Unlocked Chinese vehicles: 38
I assume that all advanced vehicles, team vehicles, and exchange vehicles displayed on the account should be unlocked by default for testing purposes. 18 land vehicles (including hidden vehicles such as 545 and 692a), 14 aerial vehicles, and 2 helicopters, totaling 34 vehicles. In addition, there are 2 initial vehicles and 2 initial aircraft. The result is 18+14+2+2+2+2=38
Well, now I know how the great gaijin “balances” Chinese vehicles. Obviously, our developers know which vehicles are “not worth playing with”
1 Like
hope the devs are sifting through this.
I’ve been thinking about a small but important change that could greatly reduce confusion and make bug reporting a lot easier.
Right now, the game lists the bore caliber of a gun (e.g., 75mm, 40mm, 37mm, etc.), but it doesn’t specify the dimensions of the shell. This can lead to a lot of confusion, especially when two different weapons of the same caliber fire completely different rounds. For example:
- The 75mm M3 cannon on U.S. tanks is very different from the 75mm KwK 42 on German tanks, even though they share the same bore size.
- The 40mm Bofors L/60 and 40mm Bofors L/70 both fire 40mm rounds, but the L/60 uses 40×311mmR, while the L/70 uses 40×364mmR.
- Even 30mm Russian and 30mm NATO autocannons may share a similar bore size, but their shell dimensions (like 30×165mm vs 30×173mm) are entirely different.
- Even when we start getting into larger caliber guns, like 105mm, 120mm, or 155mm for MBTs, the shell dimensions can vary drastically across different nations and guns.
This is an issue because the bore caliber alone doesn’t tell you much about the actual round being fired, and as a result, it’s hard to quickly tell what kind of round you’re facing or using.
The Problem
With so many guns across tanks, aircraft, and ships that share the same caliber but fire different shells, it’s easy to get mixed up or make assumptions. And this can be a real problem in battle. For example, (Nvm I’m not smart)
Even when we talk about larger MBT rounds, like 105mm or 120mm, it’s important to specify the exact shell dimensions since different guns fire different rounds despite having the same caliber. For example, the 120mm L44 (German) and the 120 mm automatkanon(Sweden) use different types of shells, and there are huge differences between 105mm M68 and 105mm L7 ammo used by various MBTs.
Another issue is when bugs arise. If a problem is related to ammunition performance (like penetration values, damage models, etc.), it can be really tricky to figure out exactly where the issue lies, especially since different variants of the same caliber aren’t always immediately clear.
The relatively simple solution
(New one should look like this,)
What I’m proposing is that we standardize the naming convention for ammunition across all vehicle types (aircraft, tanks, and ships) to include both the bore caliber and the shell dimensions. This way, when you see a round in the game, you’ll know exactly what kind of shell is being used, even if multiple guns of the same caliber are involved. For example:
- 75mm HE-T → 75×350mm HE-T (M3 Cannon)
- 75mm APCR → 75×495mm APCR (KwK 42)
- 105mm APDS → 105×617mm APDS (M68 Cannon)
- 105mm APFSDS → 105×607mm APFSDS (L7 Cannon)
- 120mm APFSDS → 120×570mm APFSDS (L44 Cannon)
- 120mm APFSDS → 120×570mm APFSDS (L55 Cannon)
- 155mm HE → 155×638mm HE (M107 Howitzer)
- 40mm HEFI-T → 40×311mm HEFI-T (Bofors L/60)
- 40mm AP-T → 40×364mm AP-T (Bofors L/70)
- 30mm APDS → 30×173mm APDS (GAU-8/A Avenger)
- 12.7mm API → 12.7×99mm API (.50 M2HB Browning)
- 37mm AP-T → 37×263mm AP-T (37mm 61-K)
- 57mm AP-T → 57×348mm AP-T (S-60 AA Gun)
- 76mm HE → 76×636mm HE (OTO Melara Compact)
(Removed, bad idea)
There are definitely Benefits
1. Reduce Confusion: By adding the shell dimensions, players will immediately recognize when different rounds of the same caliber are being used, reducing confusion. For example, a 40mm Bofors L/60 will be clearly marked as firing 40×311mm rounds, while the L/70 will be marked as firing 40×364mm rounds.
2. Easier Bug Reporting: Having clear, consistent ammo names will make it much easier to identify and report issues related to specific ammo types, like penetration values, damage models, or other inconsistencies. Instead of guessing which round is causing the issue, it will be immediately clear which one is at fault.
3. Improved Situational Awareness: When you see an enemy gun firing, knowing the exact shell dimensions and cannon type will help you better understand what kind of firepower you’re up against, which could give you a tactical edge in battle.
So yea, i think this would make life easier for all of us,
12 Likes
I like the feedback, but you got 2 errors in it.
The example stat card isnt about the KwK 43, its from the Flak/KwK 36 L/56, it doesnt use the 88x822mm ammo, but the 88x570mmR ammo.
The 75x495mmR is also not from the KwK 42 (75x640) but from the KwK 40.
4 Likes
okay!
1 Like
All your suggestion adds is unnecessary clutter to the UI. 99% of People should be able to use basic logic and be able to understand that different shells with different muzzle velocities will preform differently regardless of caliber. The game tells you what vehicle and what shell was used so should be pretty easy to comprehend what happened. If you really want something like this I would suggest editing your lang file.
5 Likes
Community Manager answered the same type of post here:
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
1 Like
All those should be shown on the Wiki, but I think it’s too much to have in the game.
2 Likes
making sure we actually have access to accurate and detailed information on the shells that Gaijin has implemented. Right now, the game’s ammo descriptions are too vague to be useful for in-depth analysis, let alone bug reporting.
For example, we already have cases like the Swedish L/70 Lvakan 48 firing Lvakan 36 (L/60 shells)—and we have no idea where Gaijin got this info from. It’s outright incorrect, but without detailed data in-game, it’s a nightmare to verify and report issues efficiently.
Sure, most players don’t need to see shell dimensions in-battle, which is why I’ve removed that part from the suggestion, but for those who actually want to investigate penetration mechanics, historical accuracy, or bug reports, the current system is way too barebones.
And about the suggestion to “edit language files”—that doesn’t actually reveal the data Gaijin has implemented. Language files only change how text is displayed, not what’s actually coded into the game. What we need is direct access to the real in-game shell specifications, not just what the UI tells us.
1 Like
Right now the wiki, is useless- It is So barebones, many weapon wiki links are gone, and anything useful for bug reports, is also gone.
I have no idea, why they did this, the wiki change did nothing but make it harder to look at details or get information, no less! the war thunder wiki is players and users like Wikipedia works.
I want to know, what the devs had for sources, and if it isnt in the game. i want either a page here on the forum about in-game sources and that kinda stuff, that tells the details exactly about the in-game munitions
1 Like
Hi! The conversion ratio is 2:1 into a random item, you can’t select what item exactly. Basically, you select any item you want to recycle and upon pressing “Recycle selected items”, those items go into a number stack. That number is converted into random items in the 2:1 ratio when you click “Create item”.
Since you rarely use orders, you could recycle all of them, however you won’t get boosters all the time from this, but occasionally since it’s random.
And yes, you can recycle nation and vehicle type specific backups.
Thanks Phil! Oxy says thanks and sends his regards.
2 Likes
The only relevant data when it comes to bug reports is Name of the Projectile, Projectile Mass, Velocity, Caliber (for overmatching), and Material used. If the Mass or Velocity is wrong compared to the data you have then you can make a report. Casing Length and Weight are irrelevant infos, they‘re not even stored in the game data iirc, they’re only useful for ID‘ing shells which can be done by looking at the Name of the Shell and the Gun it is fired from just as easily.
I dissagree, Casing length is irrelevant doesn’t hold up when you look at cases like the 40mm Bofors L/60 and L/70. Both are 40mm caliber, but they fire completely different rounds, most of the difference is in the shell, and the shell with the gunpowder is where the velocity comes from and therefor penetration and range of course.
Bofors L/60: 40×311mmR
Bofors L/70: 40×364mmR
Right now, War Thunder doesn’t specify these differences, which has already caused mislabeling issues, like the Lvakan 48 firing L/60 shells instead of L/70 rounds. If casing length was listed, this mistake would have been immediately obvious instead of something players had to dig through historical sources to uncover.
As a reference myself and others on-going struggle with the Lvakan 48, since gaijin in their wisdom just assumed the 48 was just a L/60 with double the fire-rate, and not an L/70 what it actually is, This isnt even just a small oops, its not even a real gun, The ammunitions the Lvkv 42 and the VEAK 40 are physically impossible!(without modifications of course)
Simply knowing the caliber isn’t enough. without casing length, players can’t easily verify whether Gaijin has implemented the correct ammunition. This isn’t about UI clutter; it’s about making sure the game’s data is clear, correct, and easier to bug report.
That is the whole point, make it easier to submit reports and clear up inconsistencies. And not knowing the charge of the casing, therefor not knowing the power behind the projectile itself, For example the Lvakan 48, when you search the name of the projectile, 80% of the time you only get the info about the warhead/projectile itself.
Having access to the full shell and projectile information makes things a heck of a lot easier for people, working with designations like us here in sweden. Especially when most ppl that play sweden probably doesn’t live here. I have no idea how it works with the german or russian, american, brittish, japanese. etc. I can only guess its not easy there either.
I hope that clears it up,
3 Likes
Then Wiki needs some work.
In my opinion placing so much information directly in the game isn’t needed, as Wiki is made just for that.
That’s unfortunate. Would be much better if we could at least exclude things we don’t use, so we aren’t just getting more of what we don’t use. Bad enough how it feels that rewards are slanted towards orders and wagers over boosters and backups but recycling them only to potentially get more leaves me concerned. Especially with how it already seems like orders and wagers show up more frequently.
It is nice we can get rid of vehicle/nation specific backups though. But yeah, would be nice to set it so you could just get rid of them and maybe select the type of item you want at a slightly higher conversion rate. Like set it to just produce boosters but at 3:1 instead since we’re excluding the other options.
Just saying, more chance really doesn’t feel like the best option.
1 Like
I bet Gaijin will not compensate in any way for the rp bug we had since the dawn of this game, alocating all rp u had got for modules and vehicles that u lost would’ve been the best way to do it, but have NO doubt they will not compensate anything even tho they should
1 Like
gimme ma trailer
6 Likes
I just hope they add ground battles without cas as soon as possible.
12 Likes