Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 15/01/19 in all areas

  1. 26 points
    Sorry @Smin1080p but I cannot read this article with a straight face. You admit that you based the flight model on Pilot Notes, not technical specifications of the vehicle. Can you please tell me that this is just a joke? It's like you'd implement a Toyota Prius into GTA and you then would not let the player floor it because manual doesn't recommend that. Well there's a police car chasing me and I need all the juice machine has.
  2. 15 points
    The paragraph in the Performance Manual is clearly stating that the values presented were purposefully modified to conform to those shown in the Pilot Notes, rather than those that the airframe could truly reach. Of course, thanks to Britain's obvious bias towards very conservative figures when creating limitations for their aircraft, they do not want pilots reading the Performance Manual and taking the airframe closer to its actual operational limits. That is why the pilot notes should override the performance manual; the numbers in the Pilot Notes are what they want the pilot to keep below in normal operating conditions, not what the airframe is forced to stay under. I would've thought the fact they said to refer to "the limitations and restrictions" found in the Pilot Notes would have made this clear enough.
  3. 15 points
    So tell me, then, how a plane with almost 2x more thrust than f-100 and similar weight to it accelerates slower?
  4. 14 points
    Unless this has been ninja updated (again) it didn't conform to the nomograph, when I last thoroughly looked at it. As its turning circle (at sensible speeds) was out right insanely larger than it should be. So hopefully it's correct now. I honestly don't understand the point in the Javelin in this game. If it's going to be restricted like this, despite many other accounts and data saying other wise. Either way. The plane is a lost cause, since pressure corrections showing it can go faster along with pilot accounts and so on. It yields no point of being in this game. It cannot out run anything. It cannot out maneuver anything. The climb rate (which still underperforms at altitude) means nothing when someone can go fast in a straight line will nose up and catch you. It has no energy retention and it's such a large target with no physical strength it's pointless. Honestly, this feels like Gaijin either didn't think about this choice, or care about its choice of which plane, when there were far more suitable planes right in front of them. It baffles me. Sorry Smin, but Gaijin chose poorly here.
  5. 13 points
    In update 1.85 “Supersonic”, we introduced the Gloster Javelin as the first British Rank VI aircraft to enter the skies of War Thunder. Since its introduction, this aircraft has become quite the hot topic of discussion among the community and we wanted to share with you a little more about the history of the aircraft, our research and some insight into our further investigations on the RAF's first Delta-winged all weather fighter. Firstly, we would like to point out that our information on the performance of the Javelin F.A.W Mk 9, comes from the RAF Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 Pilots Notes, prepared under the direction the Minister of Aviation and issued to Pilots of the Javelin in 1960. As these notes come from official RAF sources and British government departments, we take them as the most accurate and reliable source on the Javelin. We also recently took several research trips to assist with our investigations to IWM Duxford, who house one of the only remaining Javelin F.A.W Mk 9s and the Newark Air Museum who have a F.A.W Mk 8 in their care. Javelin F.A.W Mk 8 at the Newark Air Museum History: The Gloster Javelin itself was born from specfiaction F.4/48 as an all weather and night interceptor in direct competition to the De Havilland DH.110, that would develop into the Fleet Air Arm’s De Havilland Sea Vixen. Ultimately the RAF chose the Javelin to fulfil the need of an aircraft that could intercept bombers around the clock. It's important to understand that the Javelin was not intended as a standard fighter like the Hunter, F-100 or MiG-19. The RAF had Hunters at their disposal to fulfil its needs for an offensive fighter, whilst the Javelin would purely be the shield, very much on the defensive. Thus, the Javelin simply cannot be compared to many other aircraft in game as its operational requirements and use was vastly different. The Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 was not actually the last production Mark of Javelin to leave the Gloster Aircraft Co’s production lines, that was actually the F.A.W Mk 8. The Mk 9 was rather a conversion modification handled by Gloster of the older F.A.W Mk 7 airframe to incorporate many of the upgrades found on the Mk 8. Since the Mk 8 came out quite swiftly after the Mk 7, many Mk 7 airframes simply went into storage before even seeing service, so the Mk 9 would make use of those by bringing the Mk 8s improvements to the older airframes. An even later Mk 9 model exists in the F.A.W Mk 9R which included large in-flight refueling probes distinguishing it from the standard Mk 9 like we have in game. Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 (A&AEE) at IWM Duxford Powerplant: With regards to the engines of the Javelin, it's important to note many different sources use different names when addressing the type of engines the Javelin had, which has caused quite a bit of confusion. Our Javelin had the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 7 series engine, which is also referred to as the “200” series. Thus, all Marks within the 200 series fall under the Sa.7 engine category. Initially, the Mk 9 Javelins were fitted with the Mk 205/206 engines, however this was later supplemented with Mk 209/210. There was no difference in thrust performance between these two series of engines as the pilots notes clearly states, any combination of Mk 205/206 + Mk 209/210 engine could be used as they are all part of the Sa.7 series. The pilot's manual states that the engines develop 10,500lb of static thrust (without reheat) at sea level, which is reflected in game with a fully upgraded Javelin. Powerplant information from the Javelin F.A.W Mk 9’s Pilots notes. Initially, our Javelin showed the Mk 205/206 combination in X-ray mode, however we have since changed this to reflect a Mk 209/210 combination. Structural Limitations - V and G Limits: All of the aircraft in game use Pilots notes to get the correct Velocity - Never Exceed (Vne) limits with a safe coefficient of 1.05. The Javelin’s Vne is 535 Knots which are the red values in the HUD.The actual Vne limit which the airframe breaks at is 1.05 x Vne. Similarly the G limitations are also clearly defined in the Javelins Manual. It's also worth noting the sheer size of the Javelin. The RAF defeated many operational restrictions and limitations on the Javelin that other aircraft like the Hunter and Sea Vixen did not have. Whilst the Javelin can definitely compete with aircraft like the Hunter or F-86, its by no means their superior. Maximum Speed and G Limitations from the pilots notes As always, we aim to share all of our findings with you as we have here. We will continue to conduct further investigations into bugs reports and always encourage further reports should more information arise. It's also important to understand, that whilst the Javelin is the first British Rank VI aircraft, it is by no means their last. Currently we are aware of some reports that are under investigation Whilst at IWM Duxford, we also managed to speak with a member of the “Old Dux” association, a group of EX RAF pilots and personnel who worked at RAF Duxford during its operational years, including those of No. 64 Squadron, who operated Gloster Javelins from Duxford. We would like to thank John Porter for his assistance and references. Discuss it here!
  6. 12 points
    and how can a plane with wing loading of spitfire lf mk ix turns worse than a b-57?
  7. 12 points
    Did you get a chance to look into firestreaks whilst there? Because they are listed at 800m/s on the statcard in game but should travel at 1026m/s. And they are a proximity fuze and impact fuze missile yet in game seem to only work as impact.
  8. 11 points
    Could have gone for anything in the 1950's period for a British tier 6. Such as a later model Hawker Hunter, a Folland Gnat, a Supermarine Scimitar, etc. Even had a choice for a bomber in the form of the Blackburn Buccaneer S.2. But the Javelin is the one that was chosen? Why?
  9. 10 points
    I've been chipping away at a carden-lloyd tankette derivative of Polish design for a while now. I'm not really sure how or if it might fit into the existing nations (perhaps as a british premium, or a pzkpfw TKS(p)) but I'm putting it out all the same. Textures are somewhere around 60% complete. Tracks Modules
  10. 10 points
    I think I'm actually going to bother posting here for once now - as far as I'm seeing, most of you do not understand how long rods gain penetrating capability against sloped armor, thusly making the Challenger's sloping a NEGATIVE effect when coming up against monobloc long rod shells. The Challenger's turret armor in game is accurately modeled, it performs with over 500mm effectiveness against Soviet 3BM22, while it LOSES those values against the German DM23, due to its monobloc construction. The hull of the Challenger was never spaced armor, all marks of the Challenger 1 used the SAME 275mm RHAe composite hull armor array. The 1981 document proposing upgrades to the Challenger 1 using the term "Challenger II", (the Roman numeral II would normally refer to the Mk.2 of the Challenger 1, NOT the 1998 Challenger 2, but in this case it does). This proposal was never assumed for the Challenger 1. This is evidenced by the same documents' use of the term "Challenger 3" (this refers to the Challenger Mk.3 and NOT a "Challenger 3" which obviously does not exist). The Challenger 2 has roughly an 800mm-900mm LOS thickness, this is the amount of material composing the armor, but does NOT equate to 900mm effectiveness. The MoD records the Challenger 2's armor to be effective against its own type Kinetic shells (Monobloc long rod APFSDS rounds) at 15% less capable than the M1A2, which we know to be 600mm KE effective. ("M1A1 Block 2" = M1A2) The reason for this is the sloping of the armor, it's not going to match up to the LESS sloped M1A2 Abrams. Against an old fashioned slug, the effectiveness WOULD be up to 600-620mm, as recorded by the Swedish trials. This can be corroborated in many different ways - by taking the effectiveness of the array per area and using the LOS thickness of the material, the weight of the tank given the weight of the components, it's also been released by several sources, the authenticity of which HAS been confirmed. The main issue I'm seeing is that people are misquoting sources out of context - don't fall into this trap. Now, as for the effectiveness of armor - composite armor was designed for the purpose of defeating shaped charge chemical shells, such as HEAT/HEATFS, it is not designed to defeat APFSDS shells. Actually, these shells were specifically designed to defeat the composite armor! The progression is simple to see - since WWII, steel armor gets thicker, AP shells get stronger... Steel armor gets too thick to counter effectively, so shaped charge shells are developed... to counter this, armor turned from thick steel to composite materials... to counter this, APFSDS penetrators were developed. The armor of the Challenger has its maximum effectivenesses, and these are quite easy to find. It is not possible for the Challengers to exceed a certain amount of armor, and the values being given by people here are FAR in excess of these numbers. The shells' penetrations are defined by the Lanz-Odermatt equation, found here: http://www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php Using this, you need to know muzzle velocity, shell weight, frustum length, material... These values are also relatively easy to find. Lastly, the ridiculousness of some of these complaints is beyond me. Number one, people complaining about Russian bias at top tier, when Russia ranks among the LOWEST performing nations, number two, the fact that Longsheep seems to think that because the Leopard 2A5's arrowhead is hollow, it counts for nothing, when that actually INCREASES its effectiveness, number three, the fact that people seem to be throwing around LOS and effective thicknesses interchangeably. WORK OUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BEFORE YOU SAY IT! Number four, people still claiming that the Challenger 1 armor model in game is inaccurate, and needs fixing................ No. It's accurate. I doubt I'll be bothering to reply to this, as I've seen the hate boners some of you people seem to have for anybody talking about the REALISTICALLY poor performance of these tanks.
  11. 9 points
    I honestly would not jump to the conclusion that the Challenger 2 in that document is the Challenger 2 currently in service with the British Army. That would predate the Challenger 2 by 18 years going from the in service date. And furthermore predate the start of the development alone - not to mention the decision to go for Challenger 2 - by 5-6 years. Also, Challenger 2 would have received an all new transmission, the TN54 (which made it actually faster than CR1) and not just a modified one. And I am bringing this up because what has become Challenger 2 was originally named Challenger 2 Mk. 2 and a proposal by Vickers in 1986 which still had to undergo severe development until it was deemed sufficiently suited for an MBT for the British army (That's coming from the same book the 15% figure comes from). Why the Challenger 2 would suddenly be the actual Challenger 2 and the Challenger 3 would suddenly be the Mk.3 again is sounding odd to me. Why would the Challenger 2 come in 1986 and the Challenger 1 Mk.3 in 1989 as the document states? And where's the Mk.2? Also - and I figure this to be very important - we all should remember that the document specifies a minimum. All of us have been going down the Gaijin path and assuming 500mm on the turret was the maximum, when in reality this is the rated protection for the weakest zones. The other parts can be noticably stronger. We should not forget that.
  12. 9 points
    I don't understand... if that's what the Javelin was for, why did you add it? there aren't any bombers for it to shoot down at this tier, there's nothing for it to "defend", so why not just add one of the other examples you gave? a later variant of the Hunter for instance would have made more sense surely?
  13. 9 points
    Not likely, that would make Russian worse, and Gaijin is not doing that very often. Maybe if whole penetration system would be build from scratch, with use of historical sources. Other that this, I can't see that happening.
  14. 9 points
    It's definitely not the last. However it will be quite a while until there is something most likely to replace the Javelin coming to War Thunder. Which is why I there were better choices to be made. It didn't have to be the best, but blimey it didn't have to be one of the poor choices that could be made. However the Scimitar for example, easy to get walkarounds of one, drawings and photos (unsure on 3d images) as well as cockpit among other details. Hunter F.6 or FGA.9 would probably have been even easier for Gaijin actually. It just strikes me overall, the choice of the Javelin was not thought through. Then again it does not have access to its highly advanced Radar for the time currently in game (can't even be used as spaced armour for incoming gun fire in game )
  15. 8 points
    That video is riddled with inaccuracies...
  16. 8 points
    To do so would be admitting that for all that time where was an implicit Russian bias, an idea which everyone working for the game has tried desperately to keep suppressed.
  17. 7 points
    As for why i wonder this. Atm we have early panthers in br 5.7, tanks that were designed after tiger 1s became obsolete during ww2. And we have tanks designed to counter the tiger 1 in the same BR, like T-34-85, M4A3E2, Is-2 and centurions. Tiger 1 and Tiger 1 P would sit very nicely in 5.0, then they would be in the same br as the kv-85, Chi-ri II for example. But still be in a br position where they would face guns that still can deal with them rather easily. I own both tanks atm, and i have stopped playing them because its quite rare to have fun in these tanks. And the general german loose streaks are as they are inn this br... Tiger 1 has waffle armour that could be functional against some lower br guns if we angle the armour manually. The only thing that i can see about the tiger 1, is the gun. but thats it. I have come to understand that if the gun is the sole argument as to why a tank is at the br its currently is in, then its not a peticuarly well advocated reason. If anyone is wondering about the Tiger 1 P. Tiger 1 P is a Tiger 1 that have traded everything for 100mm extra upper frontal hull armour, and thats it. Its much slower, have 6.4 degrees of turret traverse speed, much more combersome to turn and has a bigger siluette and has no roof mounted mg.
  18. 7 points
    Successful candidates are: dotMOGUY vivnet yourdonefor _Dawger_ scavenjer Thank you to everyone who applied. Please do not feel disheartened if you did not get accepted this time. We keep note of all applications for future recruitments.
  19. 7 points
    It seems that you've used the PIlot's Notes manual for the Javelin Mk 1. There's your big mistake http://fliphtml5.com/dqyy/piti/basic Go to page 89 - 90, it lists the IAS wing limit speed for the Javelin Mk 1 and it seems to correspond with what we have in the game, but what we have is the Mk 9. You can find the Pilot's Notes manual for the Mk 9 here but you have to pay for it https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/gloster-javelin/
  20. 7 points
    Not going to repeat in full details, but the document claimed 275mm RHAe minimum protection on the upper hull. Which probably refers to the thinner area over the edge as someone has pointed out earlier in this post. There are currently quite a few photos suggesting that the UFP composite armor in game is modeled too thin/shallow. For comparison, the Swedish test mentioned the minimum value for Leopard 2 (B-tech) UFP is about 300mm RHAe for KE (60% of frontal area, assuming 40% is the LFP and turret ring). M1A2 domestic (with DU armor) has 15% more KE protection than Challenger 2. Swedish trial estimated the M1A2 export (no DU armor) has ~600mm RHAe against KE. =/= your claim that CR2 has 600mm x 0.85 = 510mm RHAe against KE. Some argue the Swedish M1A2 has DU, but it is unlikely as: It has never been exported and Sweden is against using DU in armor and ammo. The trial mentioned a "add-on" available for M1A2, which is most likely DU. Protection value for M1A2 with DU is secret but 800mm is a common value. So Challenger 2 still has over 600mm KE protection. More words to put in my mouth huh? And no, we are not making the basic mistake of mixing up LOS and RHAe. Learned that in 1998 from a book at school library. Thank you. Let's talk about the CR1 "accurate" armor model: The UFP is entirely from Shir 2. The CR1 has thicker composite armor in the area. Photos inside driver position confirm the WT model is having too much space for driver, result of too thin UFP armor. Hull fuel tanks are stored outside main hull armor. In case it lights up, it will cause no harm to crew and component inside. In game it burns down whole tank in 30 seconds max. Armored ammo rack is only 10-15mm in game, when it is 10-25mm in real life, and the only 10mm part is its lid. The Mk.3 side skirt is ERA in-game but actually NERA/composite in real life. Gaijin has even admitted this but won't correct it yet until they find out its protection value. UFP armor does not extend enough towards LFP. Hull plate weld line has been used as proof for this. About the Leo 2 wedge: It is hollow. No it doesn't count for nothing. Even air provides protection in a spaced armor design. Air provides significantly less protection than any other type of armor. No it does not increase the KE protection to 1200mm like some fans suggest. I have seen estimation between 700-900mm. I think most of us (aside from the few oblivious to British tank development history) agree that the 1980-81 document is referring to variants of the Challenger 1. The Challenger 2 development did not start until several years later and the naming was not decided until even later. I don't think the estimation is unreasonable for the M60A1, at some spot it is very highly rated by the Soviets. http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm M60 generally stands for M60A1. The vast majority of them are A1, built over the time span of nearly 20 years. The round-turret M60 was only produced for 2 years.
  21. 6 points
    In update 1.85 “Supersonic”, we introduced the Gloster Javelin as the first British Rank VI aircraft to enter the skies of War Thunder. Since its introduction, this aircraft has become quite the hot topic of discussion among the community and we wanted to share with you a little more about the history of the aircraft, our research and some insight into our further investigations on the RAF's first Delta-winged all weather fighter. Firstly, we would like to point out that our information on the performance of the Javelin F.A.W Mk 9, comes from the RAF Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 Pilots Notes, prepared under the direction the Minister of Aviation and issued to Pilots of the Javelin in 1960. As these notes come from official RAF sources and British government departments, we take them as the most accurate and reliable source on the Javelin. We also recently took several research trips to assist with our investigations to IWM Duxford, who house one of the only remaining Javelin F.A.W Mk 9s and the Newark Air Museum who have a F.A.W Mk 8 in their care. Javelin F.A.W Mk 8 at the Newark Air Museum History: The Gloster Javelin itself was born from specfiaction F.4/48 as an all weather and night interceptor in direct competition to the De Havilland DH.110, that would develop into the Fleet Air Arm’s De Havilland Sea Vixen. Ultimately the RAF chose the Javelin to fulfil the need of an aircraft that could intercept bombers around the clock. It's important to understand that the Javelin was not intended as a standard fighter like the Hunter, F-100 or MiG-19. The RAF had Hunters at their disposal to fulfil its needs for an offensive fighter, whilst the Javelin would purely be the shield, very much on the defensive. Thus, the Javelin simply cannot be compared to many other aircraft in game as its operational requirements and use was vastly different. The Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 was not actually the last production Mark of Javelin to leave the Gloster Aircraft Co’s production lines, that was actually the F.A.W Mk 8. The Mk 9 was rather a conversion modification handled by Gloster of the older F.A.W Mk 7 airframe to incorporate many of the upgrades found on the Mk 8. Since the Mk 8 came out quite swiftly after the Mk 7, many Mk 7 airframes simply went into storage before even seeing service, so the Mk 9 would make use of those by bringing the Mk 8s improvements to the older airframes. An even later Mk 9 model exists in the F.A.W Mk 9R which included large in-flight refueling probes distinguishing it from the standard Mk 9 like we have in game. Javelin F.A.W Mk 9 (A&AEE) at IWM Duxford Powerplant: With regards to the engines of the Javelin, it's important to note many different sources use different names when addressing the type of engines the Javelin had, which has caused quite a bit of confusion. Our Javelin had the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 7 series engine, which is also referred to as the “200” series. Thus, all Marks within the 200 series fall under the Sa.7 engine category. Initially, the Mk 9 Javelins were fitted with the Mk 205/206 engines, however this was later supplemented with Mk 209/210. There was no difference in thrust performance between these two series of engines as the pilots notes clearly states, any combination of Mk 205/206 + Mk 209/210 engine could be used as they are all part of the Sa.7 series. The pilot's manual states that the engines develop 10,500lb of static thrust (without reheat) at sea level, which is reflected in game with a fully upgraded Javelin. Powerplant information from the Javelin F.A.W Mk 9’s Pilots notes. Initially, our Javelin showed the Mk 205/206 combination in X-ray mode, however we have since changed this to reflect a Mk 209/210 combination. Structural Limitations - V and G Limits: All of the aircraft in game use Pilots notes to get the correct Velocity - Never Exceed (Vne) limits with a safe coefficient of 1.05. The Javelin’s Vne is 535 Knots which are the red values in the HUD.The actual Vne limit which the airframe breaks at is 1.05 x Vne. Similarly the G limitations are also clearly defined in the Javelins Manual. It's also worth noting the sheer size of the Javelin. The RAF defeated many operational restrictions and limitations on the Javelin that other aircraft like the Hunter and Sea Vixen did not have. Whilst the Javelin can definitely compete with aircraft like the Hunter or F-86, its by no means their superior. Maximum Speed and G Limitations from the pilots notes As always, we aim to share all of our findings with you as we have here. We will continue to conduct further investigations into bugs reports and always encourage further reports should more information arise. It's also important to understand, that whilst the Javelin is the first British Rank VI aircraft, it is by no means their last. Currently we are aware of some reports that are under investigation Whilst at IWM Duxford, we also managed to speak with a member of the “Old Dux” association, a group of EX RAF pilots and personnel who worked at RAF Duxford during its operational years, including those of No. 64 Squadron, who operated Gloster Javelins from Duxford. We would like to thank John Porter for his assistance and references.
  22. 6 points
    I always get these diehards that complain NO P2W!!! there's no P2W. Please explain this tank that killed me 2 times in 1 match. Forget the fact they will claim since you can't buy them anymore its not p2w. But the issue is the game is full of these people with an insane advantage. It breaks the game its so over the top. But forget all that other stuff. How does the driver drive much less gunner even see?
  23. 6 points
    "We used the Pilot's notes" Then how did you manage to make the stall speed 20 knots higher than it is listed as in the Pilot's notes Gaijin? You have to choose one or the other, deliberate picking and choosing or a basic inability to read it seems... Also competitive with the sabre what have you put in your pipes over there? Sabre is barely breaking a sweat before the javelin rips its wings off at the same speed, the sabre is more agile, has better high speed acceleration, vastly better energy retention and is more manoeuvrable since the stall speed is still somehow magically wrong despite your "rigid adherence to the pilot's notes". Yeah the context is called having a lower stall speed than any sabre in the game. (Of course it's still incorrect in game since the devs seemingly are unable to read) So would you care to explain why the thing has an instantaneous turn of a plastic bag in the wind?
  24. 6 points
    So you make a devblog to explain the aircraft is in fact performing as it should do. So when is the devblog to explain why you decided to put an uncompetitive aircraft into the game?
  25. 6 points
    I would like to make an observation: It seems in the most recent posts some have wandered into trolling, baiting, and personal slights in a couple of those posts. I would humbly ask that if you are going to wander into personal, please take it to private message. I too would politely ask that posts try to stay on topic:Challenger I. Derail and off topic serve no purpose and if you cannot stay on the topic then please do not post. Regardless of how you feel about the tank or those that are enthusiasts of British Armor(Texas spelling :P), Its rude to those that are trying to use the thread for the intended purpose. Please let's show some decorum and act as mature as we really are IRL (I am assuming this to be true, please do not prove me wrong). There is enough hate and ill will in the real world without working so hard to manufacture it on this game forum friends. This post is a blanket warning to be considerate and on topic. Continued trolling, attempts to inflame, and insult will garner an escalated response. We do not want to write warnings anymore that you want to receive them so let us help each other out okay? And now back to the discussion