• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

1,766 Outstanding

About Sh4g0h0d

  • Rank
    Straight Outta Tselinoyarsk

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Anime, Military History, Heavy Metal, Russian Bias (TM)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,494 profile views
  1. There's plenty of undertiered German planes at 5.3 and 5.7, in particular the D-9 and D-13. This creates enough of a population that planes will get sucked to that BR instead of their native BR, especially at higher tiers. Fighting Bearcats and late Spitfires in German planes is easy: don't fight Bearcats below 3km, and do t fight Spitfires above 6km. St medium altitudes the fight is much more fairly matched.
  2. No is the short answer. See PantherAl's post for the long answer. Because crews would bail out when they took a penetrating hit to the crew compartment.
  3. Replay? By the way, wet storage for ammo won't save it from a direct hit or a blast wave.
  4. The basics of the latest round of released Q&A sessions: -more turboprop aircraft possible -no official confirmation of details about French and Italian tech trees -American jet bombers not likely to be added soon. B-45 is possible but not " the near future" - T-55 is "in the pipeline" for development and implementation -Japanese tanks will receive AA MGs on the tanks that have mounts modeled -Heterogenous armour is possible, has "not been ruled out"
  5. The F-82 is the fastest prop currently in the game at low altitude. You get an air spawn, which lets you start high and work your way low. Don't maneuver with enemy aircraft under any circumstances, and do t go head-on. Bearcats are very very agile at low speeds and accelerate very well. Not as agile as a Spitfire or Zero, but they can come close.
  6. You know the side armour on the IS-6 is only 100mm at 40-45 degrees? And that the turret side is 150mm at 30 degrees, right? The IS-6 is an IS-3 with a better engine and worse armour and firepower. The IS-6 as better hull armour when angled, but if the IS-3 is facing you it has more hull armour. The IS-3 has 100mm more base turret armour, and an overlapping mantlet that gives an effective thickness of over 330mm on the majority of the turret front. The IS-6 is indeed idiot-proof. If your enemy is an idiot, you are invincible. If your enemy is not, you are dead.
  7. The way that site measures player efficiency is terrible is the short answer. Look up the "Reliable Stats" thread for the long answer.
  8. If you're using Thunderskill to measure your relative skill, I have some rather unfortunate news for you...
  9. Solid shot, especially AP rounds without ballistic caps, have unreliable post-penetration damage. The only thing the Tiger II proved to be was a waste of time, money, and resources that Nazi Germany could not afford to spare at that point in the war. Had the war lasted longer, the T29 could conceivably have seen service. You do realize that there's a premium Tiger II that's better than the regular tree one, right? If that isn't Pay2Win, I don't know what is. Or, alternatively, use APCR to the turret or flank or shoot the LFP. Problem solved. Kursk, Eastern Europe, Sinai, Mozdok, I could go on with the maps that have long-range combat.
  10. The problem with the Object 279 is finding any sort of exact details with regards to its armour layout and composition. The layout was described as "irregular", and I imagine documentation on the vehicle is very hard to come by.
  11. In terms of penetration the BR-412D is only slightly better than the Pzgr.39/43. The IS-6 has 200mm of spaced armour (150mm+50mm) on the turret. Anything with 230mm+ penetration will go straight through that. Apart from some pixel-size weak spots the thinnest part of the IS-3's turret front is 250mm thick. The majority of the turret face is over 330mm thick. And the IS-4M has 40mm more actual thickness on the UFP at the same angle, while the turret is twice as thick at almost 400mm effective armour. The mobility of the IS-6 is on par with the Tiger I; good for a heavy tank, bad by medium tank standards. Good luck actually penetrating anything at 7.0-7.3 unless you have very good aim and are very close; the IS-6 only has the BR-471B round, the same as you get on the IS-2.
  12. You are correct; there is a small area on the left side where the mantlet does not overlap. Good luck hitting that unless you are very close. And if you miss that area you either hit the mantlet or the turret side. Are you taking into account the negative normalization from the pike nose? You need to be at a much greater angle to negate the effect of the pike. If the pike is poiting toward you, there aren't many 7.3 tanks that can do anything about the armour. Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't play heavy tanks as if they're invincible and use a modicum of intelligence when engaging enemies.
  13. The T-64 a heavy tank? It's almost as agile as a Leopard I. And no round bar the FV4005 stage II's HESH would be able to pen its armour beyond point-blank range. Outside of optics and fire control the T-64 is superior to the M60A3 initial variants. Tu-16 and B-47 aren't happening. They're just as fast as the current top-tier fighters at altitude. EF132 isn't happening as it's pure paper. Ki-201 was never completed.
  14. If you think the IS-6 is OP, I can't wait to see your reaction when you meet the IS-3.
  15. There are actually enough vehicles at 7.0-7.3 now that they can force games at that BR instead of being uptiered or downtiered constantly.
  16. See my reply to you in your other thread.
  17. German teams were never good to begin with. Quality took a nosedive during the days of the 6.7 lineup of doom, and the RU251 has attracted plenty of people with more money than playing ability.
  18. The IS-6 has a turret front that is effectively only about 200mm thick. Don't get too excited about your M46 HEAT round, because that's spaced armour (150mm+50mm) and HEAT hates that. Grab your best APCR round and hope you hit dead center to or the turret front. APHE to the cupolas also works, and you can try putting a round through the LFP if it's seriously exposed.
  19. The IS-3 was 7.0 before. It rendered every tank 6.0 and above at the time obsolete because they couldn't deal with its armour. It is 7.3 for just this reason, as it still holds today. Some minor issues with your little guide to the IS-3's weak spots: 1. You have the turret effective armour values complete wrong. The turret is indeed 250mm thick, but because of the spheroid casting the edges are impenetrable to anything short of an ATGM. The mantlet overlaps with the turret front as well, meaning the effective thickness for the majority of the turret front is actually 332.5mm. To put that in perspective, the RU251's 6.7-sealclubbing HEAT-FS round cannot penetrate the turret front apart from a few pixel-sized weak spots. 2. You missed a couple important weak spots. The turret front doesn't overlap behind the top of the mantlet, and the LFP is vulnerable up close or if the tank is creasing a rise in terrain. Cupolas are vulnerabke to APHE if you can hit them. If you are a 6.0-6.3 tank, you can only shoot the tiny weak spots on the tank while the IS-3 can blow you back to your air spawn. Replay or it didn't happen. Weren't you complaining about the earlier IS tanks a couple of months ago? Or how it wasn't fair that the Tiger II occasionally got uptiered to fight the IS-3 before that? Seems like the problem is with the player and not the tank.
  20. We'll call that a mechanical flaw, so it won't be modeled It's not the injectors themselves that are affected by G-forces; it's the fuel lines that feed the injectors. Negative or excess positive G can cause the flow of fuel to be disrupted to the engine, creating the potential for loss of engine thrust or flameout.
  21. Lets do some comparisons between the RU251 and the vehicles you mention (along with some other for good measure), shall we? ASU-85 BR: 6.3 +Has 330mm HEAT-FS +Has better front armour -Is much slower cross-country and less agile -Has worse gun handling -Has no turret -No HESH -Slower reload Type 62 BR: 6.7 +Has better front armour -Has worse HEAT-FS -Is much slower cross-country and less agile -Has worse gun handling -No HESH -Slower reload M56 Scorpion BR:6.7 +Has the same HEAT-FS as the RU251 -No HESH -Much slower cross-country and less agile -Has literally no armour whatsoever Type 60 SPRRG BR: 6.7 +Twice the rate of fire -Twice the reload speed -Is slower -Has worse gun handling -Has literally no armour whatsoever Object 906 BR: 7.0 +Same gun as ASU-85 +Autoloader reloads faster -No HESH -Is slower and less agile -Has worse gun handling -Can be penetrated by .50cals frontally And before you start typing, yes HESH can be inconsistent. But unlike APHE it maintains its penetration against sloped armour at all ranges. How is the RU251 not worthy of a BR higher than these vehicles, or at the very least equivalent of the Object 906?
  22. The spall shield only covers the area immediately around the gun, while there is armour overlap on the edges of the mantlet. Aim dead center and German APCR will pen if you are close enough. Considering that the T29/T34/T32 are some of the few tanks that Germany can't instantly oneshot at that BR range, I would call that balanced.
  23. No tanks modeled in/game can mount add-on composite or reactive armour.
  24. Depends on whether or not they are modeled with the Malyutka ATGM. If they are not, they could be 6.0-6.7. And keep in mind that the Mayutka is MCLOS. Without the Malyutka the Object 906 has superior firepower.
  25. Good. With the exception of the Cannon Corsair and the Cannon Hellcat, all of those planes deserve BR raises. The P-51D30 is a 5.3 plane without a doubt due to its excellent performance at high altitude and high speeds. The P-38L5-LO should be 5.0 to keep it out of 3.7 games. It has the performance to take on late German props. Since its FM and horsepower at altitude got fixed this patch the P-47N has become one of the biggest sealclubbers in the game. You outperform a Bf109K-4 in all respects except sustained climb rate. That includes handling; with full flaps on both planes the P-47N will stall later than the K-4. And the P-47 has better handling at speed too, especially with regards to roll. It's a 5.7 plane without any shadow of a doubt.
  26. Because the Centurion Mk.1 is actually quite comparable to the Panther and is balanced vs. the Tiger I?
  27. Put them both at 7.3 so they can stay out of 5.7 and 6.0 games. If most German players actually knew how to use the RU251 it would sealclub even harder than it currently does. Most of the time it's just fodder for lesser vehicles.
  28. If the M26 had its properly performing APC round it would warrant BR 6.3. At the moment it is overtiered. The M26 has a superior gun in terms of penetration compared to the Panther, but the mobility is much worse. The armour isn't that great either. As it currently stands the M26 is about equal in terms of capability to the Panthers A/G/F, and hsould join them at 6.0.
  29. Then your opponents were stupid for both A)not sideclimbing and B) not trying to maneuver with you. The Ta152C-3 is very heavy compared to the other Doras and the Ta152H-1, none of which will be winning any awards for low-speed maneuverability anytime soon. The C-3 eliminates what little good handling the Ta152 has in favor of extra guns that only matter if you are hunting bombers or ground targets. If you want a low-altitude Dora, fly the D-9 instead.
  30. Ah, I see. thank you for your more in-depth explanation. It is true that negative or positive Gs do not affect the flow of air into a jet engine intake. They do, however, affect the fuel system. Negative Gs in particular can cause disruptions in the fuel flow in jet engines, causing the engine to flameout.
  31. With the same gun, but far less armour. It should be lower than the BMP-1, especially since the post-pen damage on the gun is going to be rather lacking.
  32. Yes! The way I see it, the BMP-1 and BMD-1 would fill the Br holes at Tier IV for the Russian line. BMD-1 would go after the PT-76 (the armour is very similar), with the BMP-1 sitting at 6.7 after the ASU-85 and before the Object 906.
  33. How about something that has been hinted at before in Dev Q&As and would fill in the otherwise lacking Russian light tank line?
  34. The KwK 44 was originally a 128mm antiaircraft gun too.
  35. Only the Easy Eight has APCR. The other 76mm Shermans, at 4.7 and 5.0, do not. you need to get within 400 meters with the APCBC shell, and if you hit anywhere other than dead center it will not penetrate. Same story with the AP shell, excpet you can hit dead center and pen from longer ranges. The Challenger and T25 were the only non-Russian Allied 5.7 tanks for some time. The parts of a Tiger II or Shmallturn Panther they can penetrate are very small, especially at range, while being vulnerable everywhere in return. 5.7 Germans has it eay by comparison; there are far more and far larger places to penetrate a T29 frontally.
  36. Just retested the Ta152C-3. I know why I got those strange results the first time I tested it; I had accidentally throttled back to 98% when I went off WEP and went AFK so I didn't notice it. The oil temperature on the Ta152C-3 will overheat at 100% throttle. At any setting less than 100%, it will not. Welcome to Gaijin thermodynamics. You can, however, climb all the way from the runway on the test map to 5000 meters so long as you do not use the WEP. the overheating seems to be more pronounced below 4000 meters. The lesson? Don't touch the WEP on the Ta152C-3 outside of combat situations, and don't run your engine at 100% throttle at climbing speeds for extended periods.
  37. Hey, the Ho229 V3 was at least built. Just ask the Smithsonian. The P-51H will have relevant opponents. They'll just be jets and the British superprops.
  38. I was flying for 3-5 minutes in a climb from takeoff at around 280km/h IAS. I got all the way up to 6000 meters, alternating between WEP and 100% throttle, without overheating
  39. *Burns paper plane projects because they are not going to be implemented ingame*.
  40. You do realize that the Ki-84s in-game already run 1800hp setting, right? The P-51H is faster than any Japanese WWII aircraft short of the Kikka, Ki-200, and the postwar Sabre. I-250 would be worse than the Yak-15/17 in terms of performance. Me209HV-1 is slower than the Ta152H-1.
  41. Wrong. The P-51H is much lighter than a P-51D and has a much more aerodynamic fuselage. Even without its full boost, it is faster at all altitudes and more maneuverable than a D-30. 6.7 BR is the lowest the P-51H could go. All the pilot has to do is not use all the WEP at once.
  42. Is that at 100% throttle or WEP that you have the radiator open all the way?
  43. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (AXAXAXAXAXA) HAH...........No. The Tiger I has better hull armour when angled properly than the Centurion Mk.1. The turret is very hard to penetrate unless you are at close range due to the ridges blocks making the turret 200mm thick in places. It is just as fast going forward, and much faster in reverse. While inferior in penetration, the standard APCBC round is more than enough to deal with anything it will face thanks to its good normalization and excellent HE filler and can even kill 6.7 tanks if you know where to aim. APCR is inferior to sabot, but it is useful at longer rates or when uptiered against heavier targets. The Panther D and Centurion Mk.1 are very comparable and quite balanced with each other. The armour is very similar, but the Centurion is inferior in this regard due to the less curved mantlet and the flat area around the coaxial MG as well as the more vulnerable LFP. The Centurion has more penetration with sabot, but the Panther has more penetration with APCBC and has HE filler as well. The Panther is more mobile than the Centurion, being much faster cross-country and having a higher top speed. Reverse speed is poor on both vehicles, the hull traverse and neutral steering can compensate. The Panther D in particular can use its neutral steering and/or hull traverse (especially if you have MTC) to compensate for its slower turret rotation. The Centurion Mk.1 is perfectly balanced at 5.7, and is one of the few British tanks at that BR range that can be considered competitive.
  44. Seconded. 3.3-4.3 is generally the most balanced area as far as tank BRs go. Unfortunately, a lot of the players at that tier for all nations are pretty inexperienced so team quality can be very spotty.
  45. it doesn't. Just took it out for a test flight to confirm. Hits amber temps at 129 degrees Celcius, but if you throttle back to 100% it will cool off to yellow and then regular. And this is without MEC. All you have to do is use the WEP sparingly and not push your engine temperatures too far. You know, like a real pilot.
  46. If the answers to Dev Q&As are to be believed, the Russians will not get the T-64.
  47. Because tier IV German players don't know how to fly their planes properly.
  48. Could be worse. You ever try killing an IS-3 with a Panther? The weak spots are even smaller and you can't even pen the pike nose if its at an angle to you. It's worth remembering that the IS-6 is a full 1.0 BR above the Panther A/G/F. For comparison a Churchill Mk. VII, 75mm Jumbo, or 76mm Sherman without APCR is at just as much of a disadvantage vs. the Panther D.
  49. The MBT-70 hull armour from the front is a T-54 inside another T-54 with a significant gap in between the plates. The composite layout you are describing is similar to what the T-64 has in terms of composites, and that tank shouldn't be anywhere near the game. Holy Spaced Armour Ninja Tank Batman is not, should not, and will not be in War Thunder.
  50. The only reason the T-54s have access to that sabot and HEAT-FS is because they're fighting tanks from the same era as those sabot and HEAT-FS rounds. Remove the sabot and HEAT-FS and the T-54s are 7.3 tanks. I agree that the T-54 obr. 1949 should be moved out of the main line of the medium tree, most likely as a tab under the T-54 obr. 1951. That would make the most sense so as not to unduly lengthen the grind for Tier V Russia while making the T-55 have a place in the tree.
  51. The IS-6 can only be killed by the Panther frontally through the cupolas , if the LFP is seriously exposed when creating a vertical terrain feature, or through the mantlet with APCR at very close range. Otherwise the IS-6 is frontally immune to the Panther at all ranges.
  52. I has 200mm line-of-sight armour on the hull. Turret mantlet is immune to the Pak 40. It's arguably undertiered at 4.3
  53. Differences between RU251 and the Type 62: -is premium, so no stock grind -is faster -has better gun handling especially gun depression -Has better rounds with HE and HEAT-FS Any don't even bother to bring up the cost of the HEAT-FS shells. you get them fro free on a premium vehicle, and they cost less than half of what top-tier HEAT-FS costs, which is what the round is. I swear, if there wasn't a better example of German tankers not being happy unless the entire game is handed to them on a silver platter than the RU251.
  54. How about we put the RU251 at 7.3 with the Kanonenjagdpanzer where it belongs so it isn't mercilessly sealclubbing literally everything below BR 6.7?
  55. There's the problem: the report only lists reported casualties, not total casualties or better yet numbers of vehicles knocked out/unrecoverable. If a tank suffers a catastrophic hit and no crew escape the wreck but none of the crew are reported as casualties, are the crew members still alive? If the introduction of the Hull Break mechanic and the changes to oblique armour plate modeling are any indication, Gaijin will continue to reduce the penetration mechanics and damage models in game. One can only hope these changes will extend to the modeling of HE filler, sabots, and certain AP rounds.
  56. The most that will come out of that big report is a change in the way the explosion from rounds with HE filler is modeled. Instead of a sphere it will be more directional. The section of the report on effectiveness resulting fron reported casualties is so badly sourced and draws such fallacious conclusions it's almost laughable.
  57. Replay or it didn't happen. The matchmaker is limited to 1.0 BR spread. You must have had a 6.3 vehicle in your lineup. Panther II hulls were completed. None were ever fitted with the gun or turret it has in-game, nor was the engine ever fitted. The 105mm gun cannot physically fit inside a Tiger II in the current configuration. And if we're only considering vehicles that saw service, we can gut a lot more of the German tree too. The hilarious part is that only the British have medium or heavy tanks between 6.0 and 6.7 that are from the 50's. Everything else is either from the late 40's or made of paper armour.
  58. My prediction for the future involves lots of bug fixing and client stability updates coming out in the next few days.
  59. Both the T29 and T34 are 1944 prototypes. And both had examples built. The Panther A/G/F can pen the LFP if it is exposed or the exposed side armour easily with stock rounds. APCR will pen the turret mantlet. Panther UFP will bounce the T92's APHE round if angled properly. And every Panther is much more mobile than a T29. 5.7 and 6.0 can't meet 7.3 and 7.7 tanks. No T32, Conqueror, IS-3, IS-4M, and T-54s to worry about.
  60. Last time I checked the T29 was also 1.0-.7 BR higher than any Panther or Tiger I.
  61. Apart from 100mm of welded construction steel on the back of the turret, the T34 has the same armour profile and layout as a T29. Panthers and Tiger Is can kill it through the LFP with stock rounds or through the turret with APCR.
  62. T-44-122 has less armour than the regular T-44, including a weaker turret. Oh, and it's 122 reloads the slowest of any D-25T despite using single-piece ammo. It's fine at 6.3.
  63. In real life, tank cupolas hit in this manner were more likely to get ripped clean off. Instead if having the shell bounce off the back of the cupola, just have the HE fuller detonate after penetrating the cupola. Now it's a matter of only killing a couple of crew instead of everybody.
  64. It seemed to me more like the current version of Eastern Europe: a city area in the center that's decided by control of the surrounding open areas. Sorta like Hurtgen Forest.
  65. Squad up and use teamwork. In a half-decent aircraft it can win you any fight.
  66. Or add in RATO. The easiest way to do it would be to consult the flight manuals for the given aircraft and/or the performance documents for the engine. That will give you a county idea of what the engine can tolerate in terms of AoA and +/- G-loads.
  67. The reason 4.7 Allies keeps facing Tigers is that there is only one 4.7 German tank: the Hetzer. Ostwind is there too, but it is only capable of engaging the lightest targets at close range. Same deal at 5.0; not enough tanks to create a lineup. 5.3 has more tanks, but the regular-tree ones are all TDs. It's only until you get the Tiger IH and Panther D at 5.7 that you get tanks you can really build a lineup around. It isnt for lack of Allied options. The T25 and IS-2 are both 5.7, as is the M36. Centurion Mk.1 is coming next patch to give the Brits a good tank at that BR too.
  68. The problem is that certain nations have BR holes in their tech trees. Germany has no medium or heavy tanks between 4.3 and 5.7. There are very few Allied tanks at 6.0.
  69. Only the heaviest of shells will shrapnel enough to snap the driver's shaft of a Panther from a hit to the turret, and unless you are driving a Panther II those shells can instakill you through the UFP anyway. Protip: take only 32 rounds of ammo. The turret and hull front are now devoid of ammo racks; everything is in the side sponsons. You can now get hit in the LFP or turret and not get ammo racked.
  70. You directly compared the Centurion Mk.3 to the Panther in terms of armour and mobility in your OP. The Panther is a very agile medium tank in all directions bar reverse, and as argued previously has superior hull armour. Either you are intentionally misrepresenting the implications of your own arguments, or you do not understand what an implied argument is. Admittedly, a Tiger I does have to aim properly when fighting a Centurion Mk.3. The turret is only vulnerable at close range or with the use of APCR rounds, and the UFP is impenetrable. The LFP is as stated before very weak, allowing a Tiger I to penetrate it at all ranges with stock rounds. I will grant that most German tank players at that tier are not used to having to aim their rounds at certain parts of enemy tanks, but they can learn. After all, every other nation has to do the same. The Black Prince has better hull armour than a Centurion, but only has a 17pdr. and is the slowest tank in War Thunder in terms of overall top speed. It can only barely compete against the Tiger II. The Panther II is 7.0 because it is the fastest medium tank in the game due to it massively underperforming in terms of weight. Overmatch is by definition penetration, occurring only when a round achieves a certain ration between its caliber and the thickness of the target plate. A Panther's sides are angled at the top, increasing the effective thickness. A Centurion has completely flat side plates. The LFP is even weaker on a Centurion than on a Panther.
  71. Your argument cuts both ways. Having trouble penetrating an IS-6 or IS-3 frontally with your T28? Just flank them. After all, they're relatively slow and the T28 can go forwards.
  72. Better armour? Only on the turret. The UFP is comparable in terms of thickness and the LFP is much weaker. Similar mobility? The Centurion maxes out on 35 km/h on flat terrain. The Panther will easily do over 40 km/h on flat terrain, and has better acceleration at high speeds as well. Gun on par with the KwK 43? Don't make me laugh. Pzgr. 39/43 has better penetration at all ranges and all angles compared to the Shot Mk.1, and has HE filler as well. Only sabot outmatches the Tiger II, and that has unreliable post-pen that requires very precise shot placement to get results. "My Tier IV German tanks can be penetrated through their UFPs by something" is not an excuse to raise the BR of one of the few British tanks that are competitive at their BR range. Maybe once the Centurion Mk.3 gets its two-plane stabilizer it can be uptiered, but it remains to be seen what stabilizers will do to the overall game meta.
  73. Same ammo as the IS-2. Best round is the BR-471B.
  74. Negative effects on engine performance in War Thunder are already modeled in several ways. Engine temperature is an important factor to manage for both jets and props, and overheating your engine will cause a loss of performance an eventual engine failure. Negative Gs on planes with float carburetors will cause the engine to stop. If you are using MEC for planes, you can also kill your engine by mishandling your prop pitch or fuel mixture causing an overrev or fuel starvation. However, there is one condition that affects all jet engine in real life that is currently not modeled in War Thunder. I am speaking of the jet pilot's worst fear as far as engine performance goes: Compressor Stall. Here is a very helpful articles if you are not familiar with this phenomenon: The basics of it is that jet engine compressors (the blades on the front that compress the air so it can be mixed with fuel and burned to produce thrust) only operate withing certain fluid pressure ratios. They require constant airflow into the compressor to work properly. If this airflow is disrupted, the air entering the compressor does not flow in a uniform fashion. The blades will grind to a halt or potentially even reverse the direction of flow. Compressor Stalls can also be caused by a sudden surge in power to the engine, forcing the compressor pressure to exceed its operating tolerances. The compressor blades stop suddenly, forcing a compressor stall. In any case, a compressor stall inevitably leads to an immediate loss of thrust and engine flameout. And you will know when it happens; the engine producing loud banging noises and can dramatically flameout. In a worst-case scenario, the vibrations from the sudden halting of the compressor blades can cause damage to the engine in a potentially catastrophic fashion. There are several primary causes of Compressor Stalls, either by airflow disruption or RPM surging: -Damage to the compressor blades -Excessive negative Gs at any speed -Excessive positive Gs at low airspeeds -Exceeding angle-of-attack limits at low speeds -Sudden increases in engine throttle settings (the #1 cause of compressor surging) Naturally, different engines and air intakes have different tolerances with regards to these factors before a compressor stall occurs. Recovering from a Compressor Stall is simple: perform the in-air engine re-light procedure. War Thunder will most likely simplify this to pressing "I" to re-start your engine. However, there are two important caveats to remember: jet engine re-lighting is limited by speed and altitude. The air has to be dense enough for the compressor to return to the nominal pressure ratio, and the aircraft has to be flying fast enough for enough air to go through the intake to be properly compressed. If you are too slow and at too low an altitude, a Compressor Stall can be fatal. So why should Compressor Stalls be modeled in War Thunder? 1. It is in keeping with the spirit for realism in War Thunder. As explained previously, engine performance limitations are already modeled. In addition, over-G and G-LOC are also limiting factors on how a plane can maneuver. Compressor Stalls and the potential for them are just as important factors in jet maneuvering. 2. They affect all jet engines. Even the most modern turbofans are not immune to Compressor Stalls if pushed beyond their performance limits. Different engines and intake designs have different limitations with regard to conditions, but the potential for a compressor stall is inherent in any jet engine and intake design. 3. It will force more realistic behavior out of jet pilots in War Thunder. Want to dogfight at low altitudes and airspeeds? Better have your finger on the "I" and "J" keys. Want to try to stall-fight someone in the vertical? Your wing won't be the only thing that stalls. Want to pull -1G or more to quickly dive away? You won't be going very fast for long. Feel free to comment as to why you think that Compressor Stalls should or should not be modeled for jet engines in War Thunder RB.