HMS Renown Secondaries

Ok so, with the new HMS Renown event vehicle, it was released in its 1944 configuration. Of which she had 20 114mm mk 4 guns located in 10 twin mounts, these being the same guns found on the battle class that we already have in game. But, on Renown, there’s a small issue. She doesn’t get her VT shells for her secondary battery. Of which, after looking at multiple sources, HMS Renown did in fact receive VT shells for her secondary battery.


Just like in tanks, shells are a tool for balancing that the devs reserve the right to employ whenever they feel like it.

I am aware, and with all due respect, there are ships with better shells of this type. Namely the US 5/38 AAVT shell, which is practically one of the best AA shells in the whole game across all modes, which is why to me, and many other people who have stumbled upon this, is a weird decision.

As proof, within the game the 5/38 is simply better than the UK 4.5/45, except for 2 regards.

For reference, the USS Alaska, a ship at the exact same BR, and is of the same type, receives VT shells for her secondaries.

The 5/38’s characteristics, NOT UPGRADED.
Ammo: 360 per turret
First Stage RPM: 22
RPM: 15
First stage ammo: 40
Horizontal targeting speed: 21 degrees per second
Vertical: 13 degrees per second

AA Shell(s):
5in AAVT (HE-VT) 25kg, ~800m/s, ~3kg exp, 450m arm, 23m trigger radius.

4.5/45 Characteristics, NOT UPGRADED.
Ammo: 400
Fire Rate: 20rpm
Horizontal Targeting Speed: 17 degrees per second
Vertical Targeting Speed: 8.5 degrees per second

AA Shell(s):
4.5in HE-TF, 25kg, ~750m/s, ~2kg exp
(All EXCEPT Renown)
4.5in HE-VT, 25kg, ~750m/s, ~2kg exp, ~250m arm, 23m trigger.

The main differences that the 4.5/45 has over the 5/38, is the fact that it doesn’t have a first stage, thus doesn’t receive a change in fire rate. 4.5/45 also has a TF shell, which is substantially worse than VT. Overall, they, the VT shells, are quite similar in performance.

In terms of HMS Renown VS USS Alaska, they themselves are very similar. Battlecruisers with a large AA armament, the only difference is Alaska is better armored, and has a larger AA battery, HMS Renown gets torpedoes, and HMS Renown gets 6 15 inch guns* instead of Alaska’s 9 12 inch guns. Both ships can already one shot each other if aimed correctly like many other ships.

In conclusion, why artificially make the Alaska better than the Renown, when they can already be equals?

*And by the way, the 15 inch guns found on Renown, as well as Hood and Glorious, have their own issues with accuracy.


And I do want to make it clear, I understand with that prospect, but in terms of a video game of the nature of War Thunder, if something CAN be balanced, then it should be balanced. And this in of itself is artificially making something unbalanced.


Of which, the thing itself is already very balanced considering the field its in.

1 Like

And I also want to point out, every naval nation in game has a capital ship with substantial AA, EXCEPT for the UK. The closest being HMS Hood, with a whopping, 4 mgs, 3 med aa guns, and 7 dual purpose guns with TF fuses. And if you count heavy cruisers as capital ships, HMS London.


Scharnhorst (has better density of the AA guns)

Parishyaka Kommuna