Addition of WW1 tanks

Hello fellow players, I am new to the forums and thought that I would make a topic/suggestion about adding World War I Allied tanks and Axis tanks.

For the Allied tanks, it would contain the many variants of the British Landship family. Mark-1 through Mark-5 (1916-1918), adding the experimental versions of World War I tanks would or could be a premium tank(s). In addition, to also adding the French FT-17 light tank ( 1917-technically 1949, however I will stick with WW1) and the French Saint(St.) Chamond (1917-1918)

For the Axis, it would be the A7V tank and captured Landships, along with the FT-17. For they are not many Axis tanks. And capturing other countrys tanks was a option.

It would be a very straight forward addition, they would have to be reletively the same battle rank.

If this is to actually become know to other players/people, and grasp attention. Then I will add more detail and thought.

I believe this is a good start to a addition, if you are to read this.

Thank you for your time and curiosity for noticing.


Unfortunately WW1 tanks are slow as hell, plus there isnt really a good way to implement them in the current game, because new players are not going to want to spend 3hrs reaching the middle of the map.

A7V top speed

Mk.V tank


you can clearly see how slow these tanks are, for comparison the current slowest tanks in game go around 20 km/h with the slowest in game (I believe) being the T95 at 13 km/h, plus with the game layout there leaves no room for tanks/planes/coastal ships to go backwards without making the game less enjoyable for newer players by giving them slower, worse tanks.

1 Like

I can see your point, I should have also stated it to be a “thought” then a “addition” My mistake.

It would be interesting (to some people) to have it in the game, I personally would like it.

Although, the speed would be the problem. Unless Gaijin made the tanks where they go 10-15MPH, or have V12 power for a 6-cylinder. And yes, that would be historically incorrect. It would be a option, sense War Thunder is inaccurate enough in some aspects. I do not think it would be to much to bat a eye.

Just a thought.

And thank you for replying.

no bother mate, id love to see WW1 tanks in a game at some point, just not war thunder.

the biggest problem is that in WW1 tanks were not designed to fight other tanks, they were made to punch through defensive lines that hadn’t changed for 3 years, this lead to heavily armoured (at the time), lumbering beasts mainly aimed at anti infantry and fortress busting, often using either purely machine guns or a mix of MGs and Artillery cannons. As far as I’m aware there are very few cases (if any) of tank on tank combat in WW1, and its impossible to tell how it would work in a game like war thunder.

But, there definitely is potential for a WW1 style game mode within Enlisted as it focuses more on infantry with Air and Armoured support, something that would fit right in with a WW1 style, if I were you id keep one eye on enlisted for now just to see if Gaijin adds something along those lines, especially considering that I believe enlisted’s update schedules are similar to war thunder and that December updates are usually the big ones with new features


That is a good point about the weapondry and original design of them, like I said. Just a thought, it would be nice to digitally operating a monstrosity of a beast of the Landship.

Thank you for your feedback.


This sort of exageration and dictation of what players, new or old, majority or minority, will think about having to play on a map, is why we literally can’t get anything…

This argument is posed on so many angles, and commonly removes maps because the map is too big for players to spend time getting across the map.

The problem with this angle is it constantly limits the mode development because why bother trying a new thing because players will still try and validate reasons on why it shouldn’t be in terms of making effort and such a thing in this game, compared to the mere ‘hold w and shoot’ mentality we end up with currently.

Any demand to think, or make effort, is driven out by those who try make out it’ll be everyone hating it because it’ll be a waste of time, or that it’ll be too confusing for players.

Commonly it sucks that we literally have to pander to a subset of the playerbase who are literally not having luck with the game and think it’s beneath them to actually think and change thier methods.

1 Like

You tagged it in the Britain tag.
Make a poll then several pictures of a tech tree. Another thing you need to look into is how Gaijin could implement them since many are extremely slow in real life. So unless it’s artificially altered so they can combat, however, the game is also telling you this is not the historical speed. I don’t see why they would at the moment.

So done the maths, on Poland which is a fairly average sized map it is around 1.2km to the centre of the map, that would take, at 4 miles per hour (a fairly generous speed for offroad and rough terrain) it would take 11 minutes and 11 seconds to reach the centre. I understand I exaggerated the time but it would simply take too long to reach combat, no one wants to spend literally half the match driving just for 2 minutes of combat

1 Like

It would be cool if they did a WW1 event on small maps. But ww1 tanks wouldn’t fit into the base game.

WW1 planes would be fine, but WW1 tanks… maybe early interwar ones but otherwise it’s gonna be hard

I think the map problem is actually very trivial. Already as it is, 1.0 plays on a small selection of the total available maps, there is no reason why you shouldn’t limit this for Great War tanks as well.

Advance To The Rhine for example would probably be very suitable in terms of distance and terrain. To provide more variety in map rotation, you could make conquest mode layouts very prevalent, those are often very small. There is that one Ardennes conquest layouts where it’s like 1200m from blue spawn to red spawn.

The far bigger issue, as already pointed out by others, is offensive weaponry (or lack thereof).


I can understand, and it is not a argument. I am simply justing adding a thought.

Thank you for your comment

Well, if you saw at the begenning(I do not know if you did or not)

I mentioned that I would had more detail and thought, basically what you have said in your comment is what I was going to add on if the post got attention.

And it looks like it did.

I appreciated your feedback.

I will add more in the near future.
Thank you.

I can agree with you on the Biplanes, like the Sopwiths and Bristols for example.

I did, however normally a poll is a first start. Since it tells you or Gaijin how many want to see WW1 aerial and ground vehicles in the game. Keep it up though.

I agree with you, small maps would be more suitable for the WW1 era.
Advance to the Rhine is a good example.

Thank you for your comment.

Ohh okay, thank your for telling me that. I had no idea of polls.

Where do I go for that?

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you.

So you’re saying we need hour long matches… xD

You’re cool, and your suggestion is also cool. It wasn’t a reply for you.

I like my bottom end cool stuff.

Basically, im not even sure how they would work, cause if you get any smaller in map design it gets into a CQB mess where you leave spawn and get shot, id argue that it needs to be more combined arms for WW1 equipment to be useful.