My opinion coming on Jan 3, 2026 7:30 AM EST. I’m way too sleepy, but I’m sure I will agree on most of your points.
yeah honestly half the brochures and stuff for russian tanks overstate the abilities of the tanks, its one of the reasons why india always try and china did move away from using russian exports
makes the “clear marketing lies” quote from the eurofighter bug report even funnier
2 Likes
you people really just want US to be dominant in game
12 Likes
The analogue video output is treated as equivalent to what has become digital 640x480, but the actual number of elements in the detector arrays and lines scanned, were generally less than 480 on 1st generation systems. The analogue nature of the horizontal scanning smoothed things out nicely, but you could still sort of see the vertical resolution was quite blocky, with distinct inactive lines, and interlacing on the old CRT monitors.
IIRC US 1st gen imagers like ISU on Bradley (red footage above) and TIS on Abrams, and HIRE on LAV-25, were between 60 to 120 element linear arrays. Second generation imagers like Bradley SA’s IBAS were 480x4 element detectors offering full SD resolution imaging and better interlacing as things moved to digital LCD displays.
It’s one of those things where analogue resolution as displayed on an analogue device like a CRT, doesn’t translate well to images created digitally, displayed on digital screens. You have to do all sorts of post-processing effects to make it look like old CRT, especially with so few horizontal lines.
But you’re right, the way it’s arbitrarily done in terms of generations being set digital resolutions creates all sorts of mismatches with actual thermal imager performance on different vehicles. On more modern digital thermal imaging devices with focal plane arrays, we’re left with them all being categorised as “third generation” because that’s what the technology is, even if many focal plane detectors don’t actually have enough elements to produce proper full-HD resolution imaging. Or how there can be a great difference in the picture created by a thermal imaging device depending on whether it is cooled or uncooled, MWIR, LWIR or SWIR etc. etc.
2 Likes
If you want to go there, lets realistically simulate manually loaded tanks with only 2 crew remaining needing like 30s to reload ?
Would you like that ?
2 Likes
any specific source you’re using to get that 30s mark?
But if we really wanna take it further, add a function for the autoloader to jam when it’s damaged, the more dmg, the higher the chance
Just an eyeball value of gunner needing to abandon his seat, switch to loader’s seat, take the shell out of the breech and toss it away, open bustle door, take a round, put it in the breech, close the bustle door and then go back to the gunner’s seat. Lets not forget that during that time you won’t be able to turn your turret as no one is manning it.
I’m sure this realistic feature escaped your biased eye.
3 Likes
We do, sort of.
Various APFSDS projectiles are still classified under simplified models in the game code, for example, both 3BM-42 and DM53 are ‘longrod_’ in the game’s files, despite there being major differences in the designs between both rounds.
I’m fairly certain that the M1A2’s also feature digital zoom.
Ah yes, I’m sure that has nothing to do with the BMPT premium sales and instead is only because ‘‘NATO suffers 100 minor screwups’’.
This implies an autoloader would perform different if located in lab rather than in a field, which is a funny picture, and slightly hints at you not understanding what an autoloader is.
Anyways: It’s almost as if everyone brings 90% APFSDS in War Thunder.
Therefore the old reload rates that partially (or fully) took into account a real life APFSDS - HEAT-FS - HE-F - APFSDS - HEAT-FS - HE-F layout was not representative at all of what players bring into battle.
I’m amazed that people try to twist Russian/Soviet autoloaders having underperformed for 8 years into somehow being a thing that benefitted Russia or evidence of Russian Bias, despite this inaccuracy having been bug reported all those years ago.
‘‘Trust me bro’’
XM-1 prototypes date to roughly ≈1975 - 1976, not sure why you think they’d have to have a 1979 round, especially when receiving such a round would only result in a BR increase.
I’m also curious why you specifically used this example, yet the 1984 IPM1 using 1990 M900 is no biggie or the 1985 M1A1 using 1989 M829A1 also not being an issue, despite these vehicles entering service with M833 and M829 respectively.
This whole point of yours is especially ironic because you later complain about the US never receiving any prototype vehicles, yet here you are complaining that a US prototype vehicle doesn’t receive more modern ammunition than the vehicle itself.
Both the T-80U and T-80B had limited numbers of models equipped with thermals. These were implemented because there was a major capability gap between the nations back then.
Right now there isn’t a major capability gap between nations in terms of MBT’s, some are indeed better than others (Strv 122’s, Leo 2A7’s), but not because they exclusively feature a certain tech that gives them a major edge.
Again, I don’t hear any complaints about the M6A2E1 using a steel hull plate it never used IRL, but has it in War Thunder for balancing reasons.
This tells me you don’t know how to interpret sources.
Sources almost always determine penetration via it’s line-of-sight penetration at 60 degrees of sloping.
People who do not understand this also frequently claim L27 is underperforming because sources state it is capable of penetrating 700mm of RHA.
It does this in-game as well, because the angle of attack at which it achieves this result is around 70 degrees.
Lmao.
RDF/LT, AGS, CCVL, XM8, EFV, HSTV-L, XM800T, MBT-70, XM803, XM-1 C, XM-1 GM, XM246, M247, XM975, T58, T95, T95E1, T32, T32E1, T54E2, T114, T29, T34, T30, T26E1-1, T26E5, T28, M4/T26, T1E1, T28E2.
I’m sure I’m missing some or that some of these had a few more models produced, but to act like Russia specifically gets prototypes at the exclusion of other tech trees is just ignorant.
11 Likes
How is these features that benefit France, Japan, China, USA, etc “favor Russians”?
Leclerc, Type 10, etc not having index speeds while having their theoretical maximums for years while T-series tanks were stuck with averages…
As for thermal resolution, War Thunder is played on LCD panels, not CRTs or other forms of monitor equipment inside tanks. Not only that, but even if they were on LCDs in-tanks, I’d be upscaling would occur to match the monitor’s resolution.
Because thermal imagers don’t see pixels.
If anything, War Thunder’s thermals are under-performing substantially.
The IPM1 does have M900 in-game. The standard M1 Abrams was fully retired when M900 was introduced, and uses an older gun to the IPM1 that likely can’t handle the pressures.
HSTVL’s other over-pressured round is not in-game and if it was it’d just increase the BR to like 12.7 or higher.
Uhuh… how is 690mm of penetration at 2000 meters against a 60 degree plate under-performing by 100mm? Do you have evidence that M829A2 can penetrate 790mm IRL?
And M829… I’ll need evidence that proves it can penetrate 624mm of armor IRL [100mm more than in-game], because I highly doubt that it can.
@Nounejm
This game is European, and Russian vehicles look weak in War Thunder on average.
There are moments, like BMPT’s mistaken BR placement.
1 Like
you do realize this realism goes both ways, if you want realistic carousel then youll have to deal with loader fatigue as well as resetting breech position on many nato tanks
oh buddy, lets take a look at this logic of yours
abandoing his seat and going to the ammo probably takes around 3-ish seconds
additional 4-6 seconds to open the door, grab the ammo and putting it in breech, door closes automatically
add another 3 seconds to go back to his seat
there’s 0 reasons to sit down on the loaders seat just to stand back up and grab ammo so we are going to ignore that
Is this for older tanks or something? the casing would be ejected without the loaders interference
so based on my bias, i’d say a 10+ seconds, maybe around 15 or so, no-where close to 30s tho
please explain how long each step would take in your biased eyes
Yeah, I’m sure the gunner is trained as well as the loader itself lol.
Doubt when you have two dead crew members blocking your way.
For every manually loaded tank.
Some might have cramped interiors and hard to reach ammo, prolonging the loading process even more.
Anything under 20s is just insanity.
1 Like
type 10 has been shown to reload faster though, also the elephant in the room is really the Leopards in my opinon, excluding abrams can most definetly reload faster than 5 seconds ideally, the leopard 6 second reload is patently wrong, and not only that, its Aced which means its locked behind a massive grind or Golden eagles which means leopard 2 are defacto at a disadvantage in most player cases
are we talking t series or nato tanks? cause like nato tanks have a dead loader in the way so id imagine that would lengthen significantly
Depending on the nation? yeah, obviously not all of them would be under that mindset but people tend to be aware that people might die and knowing how to perform their tasks would be something they’d be taught in case of such emergencies
If we wanna go that realistic, sure, but at that point you yank them on the floor and step on them if you must, you don’t leave them in the way to block everything
again, what does the casing have to do with this if it’s ejected automatically?
if we factor in this extra detail, sure, going over 20 probably makes more sense, but i’d still hesitate to say 30s
4s reload is the time even dedicated loaders would be really satisfied with, let alone someone that has a primary job of a gunner. They surely learn how to load a shell in the breech, but do they practice it religiously to improve the reload time ? Highly doubt it.
Also, tanks that get penetrated with crew loss are pretty much abandon material most of the time.
That takes time as well.
And now factor in all the crew skills that might increase this even further like Agility.
1 Like
Are we even talking about war thunder anymore?
i dont think its necessarily a mindset issue in this case, sure its definetly a thing irl but ingame? dead people are very hard to lift, dead people in combat gear inside a cramped space? thats probably not going to happen much more likely they just bail out, i dont think gaijin would or should had this mechanic.
there was a certain conflict the M1A1 was famously used in.
aware of that, i just gave him an IRL reason for why that would make sense, def not something i’d see added, don’t see gaijin considering corpses being in the way nerfing the reload either