Documentation and Training

It would teach them, that their plane has advantage and disadvantages compared to an F5. So the knowlege to decide stuff.
There is a difference between knowlege based decitions (if you are going into a calculated encounter, what weapon to use…) and learning intuitivity, which is experience.
Yes lots of knowlege isn’t written down, but it could be.
And even f2p players grinding to rank 7, still try to turnfigt at low energies in their P51, or constantly use flaps, which generally decreases your turnrate (except on rare planes).

ah, thought they only integrated the cards of the vehicles. Still it isn’t linked well enough imo, and things like horspower graphs etc are only a very rare thing.

I think it majorily just different. Since here you have people that can explain pros and cons better than a few bullet points ever will, and acces to other platforms and recommendations, whereas the wiki lacks links or even sources, while at least some here can provide links to stuff.

You mean clicking one button inside of alone 13 drop down menues at the top?
Yes it can be easier^^
Like link it with every stat card etc with every munition (while reworking the stat cards to begin with, bc they are borderline useless, and esp new players assume, that there aren’t).
Also those are mainly websites integrated into a basically web-viewer (like Steam and even AMD GPU-drivers have) in War Thunder.
There are loads of improvements possible (almost always), so “how can it be easier” is often a faulty question. Bc of course it can, and often it is just an engeneering tradeoff.

for ground or air?

there (are?/) were a few for air.
So hp per alt.
Was for the F4U 1c, but now there is only a broken link to a different data-sheet from the old formum (so add an “old-”.

Afair, there was a MEC google sheet with the optimal climb settings for EVERY PROP lol.
I forgot the link, but i know it’s still there.

uh, that would be nice to have.

1 Like

Ill try to find it if u want

1 Like

that would be very nice

1 Like

found it!!!
War Thunder MEC Climb Chart
Credits to The_Kiwi

1 Like

uhhh, thank you very much :)

1 Like

this what u wanted?

yes, though I had another graph in mind.
They (like that seem to be gone when they changed the wiki a bit.

No tutorial is going to teach you the strengths of your airframe against another airframe. It’s there to teach basics, not advanced differences between each and every airframe in the game. I want to leave this here because it mentions that the airframe does NOT dogfight well. I’ve bolded and underlined the section that is relevant. From the Wiki:
The main difference between the two is the F-4S’ leading edge wing slats. These greatly increase manoeuvrability below ~970-1000 km/h SPD by allowing you to pull more AoA (Angle of Attack) which helps to tighten down your turning circle, but results in noticeably more energy bleed. Inversely, the slats will reduce the amount of AoA you can pull above the priorly-mentioned airspeed, which massively improves energy retention and delays pilot blackouts at the cost of an overall wider turn circle. This ability to control your AoA at various speeds can be an invaluable tool in winning engagements if properly mastered, but remember that you’re still a Phantom; the F-4S can’t turn tight enough to competitively dogfight most other top-tier aircraft even with the manoeuvrability upgrade, but it’s good enough that you may be able to last in an extended engagement against a single opponent until an ally comes to your aid.

Also this pertaining to the F-5E: The F-5E is one of the most manoeuvrable fighters at its rank. The F-5E is a very prevalent gun fighter due to its conservation of energy and turn radius but has weaker guns compared to the M61 Vulcan found on other American jets.

The information is there.

Pertaining to the P-51C-10:
The other issue is the unsatisfactory turn rate at low speed, engaging other fighters in dogfight should be avoided (instantaneous turn rate is reasonable when the plane has lots of energy to spare), especially the Bf 109 F-4, G.55 or Yaks, and anything that can turn better than them, the speed advantage should be used instead to beat them.

Very well described to NOT turn fight.

It is two clicks, would you rather it be one click instead of being put neatly into the help menu?

5 drop down menus.

You have got to be kidding me right? Look at this. Right click a vehicle and it takes you right to that wiki page. The wiki’s describe the munitions and provides links from the vehicle page to the gun/ammo available. Is right clicking a vehicle, an action that happens naturally over and over, to hard to find information on that vehicle from the wiki?

All of the info is easily accessible and available to all in multiple locations within the game. The Wiki has better information than a single tutorial could ever give.

1 Like

a good one should, but they are almost non existance. There are different kinds of tutorials.

and where is it explained what turnfighting is? What manouvres are possilbe and advantages disadvantages of them?

it’s about the UI

In brackets means it is still a menue there, that is similarly a point, even though it is not strictly a drop-down menu.

You have the genereric drop down on the left for settings and stuff
You have the other gamemodes as a drop down
You have the community which is a dropdown menu
(You have your squad menu)
(You have your statcard menu (by clicking on your name))
(You have the gamemodes)
(You have the silver lions buying menu)
(You have the GE buying menu)
(You have the "free"XP-menu)
(You have the Premium time buying menu)
(You have the BP-buying menu)
You have the general shop drop down
You have the question mark drop down.

Yes, only 5 of those are true dropdowns, but still there are alone 13 menues up there. And this is imo overinflated.
As a beginnier, it is easy to get overwhelmed, even if the buying x menus are just shortcuts.
The small question mark gets easily eclipsed by the orange shop menu button or the event link on the right. So even if you look there, you predominantly look first at those things.
I think the wiki should have a direct link under the “to battle” button, and not shifted to a corner, where the version number in the least intrusive way is placed, since it is still important.

yes, I know, but directly you only see the very faulty stat card. You could shorten even that by just clicking on the statcard (of vehicles you got in the hangar).
Yes the situation isn’t that bad, but it still could be better.
And I think we should strive constantly for imporvements in every direction.

I am not talking about one tutorial. I am talking about a whole batch of tutorials.
Like those for learning chess on like Lichess. You have alone 18 tutorials for the basics. And then you have in the practice are 32 more tutorials. And then we still haven’t talked about openings, where hour long studies exist.
All those equivalent and similar information about tactics in/for War Thunder is barely touched in War Thunder or the wiki. Yes small paragraphs (as you mentioned) exists, but there is no page for BFM for example. Yes the page for airborn radars is really good, but only a few people learn good through reading and then trying it out. Others prefere videos, or in-game tasks, that are more than just press x, then put the nose down a bit, then press y, and wait.
And unlike in DCS, where only enthousiasts go, most War Thunder players don’t watch like Defyn’s tutorial playlist, with hours of material for air to air combat alone. Ignoring tanks, helis and ships, as well as other gamemodes than air rb (though similarities obviously exist in many cases). And those don’t even go that deep (imo), but should be the standard info most War Thunder pilots should know.
So adding more esp for different types of learner, is imo a good thing.

So you want 100s of tutorials explaining every airframe’s strengths and weaknesses? That is unrealistic, as it wouldn’t be worth the time and effort. Read the wiki, learn the mechanics, put the mechanics into use, improve your skills using said mechanics. Simple crawl, walk, run pattern of learning.
Right here, the wiki explains energy fighting and boom and zoom too. Took me less than 2 minutes to find.

The UI that has the wiki accessable in the help menu or the UI that has the wiki page for each specific vehicle under Information on the right click menu of every vehicle?

No no, you’re trying to shift the goalposts. You claimed drop down menus, of which there are 5 which you also acknowledged.

Yes, new things are hard because you need to learn them. Happens to every new thing you do.

It has nothing to do with the battle menu. It makes more sense to be in the help menu. Again it is accessable from the research trees just as easily.

You can go to the wiki before you see the stat card. I showed you a picture of this. You can access the wiki BEFORE the “very faulty” statcard.

I reference one tutorial not to make one giant one but to show that one tutorial (for the F-4s since we’ve talked about it already) coving the information available in the wiki and advanced fighting tactics against other airframes would be too long and compliated for people to want to see, to be reasonably programmed in, or be worth the effort of completing.

Cool, chess isn’t a 110GB video game where there are 1000s of different vehicles that need to be covered. You have 6 peices that need to be covered in their use, and advanced openings and tactics are not “tutorial level” actions. Just like turnfighting an F-5 is not “tutorial level” tactics for an F-4s. Chess is a much much simpler game overall in comparison to Warthunder.

What is BFM?

Again, if you are trying to compare chess to a video game as complicated as Warthunder, you should rethink your comparisons. A board game in 2 dimensions with 6 unique peices is not nearly as complicated as a video game in 3 dimensions with 1000s of unique vehicles with unique characteristics and uses.

These “small paragraphs” are excerpts if the entire wiki page for those vehicles. If I copied the entire thing, you’d spend too long reading it and would probably miss the information that I want to reference. Again, the wiki is more in depth than a tutorial could be without the tutorial being overly complicated and super long.

That’s tough for them, but they can search that out on youtube. It isnt economical for advanced tutorials for each vehicle to be made. This is a game where knowledge is primarily gained through experience, and having to make 100s of long drawn out tutorials for each vehicle makes no sense with the wiki and content creator community.

So you think they want long drawn out complicated tutorials for advanced piloting and use of airframes? You think they’ll do that instead of watching a very very experienced player break down mechanics.

Keep in mind that most players don’t care to go that far into things. Not everyone wants to become a trained fighter pilot in their free time after they come back from their occupation. That’s also part of the reason Air Sim isn’t as popular, because learning to fly a plane with aircraft controls takes more time then most are willing to get in to.

it’s the thing we should set as a goal, even if we don’t reach it ever.

yes, but only a slight bit of it.

yes, the overloaded UI, that has acces to stuff, but in generally is imo more than desired.

I meant the menue option in general, just expressed myself wrong. What specific issues would come from drop down menus? None in this case, so the limitation is unnesessary.

yes, and there is no reason, why we shouldn’t help people learn or should help more people learning.
Just bc something is hard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aid people in achiving that. Lots of universities have programs to aid the students while learning, that tend to get extended. You don’t say let them figure it out themselfs with the script/book we provide. They offer tutors, additional courses etc.
It is elitist to say, that it should be that hard.

yes, you can acces it easily, bit it is shown way less, and therefore for the average player (again, not us), it is not that often referred to.
The more valueable (and arguebly more complex) information is shown way less than the stat-card.
So the accesibility could be even better, like shown above.

And to play the F4S as your first jet (even when playing a P51 D 5 or something well), you have quite a few tutorials. One per mechanic, one per tactic. And it is not that you need to complete every tutorial before playing, but just completing the basics, and then refining your knowlege in the next years.
Fighting tactics are way fewer than the number of planes, so that is easier and more logical to do.
Any raising of skill level is good, when you look at how the F4S performs.

every level is tutorial level. Tutorials aren’t limited to the most basic things.
There are tutorials for university level things, and we are still way below that.

Chess is easier to start, but it is more difficult elsewhere.
The skills are different, not easier.
Like even War Thunder’s EC battles are not 6 h of calculating things in your head, like classical chess.
You don’t think about all sensible moves the enemy can make, your response, their response etc multiple times, before deciding what to do next (like push that way, or another, stay at your spot…).
It’s just different and the focus of what to learn when is different.
Chess gets really hard, really quickly, so just knowing the possible moves of 6 different figures, then special things like en passant, is basically only how to change ammo, click on the enemy, use wasd to drive etc.
Just bc you know that, doesn’t make you competitive even in mid tier.

Basic Figher Manouvers. You know, the basics, a fighter pilot should know, nothing complex involving multiple planes or something.

Again number of vehicles or dimensions isn’t the sole thing to gauge complications or complexity. It is literally more complicated than that.

And that’s you personal opition, since “overly” is personal.

And we can change that to include more knowlege that is gained through teaching.
A shortcut humanity uses to replace a huge part of experience, so people don’t need to work for 5 years first, before understanding basic algebra.

I think we should go into the direction and offer those, and those tutorials are basically the combined knowlege of very very experienced players teaching the meachanics and tactics.
So this is what that should be.
Like Defyn’s normal videos basically are just specialized examples and part of the general tutorial.

Yes, I agree, but we should make it easier for people to get further into things, so more people do.
If you don’t offer a good way to get people into eduction, of course less people are getting into advanced eduction.
I know, that most people still wont learn what BFM even means in air combat, or the most valueable air combat terms.
But having better acces to better aid, should increase the ammount of people going that route. Yes, many will stop after the very basics, some will learn more advanced techniques and very few will become people for top-squads.

Yes, you can’t change much quickly, and it often makes sense to stop before reaching the stars, but I think aiming for the stars and then building an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile), rather than aim for the sky and build a paper plane, that yes, flies up to a dozen meters long and a few meters high in the sky.


To make loads of content that people already can access through the Wiki and Content Creator partners. Yes, waste time making more tutorials instead of decompression, bug fixes, and general game improvements.

So you don’t like the overloaded UI, but you want an overloaded complicated tutorial system. Makes sense.

So what would you want? Not clear menus that pertain to different systems appartently. Would you want one massive and overcomplicated drop down menu? That would just be a different type of overload in the UI and would be more complicated to find things. Kind of like NOT putting the wiki link in the “To Battle” options because it doesn’t pertain to it. Organization has been done in a way that makes sense considering all of the features and systems present in game.

It isn’t that hard. You’re making it seem like the game information is hidden behind some secret backdoor and isn’t available for new players. You want less complicated things, it seems, but you want complicated tutorials that the average player won’t even care about. Average players don’t try to learn specific maneuvers used in dogfighting or flanking tactics for tanks, enthusiasts do.

In terms of College aiding people in learning things, it’s their entire job to ensure their customers learn things. If their students (customers) don’t learn what they paid to learn then it is a bad College. Warthunder is not a College, its a video game.

Again, this is a personal choice having an effect on a player buying past the natural game’s progression. If you go through the tree, you’ll learn everything BEFORE you get to 11.3. Your first jet should probably be around 7.0 and not use complicated radar systems with HMDs, multiple tracking modes, and weapons that use data links for targeting.

You mean like completing the basic tutorials given now and then learning through time as you progress the tree?

But you said you want a tutorial on how to use the F-4S afainst the F-5 airframes. That isn’t fighting tactics overall, thats specific tactics for a single airframe family.

Tutorials for advanced tactics are much more complicated to design and implment correctly for them not to waste the dev’s and player’s time. Average players don’t want to spend 30 minutes in a tutorial, they want to spend 30 minutes playing the game.

Yea, I wholly disagree with that. Military tactics, especially aerial combat tactics is not below Univeristy level. Pilots go through rigorous training and must be vastly knowledgeable in order to properly do their job and most have degrees of some sort (at least US officers, Warrant Officers go through speciailized training for helicopters on top of their enlisted experience in the aviation field). That training in aerial combat is what you think an average Warthunder player wants to learn, and I can almost guarantee that average players don’t want to be that in depth.

The skill level for Warthundet is higher because aerial combat tactics are MUCH more complicated than chess. Sitting there for 6 hours to plan out moves in chess is not the same as calcuating expected enemy positions in 3 dimensions, countering those expected potions by leveraging your own airframe’s characteristics, knowing your airframe characteristics well enough to trust you life and theblives of others (real life, not Warthundet specific), leveraging potential and kenetic energy states, caculating appropriate weapon engagement ranges in differing atmospheric conditions, managing fuel ranges and weights for your airframe, making correct manuvers, defensive and offensive flying, knowing pre-flight/in-flight/post flight checks, correctly operating multiple systems at a time to ensure you’re in the right place at the right time to do the correct mission, ect. Granted not all of these are present in Warthunder, but saying chess is more complicated than aerial combat is a rediculous claim.

Thank you, because BFM could have meant blue flute music… Acronyms are usually a type of jargon and not everyone knows everything acronym.

So 3d chess is not as complicated or more complex than standard chess? More variables means more complexity.

This also applies to your “overloaded UI” argument.

Coming from an actual military profession, classroom settings where concepts are taught is not nearly as effective as learning through failure and experience. Knowledge is good, but is merely facts until you put it into practice and learn by accomplishing things or failing. You can know the information pertaining to aerial combat and still not perform it well. Knowledge alone does not mean success.

That is why college degrees are sought after more than experienced workers… Oh wait, that isn’t how that works. Experience is superior to only knowledge because experiencing what you’ve learned about by practical use is more conducive to better performance than learning concepts. Otherwise, you get things like professors in a field because there is no practical use of their knowledge and the only way they stay relevant is passing on strictly knowledge to others. Like your algebra example, you can learn it in school but it means nothing if you never use it in a practical way. I didn’t take algebra in High School, yet I learned to put in to practice advanced mathematical equations dealing with electrical theory. Not in a book style classroom setting, but an active learning setting where you learned the information and then immediately applied it to electronic maintenance situations.

So basically adding even more on to the content creator’s content. Sounds like making the current system even more complicated. I though you didn’t like complicated.

This is a video game, not a simulator. People usually play this game to unwind, not become a pilot. There is no lack of information about this game and its mechanics and how to utilize them, yet people still play. Probably because average players don’t play for hours and hours trying to soak up as much information as they can, they just want to unwind a bit and use vehicles they enjoy to blow things up. You’re making it seem like Warthunder is some Top Gun school and if everyone doesn’t know everything about everything then it’s a failure on the game.

This is an acknowledgement that no matter what information is available (which there is plenty available for Warthunder) that average players DON’T WANT TO LEARN all of this information because it doesn’t help them in their normal life. If Warthunder is your favorite pastime and you spend hours at a time playing, then it makes sense. If not, people won’t care.

It won’t. If people don’t put more time into the game now with the amount of information available to them then they never will. A player that wants to learn will seek out the knowledge, a player that wants to have fun and pass the time will not. Forcing excess content to be created while there are systems in place to spread this knowledge is a waste of time for Gaijin.

Aiming for the stars is such a cliche. Setting realistic goals is better than setting lofty, unachievable goals. Being realistic provides you with the ability to accomplish what you’ve set out to do, which is a positive interaction instead of never achieving what you set out to do and always coming up short, which is a negative interaction. If you make a goal, it should be able to be accomplished. The motivation comes from being able to achieve what you have laid out, and if you don’t have the ability to do that you will lose motivation. Dreams are nice to have, but constantly falling short of your dream will make things worse for you in the long term.

I figured I’d do another separate reply because I’m going to demonstrate something here, and the other reply was super long anyway.

The wiki page is accessable by the information hyperlink of every vehicle’s right click menu, which is usually one of the most accessed menus in game as it exists for all vehicles and is interacted with quite a bit. I’ll use the F-4S wiki page as an example since it has been a talking point throughout this discussion.

I am going to put the entire wiki page into this reply, and I would love to know what a tutorial could provide that isn’t provided by this wiki page. It even has links to youtube videos from content creators about the vehicle. I could do the same for the boom and zoom wiki page, and it has 5 videos from different people explaining it too. What could a tutorial give you that isn’t available already in the resources provided and linked within the game?

This is the ENTIRE WIKI page for the F-4S:

Navigation menu






In other languages

This page is about the premium American jet fighter F-4S Phantom II. For other versions, see F-4 Phantom II (Family).

GarageImage F-4S Phantom II.jpg

StoreImage F-4S Phantom II 004.jpg

F-4S Phantom II

USA flag.png USA

VII Rank

Battle rating:

11.0 11.3 11.3



Jet fighter

Naval aircraft

Purchase:Bundle or Gift





The F-4 Phantom II served its most notable service period in the Vietnam War for both the US Air Force (USAF) and US Navy (USN). The USN had the F-4J as their latest aircraft, and it began to show its age in the post Vietnam War period. A modernization program began to keep the F-4J up to date with latest upgrades. Improvements were done in avionics, weapon systems, airframe, and undercarriage, but the two most notable improvements were wing leading-edge slats, for improved manoeuvrability, and new smokeless engines. The F-4S flew for USN up until the Phantom’s retirement in the late 1980s, replaced by more modern aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat and the F-18 Hornet.

The F-4S Phantom II, introduced in Update “Sky Guardians”, is one of the top versions of the F-4 Phantom II in the game. While the overall play style is not very different from the F-4J, the performance improvements in manoeuvrability should allow the F-4S to occasionally get the upper hand over even more modern fighter designs that it can encounter. Outside the dogfighting range, the usual complement of BVR weaponry like the Sparrows alongside the PD radar should allow the F-4S to shoot down careless enemy fighters who can’t evade in time.

General info

Flight performance

Arrestor gear

Accelerates braking by grabbing the brake cable on the deck of the aircraft carrier

Air brakes

Allows you to dramatically reduce the flight speed by releasing special flaps

Drogue parachute

Reduces braking distance when landing on any runway

Max speed

at 12 192 m2 140 km/h

Turn time26 s

Max altitude16 000 m

Engine2 х General Electric J79-GE-10B


Cooling systemAir

Take-off weight24 t

Characteristics Max speed
(km/h at 12,192 m) Max altitude
(metres) Turn time
(seconds) Rate of climb
(metres/second) Take-off run
Stock 2,080 2,058 16000 26.5 27.4 155.0 145.2 850
Upgraded 2,224 2,140 25.5 26.0 217.6 185.0


Combat flaps Take-off flaps Landing flaps Air brakes Arrestor gear Drogue chute
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Wings (km/h) Gear (km/h) Flaps (km/h) Max Static G
Combat Take-off Landing + -
1458 463 1,458 618 463 ~11 ~4

Optimal velocities (km/h)
Ailerons Rudder Elevators Radiator
< 810 < 750 < 700 -

Engine performance

Engine Aircraft mass
Engine name Number Basic mass Wing loading (full fuel)
General Electric J79-GE-10B 2 14,205 kg 408 kg/m2
Engine characteristics Mass with fuel (no weapons load) Max Gross
Weight (each) Type 9m fuel 20m fuel 30m fuel
1,750 kg Afterburning axial-flow turbojet 15,964 kg 18,047 kg 20,070 kg 27,058 kg
Maximum engine thrust @ 0 m (RB/SB) Thrust to weight ratio @ 0 m (WEP)
Condition 100% WEP 9m fuel 20m fuel 30m fuel MGW
Stationary 5,250 kgf 8,159 kgf 1.02 0.90 0.81 0.60
Optimal 5,311 kgf
(1,458 km/h) 10,361 kgf
(1,400 km/h) 1.30 1.15 1.03 0.77

Survivability and armour


Aircraft countermeasures to distract IR and radar-guided missiles and also AA radar

Crew2 people

Speed of destruction

Structural1 458 km/h

Gear463 km/h

While the F-4S completely lacks any armour plating or ballistic glass, meaning that the pilot and internal systems are exposed to damage from even small arms fire, the airframe itself is relatively sturdy thanks to the upgrades it got to better handle high-G sustained turns, and can take a few hits from opposing aircraft using 20 x 102 mm Vulcan or 20 x 110 mm USN rounds and remain airborne. Higher calibre guns however such as the BK-27 found on the Tornados, and the GSh-30-1 on the MiG-29 have a higher chance of severely crippling your performance or outright destroying the aircraft. As with the F-4J, the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) in the back of the cockpit cannot take control of the aircraft if the pilot is knocked out, as it lacks the dual controls found on the USAF variants of the Phantom (C & E.)

The fuel tanks are self-sealing, but generally won’t be able to stop a fire from igniting due to every aircraft at the F-4S’ BR using guns that are at least 20 mm in calibre. They also take up a lot of space in the midsection and rear of the Phantom, making shots to the fuselage potentially fatal. There are additional fuel tanks located in the upper-front of the wings and in the bottom of the fuselage, but they are a much smaller and thinner target, so the chances that they get hit are much lower in comparison. You have an extinguisher to put out engine fires, but effectiveness may vary depending on the severity of damage to the rest of the airframe, along with your airspeed.

With only 60 countermeasures available to use that are deployed in pairs of two, effectively halving your actual number of deployments to just 30, the F-4S is rather limited in its defense against missiles compared to many of its opponents and even other Phantom variants, and bringing chaff with the mixed setup halves your actual deployment number again to just a measly 15, meaning you’ll have to be very aware of your countermeasure usage.

Modifications and economy

Repair cost

AB1 976 Sl icon.png

RB5 979 Sl icon.png

SB6 411 Sl icon.png

Crew training10 000 Sl icon.png

Experts1 350 000 Sl icon.png

Aces3 000 Ge icon.png

Research Aces2 280 000 Rp icon.png

Reward for battleAB / RB / SB

Talisman.png 2 × 100 / 310 / 600 % Sl icon.png

Talisman.png 2 × 238 / 238 / 238 % Rp icon.png



Ballistic Computer
CCIP (Guns) CCIP (Rockets) CCIP (Bombs) CCRP (Bombs) Lead indicator
alt={{{alt}}} 20x20 alt={{{alt}}} 20x20 alt={{{alt}}} 20x20 alt={{{alt}}} 20x20 alt={{{alt}}} 20x20

Offensive armament

The F-4S Phantom II is armed with:

  • A choice between two presets:
    • Without offensive armament
    • 60 x countermeasures

Suspended armament

The F-4S Phantom II can be outfitted with the following ordnance:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hardpoints F-4C Phantom II.png
20 mm Mk 11 mod 5 cannons (750 rpg) 1
250 lb LDGP Mk 81 bombs 6 3 6 3 6
250 lb Mk 81 Snakeye bombs 6 3 6 3 6
500 lb LDGP Mk 82 bombs 6 3 6 3 6
500 lb Mk 82 Snakeye bombs 6 3 6 3 6
750 lb M117 cone 45 bombs 3 3 3 3 3
1,000 lb LDGP Mk 83 bombs 2 2 3 2 2
Mk 79 Mod 1 incendiary bombs 1 1 1
FFAR Mighty Mouse rockets 38 57 57 57 38
Zuni Mk32 Mod 0 ATAP rockets 12 12 12 12 12
AIM-7F Sparrow missiles 1 1 1 1 1 1
AIM-9H Sidewinder missiles 2 2
600 gal drop tanks 1
Maximum permissible loadout weight: 7,257 kg
Maximum permissible wing load: 3,000 kg
Maximum permissible weight imbalance: 1,500 kg
* Sparrows on hardpoints 2/10 cannot be carried in conjunction with Sidewinders on hardpoints 3/9 respectively

*20 mm Mk 11 Mod 5 gun pod and 600 gal drop tank cannot be carried at the same time due to sharing hardpoint 1|

[Expand]Default weapon presets

Usage in battles

Being a slightly upgraded F-4J, the F-4S retains many of its predecessor’s defining characteristics.

The main difference between the two is the F-4S’ leading edge wing slats. These greatly increase manoeuvrability below ~970-1000 km/h SPD by allowing you to pull more AoA (Angle of Attack) which helps to tighten down your turning circle, but results in noticeably more energy bleed. Inversely, the slats will reduce the amount of AoA you can pull above the priorly-mentioned airspeed, which massively improves energy retention and delays pilot blackouts at the cost of an overall wider turn circle. This ability to control your AoA at various speeds can be an invaluable tool in winning engagements if properly mastered, but remember that you’re still a Phantom; the F-4S can’t turn tight enough to competitively dogfight most other top-tier aircraft even with the manoeuvrability upgrade, but it’s good enough that you may be able to last in an extended engagement against a single opponent until an ally comes to your aid.

The most powerful aspect of the F-4S is its weaponry. For IR-guided missiles, it carries AIM-9Hs. Even though they have mediocre turn performance (max overload 18G), their respectable range and long guidance time makes them ideal for picking off inattentive players or AI planes. The crown jewel of the F-4S’ arsenal however is the AIM-7F. With effective usage of the Pulse Doppler and ACM modes, the F-4S can confidently go into battle with an all-Sparrow loadout and not feel limited at closer engagement ranges. The AIM-7F is able to reliably hit targets from a minimum of 3 km in head ons, all the way out to a maximum of 25-30 km in good conditions with Pulse Doppler active (any further than that will require some luck.) Head on snapshots from less than 3 km can be done, but you’ll be pushing the limits of both your radar’s lock speed and the Sparrow’s 25G pull limit.

Your biggest threats will be the F-14A / B, the MiG-29 9.13, and the Yak-141. All three gravely outclass you in BVR combat; the F-14s due to their massive, highly advanced radar and long-range Phoenix missiles, while the MiG-29 and Yak-141 carry the R-27ER, arguably the best SARH missile currently in War Thunder. The F-14s and MiG-29 9.13 also have you massively beat in a dogfight; both are able to comfortably sit inside your turning circle and either shoot at you with their guns or fire off a missile, so catching these opponents off guard or while they’re distracted will aid in you and your team’s survival. The Yak-141 however, while boasting phenomenal acceleration, has much more exploitable performance flaws; it can barely break the sound barrier due to high airframe drag, and bleeds energy severely in turns. You will have no issue beating the 141 in a 1v1 dogfight thanks to your upgraded manoeuvrability, just as long as you remember that the 141 is a VTOL aircraft, and may get creative with their manoeuvres out of desperation.

The MiG-29SMT, while featuring more advanced avionics and the deadly R-73 infared missile at close range, along with the R-27ER for mid and long range, has far worse manoeuvreability than the 9.13 and is moderately heavier, making it much less dominant in a dogfight and unable to extend out of an engagement as easily. Avoiding detection from this aircraft as you approach the frontline is evermore paramount as you’re now at an extremely large BVR disadvantage, but you’ll find that it’s relatively much easier to lead your shots on the SMT than many of the other 4th gen fighters if you manage to close the distance.

Base bombing is, as expected for the Phantoms, and no exception to the F-4S, a completely viable strategy thanks to its impressive bomb load. It also has some merit in attacking ground targets, as it can carry a ludicrous amount of Mighty Mouse rockets (Up to a maximum of 247 if you wish to forgo the gun pod) that are very easy to aim thanks to having a rocket CCIP, and you can still carry 4 Sparrows to have a strong weapon against enemy aircraft. Avoid SPAA vehicles like the plague, as getting too close may spell an untimely return to the hangar, and the lack of guided munitions means you have to get close to or within their firing range to deal with them, either with bombs or rockets.

There are 2 types of missiles you will encounter in a Phantom. A radar-based missile, and a heat seeking missile. First, Radar based missiles. A good way to trick radar missiles is by using terrain. Long range missiles tend to lock onto the ground/trees when their target is flying just above the deck. Use this to your advantage, and fly at a safe 200-600m to confuse radar missiles. This strategy will NOT work on heat-guided missiles. Use flare and cut your afterburners before the missile gets within 1km of you. Also, avoid overusing flares, as you only have 60 (30 if you bring mixed with chaffs) countermeasures to work with.

Pros and cons


  • Powerful pulse-Doppler radar
  • HMD allows significant off-boresight tracking for both the AIM-7F and AIM-9H
  • Can carry up to 8 air-to-air missiles
  • One of the best SARH missiles at 11.3
  • Can take off and land on aircraft carrier
  • A wide range of suspended armaments, suitable for any playstyle
  • Can carry enough bombs to destroy a base without significantly affecting its flight performance
  • Slats provide valuable ability to control AoA and energy retention, increasing adaptability in aerial combat.


  • Doesn’t have an internal gun
  • The external gun pod negatively affects flight performance
  • Can’t carry a gun pod and drop tank at the same time as they share the same hardpoint
  • Quite large and heavy compared to other fighters at its rank
  • Fires will very rapidly destroy the airframe, and effectiveness of the extinguishers is questionable
  • Lack of guided munitions limits its potential in Ground Battles
  • 60 countermeasures is mediocre in uptiers, which this aircraft sees extremely often


The F-4S is a variant of the F-4 Phantom II, a twin-engine, all-weather jet fighter-bomber originally developed by McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) for the United States Navy in the 1950s. The F-4S was the final production version of the F-4, and saw extensive service during the Cold War and in various conflicts around the world. The F-4S was an upgraded F-4J, with slats and a better turn speed.

The F-4S was developed in response to the need for an advanced fighter-bomber that could operate in all weather conditions and perform a wide range of missions, including air-to-air combat, ground attack, and reconnaissance. It featured improved avionics, a more powerful engine, and upgraded weapons systems compared to earlier variants of the F-4.

One of the F-4S’s most significant upgrades was its advanced radar system, which could track multiple targets at once and provide the pilot with a clear picture of the battlefield. It was also equipped with a more sophisticated weapons delivery system, which allowed it to carry a wider variety of bombs and missiles, including the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, as well as multiple types of unguided bombs and rockets.

The F-4S saw extensive service with the US Navy and Marine Corps. It was used in a variety of conflicts, including the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Gulf of Sidra incident.

Despite its success in combat, the F-4S was eventually phased out of service in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as newer and more advanced fighter aircraft were introduced into the US military fleet. Today, several examples of the F-4S can be found on display in aviation museums and military bases around the world, serving as a reminder of the aircraft’s important role in military history.




F-4S Beginner’s Tutorial in 10 Minutes - Jaek_

Finally A Worthy Premium? - F-4S Phantom II - DEFYN

See also

Related development

External links

[Expand]McDonnell Aircraft Corporation

[Expand]USA jet aircraft

[Expand]USA premium aircraft


Gaijin Entertainment * Terms and Conditions

© 2011—2024 Gaijin Games Kft. All trademarks, logos and brand names are the property of their respective owners.

1 Like