This statement means that the developer reserves the right to classify any vehicle as whatever is convenient for gameplay purposes. In a game which advertises itself as realistic, I find this absolutely inadequate.
I understand that some kind of class balancing happened a couple years ago and that vehicles were reclassed so that so-and-so vehicle could have Scouting, or Artillery, or whatever.
Let me be the beam of light to penetrate the fog and tell you that this is wrong. This is a developer shortcut, a corner-cutting exercise which skips the thinking required to place vehicles correctly and reinforces existing biases.
SPGs are not Tank Destroyers, and I’m tired of pretending that Avenger is a Medium.
A number of vehicles in game have non-historical vehicle classes, which I’ve listed below. Feel free to add any that I have missed.
USA
Spoiler
M8 HMC - as a Howitzer Motor Carriage, the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M18 GMC - the M18 is a Tank Destroyer in US doctrine.
M18 “Black Cat” - the M18 is a Tank Destroyer in US doctrine.
Super Hellcat - the Super Hellcat is a Tank Destroyer in US doctrine.
M44 - as a Howitzer Motor Carriage, the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M109A1 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M1128 - classed as a Light Tank, but designated as a “Mobile Gun System” or Assault Gun (Tank Destroyer) by the US Army.
M1128 Wolfpack - classed as a Light Tank, but designated as a “Mobile Gun System” or Assault Gun (Tank Destroyer) by the US Army.
Germany
Spoiler
15cm sIG 33 B Sfl - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
Sd.Kfz.222 - as a Leichter Panzerspähwagen (light armoured reconnaissance vehicle) this should be classed as a Light Tank.
8.8cm Flak 37 Sfl auf 18 ton Zugkraftwagen - this is an SPAA with the ability to engage ground targets, not a tank destroyer.
Wiesel 1A4 - with elevation of 45 degrees the Wiesel is most definitely not an SPAA, and as an airborne tankette should be classified as a Light Tank (an argument could be made that it is a 20mm SPG, but I don’t think we want that to happen)
M44 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M109G - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
Boxer MGS - classed as a Light Tank, but designated as a “Mobile Gun System” or Assault Gun (Tank Destroyer).
USSR
Spoiler
2S1 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
2S3M - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
2S38 - this is an SPAA, not a Light Tank.
Great Britain
Spoiler
Valentine I, IX, and XI - as an Infantry tank in British interwar doctrine, the Valentine series should be classed as Heavy Tanks.
A13 Mk I, A13 Mk I (3rd R.T.R.) - as a Cruiser tank in British interwar doctrine, the A13 Mk Is should be classed as Medium Tanks.
A13 Mk II, A13 Mk II 1939 - as a Cruiser tank in British interwar doctrine, the A13 Mk IIs should be classed as Medium Tanks.
Crusader II, Crusader “The Saint”, Crusader III - as a Cruiser tank in British interwar doctrine, the Crusaders should be classed as Medium Tanks.
Avenger - as a self-propelled anti-tank gun (17pdr SP) in British doctrine, the Avenger should be classed as a Tank Destroyer.
QF 3.7 Ram - this is an SPAA with the ability to engage ground targets, not a tank destroyer.
M44 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M109A1 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
Japan
Spoiler
SUB-I-II - this is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and should be classified as a Light Tank.
M44 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
China
Spoiler
Sd.Kfz.222 - as a Leichter Panzerspähwagen (light armoured reconnaissance vehicle) this should be classed as a Light Tank.
M18 GMC - the M18 is a Tank Destroyer.
ZSL92 - this is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and should be classified as a Light Tank.
Italy
Spoiler
M18 GMC - the M18 is a Tank Destroyer.
M44 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
M109G - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
France
Spoiler
Crusader Mk.II - as a Cruiser tank in British interwar doctrine, the Crusaders should be classed as Medium Tanks.
AMX-10P - this is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and should be classified as a Light Tank.
M44 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
SK-105A2 - classified as a Light Tank, but designated a Jagdpanzer (Tank Destroyer) by the Austrian Army.
Sweden
Spoiler
BT-42 - this is a Self-Propelled Gun built on the chassis of a light tank.
U-SH 204 GK - this is an armoured car, and should be classified as a Light Tank.
Israel
Spoiler
M109 - the class is correct but should be renamed “Self-Propelled Gun”.
War Thunder advertises itself as the premier realistic online vehicle combat game, it competes with WoT, DCS, and other games on that basis and it does damn well out of it. Hundreds of bug reports are submitted weekly, by this community on the forum where you are asking this question, using declassified military technical manuals, flight manuals, documents, transcripts, and images, to ensure accuracy when depicting vehicles in-game.
Vehicle classification is a balancing decision for spawn points.
SPAA = Objectively best class.
SPG = Great class.
Light = Middle class.
Medium = middle class.
Heavy = worst class.
It’s why you see people begging for 2S38 to be buffed with the SPAA role.
Some vehicles used to be classified in a different way. For example, the M18 used to be classified as a tank destroyer back in the day. Gaijin made it a light tank for some reason.
Yes and I’m saying that using vehicle class as a balancing tool is wrong, or at least has been used poorly in the past. More points = bad, and less points = good is a simplistic system for spawn balancing ground vehicles.
I hate the 2S38 as much as the next guy but it is inarguably an SPAA in real life. Would it somehow become unplayable as an SPAA at a higher BR?
I always found this argument that an SPG and a Tank Destroyer are not the same. Many SPGs"s are in fact. Tank destroyers are intentionally classified as an SPG to bypass certain rules made at the time that restricted it.
In the case of SPGs that are incorrectly called Tank Destroyers, it would be only a rename rather than a class change, in the same way that ATGM carriers are called “Anti-tank missile carrier” but are still Tank Destroyers by class.
It’s just about accessibility to new players, basically. They’re classed the way they are so that someone can pick them up, knowing nothing about them historically, and at least have some idea of what they’re doing.
The M18 is the principle example of this. When newer players see a TD, and especially if they’re just playing the US line, they’re going to be used to the idea of TDs as large, unmaueverable snipers with solid guns. If they try to play the M18 in the exact same way, it’s going to suffer. But call it a light tank, something like the M24, and more people are going to have an easier time understanding how to use it.
This goes for double when we’re talking about the Flak Bus and QF 3.7 Ram. Imagine someone picking those up and honestly attempting to use them as an SPAA first and foremost.
While it would be good to have historically accurate labels, it’s not that important at the end of the day.
2S38’s current BR is already balanced, and it’s as much a light tank as it is SPAA IRL.
On top of that, vehicles are given a class in-game that they did IRL.
M18 WAS used as a light tank, and a SPG/tank destroyer [they meant the same thing in WW2 for Britain, USSR, and USA militaries].
The M901 is a recon vehicle IRL with anti-tank capability.
Your point about accessibility for new players is important, but I think it can only really be judged to apply to the 8.8 Flak and 3.7 Ram.
Basically a new player who is not familiar with the vehicle outside of War Thunder may need to be told what to shoot at eg. ground vehicles, or air vehicles. Using the M18 as an example it would be quite evident in either LT or TD class that the duty of the M18 is to engage ground vehicles, and assuming that new players will somehow be confused by a fast TD is a little far-reaching.
New players become intermediate players fairly quickly, and vehicles such as the M18 or below are quite quickly spaded. There is no point incorrectly classifying such a vehicle because the player may somehow be confused as to what it’s for or how best to use it, that is part of the familiarisation process.
I’ll argue with you about this one until the cows come home. M18 is a TD, the reclassification as LT is a non-historical Gaijin-ism.
Edit; are you confusing the M901 ITV with the M981 FISTV? Similarly to the FV102 Striker, it could easily be argued that the M901 is an ATGM carrier with reconnaissance duties, and should have Scouting applied while still a TD.
I am friends with an M901 operator, and there are many many instances of WW2’s “tank destroyer [SPG]” group doing recon for troops and other armored divisions.
Again, just cause the military gives it a public facing name doesn’t mean that is its sole use.
To ensure that I am clearly understood, I’ll reduce this to a list;
I don’t care who you’re friends with.
I have worked as an operator on British Army, and mechanic, inspector, and QA on US Army tracked and wheeled vehicles (but argument from authority is a logical fallacy, so this doesn’t matter).
Wikipedia is not a source, but can lead to viable sources.
That was War Thunder Wiki, not Wikipedia.
A vehicle can be used as required, but that doesn’t change its original design (eg. M18 is a Tank Destroyer, but is also useful for lots of other things).
Vehicle classification in game is not claimed to be or stated as the “historical” designation of that vehicle in real life. As a whole this subject in real life is open to interpretation, as what one nation calls a “heavy” tank is a “medium” to others, and much the same with several other classes.
In War Thunder Its simply an in-game classification defining how that vehicle is played or more importantly, its spawn point cost for gameplay purposes. Any player new or old to the game, inexperienced or not can simply understand a glance the general type of gameplay to expect from this vehicle. Its not a representation of real life vehicle classification and is not intended to be. As such, it is entirely correct that such matters are not accepted as bug reports.
You say that but I can name two opposite ends of this spectrum
The T1E1 (90mm). You are given a heavy tank and so expect lots of armour, low mobility, and great firepower. In practice the T1E1 has less armour than a Sherman in some places and is very nicely mobile.
Churchill VII. Again Heavy tank. Good armour, low mobility, great firepower. You get the first two but not the last mark.
Alternatively you have the German 6.0 duo.
Tiger I: Pretty reasonable armour for a heavy tank. Really Reasonably mobility. Really high firepower.
Panther F: Reasonably Armour comparable to a heavy. Good mobility. High Firepower.
And what about the Panther D and prototype? Panther D is played moreso as a heavy tank destroyer than a medium because of the turret traverse and the Prototype is just less armoured but more mobile.
