Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/20/2017 in all areas

  1. 126 points
    I quote from a great Reddit post made by @Sonoda_Kotori. "TLDR: Gaijin set up the normalization and penetration curves of APDS in a way that it would cleverly nerf its penetration against most Soviet tanks that has a UFP with a construction slope of 60-65 degrees. However, the stat card only talks about the "60 degrees" in a perfect world condition, so when it looks like an APDS can marginally penetrate, it often cannot. DATAMINE TIME First of all, projectiletypes.blk defines what presets are used by a type of shell. "apds_tank": { "normalizationPreset": "apcr", "ricochetPreset": "apds", "slopeEffectPreset": "apds", Therefore, an APDS follows the terrible normalization like APCR shells. But is that it? No. Most Soviet UFPs were built with an angle of 60 degrees (or 30 degrees, which was used in Gaijin's code.), for example, . According to slopeeffect.blk, which defines the slope effect encountered by every type of shell. Most shells' penetration penalty curve goes up by increments of 5 degrees, plotting a smooth curve. HOWEVER, for APDS' slope effect, there's a sudden BUMP at 29 degrees (61 degrees construction angle): "caliberToArmor": 1.0, "slopeEffect0deg": [0.0,20.0], "slopeEffect5deg": [5.0,17.0], "slopeEffect10deg": [10.0,15.0], "slopeEffect15deg": [15.0,10.24], "slopeEffect20deg": [20.0,7.2], "slopeEffect25deg": [25.0,3.72], "slopeEffect29deg": [29.0,2.76], "slopeEffect30deg": [30.0,2.46], "slopeEffect35deg": [35.0,2.24], "slopeEffect40deg": [40.0,2.064], "slopeEffect45deg": [45.0,1.8], "slopeEffect50deg": [50.0,1.4], "slopeEffect55deg": [55.0,1.2], "slopeEffect60deg": [60.0,1.024], "slopeEffect65deg": [65.0,1.0], "slopeEffect70deg": [70.0,1.0], "slopeEffect75deg": [75.0,1.0], "slopeEffect80deg": [80.0,1.0], "slopeEffect85deg": [85.0,1.0], "slopeEffect90deg": [90.0,1.0] What does that mean? Well, when you are shooting at a plate with 60 degrees installation angle (30 degrees in Gaijin's code), your penetration at 90 degrees (303mm for L7's APDS) undergoes a decay of 2.46 times, resulting a final penetration at such plate of 123mm only. You can find this data on L7's stats card. What the stats DID NOT show was what will happen when that angle is pushed over to 29 degrees, which it always happens to an APDS (since it has the terrible normalization of an APCR), your glorious 123mm at 30 degrees is nerfed down to 109 degrees. Making the matter worse, the curve SKYROCKETS at 65 degrees construction angle (25deg for Gaijin), with the shell undergoing a huge 3.72 times penalty, resulting in a penetration of merely 81.5mm for an L7 APDS, a postwar shell that's meant to penetrate most things. The best part is, that the IS-6's UFP has a construction slope of... You guessed it, 65 degrees. With a slight angling, most Soviet 60deg UFP can easily become 65 degrees too. P.S. A chart of IS-6's armor values Hull: 100 mm (62-65°) Front glacis / 120 mm (53°) Lower glacis / 100 mm (65°) Driver's port Sides: 100 mm (45°) Top / 100 + 10 mm Bottom Rear: 60 mm (60°) Top / 100 mm (59°) Top sides / 60 mm (30°) Bottom" Pfantom made some great graphs showing how ridiculous the slope modifier gets: My thoughts: So, it appeared that projectiletypes.blk and slopeeffects.blk are not used anymore, instead damagemodel.blk is used. This file however contains the exact same data, so this find stays valid. Thanks to @_mike10d Now, what does this mean in the game? Well, it means that whenever a T-54 (except 1947 model), T-62 or T-55 angles very slightly, 105mm APDS won't pen. Even though it clearly should. But that's just for the L7. Many more of such examples could probably be made for various calibres of APDS shots. I don't want to start any conspiracy theories, but it's really hard to believe this is not intentionally done so. It's such a very specific value that perfectly fits these Russian tanks, and highly reduces the effectiveness of L7 APDS and other shells. I don't really want this kind of stuff to be in the game I love. "But Mustang, why didn't you just put it in Bussian Rias thread?" Because I feel this topic is worthy of a thread on its own. I don't believe in Russian Bias, but this is something that really boggles my mind. "But Mustang, why didn't you just make a bug report?" Because I don't have the documents which show how it should be, but we can hopefully agree on the fact that it shouldn't be like this. If someone wants to make a bp out of this, feel free to do this. I'm only posting what I've read so far. Your thoughts? Link to Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/7ngxcp/why_apds_is_bad_against_soviet_armor_exposed
  2. 67 points
    Recently a big security vulnerability has been discovered and published across the internet: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html https://videocardz.com/74580/amd-arm-google-intel-and-microsoft-issue-official-statements-on-discovered-security-flaws ALL OF YOU are under threat If you use Chrome. Install recent update AND Enable Strict site isolation asap Go here: chrome://flags/#enable-site-per-process then Press Enable If you use FireFox install the recent update. If you use Windows install the most recent Windows update ASAP. If you use Apple (included general info about issue) https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394 All users must Avoid unknown/unverified sites for the next few weeks or so. Recommended. install AdBlock plugin for your browser. (This is precautionary as it will in effect give you a buffer if you accidentally stray into a bad site which can happen. * please note, some sites may advise you to whitelist them in the adblocker as they rely on revenue, however, that is your choice and should be sensibly investigated) Other Platforms Linux, Android, Consoles and other platforms information is sketchy on the effect if any of this - Keep yourself updated on these additional platforms and watch for tips below. All of your passwords/credentials could be stolen using your browser if you don't do ALL of it! And you won't even be aware of it! if you have 2-factor auth installed in your desktop browser - uninstall it! use it only on a smartphone (real second factor) Thanks guys, just a friendly heads up. Scarper
  3. 53 points
    Dear players! Recently we blocked user accounts who turned out to be using fraudulent Steam DLC keys (originally purchased using stolen credit cards). These purchases entailed financial loss for our company as once the fraudulent transaction is discovered and reported, we and Steam not only have to refund the full price of the DLC to the rightful owner of the credit card, but also we are liable for chargeback fee. All gaming companies do not treat such fraud lightly and will act accordingly. Fraudulent purchases like this can be made directly through Steam and also through private means such as third-party websites. In the latter case the scammers purchase the keys from Steam using stolen cards and then resell them at significantly lower prices elsewhere. Users who purchase these keys from the scammers are actually harming developers instead of supporting them and encouraging the fraudsters, as described above. Whilst players have content on their accounts that has been acquired through illegitimate means (fraud) they are susceptible to an account ban. This is what happened. However, we do give the benefit of the doubt that most players may be unaware and ill-informed and do not understand the harm that they inflict. Some of these users may have actually made legal purchases in the past. So, although obtaining fraudulent content is a serious breach of the EULA and Terms of Use, on this occasion only (we will not do it again) we will settle on revoking the fraudulent purchase and instigate a ban for two weeks (from January 12th) instead of permanently. Please be more careful in future and don’t become the victims of scammers. Please note that this applies only to accounts that will not show a negative Golden Eagles balance as a result of revoked purchases. Otherwise you will need to cover the difference before having your access to the game restored by making a request by making a request to our customer support. Thank you. o7 Previous Topic
  4. 46 points
    If you may, just give a warning for an off topic, but it is something which I felt must be said and brought to attention of developers, moderations and anyone who would read it. I read most of the pages. Gajin and moderators as a whole. It is not truly an issue of bugs, unhistorical parameters and etc. It is your administration and organization which is deeply flawed. Let me explain, in a poor organization, even most valiant and hard working employees might become victims of demonization. This happens because there is something missing. In this case, employers are working hard to do their job, but due to poor organization, they cannot do their job right, no matter how talented or how much time they would have. In this case, company which does not have proper system of bug prioritization which came to me as an obvious flaw when a moderator replied regarding this. Bugs are not born equal, most of them are quite meaningless, others are game changing and essential. Lack of prioritization and labour control creates such incidents. It is similar case when it comes to how company chooses to interact with community. People here try and fail due to their own inherent qualities and limitations. In this case, I see moderators often making countless mistakes when they are interacting with community. These mistakes are small ones, nothing major, but they create friction with people. For example, moderators are quite unsubtle towards exercising their moderation, which is as far as I know justified, but on the other hand, it creates a feeling of police state and these forums are infamous for actions of their moderators. Why I'm saying these seemingly off topic things? To show you a subtle difference. For everyone here, we all are reasonable beings. Moderators see trash which is being posted and rightfully delete them. Devs are working hard and do their own jobs right. People here post evidence and make conclusions which are perfectly acceptable from their own perspective. Yet, without realization how one side tends to view the situation, in this case, by Gajin not realizing how much damage they create by not being transparent, they create this backlash and hatred towards them. I do not want to conclude malice even if I think at a certain level it exists as part of a company police. In truth, I do believe that there are certain people who need to be educated and their qualification raised. Certain powers extended and more effort being spent of certain other aspect. By this I mean: Transparency. A simple company's rule not to make changes which are not documented would go a lot in solving a lot of issues where ninja patches, which seemingly "do not matter" from people implementing them, causes backlash and mistrust by community. Changes might be numerous, but having a log to register them at the moment of implementation and just having them hidden as "view complete changes list" could save a lot of trouble. Yet, this would not be a trouble if there would be a person overseeing changes created and making patch notes who could properly decide which changes are meaningful enough to warrant a log entry and which are not. Hence, a simple problem of organization of labour. There is another issue with bug reports. It is difficult for other person to symphatize, but trust me, it is extremely painful to be ignored as you are not even there. It is same feeling which people receive with bug reports. No feedback regarding how bugs are being handled creates a lot of tension. If system would be improved slightly, company would not loose productivity at all since an effort required to document a bug as being solved or insufficient can be spent in writing an response to a person who sent it. Same stands with prioritization of bugs. Most bugs are meaningless and harmless. Others might cause issue to some. While others are major issues even if from technical standpoint they are not. This stand for this issue either. It is PR disaster for Gajin. It might not be an issue in itself, but failure to understand feelings of other human beings are causing a lot of backlash and drama. This is why you constantly are getting review bombed on Steam. Lack of prioritization and feedback relating to such bugs. What one could do to solve it is pretty simple. Certain issues must get priority and coverage. Communication and appearance is far more important than a technical competence. If there would an organizational structure in place for someone to decide which issues are worth covering first as a priority, these unreported and unsovled bug reports would not be an issue at all. I ran an organization as manager briefly as something on my CV. While my work was purely technical, I came to realization that reality is all, but that. My work as a specialist, while done flawlessly meant nothing as I ignored human factor in its entirety. Amount of bugs solved, technical state of your product. These things mean nothing. All that matters is communication and appearance. This is why Apple dominates the world, because it gets it. I understand that engineering and similar professions do struggle to relate to a human factor, but it is something which Gajin as a company need to rethink their strategy from grounds up as a good will of players is of paramount importance in this day and age. This would result in greater priority given to certain issues which now obviously are left to rot as low priority. Communication is necessary. The issue with this is that moderators do portray certain dishonesty in their own dealings. In specific, they point to sekrit documents and it is end of discussion (there are others like copy paste responses, well, ones who feel like ones and many other things). While one cannot show specifics of those documents, one might talk indirectly about them, address them by title. There are countless ways to bypass a lot of restrictions and trust me, I'm not a man who enjoys playing by the rules. All of this and not just this can be done if certain people would be given right to pre-emptively dodge critique by addressing them first. Of course, it takes skill and certain kind of person who are surprisingly rare. Yet, PR should be considered a priority for a company and spending effort from higher up in organizing their labour in a way that appearance could be maintained and created is of paramount importance. For example, a person who can engage with community fully when it has its issues and has power to get some answers from organization should be established. I do not know how strict is workplace in Gajin, but I had worked in workplaces which literally had locked doors at every office and you needed an ID to enter to each separate sector. Yet, I do not see any reason why an insider could not just relay this information to higher ups since as any competent company, they should have weekly meetings during which, said issues could be addressed and made clear that some labour should be dedicated later down the line, in week's time or in month's time. All of it calls for re-organization of labour as one person takes cares or is able to connect and to properly address certain issues. What such connection would achieve? Well, as you know, dealing with community often feels like taunting a bull for people who are here working in mod positions, as they said it themselves. That is understandable. The issue is that they often lack proper capabilities and skill in responding to issues. More importantly, in making posts and community content to address and touch certain issues. Even the worst things can be tamed with enough care and sweet words. In this case, if a feedback is sufficiently correct and helpful, if people are made to feel that they are important, that their feedback is welcomed, then even most hardcore "hater" will be urged to think twice. For example, lets take this example. You cannot escape anymore terrible reputation which you have as a company now. This is why you have to own it. Or in other words, start addressing certain myths or bugs. Someone needs to have an authority from the inside to put this bug as a priority at the next meeting. Someone must be capable of properly making public announcement about it and the steps being taken to look into it. If there isn't an issue, it should be explained very carefully and revealing as much as legally possible why you are right. Doing research and showing why various documents are wrong, even if you cannot reveal your own sources and say it objectively, you must make it clear that. If said solution is being fixed, it is enough to admit the mistake. This is that infuriates people and trust me, I was able to disarm the most dangerous and "hateful" opponents by honesty, humility and truthfulness. It might be difficult to understand, one has to experience it, but people tend to symphatize with such people. Any attempt at proving them wrong, making your own statements will only create further problems. One can admit nothing, but disarm opponent and look better by such simple statements as "We respect your feedback blablabla. We will look into it". These are basic responses which you hear everywhere, but often, they are not applied where they are truly needed. Like in comment sections I see moderators pointlessly making points or even here, getting from time combatant when all they can do is to "shut up" and nod their head politely, while urging people to wait. Devil is in the details afterall. It is difficult to put in words what your company does wrong since it seems obvious at first sight, but also, something which you seem to overlook. It is like for example, an outsider's perspective. You can work on code for months and get stuck. It takes just "little time" for an outsider to point out the obvious since he/she is not related with your product so intimately as you and does not share your perspective and knowledge. Just remember, there is no such thing as "others being irrational". If there is a problem, you always have to ask, "what we can do it to make it better". In this case, I think that Gajin as a whole needs to re-organize its priorities and organization of labour. Of course, just slightly, but even a slight disposition change can sometimes yield dramatic results. Well, I will better leave this short and not get into details. I understand that this post might appear big and off topic, but I also believe that it is an essential discussion starter. This whole issue is not about a bug or an error. This whole thread is not about changing values of ammunition It might appear like this, but in truth, it is about you as a company and how you are communicating with your player base. All the technical details, all the values, all the bug reports, these are secondary problems compared in how we interact with each other. In this new age and especially for a company which literally relies of a good will of their customer to sell a product which has no value (digital products, in this case video games are inherently worthless and have only value which we as customers agree on) cannot afford alienating their own player base. Community growth and interaction is as much important as new content being released. Heck, in fact, it is less important. I watched War thunder grow from its beta and still, you are struggling in growing your player base since you are not doing a lot of things properly. It is not about how much new content you can put out. The amount of new tanks has no importance. Yes, it helps to get people attracted to a game, but wave quickly dies down. What you need to do is to focus on community growth. You need to focus not on content production as you do now, but on interaction with community and its contributors. In refining your product. In creating player retention systems. In modifying product which you already have. I wish for Gajin to succeed and I'm highly impressed by the amount of content which lately you were producing. Yet, it saddens to see that such great potential of your product can be so stifled by having your priorities slightly off. I would appreciate if you would leave this post just out of respect to time and effort I spent in writing it. Yes, it is not about bugs, but from my eyes, it is about something far more important. An underlying issue of this and all the threads on this forum.
  5. 33 points
    What difference would it make if they don't have accurate information? They ignore the primary sources on Western tanks and invent their own values most of the time anyways.
  6. 32 points
    Guys, this hasn't been forgotten, we are aware of your concerns and will be back to you shortly, there is quite a lot going on WT right now, which is distracting for all 8).
  7. 30 points
    I think I need to stop reading dataminers stuff. I've practically lost a will to make any more bug reports, because the list of things that should be reported is growing very fast. I think I've reached the point when I'm seeing another thing like that and I'm like "why bother". Nerfing and buffing things left and right made this game far from being remotely historical. We are left with historical tanks names and models (with exceptions), all other is somehow crippled by constant meddling. And call me crazy, but that is all fault of one of the first artificial things - glorious APHE nukes. Everything that happens later was just an attempt to balance APHE and solid shots used by US and UK tanks. At times, the solid shot advantages (pen values, stabilizers, muzzle velocity, rof) overcome oneshoting magic bullets, so one or two things got nerfed again, to rebalance it for the other side. And as historical and correct rockets nerf was, it happened only when people begun to use it a lot, and it affected the balance (rockets were like this for long time, only it was rarely used in GF). Along with rocket nerf we had HESH nerf, and this one went too far. Now we have AP buff to post pen damage, along with something weird I've noticed about APC (no HE) shots - they are kinda exploding after pen, like very weak APHE. I assume it was meant to simulate round shattering inside the tank, but it's working bit weird. I bet next move would be doing something for German tree, as they are in huge disadvantage, because they are left "only" with APHE, while other nations have multiple other advantages. I'm even starting to think that some of the errors in armor (M60, M48A1, M60A1, Chieftain, Jumbo, Super Pershing) might be kept in the game for a balance reasons, and were needed especially when APDS had great post pen damage. I can imagine how I could club other tanks with hulldown Chief or M60A1, if their turrets would be done without artificial weakspots. And we have to remember about APCR having their penetration taken off for no reason, HEAT-FS nerf, which I think might be done because missiles were using the same damage model, and for a moment they destroyed any gameplay at tier 5 (although post pen of HEAT in fact might be lower than we think). Sometimes the nerf/buff is correct, sometimes not, but it always is made when something is making too much difference, not just because it is unhistorical. And I bet most of those things would never happen, if someone would not implement Fireball feature for APHE. I wonder where they got any source for that. I guess I will wait to see what direction Gaijin will take. If those artificial nerfs and buffs will be continued, there is no point in reporting anything. I was making reports to help improve the game in being historical and realistic. But if the game does not want to be like that, then any help is pointless, and more importantly - not needed and not wanted.
  8. 27 points
    Reserve and tier 1 French tanks are next to unplayable right now. I've played about a dozen games and haven't won a single one. The 8 second reload is the major killer. I understand that's how it was in real life, given the 2 man crew, but it just doesn't work in the current War Thunder meta. If the shells were better or the tanks were faster it might work, but they are outclassed in literally every way. Other tanks are faster, have more crew, better pen, better reload, and better HE filler. Example: you can't pen the front of a Stuart. The Stuart can pen the front of you and can fire 3-4 shots in the time it takes you to reload 1. The Stuart is significantly faster and has better mobility. It's no contest. The only thing the French are level on is frontal armor, but that hardly matters when a single pen will send you back to the hanger. Reload needs to be reduced, then they might be competitive, but right now it's just a turkey shoot. I understand it's not "realistic", but War Thunder is a game first, and games need to do their best to be fun and balanced. Thoughts? Any ideas how to make the early French more competitive? EDIT: Played a game in the Stuart, just to make sure it wasn't me, and got 9 kills in one game against an all French team. 5 of those being right at the beginning of the game and knocking those players out entirely, wiping out half their team in the first 3 minutes. It's nuts.
  9. 27 points
    Q: Will you include new mechanics for air battles? Like guided missiles? Many players are looking forward to 6th rank of aviation. Can you at least generally say, whether you've deliberated about future air development? We must deeply consider all aspects of gameplay with such technology. Missile combat beyond visual range is very much focused to instrument-work and very hardcore. It is a hard task to make modern aviation both intriguing and player-friendly, yet keep the established level of realism of the game. We've already stated we're conducting internal test with Vietnam-era technology, with early-gen missiles and their various limitations. Including attack angles, minimal and maximal distances to target, primitive maneuvering... But with all that in mind we cautiously expect this era of combat aviation will find its way into War Thunder eventually. Q: Back on April Fool's Day, we had the opportunity to try modern tanks and helicopters, including smoke screens. How the players' reaction to that influence the prospect of such technology being implemented in the standard game? Player feedback very much determined the subsequent game development. Had we seen this modern tech is not interesting for our players, we would have reworked it extensively or not implemented it at all. But it turned out they liked forwarding of the game into more modern era. We keep watching players' reactions, forum comments, videos and social media and the demand for more modern technology was quite common. April Fools exceeded our expectations. As for helicopters, we got some positive feedback there as well. So now they are considered as a possible method of future evolution of aviation technology in War Thunder. It is however entirely new technology, so we have a lot of internal testing ahead of us. Only then we should we eventually determine what 6th rank of aviation will actually be like. Q: There are now 7 major countries represented in War Thunder. Can we expect some more? Right now we are busy with extending the current nation trees. The latest ones need more work, especially Italian GF. Add that to regular additions to all other nations' branches, more new ground vehicles of 6th rank, pushing navy into CBT phase and launch of WW mode. So in the nearest future, no brand new countries are to be expected. But that doesn't mean we don't do anything in that regard - as we stated, any new big content additions begins with vast and extensive research, and that is done long time before any official announcement of a new playable nation. We are already in the process of gathering technical data of other nations' technology and depending on how that goes, we will make a decision if and what new nation should make its way into War Thunder. Q: Will you add any new Italian airplanes, such as Reggiane, or Caproni hydroplanes? Let's just say we have very ambitious plans for Italy. Seriously, they had one of the best aviation schools in the world.
  10. 25 points
  11. 25 points
    i have just read @Inkvizitoriustwo comments (second one got deleted already) and i am "displeased" by the censorship of a more-than-valuable post (hell, they probably are amongst the top 5 comments in this thread) and he clearly gets to the core of the problem: lack of transparency from which the game, community and developers suffer! sometimes things cant be done "by the book", they have to be met with your heart on your tongue and has to be talked about! the thread is about the current state of all APDS ingame, how information was datamined showing how much they underperform and its severe! L7 guns and APDS was the main counter to russian T-54/55 or T-62 and could deal with them over loooooong ranges IRL, and thats the state the community desires ingame: a "historical accurate" (as the game is proclaimed again and again) setting, where a L7-armed tank can take on its enemies, like it could IRL. if this comes with changes in Battleratings, thats completely fine, but we need to reach that point. this would certainly mean, that e.g. the centurion mk.10 has to be raised to 7.7 at least (as in general it can be compared to a T-54) or the Mk.3 to 7.0, but it wouldnt be the end-of-the-world, cause their main ammunition would finally work well enough to counter the vehicles at that range! finally i wouldnt feel missplaced in a centurion, which is placed lower than a Tiger 2H, even thought i have the paper-wise more powerful gun for defeating tougher enemies. i really really want APDS to finally be working realistically and properly and i seriously doubt the various nations would have developed APFSDS, if APDS never did more than scratch the paint off of a T-54s upper front plate (which would surely have been seen as inadequate to follow its path at all and even bother with it) in addition to this change we (the playerbase) have to be told the truth, as to how this could have happened, why it has happened and o/c what is going to happen exactly! the current state is that gaijin treats us, their community and market, as a toddler and keep saying "we do this, now accept it and smile" while the parents are making plans along the lines of "next month he will play with his french toys and leaves us alone".... sounds like a stupid example and comparison, but its how it feels to me and i think others feel the same... what we need, its to be treated as equals, and any kind of detailed request/report has to be taken seriously, be it telling the OP what is missing, or if the format wasnt correct, but this kind of work has to be done, since those reporting bugs are basically doing free work for Gaijin and are basically only trying to improve the game they love and enjoy so much! edit: grammar
  12. 24 points
    Exiting a game where a t55 and an It 1 stopped the L15A3 with their fuel tanks. Point blank against the t55. The russian said it s historically accurate that a fuel tank can stop a chief round from point blank range. No comment. What can you say to that.
  13. 24 points
    I hope not, they have yet to sort out how to accurately model their current "composite" tanks, which have accurate sources for armor. But for the Challenger I, M1 Abrams, etc. that information doesn't exist to the public, and would most certainly not be given to a perceived enemy such as Russia or it's citizens, in any form.
  14. 23 points
    I am tired of fighting with americans against germans when i take a japaneese plane or fighting on Midway with a german plane ! I think this kind of aberration should not take place in realistic mode : i understand that AB players dont care about that but for RB it would be a lot better if the historical aspect was not neglected at this point. I think there is a suffisant number of players of RB to change the matchmaking in a historical way. And even if it is not possible, why not putting back permanent historical events of WW2 like it was the case until 2015 ? Thanks.
  15. 23 points
    Dude. "Hey guys, you have concern about some recent modification so... we're going to explain why it's like that, and what we're going to do to improve the situation. What do you think?" "Nah it's nerfed."
  16. 23 points
    Disclaimer: This is not a bug report, this is just meant as a reference for those curious. Here's a list of the missing shells for the various Japanese tanks as of 1.75. Note that I'm definitely not an expert on this, so feel free to correct any mistakes you see, as well as point out any sources or other missing shells that I've missed. 20mm Type 98, used by the Ta-Se and Isuzu Type 94 ??? From the list at the bottom of Mai Waffentrager's Japanese Test Server Tank Review from December 2016 37mm Type 94/Type 100/Type 1, used by the Ha-Go, Ke-Ni, Ka-Mi, Ro-Go, and Chi-Ri II HE shell (same with most low tier tanks) Type 1 APHE The 37mm Type 1 has this shell already, but the Type 94 and Type 100 do not 47mm Type 1, used by the Chi-Ha Kai and Chi-He HE shell (same with most low tier tanks) APHE Tokko Ko shell, penetrating 114mm of armor at 100 meters with 10 grams of explosives "The Most Effective japan Tank" intelligence report dated to July 1945. Photograph of Sherman used to test rounds "Enemy on Luzon: An Intelligence Summary" dated to December 1, 1945 page 194. Link for those curious: Part 1 and Part Tokko otsu: 120mm? of pen at 100m? (more info needed) 57mm Type 90/Type 97, used by the I-Go Ko and the Chi-Ha HE shell (same with most low tier tanks) HEAT shell, penetrating 55mm of armor Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces Mai Waffentrager's article on the Chi-Ha American Intelligence Report dated to August 1, 1945. Page 83 and Page 84 70mm Type 94, used by the Ro-Go HEAT shell, penetrating 90mm of armor Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces American Intelligence Report dated to August 1, 1945. Page 85 (note that this report has the shell penetrating 80mm instead) 75mm Type 99, used by the Ho-I Low-propellant Type 2 HEAT, penetrating 100mm of armor The Type 2 HEAT currently used in the game uses the American test value of 76mm of armor penetration Source (the Type 99 was based off of the Type 41), from the Intelligence Bulletin N.05, December 1944 However, the Japanese tests show that the shell penetrated 100mm of armor Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces page 98 Mai Waffentrager's article on the Ho-I The reason for the difference is due to the Type 2 HEAT's optimal striking velocity being 250 meters/second. When at 350 meters/second and above, the shell's performance dropped noticeably. The American testers, not knowing this, most likely fired the HEAT shell using the full propellant load which resulted in the lower penetration compared to the Japanese tests. This is shown in-game as the Ho-I's HEAT shell has a muzzle velocity of 350 meters/second. Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces, page 99 75mm Type 3, used by the Ho-Ni I, Ho-Ni III, and Chi-Nu APHE Tokko Ko shell, penetrating 100mm of armor at 500 yards with 10 grams of explosives Mai Waffentrager's article on the Ho-Ni III Mai Waffentrager's article on the Chi-Nu 75mm Type 5 (Type II 75mm Tank Gun), used by the Chi-Nu II, the Chi-To, the Chi-To Late, and the Chi-Ri II APHE Type 5 Otsu shell, penetrating 200mm of cast armor at 100 meters (cast armor -> rolled homogeneous armor is 0.94 variation, translating to 188mm of penetration) "Japanese Type 5 Tank gun" thread on War Thunder Forums Penetration chart from there Note that the Chi-Ri II technically never fired either the Otsu or Kou shells, as they had been developed after the Chi-Ri II was cancelled. However, the Type II 75 mm Tank Gun Model I was still capable of firing these rounds. 105 mm Type 5 cannon, used by the Ho-Ri Production model Type 2 APHE with ballistic cap, penetrating 200mm of armor at 1000 meters The Ho-Ri currently uses the non-ballistic cap Type 2 APHE, which has significantly worse penetration at 1000 meters Mai Waffentrager's article on the Ho-Ri 106mm Recoilless Rifle M40, used by the Type 60 SPRG and the American M50 Ontos M581 High Explosive Anti-Personnel If implemented, would most likely just work as a standard HE shell Wikipedia Page on the M40 Jane's Ammunition Handbook 1994, page 140-141 Several other rounds developed by other non-American countries (Japan does not appear to have developed any rounds for the M40) 120mm Naval Short Gun, used by the Chi-Ha Short Gun Commerce Raiding HE (the HE ingame is listed as "Short Ordinary HE") Anti-Submarine APHE Type 88 HEAT Type 2 HEAT All of these were taken from Mai Waffentrager's Dev Server Japanese tank review from December 2016. Note that many of the issues listed on the bottom have currently been fixed at this point. 150mm Type 38, used by the Ho-Ro Type 2 HEAT Was previously in the game but has since been removed for balance purposes Thank you for reading this far. Note that I'm not suggesting that all of these shells should be added to every single tank that could use them - the Chi-Nu II in particular definitely does not need the Otsu shell. If they are added, hopefully the BR's will be adjusted to compensate. At the same time, the 57mm HEAT shells would be really welcome for the I-Go and Chi-Ha, so we can only hope that they come in time.
  17. 23 points
    The thing is: in the eyes of your teammates, the tank is still dangerous. They don't get your hitcam. And as long as the enemy is still dangerous, the team should help defeating him.
  18. 22 points
    So there are countless instances where a game ends up being one-sided and the entire ground troops of a team get destroyed. A lot of people end up using their playtime and server time, just for one or two guys left flying around or sitting in their airfield, whilst the opposing team has basically nothing left to do. You could argue they could jump in a plane or use AAA, but sometimes people on the ground don't have enough SP, planes left, or planes to match or they do use AAA and the enemy fighters just don't approach them. Wouldn't it be wiser to just end the game like it does when the enemy has no vehicles left? The moment a team stops having ground forces, display a message: "Your team is about to lose the ground fight, reinforce ground troops!" This would give airplanes time to j out and switch for a ground unit (let's say 2min or so) and if no ground troop was spawned in, then the tickets would start bleeding off to zero in no time. I think this isn't an unreasonable idea and there would be actually more playing happening, than waiting in those situations. PS: This would only happen if all caps would be held by the winning team.
  19. 22 points
    An update - Recently there was a wave of fraudulent purchases of War Thunder DLC in Steam, and the keys obtained through such illegal means were later resold on third-party websites. Based on report from Valve, we deactivated all such keys which weren't used yet, and revoked all items which were already activated. The offending accounts were frozen and have to contact support following this guide https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us/articles/200071051-Your-Account-Was-Frozen-8111000E- Please wait for support reply and don't create several requests - you're only slowing down the process this way. A reminder - purchasing game content anywhere outside official channels (Gaijin Store / Steam / Humble Bundle / Gameflier / PS Store) is againt EULA and may lead to account ban. Be more careful and don't be fooled by fraudsters. Important - Do not create multiple support requests, you will only increase any wait time!
  20. 22 points
    Take Centurion Mk10 in the game and tell me with a straight face, that you penned and OHK'd UFP of T-54/55 on 1,500 meters and had no trouble penning UFP of T-62 on more than a 1,000 meters. This "train" so far only confirms in game behaviour - which is wrong. Even with using what we in our country call "selský rozum" - common sense, if you can use it that is - you can at least arch your brows at L7 tanks being 0.7/1.0 BR lower than T-54/55/62, which L7 had no trouble penning at 1,000 - 1,500 meters. L7 was created to get rid of puny T-54s/55s and even 62s. Because of these tanks, the very own L7 upgrade from 20pdr happened. I already said it here. There is one thing being a hipster about it and go against the flow. The other is, when you look like a complete fool in doing so. I'm not even saying, how community here only cares about penetration values on angled armor of APDS so far. Nothing about that chuckle ensuing post penetration effect so far, that should be fixed too. From what I could gather on these forums, APFSDS and APDS should be similar in post-pen effect. FS has the upper hand in penning more angled armors.
  21. 21 points
    В данном сообщении мы бы хотели прояснить нашу позицию и осветить наши планы по поводу параметров бронебойный подкалиберных снарядов (APDS), которые вызвали столь бурное обсуждение на разных площадках. Большая часть настроек этих снарядов , а именно поведение их на разных углах встречи с броней, было сделано довольно давно по меркам игры, около двух лет назад, еще в 2015 году, при этом тогда мы не обладали тем объемом информации, который доступен сейчас. Хотя та информация, которая сейчас есть в наличии, также не полностью охватывает все боеприпасы игры, по каким-то снарядам информации достаточно, например 120мм боеприпасы к орудию танка Чифтен, по другим, информации довольно мало, как-то 152мм подкалиберные снаряды к орудию танков МБТ-70. Поэтом составить полную и 100% точную картину поведения всех типов боеприпасов , которых в игре огромное количество - невозможно, всегда будут некоторые допущения и предположения на основании имеющихся данных и это нормально. В данный момент в наших планах ревизия параметров боеприпасов, и начнем как раз с подкалиберных снарядов. Проверке и коррекции подлежит баллистические параметры - масса снаряда, начальная скорость, траектория, а также те параметры которые требуются для определения бронепробития и за броневого действия. Например большой части подкалиберных снарядов требуется корректировка в массе снаряда, так как для расчета баллистики и поражающего действия требуется указание массы активной части снаряда (той части которая летит после отделения поддона и участвует в пробитии брони), а не всего снаряда в сборе с учетом ведущего устройства. Для боеприпасов для которых есть информация с испытаний о их пробитии брони под разными углами, будут добавлены частные графики “эффекта наклона” (то как наклон брони влияет на пробитие брони именно этим боеприпасом), такая информация есть для 120мм британских снарядов L15. Для остальных марок подкалиберных снарядов пока будут использоваться общие графики эффекта наклона, но они также возможно будут скорректированы. Мы ценим ваши отзывы и обсуждение всех игровых аспектов и ваши репорты о ошибках, особенно те, в которых вы подробно, со ссылкой на различные источники приводите обоснование необходимых исправлений. Все это помогает нам сделать игру более достоверной и интересной. Спасибо вам большое! К сожалению у меня нет достаточно времени чтобы ответить на все вопросы которые возникнут, но я попрошу наших комъюнити менеджеров передать мне отдельно самые интересные. Это сообщение будет переведено на английский в сообщении ниже.
  22. 21 points
    Translation Please note, we look forward to receiving your feedback but please keep it on topic and within the forum rules. Cheers. o7
  23. 21 points
    I still think its funny they "balance" the Panthers around having APCR or not
  24. 20 points
    I'm an experienced player who is currently 5th in the world for win percentage at over 98% and 33rd for average relative position at over 96%. I play for the win and do the objectives. However you are ruining the game by nerfing according to stats in an effort to even out the game. Every bullet that touches my plane kills me and a lot of the time they don't have to hit my plane to 1 shot me, if their stats are bad. Many times low level players or those with win rates in the 50% and below range will shoot their tracers way off mark, extremely wide left or right and still 1 shot me. I now can't hit planes as they consistently fly straight through my gunfire, with the black indicator spinning around, indicating that I'm hitting them, and I'l get nothing. Not even a hit. These players will flip over, get on me as my plane suddenly refuses to turn while just hanging in the air, and they one shot me. It's insane and impossible, yet it happens game after game. If you're going to ruin the game for the better players in an effort to "even out" matches, then at least man up and admit to us that you've screwed us over, and kindly refund the money we've spent. Because, you've taken away what we paid you for. After spending a lot of money on crews, planes and flying premium for over 4 years, you have ruined the game for me instead of expecting less skilled players to get better. It's shameful and dishonest. Again, kindly stop the nerfing or refund my money and, at the very least, own up to it. Also, every player with high level stats knows you're doing it so it's not the secret you think it is.
  25. 20 points
    Nope, they don't care. They're just hoping that we'll eventually get tired of waiting for a reply.
  26. 20 points
    Well, the one thing that they will care about is losing revenue and money from players, because they have proven themselves as untrustworthy developers, who do not accept any amount of feedback, documented evidence and bug reports from the community, who in the most part can only assist in making the game better. No, what Gaijin want is to make their own game without any outside meddling, with flavor of the month buffs, nerfs and additions, while leaving the actual important game physics broken and unchanged from 2-3 years ago. And they're gonna rely on the newcomers to pay up, before they've found out how ground breakingly biased and unrealistic the game mechanics are. What we old players can do is just stop giving them our money and playing, until they realize that listening to your community is actually important.
  27. 20 points
    Just had two 120 APDS bounces off a T62 ufp, he was barely angled and I was actually above him so he had a lower slope on his ufp, ww2 APDS stats need to go
  28. 20 points
    An official Russian Q&A session on YouTube just confirmed most produced T-72 and T-80 variants to be added in foreseeable future with rarer modifications (such as T-80 prototype, T-64 with turbine engine) being added later along with appropriate attack aircraft (*cough* A-10 *cough* Su-25 *cough*) which are going to be added even if they decide not to introduce guided missiles. Also, Chieftain Sabre and Chieftain Marksman are most likely going to be added as Falcon isn't quite as capable as Flakpanzer I Gepard or ZSU-23-4; Spitfire Mk. V, P-40, and Bf 110 are going to receive an HD-model relatively soon; either Il-28Sh, MiG-9 with a 57 mm gun, or U5 and U6 versions of Bf 109G-6-G-14 are in the works. Oh, and Sturmtiger along with Ju 52 are possible, but only as meme event vehicles akin to BM-13N.
  29. 20 points
  30. 19 points
    That would be as important as penetration values. Sub caliber rounds should make even more spalling than full AP of the same caliber, so I guess all sub calibers (yes, including APCR) should be doing damage similar to APFSDS (if KE is comparable)
  31. 19 points
    I bet your Tiger I H with 22,9% WR could tell you something about the irony of using the time travel argument in defense of british and french vehicles.
  32. 19 points
    It seems you forgot 1.73, which introduced an entirely new air tree.
  33. 19 points
    Thread temporarily locked due to the many rule violations. During this temporary lock the thread will be cleaned from the rule breaking comments that disrupt any chance of a civil and constructive discussion about the topic!.
  34. 19 points
    Dear Players! Another round of questions and answers, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov! Q. Do you have any plans to split the Ki-200 into the Army and Navy versions to expand the Japanese 8.0 Lineup? The Ki-200 currently has skins for both the J8M and Ki-200. All that is needed is the aircraft's cannons to be changed. The model is correct for both. The Army Ki-200 has Type 5 30mm cannons whilst the Navy J8M has Ho-105 30mm cannons. This would really help grow the Japanese rank 5 with little work needed. We have doubts about the need for such an extension of the Japanese aircraft tree for the 5th rank. In update 1.75 we added the more interesting Saber F40 version and we find it more interesting. Q. What will happen to the DB.7 and D.521 premiums in the British tree? Will we see them in the French tree soon? What of the Hawk 75 (French P-36) that was found within the CDK? A. DB-7 is not an exception. About Hawks - in the update 1.75 we have added two variants Hawk 75-H-75A-1 and H-75A-4. Q. Has there been any changes to the decision regarding the Sturmtiger? Larger calibre SPGs are really popular and fun! Perhaps a Rank V premium,or event gift? A. Probably only as a collector’s vehicle, like it was with BM-13, which means that there won’t be any guarantees of effectiveness in battles. There are no specific plans, but it will probably appear for some future event. Q. Italians are currently lacking premium aircraft right now, are there any in the works? A. Yes, there are several models in preparation, but we can not say which will be first. Q. Do you have any intention to include the missing early Seafire variants? There is a gap in between the Sea Hurricanes and Firefly/Firebrand where the Merlin powered Seafire Mk I, Mk II and MkIII could easily fit. Also the Griffon powered Seafire XV. Perhaps these could be included in the French tree later with the Aéronavale line or premiums? A. Yes, we have such plans (regarding early Seafires). Q. Most nations now have very capable SPAAG’s at 8.0 now. Britain still has the Falcon, which does not compare greatly to the Type 87, Gepard, Shilka and M163. Now that we have Rank VI and more expansion in Rank V, are the Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman SPAAGs possible now? A. Yes, it is not excluded. These SPAAGs are being considered to be added to the game. Q. Do you have any options to expand the aircraft ranges for the top rank? Currently ground forces pushes into the 1960s and 1970s, however aircraft still remain in the 1950s. Is it possible we could see unguided missile later aircraft like the Gloster Javelin, A-4 Skyhawk, Later MiG-17s, FIAT G.91 R/3 or G.91Y, F-86H, Hunter F.6? This could also open up the possibility to include new bombers like the Tu-95, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant and B-52? Yes, we believe that there are such opportunities, even if it is not about aircraft with missile weapons, so we can make attacker aircraft. Q. Now that we have the SM.81, is it possible we can now see the bomber modification of the German Ju-52 Tante Ju as a 1.3 aircraft or premium/gift? It could carry up to 500kg (1100lb) of bombs as well as having defensive armament. The aircraft is very similar in characteristics to the SM.81 and would be a very popular event/gift/premium machine. A. Unlike the specialized SM.81, which can carry up to 2 tons of bombs, the Yu-52 is primarily a transport aircraft with weak flight characteristics and we don’t consider it necessary to add it to the research tree, it may be possible as a collector's vehicle. Q. Now that the B-24 has received a new model, is it possible we will see additional variants? In addition, is a British Fleet Air Arm premium Corsair modification possible now they also have new models? A. In update 1.75 we added the British Corsair Mk.2. Regarding the B-24 - we don’t have any plans for any other modifications of it at the moment. Q. Can you give us any hints as to which aircraft will receive new models/variants in the future? Perhaps the Spitfire Mk V series, Bf 110, P-40, Blenheim or Mosquito? All of these aircraft have many different modifications available and could do with reworked existing models. A. Spitfire V is now in the process of creating an updated model, and we have plans for the P-40 and 110 series. Q. Will the factory modifications of U5 and U6 be added for Bf 109 G6-G14? I would especially like to try the MK-103 on the 109th. And will there be a modification of the Il-28Sh and MiG-9 with a 57mm gun in the game? A. As far as I know, there is something in the plans and I recently received documentation from historians on this topic. Q. Is it possible for an aircraft such as the Ki-91 to appear in the game as a response to the top heavy bombers of other countries? It was existing, but did not have time to fly. A. As far as we know, in reality this aircraft did not exist, the aerodynamic models were wind tunnel only, so there are no plans for this aircraft. Q. Is it possible, including on the eve of the fleet, to introduce late Japanese torpedoes, namely the versions of the Type 91 torpedo with a larger mass of the warhead? In the current reality, Japanese torpedoes are the weakest in the game, and there are no alternatives in the form of bombs, in view of the small load, unlike to the bombers of other countries. A. Yes, we are thinking of the Type-4 oxygen torpedoes for B7A2 and P1Y. Q. Is it planned to implement the T-64A with a gas turbine engine? For example, as premium on the 6th rank. The tank existed in reality and even passed testing phase. Actually, this is a prototype of the T-80. A. As with the vehicles of the 30s and 50s, first of all we introduce more mass and well-known machines, and after that different prototypes and objects. Primarily, we would like to add mass produced versions of the T-72 and T-80 families, and only then their rarer versions. SOUND Q. Which new sound effects are in the plans? A. Now we have begun to deal with reworking the sounds of weapons, in particular, machine guns, then we will turn to cannons. Processing is primarily for the purpose of atmospheric sounding at different distances. There will also be a change in the sound of tank engines depending on the position of the camera (as now it happens with the sounds of aircraft engines for example). We can not say anything about ETA at the moment. The work is voluminous, most likely, it will all come out in a parts, from patch to patch. Q. What about the sounds of French tanks, have you managed to copy from real vehicles? A. Yes, those tanks that survived and with authentic engines, we have recorded. This applies to the rest of the tanks in the game. By recording the tanks, large-scale work was done. Despite the fact that there are not so many vehicles with authentic running engines - we and our team managed to record a large number of aircraft and tanks. Some of them are in a individual. Q. Are there any third-party sound libraries used for sound in ground vehicles? A. No, if we are talking about the sound of engines, we have a very rich own database of "live" recordings. If it is needed to synthesize a sound, we use it. But the more difficult to get sounds, for example, hits, some shots (some, because we have also written some of the tools available from reality). Then yes, we can use other libraries. Q. Will there be new soundtracks? A. Yes, recently we recorded some new music, after the new year they should appear. Q. Will the work continue in the direction of the national voice, meaning the general commands, for example "attack point A". A. Yes, with regard to voice acting, some work is under way in this direction. The national voice-over is of course needed and we will definitely develop it.
  35. 18 points
    Please note, we look forward to receiving your feedback here but please keep it on topic and within the forum rules. Cheers. o7
  36. 18 points
    I just played against that vehicle for the first time. I know there are issues with the tech tree, and BRs being really compressed and all, but, seriously? Putting a vehicle with modern, high velocity 75mm autocannon on the same battlefield as the likes of T-34s? That's just insane.
  37. 18 points
  38. 18 points
    How about they fix APDS first so that new players aren't discouraged from grinding above tier IV....
  39. 17 points
    As the title says, this is a call out to Gaijin to please do something about the ridiculously powerful rounds available to the early war German tanks. Right now there is almost no point in running the early heavies like the Matilda MKII, the Churchill 1 and the Char B-bis as they can all be easily deleted by these magic German time travelling rounds that should not exist until the last few models of the tanks capable of using them (ie, when they face T-34's all the time and need a solid counter). Currently the only reason we are seeing French vehicles being played is because they are new, and even now the popularity is beginning to drop off as people realise that these tanks are basically helpless against the magic of Wehrbro time travel technology. So please Gaijin, it has been said before and I will say it again, please remove the HEAT shells from the Panzer IV's and the APCR from the Panzer II's.
  40. 17 points
    1: Vehicles Effected: All Vehicles that fire HEP/HESH shells. All Game modes 2: The Issue: In a patch some time ago, changes were made to HEP/HESH shells that caused them to perform in an incorrect manner, especially at 60° obliquity. The Penetration values for all angles of attack, that were being used previous to the change, were for 90% spall effect success rate at angles between 0° to 60° obliquity, 90° to 30° in game.. Current incorrect Performance: 3: Client Log: 2017_11_22_22_15_25__16324.clog 4a: Reference Material Historically speaking, the US had developed properly functioning HESH/HEP Shells for 75mm all the way to 120mm and larger guns by 1951. For Right now, I'm just gathering up my source documents, and getting ready to try and simplify the explanation as much as possible. Since I have to point out what was messed up, and why. AD001531 "Ballistic Research Laboratory, Transactions of Symposium on Shaped Charges" Nov 1951 Pages 235 and 242-246. This Document, Covers general functioning of the HESH/HEP and HEAT shaped charge shells. Page 243 Figure 9, contains a graph showing the tested penetration range of HESH rounds of various calibers. The lower limit values, are for 90% success rate of causing back spall vs 60deg from vertical, high obliquity plate. The 76mm is listed as 3in or 76.2mm, 90mm is listed as 4in or 101.6mm, 105mm is listed as 5in or 127mm, 120mm is listed as 6in or 152.4mm, at 90% assured success rate. The Diagonal slope line, represents the average performance of the Hesh/Hep shells vs sloped plate, which usually equal 1.3 times the shell caliber. This would mean the 76mm guns could on average cause back spall vs plate up to 99.06mm thickness, which is very close to its upper limit of just under 4inches. 90mm on average would be up to 117mm, with a max limit of about 125mm, just under 5inches. The 105mm on average would be 136.5mm, with an upper limit of 150mm, which is what is listed in many documents for 105mm M393. 120mm Hesh would be 156mm on average up to about 175mm at the top end, just under 7inches. AD309203 "Function and Spall Characteristics of 90mm, T142E3, HEP Shell, Comp A3-Loaded and Fuzed with BD M91A1 Fuze" July 1959 This Document covers the development and testing of 90mm T142e3 HEP-T against 4in(101.6mm) thick RHA plate. It mainly shows that the early HEP shells had issues against vertical plate at 1700ft/s(518.16m/s) or higher, and issues against 60° obliquity plate at velocities lower than 1000ft/s(304.8m/s). But, the shells functioned almost perfectly against the 60° obliquity RHA plate at velocities higher than 1000ft/s(304.8m/s). AD99939 "Test of Shel HEP T170e3 for 76mm Gun T91" June 1956 This is almost the same testing as for the 90mm T142e3 shell, but instead for the T170e3 shells that were being made for the 76mm gun of the T41 or T92. They tested against 3inch and 4inch RHA plate in this instance. Note that this is just an example, M393 is a post 1959 round, which would likely include inert nose padding to solve the vertical plate issue. Since we know from the above documents, that the Vertical penetration ability of HEP/HESH drops off above about 1700ft/s, we can the firing tables for the M393 round to figure out at approximately what range said change would occur. Looking at the firing table for M393 below, we can see that below 1000m in range, vertical penetration would drop off. Velocity at 1000m is 524.4m/s or 1720.4ft/s. Which means at ranges such as 10m/100m/500m, the penetration ability vs vertical plate would be below the 90% success value of 127mm. But at any range above 1000m, the penetration would be 127mm+, easily up to 1.3 times the caliber of the shell or slightly higher. On the other side of things, we know that below about 304.8m/s or 1000ft/s, that the penetration at 60° from vertical drops off. This shell doesn't drop below that velocity, until about 3150m range. FT 105-A-0, Provisional Firing Tables, "Cannon, 105mm Gun, M68, On Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 105mm Gun, M60" This is of course, for circumstances and shells before the late 50's. In the late 50's, research and developments were done to add inert pads to the insides of the HEP/HESH shells. Which would eliminate the vertical plate drop off issues. AD305131 Effects of Size and Shape of inert Pads on HEP Shell Performance, Apr 1959 A study of the effects of adding inert pads to HEP shells to improve performance. It was concluded and recommended, that 1/2inch inert nose pads be added to all future HEP shell production to improve performance at close ranges vs vertical RHA plate. The inert pads would solve the failure issues that were occurring at velocities higher than 1700ft/s(518.16m/s). 4b. Suggested Solution for the penetration issue: There are a few ways this could be fixed. Option 1: Preferred, likely easiest to implement. Though not historically accurate for all shells Treat all HEP/HESH as padded, though separate Low velocity(Howitzer/Recoilless rifle) from High velocity (Long gun) as far as slope effects are concerned. Restore the original 1.0 slope modifier values for 60° obliquity, 30° in game for high velocity. Meaning 90mm HEP/HESH would penetrate 102mm at all angles up to 60/30°, 105mm would penetrate 127mm at all angles up to 60/30°, 120mm would be 152mm at all angles up to 60/30°, etc. Since these penetration values are the base 90% success rate values, add a +15-30% RNG factor, No Negative RNG. Percent could vary depending on shell caliber, if possible. If we had 76mm HEP/HESH, it would be up to 30% to match the 1.3 Calibers rule. For 90mm 22%, 102 x 1.22 = 124mm, just below the upper limit given for 90mm HEP. For 105mm 19%, 127 x 1.19 = 151mm, which is just below the upper limit for 105mm HEP/HESH. And then for 120mm 15%, 152.4 x 1.15 = 174.8mm, again just below the upper limit of 7in for 120mm HEP/HESH. In this case there should be a heavy bias towards the 1.3 x shell caliber rule.
  41. 17 points
    Greetings! I started playing War Thunder a couple months ago and I'm greatly enjoying it thus far. I'm a WWII historian with years of studies specializing in the history of the German military and while I have a few questions regarding the game, there is one topic I'd like to address here: The "E-series." I'm afraid you're in for a rather long read, but I hope you'll take the time to get through it. Now, before the community bashes me for this, I would like to say that, while I have played World of Tanks, I am fully aware of the historical inaccuracies of Wargaming's Entwicklungserie vehicles and the many "fake tanks" and false specs that have arisen from a very large community that takes interest in German developments (and those of other nations). I am not here to plead for Wargaming's impossible E 75, nor am I here to beg for the fake third-party website creations such as the "E 5," "Krokodil," and other nonsensical fantasies. I am here, rather, to discuss the strictly-historical aspects of two vehicles, the E 50 and E 75 and why I feel it would be a wise decision, provided more research is done, to replace existing vehicles with these two or to add them on their own. I may, at times, touch on hypothetical historical situations, but only to solidify and better explain the historical aspects of these tanks. Thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy the read. The Entwicklung series has always fascinated me. While its vehicles were never built, the design ideas still provided the modern world with quite a few ideas that are still implemented to this day. The historical aspect of "what-if" is also quite an amazing and mind-boggling part of what makes these designs stand out despite their obscurity. World of Tanks has helped to improve publicity for these projects, but in a rather poor way. Nowadays, most people believe the E series vehicles were nearly complete designs, practically identical to the tanks we see in Wargaming's franchise. The problem with implementing any Entwicklungserie vehicle is that people will, undoubtedly, pitch a fit about the E 75 lacking a 128mm gun or the E 50 being stuck with the "stock turret." However, there are also holes in War Thunder's German GF tree, which we shall explore first. The idea of replacing existing vehicles stems from the in-game "Tiger II (H) 10,5cm" and "Panther II." While these vehicles were certainly real concepts, their implementation has several problems. Firstly, the Tiger: While there was indeed a proposal to mount the 105mm L/68 gun in the Tiger Ausf. B, it was rejected primarily because of the lack of one-piece ammunition, the modifications needed to mount the weapon in the turret, and the fact that other developments were also being proposed to increase the effectiveness of the Tiger's already good enough 88mm gun. A version of the Tiger II with a 105mm gun would more likely have mounted a larger turret than what is presented in game. There also is not room for four people and a 105mm breech in that turret to allow for effective combat. That is the biggest problem with War Thunder's Tiger. Another issue we run into is the two-piece ammo, which is the reason for the second loader. As previously stated, the two-piece ammunition is likely the primary reason that the first proposal for the 105mm gun was rejected, but as far as I've been able to confirm, the team that made this proposal did indeed look into creating new one-piece ammo for the gun. In the end, the gun was never mounted, but if it were, it is virtually impossible that two-piece shells and a sixth crew member would've been present as well. Additionally, the turret probably would have been lengthened, with improved fume extraction for the larger weapon. Now for the Panther: Fortunately, there is more information available regarding this project. Long story short, it was borne of the need to improve the Panther's side and rear armor protection as even the lightest guns of the time could penetrate these plates. Armored protection was to increase to 60mm on the sides of the hull, with the upper front plate updated to 100mm. They planned to use an up-armored version of the Schmallturm designed for the Panther F, and there were proposals to mount the 88mm gun from the Tiger E or B in this turret, but concerns regarding the available space within the small turret for such a gun, as well as other factors, meant that the final decision was to retain the excellent 75mm gun of the Panther I. Speaking of the Tiger, a large number of Tiger I components were to be mounted in the new Panther. The engine was already shared between the Tiger and Panther, but plans were made to implement the Tiger's transmission, identical road wheels, the final drive, running gear, and other features to the Panther II, while the design for the Tiger II's simplified overlapping suspension was to be utilized. However, problems with the original panther needed to be sorted out, and work on development slowed. In June of '43, however, MAN started development of the E 100 to compete with Porsche's Maus, but we'll touch more on that later. In the end, one of the most important things to grasp from this is the standardization of part production between the Tiger II and Panther II, wherein production of a single type of transmission, road wheel, etc was intended. The other important thing to note is the idea of improving the Schmallturm's armor and mounting a Kwk36 or Kwk43 in it. Now for the vehicles in question. The Entwicklung E 50 and E 75 were, by very nature, quite similar in design. We don't have a lot of info regarding these concepts, but we do know that they existed and the basic ideas in their conception. The Panther II's final cancellation was in part due to the development of the E-series, developed by MAN, which got its roots in the development of the Panther II. Sharing the transmission, engine, and a dozen other components between the Panther and Tiger was, in a way, the spark behind the concept of "Entwicklung," translating to "development." This "development" was more of a development in regard to German production rather than the development of "new" or "improved" vehicles, but the need for simplified production facilitated the redesign of current vehicles, which, in turn, allowed for their improvement. Germany's involvement in WWII started before German industry was ready for a war (thanks to that one mustached buffoon). Tank production, in particular, was horrendously complicated. There was poor communication between manufacturing firms, and putting a tank together often took multiple trips across the autobahn to get the various parts where they were needed. The Entwicklung project was intended to standardize production between these firms so that a lack of coordination wasn't a problem. For example, every single vehicle in the Entwicklung series was to utilize an identical wheel. This would make production faster, cheaper, and more consistent, and would allow easier repairs in the field. Does this concept involving road wheels sound familiar? It ought to ring a bell as it's been mentioned that utilizing road wheels (among other parts) identical to those of the Koenigstiger was a central idea in the development of the Panther II. In hand with the simplification of production for Entwicklungserie vehicles was the simplification of the tanks themselves. Both concepts influenced the other and allowed for greater advancements in the designs of German armor. For example, the conical spring suspension system, developed as a simplification of the interleaved system and overlapping torsion bar system, also offered better performance, which would make heavier designs more feasible. The Tiger B, for example, was capable of high speeds of around 42kmh, but even with a more powerful engine, and final drive, its speed would need to have been kept under 50kmh else the suspension risked failure. Other aspects of design, such as reduced amounts of machining and casting, made faster production possible, cutting out unnecessary features and finesse to allow emphasize function for the designs. This was true for all vehicles of the project, but we'll focus on the designs of two for now: The E 50 and E 75. First off, we'll examine the myths of these two vehicles, and why this is important. I won't discuss other vehicles (real or fake) such as the "StuG E 50" or any "Flakpanzer E 75" stuff. This is about the medium and heavy tanks, and not their counterparts. E 50: The E 50 as presented in WoT is actually not too far-fetched in design. While the "upgraded" turret and most of its various weapon options are indeed nonsense, the armor layout is close. Sadly, in my years of research, I have found no source that confirms specific armor specifications for either the E 50 or E 75. There is also no true indication of whether the armor sloping was to be increased to 60-degrees from the vertical, as opposed to 50 for the King Tiger. The E 50's design stems directly from the Panther II, and was virtually a continuation of the project. In all honesty, the Panther II's prototype is extremely close to what the E 50 would have been, save for altered suspension and powerplant. The biggest question, however, is that of the armor. Would the Panther II's armor schematic be retained? Or would the armor of the Tiger II be used? While the Panther II was heavily influenced by the Tiger and design for the Tiger B, the direct development of the E 50 from the Panther II's design suggests that the armor layout of the Panther II's hull and turret were to be used for the E 50. The turret would likely have needed lengthening to accommodate the 88mm Kwk43, but this weapon is stated as the intended armament for the E 50. One may notice from WoT that, in the E 50 and E 75, the Radio-operator's machine gun is absent, but it is unlikely that this weapon would have been removed, even with the simplification of the designs. The problem is, we don't really know. Other than that, we have our E 50 pretty solid. E 75: Oh my. Where do I begin. Let's start by saying that the gun, turret, and armor of World of Tank's E 75 are incorrect because 1) they are impossible, 2) they were never proposed, 3) they don't exist, 4) physics says "no," or other reasons I won't get into. I could go into a deep explanation of why these things are nonsensical, but I'll just focus on what the E 75 was designed as, which, in turn, will explain the problems with the World of Tanks myth of the E 75. The E 75 is a bit more of a mystery than its lighter counterpart. We know that it was proposed as a replacement for the King Tiger, that it had improved armor from the E 50, had an additional set of road wheels for improved ground-track contact, but was otherwise very similar to the E 50. One large question surrounding the E 75 is that of the turret and armament. According to some sources, the E 75 was to mount a 105mm gun in an enlarged version of the Tiger II's turret. Other sources indicate the use of same turret and gun as the E 50... You may be wondering why this is. So am I. The design makes no sense. There is no point in producing a separate hull and chassis with improved armor and mounting the same weapon on it. German tank doctrine defines tanks as "heavy" or "medium" and so on based on its gun, not its armor, so there are three options regarding the E 75. The first option goes in line with the use of the Schmallturm and 88mm gun for the E 75. The 88 was more than adequate at the time, so perhaps the intent was to mount the 75mm gun chosen for the Panther II in the E 50 with the 88 reserved for the Tiger II's replacement. This seems logical at first glance, but quickly loses its grip when one considers the intent to upgrade the Tiger II to a 105mm gun once one-piece ammunition and other improvements were made. The 75mm gun of the panther was superb in 1943, but struggled against later models of the IS-2 and, by mid-1945, would have needed a replacement to effectively fight heavier armor designed to withstand its shells such as the IS-3 and M-26. Therefore, the use of the 75mm gun in the E 50 makes no sense, so the use of the 88 in the schmallturm for the E 75 makes no sense. The proposal for the E 50 featured the 88mm anyway, so this isn't really an option in the first place, but it is the only feasible scenario that would suggest the use of the same turret with an 88mm gun for the E 75. Our next option lies in the use of the 88mm gun in the Tiger II's turret. With this, there is more logic, but it still falls a bit short. The idea behind this suggestion lies in the fact that the army had rejected the 105mm gun proposal for the Tiger II for reasons stated earlier. The improvements intended for the Tiger II are what separate this tank from the E 50, even though they both mount the same gun. With an improved ammunition feeding system, enhanced ventilation and climate control, and other new features, the E 75, mounting this turret, would still have a weaponry advantage over the E 50, as the Schmallturm was not large enough to facilitate the installation of these enhancements. The production of such a vehicle depends on one thing: the acceptance of the 105mm gun. Based on the time frame presented in history, this model would likely have been developed as the first prototype of the E 75, as the 105mm gun would have been introduced later on as the problems with its implementation were solved. In the end, though, only one option logically answers the question of the E 75's armament. Mounting a 105mm gun in an enlarged Tiger II turret is really the only choice that makes sense. By the time the Entwicklungserie vehicles would have been finalized and entered production (probably late 1946 or early 1947), the 105mm gun would have been accepted with one-piece ammo and other improvements (likely mid-late 1945). (Note: I include these estimates not to explore alternate timelines, but to base this information on what had already occurred during the development of these vehicles and their weapons. I am not making stuff up, but rather, I am giving background ideas to allow for easier conceptualization of actual historical events and developments. Just hang with me for a little longer!) Because of this, it is unreasonable to suggest an alternate armament for the E 75. The 105mm gun is indicated as one of only two proposals for the vehicle's armament, and considering the illogical background of mounting an 88mm gun, it is improbable that any other weapon would be mounted in the production model of the E 75. Now for the armor... Oh my. To keep this not-so-long, I'll put it this way. If the armor of the E 50 was going to be the same (or similar) to the Panther II, the E 75 would have identical (or nearly identical) armor to the Tiger II. The only problem is, I've read some sources indicating a suggested thickness for the upper front glacis plate on the E 75. Some sources have indicated the same thickness presented in World of Tanks, 160mm, but others have indicated a plate 180mm thick. Here is where that gets fishy. The Tiger II's upper glacis plate was 150mm thick, sloped at 50 degrees from the vertical, giving an effectiveness of 233mm. However, some sources indicate that the frontal hull armor plating on the E 50 and E 75 was to be sloped at 60-degrees from the vertical, just like the E 100. I will do more research regarding the sloping another time, but if we use the suggested thickness in reference to the same structural layout of the Tiger, a 160mm plate sloped at 50 degrees gives 249mm of effectiveness, and a 180mm plate gives 280. This actually makes sense when considering the development of heavier weapons on the side of the Allies, and the Tiger's armor would have proved itself obsolete within a few years. I have found no source to indicate that the armor of the E 50 and E 75 were to have increased sloping angles either, so 50 degrees it is. But wait! We don't have proof that the E 75 was to receive improved armor when it was proposed. At the time of its proposal, the Tiger II was incredibly well armored. We could go into the idea that armor would have been improved by the time it entered production, but that is hypothetical, so we won't go into that. However, recall that some sources indicate 160 or even 180mm thick plates. This is fine and dandy, but there aren't any sources I've been able to find that suggest armor improvements of the turret face, known by the Allies to be less-armored than the hull front. While the emphasis on the design of the Tiger II turret and Schmallturm was the use of a strong gun mantlet and narrow turret face, improving the Tiger II's frontal hull armor to up to 280mm of effectiveness makes no sense when the rest of the armor is to remain as is on the Tiger. To sum this up, the E 75 would have the same armor as the Tiger II, at least as far as history can tell us. Anything beyond that is hypothetical, so we can't discuss that. With respect to the E 50, we can easily assume that it retains the Panther II's armor thickness because it was virtually a simplified version of the Panther II design. This combination gives the E 75 improved armor over the E 50, but without making numbers up (unlike WoT). One problem left: Weight. From the outset, the E 50 is intended to weigh between 50 and 75 tons. The E 75 to weigh between 75 and 100 tons. The Panther II prototype, as it stood, weighed in at about 47 tons. If we consider the simplified running gear and other features meant for the E 50, it is still unlikely that the E 50 would have weighed over 50 tons. The same goes for the E 75 in that a Tiger II weighed around 70 tons. The added weight of the 105mm gun would be partially offset by the simplified construction. In particular, both tanks are made lighter by the use of conical spring suspension, which removes the long, heavy steel rods that ran across the bottom of the hull. So what now? The Germans had a tendency (basically with every single tank design) to underestimate the weight of their vehicles. Where did the Tiger II pick up an extra 5 tons? Well we don't know. They never built the E 75. However, take into account the intention to improve fuel capacity. Add in the heavier Maybach HL234, the 105mm shells (including an upgrade to increase stowage), the infrared rangefinders*, and other little improvements, and we might squeak out around 75 tons. But hey, the weight classes were done so to stay in line with the E 100, which ended up being much more than 100 tons. However, given the origins and armor layouts etc of the E 50 and E 75, these vehicles would have been lighter, and that the weight classifications were made as "50-75" and "75-100" because there was the chance that weight would be underestimated as was with the E 100, which was developed as competition to the Maus, which also came out heavier than it was supposed to be. These weight classifications may also have been specified to make the Allies believe that, indeed, these E 75 tanks had heavy enough armor to weigh between 75 and 100 tons, yet were still capable of outrunning Allied tanks, leading to a wild goose chase of development. Speaking of speed, it is stated that the proposals for the E 50 and E 75 were to reach 60 and 40kmh, respectively, and, with the use of the Maybach HL234 (and perhaps other engines later on), improved final drives, and other improvements under development at the end of the war, this is completely reasonable. So what are we left with? Well, you may be sitting there thinking "yeah, cool story, but they still never built either tank. All they had from the E series was the E 100, and that's all that should ever be in War Thunder because it's the only one that physically existed." Here's the thing. Are they any "less-real" than the Tiger II 105 and Panther II in the game currently? The Panther II's only prototype was a completed hull, and the turret still had not been finished. The Panther II project team had also decided not to use the 88mm gun, not to mention the difficulty in mounting it. With respect to the Tiger II 105 in-game, it never existed as it is presented, and never would have existed in that way. The two-piece ammunition was grounds for the refusal of the 105mm gun until further developments could be made, and there really wasn't room for a second loader to operate effectively when you consider the reduction of internal space caused by the installation of any 105mm gun. To reiterate, neither tanks existed as they do in-game. Even the Tiger II Sla.16 is oddly represented. The only test I've been able to find for the Sla.16 engine has been with a Jagdtiger, and extensive modification to the Tiger hull was needed to accommodate the engine, therefore preventing it from being tested further that late in the war. Other engines make more sense, such as the DB 507 development, but we still have such tanks to enjoy in the game, which I'm fine with. My argument is not to bash the Tiger 105 and Panther II of War Thunder, but there are gaps filled for these vehicles due to the fact that they were never completed in history. Gaijin needed to make slight changes to make them feasible additions to the game. The Tiger II 105 and Panther II are not "fake tanks," but neither are the E 50 and E 75, and there are fewer questions surrounding the historical designs for these tanks. It would be wise to, perhaps, implement these tanks as improvements over the Tiger and Panther, or as replacements. My suggestion would be to exchange the Panther II's armament for the historical 75mm gun, retain its armor, and reduce its BR. For the Tiger, I think it can be left as-is, but with the reduction of the loader. The E 75's "enlarged" tiger II turret, based on what I've been able to dig up, was the same size as the Tiger's. The only indication of change I've seen has been a slight lengthening of the turret rear, but there is no concrete evidence to suggest an "enlarged" turret. The E 75 in-game would feature similar characteristics of the Tiger 105, but would have slight cosmetic changes, and, most importantly, a faster-firing gun with one-piece ammunition. The armor would be identical to the Tiger II, as would the crew. I would suggest implementing these vehicles in the same manner as vehicles such as the Pz.Kpfw IV J or the Bf 109 F, in that they are optional vehicles in the research tree. To sum that up: The Tiger II 105 loses the sixth crew member, slightly lowering its BR due to decreased survivability, and the Panther II loses the 88mm gun, essentially making it an up-armored Panther F, which is exactly what it was designed to be. The E 75 also lacks a sixth crew member, but has one piece ammunition and a correspondingly higher fire rate and BR, and the E 50 mounts the 88mm gun for a similar BR increase. If you've made it here, thank you for taking the time to read this! I apologize for the occasional rambling, but if you have any questions, I encourage you to ask! Thank you for your time
  42. 17 points
    Then we should remove Cent mk.3,Caern and FV from BRs where those tanks meet 1942 German tanks or just remove all post-war shells from those tanks when they meet WWII tanks. Then we can talk about removing HEAT and APCR from those tanks.
  43. 17 points
    APDS vs. side if the T-54: yeah, Gaijin is able to fix the APDS, but why? Who will then play russians? Hey, Ivan, and what about the ammo blow up?
  44. 16 points
    The problem is not only the penetration (L7), but also postpenetration efect - the APDS doesn't make enough damage. T-54 is still OK after 2 hits by 120mm APDS, T-44/100 needed to by killed by 3 hits of the 120mm APDS etc. The APCBC postpen efect is excellent, while more powerfull APDS makes half of fragments... Edit: By the way - interesting, the Gaijin will make audit of the ammo. Great. But why now? Why not 1/2 year ago? For Gaijin is normal that the gun (L7) and ammo (APDS) created to defeat T-54 front is not able in the WT penetrate upper front plate of the T-54 at 20m? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark War Thunder...
  45. 16 points
    Since the last patch, there were a few but significant changes to tank SB. First of all, since the "Spawn Points test", the permanent Rank V-VI tank sim is gone, which is a real shame. Second, the hit tags from RB are in sim, third, we have now allied locations on the map and last, the spawn points system is here. Why were these changes made? I do get the point of the spawn points system, which is allowing us to spawn more times and keep playing longer (which I dont thoroughly enjoy, tough. I really enjoyed the previous, punishing system), but why the allied locations? Why is the perma Rank V-VI gone? And the most important, why do we have the hit tags on sim (it really makes no sense)?! Tank sim is not supposed to give these visual aids. Right now it feels like playing RB with the only difference being you are limited to the "commander's view"
  46. 16 points
    Now it is just a waiting game, but I bet right now they're just waiting for this to die down. Then close this thread down. And pretend it never happened. I just hope all the information on here is saved, its just I have a feeling it won't be. And the long time players will suffer. Unless they play Russians.
  47. 16 points
    If you wanted a CBT that was largely not what people wanted from Naval Forces, then it most defiantly could have been done in the original time frame we provided. Game development is however anything but so simple, as player feedback showed us we had a lot to change, thus time had to be spend actioning that feedback.
  48. 16 points
    Found some more interesting stuff. "bullet": { "bulletCount": 40, "mass": 5.84, "caliber": 0.105, "damageCaliber": 0.044, "ballisticCaliber": 0.08, "speed": 1478.0, "maxDistance": 10000.0, "bulletType": "apds_tank", "bulletName": "105mm_l28a1" This indicates that the L28A1 has a caliber of 105 mm, an in-flight caliber (ballisticCaliber, affects drag and vertical drop) of 80 mm, and its penetrator (damageCaliber, affects post-penetration damage and spalling) has a caliber of 44 mm. Let's use this picture for example. The Shot L28 has a penetrator diameter of 44 mm, but the flying-part-after-the-sabots-were-discarded is only 66 mm in diameter according to numerous scaled diagrams for this shot. Not 80 mm as previously stated in the code. Using the inferred shell drop formula which involves initial velocity, gravity, and the diameter of the shell in-flight, the L28 APDS should have less drop than what it has in game right now. Also, having less vertical drop can also reduce the effect of the aforementioned "maxDeltaAngleVertical" of 0.08 degrees, resulting in a decrease of vertical spread.
  49. 16 points
    Thats interesting, the 105mm L52A2/M728 APDS only had a dispersion of 0.26horizontal, and 0.27vertical mils at 2000m according to references I've seen.. 120mm L11 was slightly better at 0.24 and 0.27mils
  50. 16 points
    No, not all, chieftain before it had APFSDS was renowned for it's amazing accuracy. WW2 APDS sure... maybe even some other later APDS but chieftain definitely not.