CM Covert Disclosures No.5: Major Update Prologue

[MokaMoki]

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

Yeah, and the F/A-18 was added a year too late. It has no reasonable place in the game now. Sure, the F-14s are in a weird spot, but realistically, the game has no place for the hornet. Gaijin waited too long.

This seems to be the issue. You can either add it with a better loadout on a mid-to-worse frame, which upsets EFT and Rafale mains. Or you can add it with worse weaponry (Aim-7s are terrible) at this 13.0 BR and it will be straight bullied by every 14.0 air frame it will see in 99% of the matches it will get.

“Oh but the Su-33 this and Su-33 that!” While also gets bullied, it at least has 27ERs which arestill the single best SARH missile in the game. Realistically, it doesnt seem like there is place for this airframe. If we are to assume this is to be a shiny top tier toy, I would want it to come with 1st gen 9Xs and 120Cs or else why grind for it besides name only?

Sure the F-117 is cool and is a legendary aircraft, but poor implementation and being in a weird position leaves it undesirable. The difference here is the effort to grind for it and putting it in the slaughter basket seems…dumb.

[Ion_Protogen]

@MokaMoki

You can either add it with a better loadout on a mid-to-worse frame, which upsets EFT and Rafale mains. Or you can add it with worse weaponry (Aim-7s are terrible) at this 13.0 BR and it will be straight bullied by every 14.0 air frame it will see in 99% of the matches it will get.

That is disregarding future changes to BRs.

Plus, why is everyone accepting this compression? Isn’t it unreasonable that certain planes are unplayable due to deliberate choices Gaijin has made, to the point where it harms future additions?

[MotorolaCRO]

Sorry but I don’t see anything bad in adding a sidegrade.

[MokaMoki]

@Ion_Protogen

That is disregarding future changes to BRs.

I feel like it is safer to assume we will remain the same for a while longer, than to assume there will be an increase to BRs with the addition of the F/A-18. Its possible, but does not feel likely.

And considering Gaijin’s “pay-for-convience” model, it makes sense to delay BR changes for as long as possible. Compression means stock grinds are awful. Awful stock grinds can pressure players to GE their way through modules or to the next plane entirely.

[a_00]

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

Idk if you’re being fr, but the F-14B has significantly better engines and the same flight model as the F-14A, which means it can go faster on the deck.

the bombacat(F14-B i think you couldnt tell what i was talking about) is only hitting 1.13 at sea level without going any faster

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

you can comfortably sit at Mach 1.2 on the deck and it doesn’t matter how much it says “reduce speed” Even at 110% you won’t gain more speed. For the F-14B, you can go even faster, but risk breaking the wings. I’ve gotten up to 1.3 on the deck.

i have ripped in the f14s while diving to the deck man at mach 1.3 so yeah no your wrong

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

Also untrue. I’ve easily gone 1.1 Mach on the deck with the F-5E (even with it not spaded with engines), so already your info is wrong.

?, how is my info is wrong im literally going into the game and testing them man

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

he hornet also can’t go Mach on the deck with 6 Aim-120s and much less 10. I will give the hornet credit though, I’m 99% sure that the hornet can go Mach ~1.2 with no payload on the deck.

a_00:

you can hit mach at sea level with 8 missile loudout without any fuel tanks, with fuel tanks its slower im pretty sure

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

It’s not about actually hitting Mach 2. It’s about the quickness of getting to speeds below that. For example, in the time it takes for the F-18C to reach Mach 1.6, the F-14 has been cruising at Mach 2.2 for a whole minute. Imagine how fast the F-14 gets to Mach 1.6 then.

id say if you just wanna fire your peenixes, the most you can go mach 1.3 at 5km alt or you will prolly get killed by someone else, the acceleration isnt the best on both of the f14s, the hornet is the same story, also the f14 has the worst performance in 4th gens, so id prolly wouldnt recommend going in alt because it turns even slower then the F-15E, the hornet has pretty decent performance in alt but will lose speed when turning, but will have better turn making better to defend against on coming missiles

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

Yeah, and the F/A-18 was added a year too late. It has no reasonable place in the game now. Sure, the F-14s are in a weird spot, but realistically, the game has no place for the hornet. Gaijin waited too long.

people still ask for mig25s and alot of jets that are way worse then the hornet, the A hornet at 13.0 with 9MS and 7M/PS wouldnt be that bad at all, it would decent choice, its also one of the most iconic planes from usa, so yeah people obviously wants their fav plane in a game they possibly put thousands of hour in(me:3) the C hornet is the same story, not the best but a viable choice

[红龙驭者]

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”

[karnitin75]

@magazine2

New shell stat cards design

Amongst the previous UI changes implemented last year, the developers have also been working on a new and improved version of stat card for shells. For this one, the aim was to display the most important aspects of a shell so that you can glance and read it quickly. The main parameters for shells are muzzle velocity, armor penetration at close-range and TNT equivalent.

---

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,

[Ghostmaxi]

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.

[karnitin75]

okay!

[USAIDGothGF]

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.

[Necronomica]

Community Manager answered the same type of post here:

IDK if devs actually play Chinese Tech Tree

If you want to discuss specific tech tree, please use already created thread in Machinery of War section. Devs play the game like all of us. No, not all of them got all vehicles unlocked. Person who made a screenshot does not have to have anything to do with game programming.

[FlipAllTheTables]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[MotorolaCRO]

All those should be shown on the Wiki, but I think it’s too much to have in the game.

[karnitin75]

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.

[karnitin75]

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

[magazine2]

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.

[magazine2]

Thanks Phil! Oxy says thanks and sends his regards.

[USAIDGothGF]

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.

[karnitin75]

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,

[MotorolaCRO]

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.