of combat experience that could make for new requirements and tank designs. This results in a great lack of tanks to fill certain roles. There is, for instance, not a lot (if any) vehicles that would come into question for a SPAAG, heavy tank or tank destroy branch that would continue throughout the tech tree. The already mentioned gaps would be huge and the fact that other trees are also in need of more vehicles would not make it easier on the Devs to come up with a solution. Reason 3: World War Mode Gaijin will most probably try to turn the World War mode into an immersive and fun experience for all players, but as I've stated before, Sweden did not take part in the Second World War and afterwards was only really involved in small scale UN peacekeeping missions. This would probably mean that the Swedes would not be involved in this mode AT ALL, thus not making them very attractive if Gaijin wants to keep promoting the World War mode. Conclusion There are far more pressing matters as of now than a Swedish Tech Tree. Nations need to have their gaps filled and generally be more saturated and perhaps some rebalancing would not hurt certain tanks at certain tiers. Adding to that, the suitability of a Swedish Ground Forces tech tree needs to be evaluated in the first place and it should not be until other trees have been put into a satisfactory state that adding another tree should be considered in a serious fashion.
  7. 15 points
    Hello, There is a huge need to extend current .blk mission filesize limit from 512 to 2048 KB. For now, Polish Community known as PLSWT/WTSE is working on a new gamemode, in short, something like the Enduring Confrontation for GF with capturable map grid zones. Current .blk filesize limit is dramatically limiting this project for scripting and adding more objects. Increasing this limit would allow to continue work over new game mode, complexity and gameplay of custom scenarios, which may be also, a new way for Devs to expand War Thunder gameplay modes. Also, there are other communities and scripters who make custom scenarios - this suggestion would help a lot of them and game development itself. Example map of new mode: I hope Devs will support this idea, cause it could attract more CDK users and unleash potential of War Thunder for custom created scenarios, and make a huge step in community helping in development of this game.
  8. 15 points
    The current bug where in some rare cases shells would pass through vehicles without interacting with them has been fixed. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  9. 15 points
    LOL. "I'm mad my precious Panther got killed by a lesser tank. I think that lesser tank needs to go up in BR to make me feel better. It won't actually change anything because it will still kill my precious Panther. If you don't agree with my wish, you're stupid."
  10. 14 points
    I've been playing multiple games with the Germans lately. I've started to notice that somethings wrong wit Germans at 6.7, they face MBT's, ATGM's and medium tanks with better armor and firepower than a King Tiger. But even if you stabilize your lineup with 6.7's or 6.3's you inevitably will face certain tanks at 7.7 tiers. Which is highly ridiculous since the Americans with the update are now Overpowered. They now have better firepower and Armor than the German counterparts where a Sherman 75 shouldn't penetrate the face of a Tiger in 800 meters. If you've experience stuff like this please make this voice louder as a means of making a nation stopped being abused.
  11. 14 points
    I've been playing German 6.7 some and I'm finding that, by and large, the failure of the German teams is usually the same as it is in lower BR's: they don't play the objectives. I don't have the Tiger II's (I'm not a big fan of heavies) but I'm finding the Panther II and Ru 251 to be perfectly capable 6.7 vehicles, the Ru 251 even feels equally at home in a full uptier. On top of that, Germany 6.7 gets a ton of options for aircraft with the Me 262A1/U4, He 162, Arado 234B, Me 262A2, etc. Most other nations don't even have any jets at that BR at all.
  12. 14 points
    Please stop rising the price of some vehicles: it just makes them less appealing to a big part of the user base. It ruins the user experience because not all people can afford playing them. Only top-players play top-repair-cost vehicles and, because the chained reaction of a vehicle being successful because used by to players, price keep growing. Repair cost over 20k are ridicolous.
  13. 13 points
    lol another " GeRmAnY sUfFeRz " thread. Newsflash. German Tanks are not INDESTRUCTIBLE. You keep thinking that you are entitled to queing up and 1 shotting a Sherman, and facing little to no resistance, newsflash the American tanks that were designed to counter and destroy german WW2 tanks are at 6.7 B.R You will face them, may the better tank win.
  14. 12 points
    A few days without clubbing, and this is what happens to axis players?
  15. 11 points
    Hey guys, as you might know, the R2Y2 lost its airspawn and some German jets like Ho 299 and Ar 234 C got their BR raised for some reason. Anyways, axis jet RB matchmaking is borderline insane at the moment These are the reasons: 1. 7.7-10.0 is ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY mixed battles for all three axis nations 2. The axis jets below 7.7 cannot have any jet higher plane like F84G to support them as all the axis 7.7+ get sucked into mixed battles. 3. This leads to max BR 7.0-7.3 axis against max BR 8.0-8.3 allies which isn't really fun The mixed battles where one of the famous temporary fire and forget solutions that have been implemented and forgotten for months (like the matchmaking restriction of GER + US/Brit which is a relict from when the XYZ 70 got introduced...) Instead of letting the T2 fight Mig 19 S and just allow US/Brits + Germany again, they pulled a 2.3 BR range from 3 nations into a never ending mixed battle crap. To make it clear, I am NOT for a roflstomping T2 and Mig 19 S, but this is so typical Gaijin, mess it up and punish the players. Oh and of course some axis jets that could get downtiered: Me 262 C1-a --> 7.7 A 7.0 jet with a booster that lasts for a few minutes and after that the plane is bloody useless for 8.0 R2Y2 V1, V2 --> back to 7.0 All three lost their only advantage, the airspawn. They are now pretty much slow fighters that are food for any F84 in existence (Me 262 A1-a --> 6.7) Literally no reason whatsoever to keep this rather poor performing plane at 7.0 if a version that trades 2 cannons for bombs and is otherwise 100% identical is at 6.7. Performing a good bit worse than Kikka in terms of acceleration and climb rate Ar 234 B-2 --> 6.3 A rather slow accelerating, climbing and overall pretty slow jet bomber that has NO armament except the bombs. NOTHING. Also it can only take out 1 base and then is useless as returning to the base, taking off again and trying to climb is literally suicide looking at the bad acceleration and speed with bombs (He 162 A-2/A-2 --> 6.0) Probably some of the worst jets ingame They turn poorly, barely accelerate at all, overheat instantly at 100% throttle, are being outclimbed by pretty much every prop fighter and have MASSIVELY underwhelming armament for jet to jet combat. I mean come on, 2 Mk 108 with 100 rounds or 2 MG 151 with 200 rounds. The only thing they could possibly do is outrun a prop at the deck in the long run. Similarly to the Wyvern. CL 13 A Mk 3 --> 9.0 Yes it is one of the best Sabres but the Mk 6 is better in every regard, so why same BR? Ofc we could also decompress BRs but what is this decompression thing anyways? Gaijin: "Woah, this is useless" Me 163 B-0 --> 8.0 Exactly same plane as B but with MG 151, still doesn't really justify a higher BR Sea Hawk Mk 100/FGA 6 --> 7.7 Like really, the Mk 100 has 2 sidewinders, ok. They are pretty **** though and only good for an afk climber or if lucky a bomber that doesn't react properly Also, there was literallly no reason to raise the FGA 6 with it. They are both planes with MAXIMUM 7.7 performance and just because 1 has 2 useless A2A missiles and is premium doesn't mean they should both go up to a BR where they fall out of 7.7 Ground lineups ( which Germany does very very very much need ) and can be uptiered to 9.0 fighting F2 Sabres, FJ 4 Bs, Hunters and Mig 17's against which they are hopelessly outclassed.
  16. 11 points
    Its not even the imbalance anymore but also the mess with so many different nations together with captured vehicles, with completely unhistorical match ups like tanks from decade or more apart. All of the events even the low tier that used to be fun are no longer so for me. They feel bad to play. The mid to late war especially are mostly cold war tanks vs ww2 tanks, like Lorraines 40ts, Centurion Mk3s vs Panthers and so on... and then mix some vehicles with FIN STABALIZED HEAT, In WW2! On top of that its filled with captured/ near identical tanks fighting each other like the Italian Pershings, Shermans and so on Axis side. Japan also does this. This is not "SIMULATION" its nonsense. Its like a mushed together no effort mess. The occasional small arcade-ish maps that look unrealistic make it even worse. Why can't you make at least somewhat historical line ups? Nation vs nation like for EC and tanks relatively near in production year not more than 3-4 years apart. Why would you make things so bad like this? I have basically stopped playing tanks other than in post war/cold war where things at least are relatively ok with Nato vs Soviets. At least they make sense for the most part. Come on man, this so bad.
  17. 11 points
    A bug, where in naval battles shells with radio fuse were armed in the air near models of destroyed aircraft that are in the water or on the ground, has been fixed. A bug where the propeller on the nose of the Me 163B was blurred in the hanger has been fixed (source). A bug where control settings were not working when assigning to the mouse wheel button has been fixed. A bug where in some cases the turret of a tank began to bounce when moving the gun barrel inside an object on the map or another vehicle has been fixed. A bug where when using input range, the reticule shifted horizontally has been fixed. A bug with invisible islands and other assets in the location Vietnam has been fixed. Respawn points have been reworked to reduce the possibility of shooting directly into spawn points from distance. A bug where the incorrect maximum repair time for some ground and naval vehicles was displayed in the crew skills tab has been fixed. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  18. 11 points
    Yeah you're right, Germany has nothing competitive at 6.7. They just have: Three different Tiger II's, all good all-round heavy tanks. Four if you count the 6.3 Tiger The Ru 251, one of the most effective light tanks in the game The Panther II, a very mobile medium with a great gun and decent armor The Jagdtiger, probably one of the best Heavy TD's for it's BR The Coelian, an AA with excellent protection (for an AA) and great turret traverse And the Arado which is one of the best jet bombers in the game, as well as the Me 262 Schwalbe which is one of the best cannon CAS in the game. Keep in mind this isn't even considering the three other Panther's at it's tier that would be just as effective, the Jagdpanther (there's two of them actually), Ferdinand, and the countless choices for aircraft.
  19. 11 points
    How the hell are we supposed to play french tanks at rank 4, when a lineup costs in excess of 70K in repair costs ? there are exactly 2 with repair under 10K SL (3 if you count AA) and one of those are a premium ! Is this what you consider to be fun ?
  20. 11 points
    seems we are still in the Great Economic Depression of 20xx..... I don't know why the SL modifier cap is set to 225% (starting at Rank III and going up to Rank VII) while aircraft make far more, and ships make literally nothing. You really shouldn't be forced to play certain modes (but I understand from a playerbase + queue time standpoint), however the cap should be raised to at LEAST 500% or be parity with aircraft so people who cant kill an entire enemy team or cap 20 points can actually break even sometimes. Even with premium I struggle to make SL passed BR 3.7 nowadays. No, its not a skill thing, I'm relatively average at the game, so I shouldn't be having this issue if every other average player can make SL. But hey at least my Leopard 2a4 went down by roughly 1000 SL, but all the Abrams went up, so guess I'm never playing them again....... I really hope the Great Depression™ ends soon, as its been an ongoing issue for a long time now.....
  21. 11 points
    From today, 404 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. List of banned players: Having an account permanently banned will result in a player losing everything in that account - Be warned! Thank you guys for your vigilance. o7 Discuss it here!
  22. 10 points
    Yeah That APDS does pin point damage. Still salty over soldshot vs APHE? Id gladly give away 50mm pen for a HE filler
  23. 10 points
    So you have decided to double down and raise french repair costs by even more, or lower a few by about five percent, okay, i see how it is. If your idea is to convince people to buy premium by making it impossible to make any profit if you dare to die, it's not working. If anything, it just makes me pretend the entire tree doesn't exist, that all the time i've spent grinding it never existed, or was valued either. Absolutely nobody likes the repair cost "feature" at all and it will not convince anyone to buy premium nor balance matches, it will just convince them to stop playing the game because it doesn't care about them.
  24. 10 points
    MBT-70 461100 273400 -187700 -40,7 Hi, It seems you guys missed KPZ-70, was it a bug or not reducing the German counterparts RP intentional?
  25. 10 points
    I was browsing down the list thinking, "Wow, surely they've finally reduced the ridiculous cost of the--oh, no...of course not. They made it more expensive. Because logic."
  26. 10 points
    Guys please play your game sometimes really b29 - 51000 this is like allot you cant earn this in average game [ 15k] those planes with 50k are good only if you play squadron with 2 figthers and then you have 30% of surviving is7 ? 300$ but lets increase repair cost ?t32 ? ? this tank is not good anymore because of french italian ad ammo pen rework loraite 40t , make it 7.7 with 10k repair cost also all toptier tanks should be the same price because 90% of t7 perform the same
  27. 10 points
    Is there any logic behind the modification costs? Why isn't it BR-only based?
  28. 10 points
    Permanent Air Enduring cronfrontation is the real solution to Air battles crisis right know. 1- is the mode that everyone who played war thunder loves. 2- it's perfect for grinding planes 3- great for objective gameplay. 4- makes bombers and ground attackers usefull (because in air rb are useless) 5- is allready in the game, so you don't need to create nothing new (gaijin laziness in new gamemodes) Maybe we are not going to see as a permanent gamemode because gaijin don't want to see us grinding and having fun at the same time. That's why EC is an event mode.
  29. 10 points
    Dear players, We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov! Armoured Vehicles Q. Regarding American tank shells, can you tell us anything about current reports and issues? For example the T33 performance and muzzle velocity? Will you also consider adding the missing T50E1 round for the T32 / T32E1 as it has been suggested for quite some time. A. We are looking at such questions but with the proviso that we don’t want and don’t plan to implement into the game the parameters of shell durability at least for regular composite shells. And about known bug reports we can say the following: Implementation of the T50E1 shell - even though the ballistics are generally close to or similar to the ballistics of the T41 shell, this particular shell will use another, more durable alloy. As mentioned above, we don't want to implement shells parameters which is related to durability characteristics. T33 shell — the fixes for this shell are planned and will be done. We will revisit its initial speed as well as the slope-effect parameters for AP shells. Q. Does anti-spall liner effect work for those tanks which had it in real life? A. Yes it works, at the moment all vehicles in the game that used a spall liner of some sort have them or will be added in the future as more data becomes available. Post war Soviet tanks have radiation liners, that works similar to anti-spall, but only for the tiniest shards. Radiation liner in the game stops the weakest shards from the fragmentation cone, therefore in effect decreasing after-penetration effect. Q. Are you planning to make the automatic loader a damageable module? It is quite extensive and fragile. Let's make it that its damage will decrease the reload time. A. It is not planned for now but we are not ruling out implementation by analogy with ship elevators. It just needs some time. Q. Should we expect a change in the view mode for the ground vehicles? Especially by taking into account of the implementation of new more modern vehicles? A. Not planned for now. Q. One of the biggest requests for Ground Forces for some time has been the implementation of regenerative steering. This affects many tanks as the game treats all of them as clutch based, so lots of tanks (mostly postwar and higher tier) suffer huge losses of speed whilst turning. Can you tell us if you have plans to address this or need more information? A. Yes we're looking at it. Q. Are there any plans for more obvious differences between tank RB and SB? For now the only major difference is the location of the camera on the tank. A. If you analyse it closely, you will see that the differences between two game mods are more significant. The absence of allied markers changes the gameplay in ground SB. So far we don’t have any plans to change the mechanics of these game modes. Q. Several updates ago, you tested drastic improvements to APCR and APDS on the dev server, however these changes did not make it to the live server and have not been tested since. Can you tell us if you have to revisit these plans or improve the post-penetration effects of these rounds if not? A. Yes, the conversation of the APCR/HVAP penetration based on the formula is planned, but earlier iterations contained a number of inaccuracies. After they are fixed and the calculated values are close to the reference values this mechanics will be tested again. APDS shells are also planned to be reworked but will most likely be revised after APCR/HVAP. Aircraft Q. There are a lot of questions to implement soviet giant-aircraft K-7. Is it in the plans? A. It's a very specific vehicle. Its appearance in the research tree is not planned not only because of its dubious efficiency, but also because of the very mediocre flight characteristics. Q. You have done very cool radar station mechanics, but there is no one to shoot down at the top ranks. There is no aircraft entering the attacker zone in the range of anti-aircraft (except 2C6). Maybe you need to lower the requirements for aviation at the highest ranks? A. We will analyze the statistics on the use of aviation at the higher ranks and will make a decision based on the results. In addition we are reworking and improving the radar warning system to make it more convenient to use. Q. Jet Aviation is developing more and more, however a consistent problem jets have always faced in game is lack of fuel in certain situations. Is there any new plans for the addition of external / droppable fuel tanks for aircraft that had them? A. Not planned for now but we do not exclude the implementation of such a system. Helicopters Q. Are radio warfare systems for aircraft and helicopters in development? How close are they to be added to the game? A. At the moment we’re refining the radar warning systems to make them more convenient and informative. In particular, different warnings for radar and homing lock, more precise positioning of the radiation source, etc. In future, we will probably consider radio warfare, or even anti radar missiles. Q. The aircraft have new construction parts which can be shot off. How is it with such things in helicopters? Sure they have less construction parts but is it also possible to expand the range of damage: vibrations, incorrect operation of the propeller pitch, damages on the ATGM guidance system, etc.? A. At the moment helicopters have a damage system which is similar to the system on aircraft but taking into account the design features of the former, such as propeller shafts and transmissions. For now we are satisfied with this detailing of the Damage Model. In general the logic of the realisation for any system in the DM is quite simple: it should give new and interesting gameplay - either for the shooter (in this case you need to be able to hit any specific part separately) or for those on whom are fired upon. Q. Are there any plans to add to the helicopter vehicle card such important parameter as the range of the ATGM? A. Yes, this information should be added to the vehicle card. In addition, we have some ideas on how to refine the helicopters HUD - there is room for displaying the permitted launching range. Q. The Americans and British also had the H-34 (Westland Wessex to the British) which were both capable of a range of armament presents. Is it possible we will see these variants in their respective trees as well as the current French H-34? A. There is a chance. Q. Are there any chances for lightly armed scout helicopters with a scouting mechanic that could work like light tanks? Certain current ones such as the Gazelle could also be considered for this. A. We have some doubts about that. Unlike light tanks the helicopter can overview the whole location from one point which will made such scouting too easy for them. For sure the presence of anti-aircraft missile systems complicates it a little, but still you can stay out of the range of anti-aircraft missile system and observe the entire map. That’s why to award such scouting on the same way as light tanks is not right. Navy Q. Its been some time since the VS-8 appeared during the minefield test event, can you tell us any news about mines and this vessel in particular? A. The last patch in terms of the fleet was very large and we simply didn’t have time to implement mines on different platforms but we do have plans for such a type of weapon. Q. Is there any news regarding any progress for Submarines? Is it something being internally tested or has it been ruled out for now? Whilst they are slow, there are many slower vessels in game (Siebel Ferries, LCS, Flower Class) and we have plenty of Anti-Submarine vessels at lower ranks. A. Not yet. Q. Lots of the newer larger vessels have beautifully modeled aircraft on them that we don't yet have in game yet. Is there any chance these aircraft will be introduced? A. There are chances that this aircraft has some combat value in the game. But it is also required to understand that aircraft models for ships are created a little easier than full-fledged models for players, so it will be needed to create such models from scratch. Q. Are there plans to develop the fleet for any other nations besides Japan? A. Yes, there are some plans. And even more - we are already working on this. Other Q. Are there any works in progress regarding totally/full destructibility? A. Destructibility has already been working within acceptable limits for a long time. Large houses fall apart, taking damage from shells of sufficient power. But we need to take care about performance values on the client side as well as about gameplay in which buildings often play an important role - and total destructibility can harm the balance. Q. How do the developers assess the last launch of the World War? Should we wait for radical changes in the mechanics of it (for example possibility of fleet participation or the awarding the commanders with the points)? A. In our opinion yes it was very good! In the first season of the World War several thousand squadrons took part and helped us to improve this game mode. In the future we don’t exclude the appearance of the fleet in battles and additional motivation for the squadron commanders. The War Thunder Team
  30. 10 points
    From the 11th of July until the 27th of July - a double award bonus for activity by squadron players! A good reason to join a squadron or become a commander in your own squadron! To do this select Community → Squadrons → Squadrons search and apply to the desired squadron and join it automatically if you approach the requirements. To create your own squadron you need to open the “My Squadron” tab in the same window. The squadron activity rate helps Commanders of large squadrons evaluate the participation of their members in battles. However the mechanics of activity will be useful for players as well! We are turning on the possibility of getting unique vehicles for your activity. B-48 Firecrest M901 ITV SKR Pr.35 Vehicles for activity Completely different vehicles which are available for research to squadron players for their activity will be opened regardless of which ranks or nations you are researching. Once opened, they will be available only for you and will not disappear. Such vehicles, even if they have no premium status, will still be a great addition to your battle vehicle setup. For squadron activity you can now get following vehicles: M901 ITV — ATGM USA, rank VI. SKR Pr.35 — Sea Hunter USSR, rank III. B-48 Firecrest — fighter/attacker Britain, rank III. The number of vehicles available to research for activity will be increased in the future. Research progress of the vehicles for activity points will be given only to players that are members of a squadron. For players who don’t want to join a squadron, we’re planning to add the option to buy squadron vehicles for Golden Eagles. In addition, if a vehicle has been partially researched, the number of Golden Eagles required to purchase it will be reduced in proportion to the number of squadron activity points that have already been invested in it. How the activity will be calculated Participate in random battles, and for each 200 RP earned, your squadron will receive 1 activity point. Every 3 days, these activity points will be converted into a unique vehicle you have chosen for research. The award will depend on your own activity compared to the average activity of the squadron’s other members and the total activity earned by all members of the squadron. If you leave the squadron, the research progress will be saved. Research will continue as soon as you join another squadron. You can see the three-day result of any squadron players activity - right-click on the nickname in the squadron members list and selecting "activity". Personal activity within the 3-day period cannot exceed 360 points. Squadron activity within the 3-day period cannot exceed 20,000 points Questions you may have — Where will researchable squadron vehicles be placed in the research tree? The vehicles will be placed at the right side of the research window, together with the premium vehicles. Unlike the premium vehicles, they will be highlighted in green. — Will training squadrons be able to receive points for the research of squadron vehicles? Yes, they will be able to. — What will happen if I have not chosen the vehicle, but have earned activity? The activity will be saved and you will be prompted/offered to use it. — Can I create a squadron only with one member (me) and research the squadron vehicles alone? Sure, but you have to understand that earning the required amount of points alone will be difficult, and you will need more time to do so. — How does the total activity of all squadron members affect the research of the squadron vehicles? The activity points used for researching the squadron vehicles will be calculated on the basis of the total activity earned by all squadron members. For example, if you have 10 players in the squadron and all of them earn 100 activity points, the award will be calculated on the basis of 1,000 points. — Will these vehicles be available on Xbox? Due to technical reasons, squadrons and the vehicles for activity are not available for the Xbox platform.
  31. 9 points
    Hi, The Panzer I series of tanks are not the most thrillings models of German machines that may be proposed into the game. Indeed, those vehicles (excluding SPGs variants) were equiped with rifle caliber machineguns, never meant to engage hostile armor... Except one Panzer I variant, the Ausf. C. While remaining a pocket recon tank, the Panzer I Ausf. C adopted a new design compared to the previous variants : the hull is boxy and thicker, and the turret is a bit larger, with a different shape. The Ausf. C is also different from any previous or future Panzer I variants with its weapons : while other Panzer Is have dual MG 34 machineguns in their turrets, this one trades one machinegun for a EW 141 7.92x94mm semi-automatic cannon (EW = Einbauwaffe, replacement weapon). The EW 141 uses the same round as the Panzerbüchse 38 or 39 anti-tank rifles : the 7.92x94mm Patronen round. The cannon could send a 14.6g bullet with a tungsten core at 1160m/s. This could defeat around 25mm of armour angled at 30°, at a range of 100m. Sure, this is not great, but some higher caliber cannons sitting at 1.0 can't even do that (I'm looking at you SA18...). Panzer I Ausf. C : Crew : 2 (driver and gunner) Weight : 8,1 metric tonnes Dimensions : - Length : 4,19m - Width : 1,92m - Height : 2,01 m Armement : 1 x 7,92x94 mm EW 141 semi-auto cannon, 1 x 7,92x57 mm MG 34 coaxial machinegun Gun elevation/depression : -10° to +20° Optics : TZF 10 Armor : - Front (hull and turret) : 30mm - Sides and rear (hull and turret) : 20mm - Roof (hull and turret) and floor : 10mm Engine : Maybach HL 45P, 150hp at 3800 rev/min Max speed : 79 km/h on road Number built : 40 EW 141 cannon : Weapon's length : 1670mm Barrel's length : 1085mm Weight : 30.2kg Crew needed to operate : 1 Ammo used : 7.92x94mm Patronen Ammo weight : 86g Projectile weight : 14.6g Muzzle velocity : 1160m/s Firing modes : semi-auto Rate of fire : 100 shots/min This tank could be added at 1.0 in the German tech tree (maybe as a new reserve) before the Panzer IIs in the main tech tree. What do you guys think about this ? Thank you for your attention. Sources : http://www.materielsterrestres39-45.fr/fr/index.php/chars-de-l-axe-allemagne/102-chars-legers/pz-kpfw-i-sd-kfz-101/346-panzerkampfwagen-i-ausf-c-vk-601 (In French) http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer_I.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92×94mm_Patronen
  32. 9 points
    A game like many.. both teams around 15 kills: My team- Everyone left after 1 death.. only 3 people remain out of 14 after about 5 minutes. Enemy team- 12 people remain, only 2 people left the game after dying. A game I played just now: My team- 25 kills, 5 people left after 1 death. two after 2 deaths.. 9 kills removed 7 people from the game. Enemy team- 19 kills, 1 person left after 1 death, two after 3 deaths.. 7 kills removed 3 people from the game. And it's just a snowball effect from there. They didn't stomp us, they weren't outperforming is, it wasn't a balance issue between tanks necessarily, potentially people disliked the map but it doesn't make for a good game regardless. There is little incentive for people to respawn on a map they dislike, or a situation they dislike. ''oh we're going to lose this game? Might as well leave as the game will leave me with nothing to show for my effort, I have to pay increased repaircost, reduced RP income, reduced SL income etc'' I don't blame people, why WOULD anyone stick around? The game gives you absolutely zero incentive to stick around, you don't get any reward for fighting till the end, it's a literal waste of time and it's poor design to blame for it. The economy for tanks still suck, rewards for a loss are trash.. just REWARD PEOPLE FOR THEIR TIME.. why can't you have 2 teams feel good after finishing a game? Why do you need to severely hamper people's progress for losing a game, to a point where people can lose progress.. there is no reason for this whatsoever.. and don't give me that ''Losing teams aren't punished, winning teams are just rewarded extra'' because then start by giving out decent rewards in the first place.. losing gives pathetic rewards, even winning a game hardly gives you satifying rewards, you need to be winning, have a premium account and use a premium vehicle to get any kind of worthwhile gains. ''But people need something to work towards so we need to limit gains'' Do you have any idea how much stuff there is to grind? I have played for over 2000hours, often with premium vehicles and an account and I haven't even completed a single tech tree fully, getting closer to it, but then you can still spade all of them, and then all the planes, the helicopters, the naval and then SIX other nations with tanks, planes, ships, helicopters, millions and millions and millions of RP required, then you can get ace crews, unlock all the decals,skins, warbond items.. literally infinite amount of things to do, even if RP was outright doubled, people would still have to spend thousands and thousands of hours to research everything.. and if that's somehow problematic, add a prestige system for vehicles, unique skins and rewards for being a veteran with a vehicle, there's no reason for the grind to be this severe. I think people should just be rewarded for playing the game, regardless if they win or lose, give the losing them some more RP.. the winning team a bit less and it's the same level of progress overall, but a lot less frustrating for BRs that consistently lose, don't make SL, don't make a lot of RP and just aren't having a good time because losing sucks by default, and the rewards are just another slap in the face. People need that incentive to stick around, yet you're doing everything in your power to make losing as frustrating as possible, and respawning the most futile thing to do in a game that appears to be on the decline.. it's not even worth trying. It's a negative experience for everyone involved.. enemy team just crumbling, no one respawning, few people trying to make an effort but heavily getting punished by dying over and over, no capture zones, no targets to shoot, tickets won't bleed out for ages and there are a dozen tanks just standing around, looking for the 2-3 people still around either hiding or flying a plane somewhere, wasting everyone's time.
  33. 9 points
    i had try to make Gaijin fix the frontal armour on the hull a while ago, showing some official document and some book dee the bug report. it seem there was nothing that had move yet. apparently there is a confusion about the frontal armour on the hull as the thickness is not the same every where and range from 35 to 47mm. that is also why the document are also contradictory. but something can be done until the armour is fix. the french seem to had notice the weaker part of the hull where the armour was at his thinest. notice where is the 35mm of armour on the hull. and here is some picture of the french 12th regiment de chasseur d'affrique. a french regiment based in morroco but had been moved serial time around north Africa. with a few S.35 in their inventory and was still in service until the end of the war even under Vichy France. two Somua S.35 of the 12eme Regiment de chasseurs d'Afrique near tunis at fist i was unsure if the track was placed on the hull just to put them there like if it was a table while they fix the track but please pay attention on the thing on the both end of the track on the hull. it seem to be some iron wire to hold it in place, and the other S.35 on the background on the left also seem to have the same track even if it's not clear. i got to admit, it wasn't totally convincing me either until i found some recorded history of the 4th chasseur d'affrique Regiement. there was a lot of picture showing identical placement of the spare track. this one was used by the pz. abt 211 in russia but more convincing is a visibly moving one with this spare track on the hull. Somua S.35 of the french 12eme Regiment de chasseurs d'Afrique in training near Tunis so now i can see as a matter of fact the french army DID put spare track on the hull of their Somua S.35. Likely in the time they was under the rule of Vichy France but they are in french services in any case. as it happen it was exactly on the place where the hull armour was at his thinness place with 35mm of armour. but even if they do not fix the armour thickness of the Somua S.35 any soon, they still can add the Add-on armour modification to this tank which should make him lose 1 or 2km/h of top speed but that is very little. it would fairly improve the survivability of the tank and allow a possible adjustment of his BR to make it more fit for the Rank 2. there was already serial suggestion for this add-on armour. i just put it here so people can discuss, support and oppose the idea and also to give the document to the community and possibly get some additional from the community himself to support the claim. http://12rcahistorique.canalblog.com/archives/2010/04/03/17460374.html
  34. 9 points
    I’d say a lot of it is due to the RB Meta prioritizing mobility over armor and firepower really only has to be good enough to reliably get through opponents side armor most of the time. The over reliance of heavy tanks for 6.7 Germany which limits their options in an up-tier outside of the premium RU 251 and the Panther II. I can take my American 6.7 line-up out in an up-tier and still be fairly effective. The M56, Ontos and the T92 all have HEAT-FS and good mobility, that’s all that’s really needed and even the T29/34 are fairly survivable against HEAT-FS and have good enough ammunition. The Brits still have stabilizers and good enough APDS to deal with up-tiers, etc. Another problem is that Germany Ground Forces, especially in Tier III and IV, have what I call Allied Air syndrome in that they tend to attract the newer players while also not being exactly the easiest vehicles to excel in. Personally I do fine at 6.7 Germany it’s just that the meta has kind of evolved around them and for the most part they stick to the “lower mobility, good armor” meta which is outdated at 7.7.
  35. 9 points
    Because the Bf 109E-1 is a dirty dirty clubber. I'm averaging almost 10:1 k/d with it and that includes using it in GF as well as artificially uptiering it with squaddies. Other players have far greater k/d's with it. The armament is completely sufficient with a pool of ammo large enough for half a dozen kills, and its maneuverability, rate of climb, and speed are such that it is almost untouchable within its (previous) BR range. It can compete with most other 3.0-3.3 BR planes in the game.
  36. 9 points
    I kinda thought this Germany suffers thing was just a meme, but it won't go away.
  37. 9 points
    Whilst at the same time, the Panther can pretty much kill the Comet in one shot, wherever it hits. I don't see a problem here? The APDS was designed to have a high penetration in mind. Even if you put the Comet to 6.0 it would still do the same to the Panther
  38. 9 points
    I totally agree. The Begleitpanzer has ridiculous module RP costs. The repair costs for the top tier tanks compared to the US and Russia are beyond insulting. 4,000sl for the Russian and American versus 15,000 for the German? How can ANYONE suggest that isn't a blatant example of the bias from the developer?
  39. 9 points
    I already had stopped using the Ho-Ri before because it was too expensive to economically use, and now it is even more expensive. the armor doesn't really do anything for it at BR 7.0 as is, but 18720 SL(after modifications) repair cost on top of that. Ferdinand is 6.3, has a higher fire rate, higher penetration(even without APCR), lower ricochet chance, lower repair cost, access to APCR for more penetration. but has slightly less armor(200 vs 225mm thickest) and worse mobility I am unsure why the Type 74 repair cost is soo much higher than the Leopard A1A1(6800 vs base 4900) or why the FlakPz I Gepard cost more to repair than the Type 87 (2500 vs 1800) Also wondering why the heavy tank no.6 is BR 5.7, it does not have the APCR rounds of the Tiger I E, no smoke grenades, or roof mounted machine gun, it does however have the turret speed, and the tracks on the lower front plate. the Heavy Tank No.6 also seems to have a higher repair cost than both the Tiger I H1, or the Tiger I E, or the event Tiger I(tiger striped Tiger I H1) The event Tiger I has a higher repair cost than the Tiger I H1, only difference being a camo texture, and premium bonus. I do not think it would be the premium bonus, as you have many premium versions of vehicles with lower repair costs than the non-premium version
  40. 9 points
    yep very rare bug indeed, almost everyone experienced it
  41. 9 points
    Trying to play the T32E1 is bankrupting me. Gaijin for some reason hates this tank. Its BR is way too high. Its repair is way too high. They nerfed its ammo. The modeled artificial weak spots. Leave this thing parked.
  42. 9 points
    I'd like to propose a suggestion, since we have a lot of civilian vehicles modeled beautifully in the game why don't we make them driveable and create a game mode where players could actually use them in a shuttle/delivery mission. Transporting goods to military bases, or shuttling military personnel. I think we could implement this idea. I keep seeing all these pretty neat looking cars scattered about the game's maps, and I started to wonder. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to drive them? What if one could pick from a selection of unarmed vehicles (Cars) and drive about the map to lend aid to your allies? Perchance give them a fabled set of free repairs and fire prevention kits? Or at the very least be a distraction. Scout terrain, have drag races or any other motorized shenanigans. It wasn't uncommon in the war to see cars used, Willys Jeeps, Kübelwagens, Ammunition and Repair trucks etc. Gaijin has already made plenty of detailed car models. And playable wheeled vehicles already exist in the game. It's a truly interesting insight. It could look like this:
  43. 9 points
    M24 Revalorise Introduction: After the introduction of the AMX-30 in the late 1960s the French General Staff ordered the development of a new domestic tank that could meet the demands of reconnaissance infantry support. Foreign assistance was turned down due to the isolationist policy positions of the former De Gaulle government meaning that all materials had to be produced from scratch. French construction firm "Atelier de Construction de Bourges" instead offered a modernization plan for France's fleet of rapidly aging M24 Chafee as a stop-gap solution for main battle tank development. In 1972 a single M24 was modified with a low velocity 90mm D/925 Cockerill gun based off the AML 90 which could fire HEAT, HE and smoke rounds. Additional modifications included a more powerful engine and laser rangefinder. Its performance however was deemed substandard by army requirements and the project was scrapped. Ironically the M24 Revalorise would be purchased by the Norwegian government re-designated as the famous NM-116. These units would serve the Royal Norwegian Army until 1993. M24 Revalorise Specifications: Dimensions (L-W-H) 16’4″(without gun)x 9’4″ x 5’3″5.45 x 2.84 x 2.61 m Total weight, battle ready: 18.3 Tons Crew : 4 (Driver, Commander, Gunner, Loader) Propulsion: General Motors 6-cylinder 6V53T engine Suspensions: Torsion arms & shock absorbers Top Speed 65 kph (40 mph) Armament 90 mm D/925 with 41 rounds Browning M1919A4 .30 cal machine gun 1800 rounds Armour Hull nose and turret mantlet 38 mm, sides 25mm, rear 19mm, rooftop 12.7 mm Round Selection: M62 (HEAT) MF1 (HE) MF1 (Smoke) Sources:
  44. 9 points
    Currently the third person gunners view is set to the horizon, and remains that way regardless of the attitude or maneuver of aircraft, or if in pieces after being shot down. Here is example of how the gunner view in game is set to the horizon, no matter what the aircraft is doing (in this case a left turn) In comparison: This is the pilots view in game (seen in RB mode). The horizon is tilted but the P.108 bomber is almost level with screen (it was also turning, so not exactly level) Proposal: The Gunners view is locked to the airplane, like the Pilots view (lower image). At least for the Simulator Battles mode Rational (why): The stable view and mouse aim features of game make is unfairly simple for bombers to maneuver and shoot at enemy units. Even if the aircraft is spinning and tumbling out of control the guns will still aim at where the pointer is so there is a good chance the falling bomber will damage, even destroy, the attacker. This is an unfair advantage for turreted aircraft, especially if they are fatally damaged and falling to ground. Solution: With this change, as the aircraft maneuvers or looses control it will be more difficult to to aim, eventually to point the player must level or regain control of aircraft, or Jump out. Other Goals To be more realistic. Pilot and crew are usually strapped to seats or in turrets. As aircraft move the view changes too. If aircraft tumbles, their world spins. This is why for Simulator mode at least, this is an important aspect for play. Also aircraft defensive guns are fixed to aircraft, so a view in same plane to aircraft it is easier to know how to maneuver to bring a defensive gun in arc.
  45. 9 points
    As others have said, this BR patch was horrible. I'm not talking about the changes that were made, for the most part those were fine (though you really did not need to increase the repair cost of tha AMX-13, some French tier IV tanks need to be playable). I'm talking about the lack of decompression at 8.7+. Tons of people were asking for this in the thread, I don't know why you couldn't have at least increased the new 10.0s to 10.3, certainly more needs to be done, but that would have been a big improvement. I really hope you decompress BRs in a few weeks Gaijin, as it stands the high tier BR compression is unacceptable.
  46. 9 points
    Battle ratings for aircraft, ground vehicles and the fleet have been changed (open table sheet). The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  47. 9 points
    @_JaPan_ ta gra nigdy nie będzie idealna i trzeba się z jej wadami oraz ograniczeniami pogodzić. Dla mnie RB jest najsilniejszą kartą tej gry. WT to nie WOT, 3xR i jazda na hura do przodu nie popłaca. Za błędy płaci się garażem. Całe szczęście nie ma tu idiotycznego buforu bezpieczeństwa w postaci systemu pasków HP, który pozwala się wychylić za róg budynku aby sprawdzić czy w pobliżu jest przeciwnik kosztem utraty kilku punktów HP. Nikt nie każe kampić na granicy mapy ale wystarczy wykorzystywać błędy słabszych graczy i znać mapy. Na tym polega większość gier. Pewne mapy ostatecznie wymuszają walkę na bliskim dystansie ale ich budowa zawsze daje możliwość oflankowania przeciwnika. Czasami wystarczy jeden pojazd oddalony o np. 400-800m efektywnie wspierający walkę w mieście. Są bitwy ultra szybkie gdzie praktycznie nie mamy wpływu na wynik bo drużyna gra gorzej jak boty. Mnie najbardziej irytuje fakt pakowania notorycznie nowicjuszy i bardzo słabych graczy w topowe maszyny. Jak widzę np. lvl12 w takim T44 czy KTII to nóż w kieszeni mi się otwiera. W 90% przypadków taki gracz pada na samym początku i o ile nie wyjdzie z bitwy to wsiada w p-lotke bo innych pojazdów nie ma. Taki z niego pożytek. W tym momencie drużyna jest mocno osłabiona o teoretycznie najmocniejszy pojazd. To nie jest odosobniony przypadek. Większość bitew gram +0.3 +0.7 i mam nawyk sprawdzania graczy w topowych maszynach. Taka praktyka stosowana jest w prawie każdej bitwie. Co do statystyk to Ja je lubię. W grze staram poprawiać się swój poziom gry, a nie odbębniać bezdusznie kolejne bitwy. Statystyki mi to ładnie pokazują. Przykładowo na T55-AM1 masz ok 60% wygranych więc grind w takim przypadku idzie dosyć szybko, ale jednocześnie robisz 0.9 fraga na bitwę więc z automatu go wydłużasz (a masz też czołgi z niższym współczynnikiem. Z większym też). Statystyki nie powiedzą jak poruszasz się po mapie ale dają podgląd na wkład w bitwę. Jeżeli Ty zrobisz np. dwa fragi i więcej odciążasz team i graczy, których tych fragów nie robią. Z automatu zwiększasz szanse na wygraną i z racji nazbieranych punktów przyspieszasz grind. Piszę tu oczywiste rzeczy ale... Dla mnie parametr procentowy zwycięstw mógłby w WT nie istnieć. Są nacje i BRy które z automatu wygrywają więcej i te które dużo częściej widzą końcowy napis porażka. Losowania +1BR są irytujące ale nie tak jak +2 u konkurencji. Problemem jest ilość maszyn w wyższym BR w przeciwnej drużynie. Nieraz trafiały się bitwy gdzie pojazdem 5.7 trafiasz na losowanie 6.7 tyle, że w Twojej drużynie są tylko trzy pojazdy 6.3, a u przeciwnika kilka 6.7, masa 6.3 i kilka niższych. To jest największy idiotyzm matchmakingu ale jednocześnie mam wrażenie, że takie losowania trafiają się coraz rzadziej. Napisałeś, że "większość map polega na kampieniu, snajpeniu i praktyczniej zerowej dynamice". I to jest jedna z cech mechaniki WT, dlatego jest tu miejsce na czołgi jak KV II z baaaardzo długim czasem przeładowania, dla Panther D, Pz.IV J, Pz.Bfw IV z ręcznie obracaną wieżą oraz innych specyficznych maszyn bo masz czas aby zaplanować i przygotować się do oddania strzału. Dlatego lubię niższe BRy, jest zróżnicowanie w maszynach, każda wymaga innego podejścia i stylu gry. "Dynamikę" oferuje konkurencja gdzie za chwilę bitwy będą rozgrywane ze stoperem w dłoni. Dodatkowo 13 na 15 pojazdów to premki bo są lepsze od drzewkowych maszyn. To w skrócie przedstawienie moich poglądów i podejścia do gry.
  48. 8 points
    Increasing repair costs doesn't make me play more to grind SL. Sometimes I only lose one or two vehicles and I can play another match. Other times I lose 5 and the repair bill is crazy. When that happens to all nations (Air AB) I just stop playing for the night.
  49. 8 points
    If I recall it's still underperforming based on historical performance. It doesn't need to go up. It's not op in the slightest. Not to mention the panthers hull isn't that amazing within the games meta. Besides, penetration isn't the main decider of br, if it was tier 1 2 pdr would be 8.7 because it can pen the main battle tanks....
  50. 8 points
    Why They Added Israeli Tanks And Forget Other Arabian Countries Are They Bias Isreal. Lets Be Honest The Isreali tanks Is Not That Powerful The Sho't Kal Dalet It's based On Centurion Mk 10 There is no Big Difference To Add This Tank But They Make It In Israeil on 1974 With 105mm Cannon. And The Vautour IIA/IDF It's The Same Plane S.O.4050 Vautour Wait It's Have Shafrir Missiles We Should Add This Plane Merkava Mk.1 We Don't Have The Time to Make a New Cannon Just Make a New Hull With xxxx Homogeneous Armour What's The Point When You Have a Good Cannon Without Armored Hull. It's Israeli Tanks Give Them a Good Battle Rating War Thunder Won't Add Another Arabian Tanks Cause They Bias Isreal. There Is Alot of Tank Made In Iraq,Egyptian,Syria,etc Let's take a Look http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/ http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/syria/t-72_mahmia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank) http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iran/Safir-74.php http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iran/Zulfiqar.php My Point Is Why They Added Alot of Israeli Vehicles When We Have A Better Countries I don't mean They Should Add Arabian Tanks But We Need To Social equality Sorry If I Make Grammar Mistakes My English Is Weak