Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion

even then, the F-22’s is simply larger and more powerful. stealth will still apply regardless, it is almost perfect for current ARB meta, only drawback is # of missiles

Opinions are going to very. This is all speculating on how Gaijin will implement it aswell. Classified aircraft are showing issues trying to get modeled. I.E. the Tyhpoon.

yeah, theres a general picture of its capabilites but gaijin will be super picky with sources and screw it over probably.

Could we please get some feedback on when the SepV2’s add on armor may become removable? It’s an optional armor package for urban warfare, yet somehow it’s still permanently baked into the US’ flagship tank in a vehicle versus vehicle game.

@Smin1080p_WT

7 Likes

Don’t touch my roof tiles! ;P

1 Like

On a very similar note

3 Likes

i posted a new suggestion aimed specifically at armour packages and the ability to have more choices based on the vehicles in the game; for example, being able to choose between composite side armour, era, cage armour, all on one vehicle. when/if its accepted, i’ll update here. it includes mock up pictures and I’m sure lots of people will like it.

this would allow the current tanks in game to have their roof cages and other unique things without having to add a whole new modification or vehicle

for example, heres a picture from that suggestion.
IMG_4325

having years occociated to vehicles and limiting them to the armour packages available to them based on that year, but also allowing them to accept older armour packages that would fit them from previous variants. this way the devs could add the roof cages to merkavas and t-80’s without having to have it as a whole new modification, bloating the modifications of the vehicle. just one modification; “additional armour” and this drop down menu is unlocked.

doing this means that they could also add more additional armour versions of vehicles, such as Warrior with BAR armour, or WRAP 2 armour; or Abrams with other armour packages, Leopard with SLAT armour and even some Russian tanks with cage armour and/or roof protection, all without having to add more stuff, bloating tech trees.

10 Likes

Also don’t forget about all the other Abrams fixes waiting to be implemented (probably never going to happen at this point).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9pd3QSYFMjsV
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ULvSC60SVBFw
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/I9SK1Z8A6c4I
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xK4GPBS59dUL

5 Likes

The F-21 is just a kfir lol

It is also the name of a proposed F-16 variant for India.

2 Likes

I wished India could of went for it though

Yes a nice addition for the British TT

1 Like

Something like this?

I hope that sometime in the future of updates, that the brimstones become fire and forget like the AGM-65s, I also hope that they fix the EFs radar etc.

1 Like

Well mostly I excluded the Amagis because they are already in-game at 7.0. My goal was to map out what the “top” battleships might be, the things that might qualify as the next BR step.

That said, I made some pretty glaring omissions and included the Revenges and Queen Elizabeths which are technically already in game at 7.0…

I forgor :\

But also, I don’t think Gaijin will use project vessels unless they don’t have another option. The Lexingtons and original SoDaks are neat designs, and by Gaijin’s rules they could include them! But the US has no shortage of designs that made it to service to use instead and I’m pretty confident we will see those first. Whereas the USSR has no options but projects if they will have top battleships.

For some reason I thought Gascogne got laid down when it didn’t.

So here’s a less confusing list.
Battleships that could be added in 2025 above BR 7.0 (assuming no BR decompression happens):
USA
Lexington Class (4 possible, assuming the two converted to carriers are excluded)
South Dakota Class 1920 (6 possible)
Colorado Class (4 possible)
North Carolina Class (2 possible)
South Dakota Class (4 possible)
Iowa Class (WW2 and postwar fits) (6 possible)
Total: 26 ships (13 projects)

GBR
King George V class (5 possible)
Lion (2 possible)
Vanguard (1 possible)
Total: 8 ships (2 projects)

DEU
Bismarck class (2 possible)
H-39 class (2 possible)
Total: 4 ships (2 projects)

RU
Sovetsky Soyuz (4 possible)
Stalingrad (1 possible)
Total: 5 ships, all projects

ITA
Littorio class (4 possible)
Total: 4 ships (1 project)

FRA
Richelieu class (WW2 and postwar fits) (3 possible)
Total: 3 ships (1 project)

JPN
Nagato class (WW2 fit) (1 possible)
Tosa class (1 possible)
Yamato class (4 possible)
Total: 6 ships (3 projects)

1 Like

We already have RN Comandante Margottini(which was first non-comissioned ship ingame), RN Etna, Shcherbakov, Z46/47 which clearly has another option

Only one, or two will be possible. It seems Gaijin choose Sovetsky Soyuz as 1939 design so maybe 1938 design could be also possible as it was original design when Sovetsky Soyuz and Sovetskaya Ukraina laid down, but well, Sovetskaya Ukraina could be problematic name for now.

You forget Normandie class.

Shinano and 4th ship laid down are no difference in design, so doubt both would be ingame.

I should really avoid posting while tired. >.>

But were any made?
A specific variant of enhanced F-16 block 70/72 with IRST, towed radar decoy, conformal fuel tanks, F-35 information display, Triple Missile Launcher Adapters (TMLAs) i.e 40% more A2A weapons

So, does it count for US (being the manufacturer) or UK (via India, since it’s a tailored version specifically for the Nation).

Only found few references:

was it ever flown by indian pilots? or by lockheed/US demo team?

That’s what I am asking as well

1 Like