Responding to issues regarding dev server reports 13.12.2023

Hello everyone! Many of you have questions regarding the new vehicles and changes in the upcoming update. We’re eager to respond to your biggest questions and the feedback topics that you’ve raised.

Challenger 2 Reports

You’ve brought to our attention a number of issues with the British Challenger 2 tanks (and now also the Challenger 3). We’re currently in the process of checking and rechecking your reports. Some of these have already been accepted and we’ll be starting work on them soon, and in addition to this some changes have already been made, which you’ll be able to see after the update. However, some of these reported issues are still quite contentious, and as such we’re not in a position to give a completely thorough reply just yet. We plan to publish a more comprehensive response where we will discuss these reports and changes to the Challenger 2 variants in detail, but this will come after the update when we’ve had time to thoroughly analyze everything.

Anti-fragmentation lining

We also wanted to bring you some news regarding spall liners, this feature is now ready for the following vehicles: the Leopard 2A5, Leopard 2A6 (including the Finnish version), Leopard 2 PSO, Leopard 2A7V, Strv 122A, Strv 122B PLSS, Strv 122B+, Strf 9040C, Challenger 2, Challenger 2 (2F), Challenger 2 TES, Black Night, Challenger 2E, and Challenger 3 (P) — however, it’s only present in the hull for the CR3, as there is no lining in the turret in presentations and videos of the prototype.

Reinforced (DU) hull armor for Abrams tanks

The community has periodically raised questions about reinforced hull armor, and, in particular, Depleted Uranium armor in the hull of Abrams series tanks. We’ve studied the issue in detail, however, due to the sheer volume of the topic we are currently not ready to talk about it quite yet. We will go through the details a little later in a separate devblog on this topic.

Gripen — The “C” version for Great Britain and the “A” for Sweden

As you already know, the long-awaited JAS-39 Gripen will appear in the Air Superiority update in War Thunder, and many of you have questions about the modifications being added to the game.

Along with the JAS39A for Sweden, the South African JAS39C will also be added to Great Britain, and, of course, this will happen before the appearance of the “C” modification in the Swedish tree. We hear and understand your concerns in this regard, but we wanted to explain why we do not share them.

Despite the fact that different sources contain different data, we came to the conclusion that modifications “A” and “C” have almost identical performance characteristics, since they are equipped with the same engine, but the “C” variant is even a little heavier due to for the presence of an auxiliary power unit, as well as a boom and equipment for air refueling. In addition, at the time of introduction into the game, both vehicles will have equivalent weapons which will not make either of them stronger.

Regarding equipping aircraft with the helmet-mounted target designation system — The “A” variant was in service for quite a long time and underwent multiple successive improvements and different variants of HMD were tested on this version. So we decided to equip both aircraft with this system, which will make them even more dangerous opponents in missile combat than how they already were at the beginning of the dev server.

12.7 BR for aircraft and additional weaponry for the Tornado IDS WTD61

Regarding questions about a new Battle Rating increase to 12.7 for aircraft and regarding the weapons of the premium Tornado IDS WTD61, we see your feedback and will discuss these issues further with the team. As soon as we make decisions on these matters, we’ll let you know.

Helicopters — Reducing sight magnification

According to a number of reports, the magnification of helicopter sights was changed to the magnification of the optical channel, however, the capabilities of the optoelectronic channels of these helicopters significantly exceed the capabilities of the optical channel. Coupled with a weapon range of 6-8 km, this significantly reduces the combat capabilities of these helicopters, in comparison with helicopters that exclusively have optoelectronic channels with a high approximation. This change will be canceled, the increase will be set in accordance with the capabilities of the optoelectronic day channel.

Laser guided bombs — reducing the laser target acquisition distance

This update will reduce the acquisition distance of the laser target designator for the homing heads of LGBs.

Many of you have a fair question — why was this done? The answer is in fact that previously, due to CCRP not working correctly, we artificially increased the laser target acquisition range in order to ensure acceptable accuracy of this weapon type. The problem was that the accuracy of the displayed impact point within the CCRP was too low, since it did not take into account the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and, accordingly, could not provide a sufficiently accurate calculation of the impact point. Now, after corrections to the autopilot of LGBs and the correct operation of CCRP, this compensation is no longer required. When reset by CCRP, there will be virtually no difference in the use of such LGBs, except for slightly less energy consumption of the bomb due to a later transition from free fall to controlled flight.

Therefore, the capture ranges of LGBs will be set in accordance with documents and internal passports for each specific weapon.

Stinger and Mistral MANPADS G overload

We’ve seen the questions that you have about changes to the Stinger and Mistral MANPADS and our work with sources regarding these missiles, and we want to explain in detail why we work with them the way we do, and why these changes have been made. However, this material is quite vast and complex, so it requires some time to prepare. We plan to release a devblog on this topic some time after the update is released.

Stay tuned to the news for more on these topics in the future and as always, thank you for your feedback and support!




And nothing about reports on D-tech armor protection for Leopard 2A7V and PSO…


Well, I hope the Tornado WTD61 is reconsidered. If it comes to the game as is, it will without a shadow of a doubt be the worst top tier premium in the game. I know because I’ve already spaded the two German Tornados.

Also, are there plans to add more spall liners this patch? Or in future patches?


The reason you cannot see spall liners on the ch3 turret is that it’s an early prototype.

It makes zero sense to not put them in. If the tank ever entered service like that, it would most have had them. It is asinine not to include them and ridiculous.

You really need to pull them and do them properly, not rush them in and inevitably have mistakes. These things are going to screw up balance all over the place, it’s not something you can just rush in.


I will look around and check if the spall liner can or cant be seen. But if it is not there, then not getting it is normal i guess.


Thank you for the feedback to all the questions!

One more though, can we expect to see spall liners for the entire CV90 family in the near future? As all the CV90s share a common base. EDIT // Issues According to the source in the OG bug report for the spall liner of CV9040C, it is apparent that only the versions newer than the CV9040C should have spall liner.


I guess because its being represented in game specifically as the prototype and not the tank that will enter service, which will also have an APS.


In this update devblog or next? Would be pretty cool to know that grind for SEPv2 would be rewarding enough with better protection/rounds etc. Good to know that you actually read all stuff that happen on this forum


Leclerc casually being IGNORED ?


Ignored how?

1 Like

We are getting the tech demonstrator in its current form. The actual CR3 will be a separate vehicle and probably have one.


Could you clarify why Gajin thinks that the armor of the 2A7V from 2010+ with D/E-internal armor and E-external armor is made worse than that of the 1995 prototypes with B/C armor and D-external?

What’s the decision making process here?


There are no improvements about Leclerc while everyone knows its specificities are completely under-exploited and unrealistic


I know what we’re getting, I’m also saying it makes no sense.

You think the British army would introduce it’s latest challenger varient with no spall liner in the turrent, when it’s present in the hull? Of coure not, it would be ridiculous.

At some point we have to use common sense with these vehicles.


I really do hope the Devs actually listen to us for once and actually fix challenger 2. We have been fighting for this since challenger 2 first appeared in game and it’s took some time but I do hope that we finally get the fixes we are looking for that will bring challenger 2 more closer to it’s IRL self.

. Increased armour protection in the mantlet, turret sides and hull
. Spall liner
. Ammunition lay out correctted
. Ammunition bins sorted out.
. Ready rack sorted out
. Added neutral steering for better manoeuverability performance
. L27A1 gets buffed
. Add-on armour kits from the Dorchester level 2E to Dorchester level 2I get there correct protection values

Theses are just some of the many issues we would like to get fixed on challenger 2 to not only make it much better in-game but will also make it more historically accurate to it’s IRL self. But until I actually see the Devs confirming that they will fix all of theses issues I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the absolute best !!


Makes total sense. The prototype didn’t have it.


The Leclercs have had several reports, however due to insufficient evidence they were set aside. The evidence that the mod wanted is basically impossible to give due to the fact that most of it is classified. However they could’ve made a conclusion based on the documents given, yet according to the mod the sources included were unreliable.


There is no spall liner in the demo turret. Sadly it wont get it. There is nothing to be mad at here. We get the 2019 demo


I think 12.7 is still not enough of a BR cap for the current top tier, as of now the performance that Su-27, Gripen and Eagle bring to the table is far, FAR more capable than any plane in the 11.7 range, especially since that BR is populated with exactly 4 creature: J-8F, EJ Kai, Harrier GR.7 and AV8B+, two of which sat at it’s current BR purely because it has AIM-9M, other than that it’s pretty much a 11.0 strike aircraft that is in their BR because it has laser guided munitions.

I propose that the BR cap should be raised further to 13.3, gives some breathing room to the currently repressed 11.0 - 11.7 aircraft that as of now is being powercrept to the moon by F-16 and MiG-29 with exponentially better performance compared to their downtier compatriot.