This will always be open to personal interpretations. However both of those cases fit their in game classifications.
2 Likes
How do you go about requesting a vehicles designation changed?
FRS1 is the one that I want to see changes to a naval fighter and it would actually be a meaningful and important change given it’s our only fighter at that BR.
If you want to spawn into the FRS1e/FRS1 before or after Spawning in something like the Jaguar GR1A or Buc S2B, the cost more than doubles due to all 3 being considered Strike Aircraft. Despite the fact that the FRS1 primary role IRL was air interception and its most famous role was CAP
4 Likes
There’s one big problem:
Due to the doctrinal approaches of certain countries and arbitrary classification, vehicles people know far and wide to be a tank destroyer - and they may have even specifically picked that nation to play that tank destroyer - cannot be used to complete battlepass tasks and challenges requiring tank destroyers.
Due to this arbitrary classifcation, rank 3 Britain has no means to do battlepass tasks requiring TDs (at least until recently with the M44 being added). This is despite the fact that the avenger is known to be a Gun motor carriage AND is the direct follower of the Achilles in the tank destroyer line and plays exactly the same as the achilles.
If the Achilles can be a tank destroyer, why can’t the avenger? They’re effectively the same gameplay style and are each other’s direct heirs. Both are vulnerable to strafing and overpressure too due to open tops.
4 Likes
clearly not as the Wiesel 1a4 is never played as an SPAA yet it has that class. In game its played as a rat light tank, not an SPAA.
I’m not sure exactly what point the OP is making but flooding the WW2 levels with post war artillery killed 5-6BR for me so I retreated back to 3-4 only to have Gaijin spam that with the M44 and kill that off.I haven’t played the game since.
War Thunder has no immersion anymore and a game without immersion is a dead game.I’m just bored of random faceless and pointless teams facing off against each other.
The game feels more like FIFA than a War game of any kind.Just a point scoring exercise.
You can proudly lament that WT does not follow era’s but for those who joined and stuck with the game for years due to a passion for WW2 the game is dead.It feels like a silly child’s game now …hey maybe it always was but it was well disguised.
Anyway I’m just bored of it.Been playing Red Dead 2 where the immersion is immense and the game all the better for it.Easy to forget about Warthunder the moment something even slightly better comes into view.
Im sure a new game would easily kill this old chestnut off once and for all.
The recreation of the vehicles historically means nothing ,the authentic decals mean nothing or the detailed skins.All pointless.
2 Likes
This wasnt a discussion about the SPG spam we are seeing in the game. I agree that its ruined low-mid tier but this wasn’t about them. Only incorrect classifications similar to how the ADATS was called a tank destroyer for years
It should bloody well have HE-TF at the very least if not HE-VT as well, otherwise some AA it’d make hah
3 Likes
the 3.7 is a Heavy Anti Aircraft gun. if you wanted a 3.7in gun vehicle as a tank destroyer it would have to be the 28pdr or 32pdr so were limited to tortoise, TOG and the 32pdr centurion
Errm I’m saying as an AA it should have AA ammunition what are you on about
I even made such a report years ago Fwd: [2.70.162] QF 3.7 Ram missing HE shell fitted with VT fuze - Documented Ground Suggestions - War Thunder - Official Forum
2 Likes
may be worth forwarding this onto the new forums
Sk-105A2
Is a TD too
M1128 MGS
Boxer MGS
Maybe too
Added. I think the AGSs come under the Assault Gun moniker, and the SK-105 is a TD according to the Austrians.
Classification: Tank Destroyer
Role: Anti-Tank Missile Carrier.
It carries missiles to destroy enemy tanks.
Realistically that is how it should be done.
1 Like
Yes, I think this is the best solution. The terminology is correct and the vehicle remains in the TD class for gameplay purposes.
Not just for gameplay purposes but also for real life. Any role such as IFV, APC, etc is just the role intended for tracked vehicles. However, they are still tanks by definition. We just don’t call em that cause=People+word tank=frontline combat.
I see your point, but as a general term I usually use “Armoured Fighting Vehicle” or AFV rather than “tank”, which in particular tends to refer to a tracked vehicle with a turreted main armament.
Well AFV Came first but then Tank was coined when the first AFV->A tank. Started to arrive into combat. But the amount of time between words is negligible. It was likely only a couple of seconds at best in WW1. So really all the vehicles on tracks are Tanks as AFV and Tank are essentially the same word that was used interchangeably. Armored Cars however refers to well->Armored->Cars.
ELC bis isnt airborne and there is no evidence its a “light tank”. Documents state its a “tankette to deal with armored targets on 1,5km range”… pretty much defines being a tank destroyer
Ok that’s great, are you able to provide the relevant page? Ill take it off the list.
sharing archives is not my particular interest bc ive been warned for that, but I have cut out a piece from document I refer to
Spoiler
L’idée qui est à in base de l’engin léger de combat a été de monter un armement anti-char puissant sur un citasis de chenillette légèrezent, mais complètement blindé et de cons- situer ainsi un “chasseur de char” léger, mobile, peu visible, capable d’engager et de vaincre tous les types de chars adver nes jusqu’à une distance d’environ 1000 mètres, distance que, depuis, on cherche à porter à 1500 mètres environ.
A partir des éléments mécaniques de la chenillette Hotchkion, 14… a mis au point deux prototypes qui font l’objet de la présente notice.
Cen deux prototypes different par leur armement prin- eipal; le chassis, les or janen moteurs of nécaniques étant les en pour les deux engine.
Le premier prototype réalisé par l’A.H.X. dispose d’un ounon classique a long recul, monté sur “tourello-caserate” (1) tirant une munition de 90mm enpennée à charge crouse.
De manière générale, ai ce type de munition donne toute satisfaction quant aux performances de perforation, il présente, au delh de certaines distances, un manque de préci- bion qui limite la portée utile. C’est ainsi que le projectile BITERGA du poida de Pg. envisagé initialement porfore 350m de blindage mais avec une portée utile de 600 700m neulement.
Des projectilen de même type, mais plus leurde, ont été enanyós par la quite; ils permettent d’atteindre les 1000 metres de portée utile initialement demandén. Touteroin, un nccroissement substantiel de cette portée, jusqu’à 1500 mètres et même nu delà, rente grandement désirable.
the text’s broken a lot bc I copied it via google translate and it screwed everything including numbers so dont use stuff like BITERGA bc its ENERGA in the original, etc