Why does the blast effect of bombs, rockets and HE shells not take into account the armor plate’s angle? The shockwave is a thick air front. Just like any other wave, it flows over streamlined objects or objects set at a high angle with a minimum of resistance. Because of this error, bombs and rockets destroy tanks through the bottom when they hit 10 metres away from them, which is completely impossible since the shockwave should simply skirt around the bottom of the tank.

With aircraft in ground AB, right now, you get the ability to take off in an attacker in exchange for two frags. But when you press the button, you can get a dive bomber, a fighter bomber, or even a night fighter with a huge cannon instead of the attacker. Why has it been done this way? It’s preferable to get an attacker when choosing an attacker, since there are special features for fighters and bombers.  If fighters and attackers with anti-tank guns do well in tank RB, it doesn’t mean that they’ll do just as well in tank AB. After destroying two enemy tanks, it’s somehow annoying to get a night fighter with a giant cannon instead of an attacker, because a night fighter’s cannon can destroy no ground vehicles.

Will Japan have premium tanks like the M46 Tiger – for example, the ST-A2B, ST-A3 or ST-A4?

Hello! Many ground vehicles have a system installed in which gun rotation and aiming take place in 2 modes, fast and slow. This is most relevant when choosing a vertical lead at firing over long ranges. Will a function like this be implemented in the game?

Previously, with the introduction of thermodynamics for aircraft, there were similar plans for ground vehicles too. Do you still plan to introduce the ability of overheating tank engines, modelling their ‘problems’ when damaged and so on? It would be good to somehow use the existing ability of damaging a radiator in battle. Maybe you already have some details about this?

Will the D-series Mustangs with 10 rockets have a HVAR?

Will there be Hawker Fury models with Sabre and Griffon engines? They weren’t put into series production, but they’d be perfect as premium vehicles.

The top Japanese bomber is currently the G8N Renzan, capable of carrying 2.4 tons of bombs. Apart from the Keiun Kai, Japan doesn’t have any rank 5 bombers, and the Keiun Kai can only carry one 800 kg bomb, which deprives them of maneuverability. So my question is: could you introduce an aircraft like the G10N1 Fugaku, a truly capable plane that can stand up for itself and compete with its foreign counterparts?

Do you plan to remove from airstrips indestructible tents and other structures, and also objects that make takeoff/landing more difficult, especially for a damaged and poorly maneuverable aircraft?

Is there a chance that Bf 109 models from other countries will be introduced, for example the Spanish HA-1109 and HA-1112? Or the Czechoslovakian Bf 109 model, the Avia S-199, which was also in service with Israel?

Do you have any plans for ships larger than destroyers?