So if I make an F-55 mockup it’s fair game 🤣
And the P is not necessary, idk where you got that from
Definitely
That’s for Japanese vehicles, doesn’t apply to Russian stuff
I mean look at Object series, there is no “P” in those
gaijin could just do it, but clearly its not the case
why? idk probably russia gets special treatment or some shit idk
Why though, I mean the need to distinguish only really arises with those Japanese vehicles you listed
if its a prototype vehicle, it should state it so its not misleading
Good point. Iirc they have mixed tested only features with production vehicles before, so it’s kind of a known thing. Only makes sense to distinguish if there is a second production version in-game too, which I think is the case for all the Japanese vehicles you listed
1 Like
u have the F-14A (Early) to state its the early variant
so it’s more of a pick and choose with gaijin
1 Like
You keep crying about “fake” vehicles like it’s the end of the world, but conveniently ignore that the U.S. has plenty of real and powerful options across all BRs. Meanwhile, nations like Japan are struggling to keep up — they don’t have the luxury of deep tech trees stacked with multiroles, bombers, and top-tier AAs. So yeah, they should be allowed to receive prototypes or even paper vehicles if it means staying viable.
And let’s not pretend War Thunder is some bastion of realism — I’m out here dodging AAMs in a WWII jet. Balance and gameplay variety matter more than some selective obsession with “historical accuracy.” If anything, War Thunder is the perfect testing ground for these vehicles — that’s the whole point of adding experimental content.
Also, do us all a favor and actually play something other than the U.S. Try grinding through the Japanese tree, or any other non-US nation, and then come back and talk about what they need. Because right now, it’s pretty clear you’ve either never touched another nation, or you’ve spammed one premium for hundreds of matches and think that qualifies as experience. It doesn’t.
4 Likes
You don’t see me asking for production F-23 or XF-108 (infact I am against these as cool as they are), so idk where this bias thing comes from
And US tree does not get special treatment in vehicles, infact it’s not even an accurate representation of the size and variety of US armed forces and defence industry in its “bloated” state. The US vehicles actually flew, or were tested, or at the very least existed outside of mockups and brochures. Meanwhile Japan, Germany, and to a lesser degree USSR get fake vehicles and missiles.
Also I like my Su-25BM. And eventually I’ll get Su-33 and MiG-25
Give me a break. The idea that the U.S. doesn’t get special treatment is laughable. You’ve got more top-tier jets, SAMs, tanks, helis, and lineups than any other nation by a mile — and still complain when other nations get a single competitive vehicle, prototype or not.
And sure, U.S. vehicles “existed” — on paper, in prototypes, or in testing phases — but that doesn’t suddenly make them more legitimate than other nations’ vehicles added under the same criteria . You’re splitting hairs. If a vehicle was built, tested, or just drawn up, it ends up in-game. That rule has been applied across all nations , not just Japan or Germany. Acting like the U.S. is some pure example of only real hardware is total revisionism.
Also, let’s not ignore that Japan, Germany, and others only got “fake” or prototype vehicles because they had massive gaps to fill — gaps the U.S. has never had. And now, when those same nations are trying to stay relevant at top tier, you’re gatekeeping every addition because it doesn’t align with your one-sided definition of what’s acceptable?
Come back when you’ve played a non-U.S. nation from reserve to top tier. Until then, all this talk about “fairness” and “realism” rings pretty damn hollow.
4 Likes
Yes please.
2 Likes
Any examples of paper US vehicles?
And paper/fake vehicles don’t work too well in a game that requires evidence for bug reports
2 units made apparently
Don’t remember this part being in there.
And I know it’s applied to nations other than Japan and Germany, they are just home to quite a few well known examples
I have no issue with the F-2, but stuff like AJ should really be removed
Yeah, they are very misrepresented in game. The V2 and V3 were early ideas to work around the lower power of the Ne-30 engines, by placing them staggered in the fuselage instead of under the wing where they would create more drag.
The Ne-330 engine solved all of these problems, since it produces higher power while also being narrower for less drag when placed under the wings. Complicated fuselage mountings were unnecessary.
Still, in game they all have Ne-330s, despite being configured for the Ne-30.
That going on top of cannon armament that wasn’t planned and on the V3 at least interferes with the air intakes really puts them in a weird place.
F-23 can easily be passed for unfinished prototype, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see that. I honestly hope to, since the 5th gen endless waves of F-35 can be much more interesting with more near-complete aircrafts like it that make their respective nations more unique.
Super Kai sadly had no specific components built as far as I’m aware, so we probably won’t see that. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I doubt it since the whole concept was just done with existing US tech intended to replace older Japanese equivalents.
I don’t know anything about XF-108, so I just wouldn’t know.
It did, at least mostly. Gaijin are cleaning out relics of the past like the R2Y2s and the removed German tanks. Really only the Ho-Ri tanks remain, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re next after some ground subtree content.
But past those it’s either just modelling mistakes or “unfinished prototype” situations, so nothing out of the ordinary.
The AJ was pretty recent compared to the others, I think it’ll be gone after the F-2 is added hopefully
And the YF-23 is basically a different jet, I mean compare it to the YF-22 vs F-22, X-35 vs F-35
XF-108 only existed as a wooden mockup afaik
1 Like
It doesn’t, it’s an excuse to not use prototype naming.
I’d probably agree that “MCV Phase IV Prototype No.3” doesn’t quite roll of the tongue as well, it seems off to have “Type 16” used in the prototype name when the service year 2016 wasn’t known at the time of testing.
Though for the ICV (and similar names) I really don’t mind it, considering it is the prototype of the Type 25 ICV, and this sort of just makes clear it’s not just a misnamed production vehicle.
3 Likes
This is what I was getting at, Im pretty sure all the vehicles had a “production” version in game so it serves to distinguish. With the T-80U, there is only 1 in USSR, and other prototype have their own designation or an Object+number.
1 Like