So sad the new boxer is unplayable thanks to the BMPT spam.
So sad ussr got another, better pantsir that’s once again the best spaa in the game, mere months after the old pantsir got outclassed by NATO.
So sad that the LMUR is the only FnF missile in the game with a properly modeled top attack pattern while FnF brimstones are apparently too broken.
So sad that germany has by far the lowest winrate out of every other nation in the game.
3 Likes
Have you tried in any other aspect ?
Yep so far ive only managed to do it in frontal
There is no way to “overcome it.” There’s no jamming limits as of yet. But yeah, the Mi-28 has a miniscule blind spot where missiles can slip through, still total RNG bs if your missile goes through there or not.
So it definitely has something to do with you closing in on the missile very fast though.
Clip it next time it happens at some decent distance if you can.
premium spam hasnt helped, all the teammates i’ve been getting are bad to say the least
2 Likes
Gaijin should have never let new players buy their way to top tier. Games should be consistent at top tier but it feels a coin flip if the game ends fast or goes on for longer.
6 Likes
Actually carry more flares than chaff in ground battles
Germany needs a DM33 Leopard 2A4 now.
The fact they only had USA on their team to counter my team’s MBTs & BMPTs because they were stuck using DM23 instead of DM33… it wasn’t fun as Britain, I doubt it was fun for the German players.
Germany also has other vehicles ready for the 11.0 lineup:
Puma VJTF, and Boxer SWI. With more that can be added.
Most trees need more stuff in the 11.0-11.3 bracket. A huge part of the current 10.7 suffering is the insane popularity of russian 11.0-11.3 vehicles where the competition essentially boils down to a couple spike slingers, a bit of Israeli stuff and the MSC. Its not a surprise that 10.7 sucks so immensely when every single game is a brutal uptier
3 Likes
I always carry Vikhr on one pylon for exact this reason.
On the Apache i usually don’t bother.
When Russia has a win rate below 50% for three months, Gaijin will give Russia a huge buff. LMUR Pantsir SM… Since October 2025, Germany has had a win rate below 45%, but it has never received any buff
3 Likes
Do any of my German mains know why the Aussie Boxer has less Bhp and no spall liners?
Is this an oversight by Gaijin?
as the Bhp the aussie boxer was based on an more antique version with less HP while the waffentrager was based off the latest versions of the boxer with more HP and the spall liner its just a gaijin moment definitively, we already reported spall liners for every boxer and they havent added them to any other
4 Likes
Couldnt find a more fitting thread but whatever.
This is regarding @Jεcka 's DM 53 Anti-ERA report.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gcvaeG1VZj44?comment=PeklM1zYc6OpoxoHvRez4Dj2
(Also @Smin1080p_WT we’d appreciate if you could unlock the comments on the report so further information [that the devs asked for] can be added without having reupload everything again, thanks in advance.
We received an answer from the devs and I gotta say, they could not have thrown in more lies into it:
The Response:
The attachment:
Since I actually speak german (& dont use gemini for translations) and know that words actually mean something, I’ll go over the major part of the response, which is regarding the Bundestag hearing Drucksache 19/23326
First of all, they claim that the hearing does not specify what they mean with “ineffective against 3rd generation dynamic protection”, which again is a shabby translation.
What is actually written is as follows:
“Modern Reactive-Armour (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA), such as the third generation ERA (Relikt), which are and have been retrofitted on russian main battle tanks, including such of older design (e.g. Usage in MBT T-72B3, MBT T-90M/MS), can no longer be effectively fought with the existing KE-munition.”
So what is already clear from the get-go, is that “3rd generation ERA” EXPLICITLY refers to Relikt. Here there is no “z.B.” (:= “for example” or; “e.g.”), but the explicit definition (the same way that “Explosive-Armour” was defined earlier) of it being Relikt.
What they mean with ineffective is also of absolutely no value here, as the report itself is not focused on DM 63’s lacking Anti-heavy ERA performance against Kontakt-5 to begin with, but instead, on its performance against Relikt.
Moving on, they claim that the document must refer to Kontakt-5 solely by listing T-72B3, since they claim it exclusively uses Kontakt-5 on its frontal parts (which would usually always include ±30° of the frontal-sides, as per german definitions - but then again the frontal area was never mentioned in this hearing to begin with)
Did I mention this hearing is from 2020? No? Well they didnt either.
You wanna know why this is important? Take a look at the translation again and maybe you’ll notice the fine little part “retrofitted[…]” “including such of older design[…]”.
You wanna take a guess which tank has been retrofitted with Relikt in 2016?
Yup, it’s T-72B3, specifically T-72B3 UBH (early designation, later redesignated to T-72B3M)
So the mention of T-72B3 does not, in any way, proof that they are referring to K5 (I mean, again they literally defined 3rd generation era as relikt the sentence prior)
That aside, you will find countless articles claiming B3 to use relikt on it’s ufp, despite that seemingly not being the case. Whether the Bundestags’ response was based on these speculations and therefore included B3, or included it because it well… has been retrofitted with Relikt is up for interpretation.
In addition, in several places, the words “nicht mehr” are used in this hearing, which quite literally mean “no longer”.
I dont think I need to tell you the definition of that but I’ll do it anyway for simplicity:
“No longer” = Not anymore, but has been previously.
Thus the statement that DM63 is “no longer” capable of defeating Explosive Armour, and specifying the exact type it cannot defeat as Relikt, means in turn that previous types, or previous iterations of the same type, could be defeated by DM 63.
Which is also being completely ignored here.
In addition, there is another interesting paragraph:
“Daher besteht eine akute Fähigkeitslücke der gesamten Leopard-Flotte in Deutschland und
in der weltweiten 120 mm Nutzergemeinschaft inklusive aller NATO Partner.”
“Therefore, there exists an acute capability-gap of the entire leopard-fleet in germany and in the world-wide 120 mm user-community, including all NATO-Partners”.
Do you realise what their reply just implied based on this?
It is that M829A3, nor M829A4 (the latter being from 2015, the former even older), are capable of defeating K5 - since they claim that the document states that K5 is being referred to in any way.
Despite this, M829A3 has just now been added with Anti-ERA capabilites against K5.
Can they please lie and atleast make it sound believable?
Or get someone who actually speaks german to translate the documents they hyperfocus on because they are so desperate to find an excuse to shut down the report as they cannot contradict any of the other presented sources.
It would also help if they actually read the entire part of the hearing, as that would’ve prevented many of the embarrassment above.
…Which also makes me wonder where the hell they got their M829A3 performance data on that they seemingly require to model the anti-era capability… Surely they didnt just make stuff up, right? Or did they perhaps use the funny docs? Who knows, wouldnt be the first time.
As for the other aspects;
I cannot confidently comment on those. I do not happen to have DM 53 blueprints with material properties under my pillow and if I did, then that would likely be the last thing I post here.
Regardless, the sheer amount of blatant lies regarding the bundestag hearing gives me very little hope that any of their other points are geniuene to any degree.
I’d gladly appreciate to receive a answer from the developers or community managers as to HOW they were this blatantly misleading / lying about the contents of the Bundestag hearing.
Edit: I can’t read either so one critique point was removed. Does not change the outcome however.
Edit: Idk how I didnt think of it earlier but “nachgerüstet” would be translated to “retrofitted”, rather than refitted. Doesnt change anything on the context here but makes it a bit clearer what the original text says.
23 Likes
Dunno. All I know is that the signature feature of this platfrom is its modular design. Everything is compatible with everything and its easy to do refits according to mission profiles (from medevac to IFV combat). So there shouldn’t be any difference at all. Every production line worldwide contributes as needed for a certain project. Autrialian plants contribute for german vehicles and vice verca. Its hard to believe the interchangeability might be screwed by different designs for different countries.
1 Like
Thank you for this post.
100% deserves to be here.
I read source 10 & concluded: “This source gives the most amount of information. & I appreciate that they were specific about Relikt. Cause what the do they mean when they say “Heavy ERA” in the other sources?”
I would love a documented definition of heavy ERA so I’m not just assuming they mean K5.
Cause I am assuming that’s what they mean, but assumptions aren’t proof.
I think the mod/staff misunderstood source 10.
Source 10 is the bundestag hearing - and yes they misinterpreted it (or lied, whatever you wanna call it)
The response is directly from the developers.
Because in 1995, the only Russian heavy ERA in mass production was Kontakt-5.