At the end of the day, it really comes down to the player’s skill and awareness, knowing the weak spots on most ships makes all the difference, but also the Missile weapons are more likely going to 1 shot the majority of other ships or at least critically damage them compared to solid fired rounds…
6.3 and 6.7 are WW2 BRs; and constantly need to face those things. Tiger IIs, IS-2s, M26s…
And, as you said, you can see MILAN ATGMs from the 1970s as early as 5.7; Tiger Is, M4A3 (76)Ws, T-34/85s…
6.3 and 6.7 aren’t WW2 BRs either, that’s almost always been the transition zone
The maus sitting at 7.0 or even the is7
FnF weapons like EXOCET?
Eh… not necessarily.
Given that the impact point is entirely random and the damage dealt is just based upon the warhead hitting the hull like an unguided bomb on impact fuse. It might do damage, it might not. Messing around with Seagles has shown this quite clearly, If they all impact the centre point, they dont really do any meaningful damage and good luck even trying to sink a Carrier with them.
Its the SACLOS weapons that are more often than not SAMs and not ASMs that can be targetted and therefore hit weakspots.
So, assuming nothing changes… FnF AGMs would be incredibly annoying, but probably only really be a threat to smaller ships.
1 Like
World War II and Cold War vehicles should never be matched against each other.
These two eras represent fundamentally different stages of military technology and strategy, and forcing them to overlap in the Tier/BR system undermines both historical accuracy and gameplay balance.
There needs to be a clear separation in the matchmaking system so that WWII-era machines are not placed in battles alongside Cold War designs, even in down tier or up tier scenario.
Yes, and?
You know why BRs exist, right?
1 Like
True, let’s make the ultra late WW2 heavies nearly invincible
Yeah, the transition zone where now vehicles from the 1940s face vehicles from the 2020s. xD
Nah, arguing for nothing to prove nothing
I dont think any of the post ww2 155mm vehicles would suffer all that much being ejected into the 8.0 area. Especially stuff like the PzH-2000, 2S19 and PLZ-05. They really dont need to be seeing 6.x br vehicles at all.
2 Likes
When I’m operating a Douglas or any other missile-capable ship, my primary targets are small, fast-moving vessels up to frigate size, as well as aircraft such as planes and bombers.
These are relatively easy kills due to their lighter defenses and speed being no match for wire-guided missile.
Against larger ships, like destroyers or heavier classes, my approach changes. I’ll still engage them, but the damage is less decisive, typically reducing their crew by only 20–30%. In those cases, my strategy is to aim specifically for the ammunition stores or other critical systems, maximizing the chance of crippling the vessel.
Exactly. They are one-hit kill, fast reload, autoloaded HE slingers equipped with laser rangefinders.
There’s no reason AT ALL why they should be rendering heavy WW2 vehicles useless instead of facing, at least, Cold War vehicles.
Like, I’m not even asking to put them at Top Tier. But at least 8.3-8.7…
Precisely. You have the control to aim for specific weakspots to maximise damage, with an FnF ASM like EXOCET, you wouldnt have any of that control, It would just impact one of the usually three points and so the damage would essentially be RnG. Annoying sure, with enough volume could probably sink something larger, but typically? Probably not going to be a major threat to anything larger than an early light cruiser.
To be fair, in reality battleships and dreadnoughts took an incredibly long time to sink. These were massive, heavily armored vessels designed to withstand punishment, and it often required sustained, coordinated firepower to bring them down.
I understand this is a game, but they really ought to feel tougher and more resilient than they currently do. Of course, I don’t envy the Gaijin developers, balancing such a complex ecosystem of planes, tanks, and ships is no easy task.
Still, naval gameplay would feel far more authentic and rewarding if battleships reflected their historical durability.
Right now, it sometimes feels like they’re treated more like oversized cruisers than the floating fortresses they truly were.
1 Like
I’ve noticed that most fire‑and‑forget missiles in War Thunder tend to lock onto and strike center mass. While this is often effective, it isn’t always ideal, hitting center mass doesn’t necessarily guarantee a kill
Spg are just no armored so it doesn’t matter where is it, just like the m18
2 Likes
Exactly.
They die the same to a Tiger II and to a T-72: while they kill the same a Tiger II and a Leopard 1.
Therefore, why the hell are they facing Tiger IIs instead of Leopard 1s?
For naval I can see why a seperation would be helpful, the gameplay somewhat supports a seperation, but that’s not the case for ground battles (or air battles)
Ultimately BRs are based on performance and specs, not on introduction dates and that’s how it has to be done to keep the BRs balanced
Just because something works against higher BR’d vehicles doesn’t mean it has to have a higher BR, otherwise we’d end up with super early SPGs/SPHs at extremely high BRs for absolutely no reason
When it comes to the LRF SPHs, I do agree, those should have higher BRs, but the other 155mms don’t need higher BRs at all
2 Likes
They do vs ground vehicles, but they fixed that about a year ago? I cant recall, so that against naval targets instead they impact 1 of 3 points along the hull, randomly picking which they go for. Works for both ASMs and FNF AGMs. Not totally ideal, but WAAAAAY better than it was before