- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
We are continuing to develop and improve our approach to shell configuration. When working through the various phases of configuring the shells, we have based those on sources from their countries of origin as well as unified sources which provide data for multiple shells represented in the game, we decided to configure shells on the basis of formulas, which is, in our opinion, the best method for players to easily understand.
This method will make it possible to standardise the armour penetration system and avoid situations where documents from various countries provide different data on armour penetration for the same shell. It will allow us to configure shells much more effectively, yet no less realistically, even when certain data is unavailable.
We are constantly improving the armour penetration system in War Thunder, and right now, we can highlight two phases that have been expressed in its development, each of which is fair and correct in its own way.
The first phase involved the configuration of penetration based on data from documents and firing data for each weapon and type of ammunition. In this case, we prioritised sources from the countries of origin.
The second phase involved the switch to a “unified” system, the basis for which was numerical data from one source per country. This version allowed us, to a certain extent, to collate data from various sources and countries.
However, these phases were not able to unify the armour penetration system and make it comprehensible to players while preserving its documentary and technical basis. These configuration methods also facilitate a peculiar kind of “tug of war” in which various sources appear one after another, frequently with contradictory data. After performing a lengthy and detailed analysis, we decided to improve the current system and make it easier to understand. This is an important step in the never-ending process of improving ballistics and damage models.
You can find out more about shells and armour penetration in the War Thunder Wiki.
The DeMarr and Lanz-Odermatt Formulas
There have been some recent changes that you may have already noticed in the game. These include refinements to the ballistics parameters for high-calibre armour-piercing rounds. In order to do this, we used firing tables and other documents that allowed us to more accurately set falling speeds at range for these shells. For types of ammo for which there was, for whatever reason, no precise data, we used the parameters of shells from the tables with a similar design and characteristics. Having obtained more exact data on speed, we can reevaluate the penetration system using a formula-based calculation. We decided to use the DeMarr formula because it is the most accessible and comprehensible formula for high-calibre armour-piercing (AP/APC/APBC/APCBC) and sub-calibre (APCR/HVAP) shells. When it comes to sub-calibre fin-stabilised shells, we decided to use the Lanz-Odermatt formula. We are still working on APDS shells. Information about them will appear a bit later than the aforementioned ammo types.
One of the new features in the system for calculating armour penetration is that it will now take it into account if a shell contains a chamber full of explosives. The percentage of explosives contained within the shell will be factored into armour penetration indicators – the higher the ratio of explosives to the weight of the shell, the lower the armour penetration. This allows for the more accurate implementation of indicators for semi-armour-piercing and armour-piercing shells with a large quantity of explosives and a relatively slender body.
The implementation of this system for calculating armour penetration will occur in phases: we are planning to start by switching the more commonly-used ammo types. such as high-calibre armour-piercing and armour-piercing fin-stabilised shells, to this system. Then we’ll move on to sub-calibre shells (APCR/HVAP) and sub-calibre shells with a discarding sabot (APDS). There are certain challenges involved in calculating the latter, and it is possible that, for a certain portion of shells, the old armour penetration system will be preserved. These shells represent an insignificant portion of the shells available in game. One example would be the L15A3/A5, M728.
So how will this improve the game?
It will allow us to optimise the penetration system and unify it for all high-calibre (APCR/HVAP) shells. At the same time, it will allow us to avoid situations in which data from various sources and countries is contradictory, since these sources were managed by various systems and penetration methodologies. We believe that the new system will be more transparent and easier for players to understand without sacrificing realism (as an example, in the USSR’s firing tables the data on penetration follows the same DeMarr formula, as do the calculations in AaG). Yet another advantage will be the ability to immediately get penetration data for any high-calibre or sub-calibre (APCR/HVAP) armour-piercing shell for which there is information about its muzzle velocity, falling speed, and mass. For AP/APC/APBC/APCBC shells we have also recalculated the effect of incline – the effect whereby the thickness of the armour being penetrated drops as the incline increases (the slope effect) when performing formula-based calculations in order to achieve uniformity and eliminate certain inaccuracies in their current values. As you can see from the examples below, compared to the current values for an angle of incidence of 30 degrees, penetration ends up increasing, and for an angle of 60 degrees, on the contrary, it drops. According to our evaluations, the role of proper tank positioning, i.e. placing the tank correctly in relation to the weapon being fired, will increase. Using this chart you can familiarise yourself with the formula for calculating the slope effect for AP/APBC/APCBC shells and the resulting slope effect values.
APCR/HVAP and APDS shells will get updated slope effects that will make it possible to more accurately factor in the technical characteristics of a shell’s construction that influence the penetration process. For APCR/HVAP shells the indicators for speed reduction will be ascertained based on the example of how this was done for APHE and APDS shells. The new system is so simple and productive that, if you know a shell’s individual attributes, you can calculate its penetration using the DeMarr formula on your own.
Foreseeing questions about “historical accuracy” and correspondence with actual firing data, we should mention that the data used to calculate armour penetration figures are based on existing documents and is nothing out of the ordinary. Historical and technical accuracy will remain one of the key parts of the game, but the game environment cannot match reality exactly, so the values used for our calculations allow for a certain degree of conventionality.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (129)
120mm DM23 still not fixed
What about APFSDS bouncing? this should not be possible. The mbts in game now have places that are shot-traps in game but not in real life. This is because APFSDS DOESN'T bounce irl, instead, if the angle is too great for it topenetrate or embed itself in armour, it shatters, or at EXTREME angles welds itself to the armour. This is a real problem in game, and will continue to grow with the introduction of tanks with "shot-traps" such as the leopard 2a5 and later versions
Can we play with the British Tanks again??? With a NEW APDS??? Hmm, GJ?? ^^ That would be nice...
does this mean the Russian bias will finally be solved cause its pretty bad when a tier 5 anti tank tank cant break armor of a Russian tier 5 tank unless your point blank to it literally a long standing issue for tanks and even German armor as well tiers 1,2,3 suck for that Russian armor is just straight anamantuim.
I'll pretend I believe this story.
KwK 44 128mm gun velocity should be 950 m/s, not 930 m/s, as it is in the game. Atleast every book or document I have seen, shows that the muzzle velocity is 950 m/s for the KwK 44 gun and the penetration according to Gaijin calculator should be 273.24 mm for the PzGr 43. And yet the 12.8 cm Flak 40 gun on the Sturer Emil is correct, in the game 880 m/s. So whats going on Gaijin?
Does this mean the KwK 43 will receive increased penetration at high angles?
why does a 105mm apfsds do about the same damage if not more than the british apds 120mm, from what i can tell from the pen previews we get ingame, i barely see any fragmentation when i use the british cheiftan mk3 7.6kg assimedly wider apds, compared to for example leopard a1a1 apfsds 105mm.. 3,8kg mass thin rod. I mean both tanks in tank testing faces the same russian IT-1 rocket tank and T-62, the leopard repeatedly kills both in one shot, while the cheiftan i just shoot the t-62 4 times....
Does this system account for situations where the impact velocity is higher than the muzzle velocity of the gun? The Hs 129 B-3 carries a 75mm gun with muzzle velocity of 740 m/s for the PzGr 39 shells. When the plane is diving towards the target at 360 km/h, the shell inherits +100 m/s velocity towards the target, so the initial velocity is actually 840 m/s. This means the muzzle energy of the round is increased by almost 29% in this scenario. So, how is the impact velocity calculated?
What about ballistics? How can they be described "realistic" when a shell fired of a slope falls diagonally and not towards the ground over distance? And what about the shell caliber actually displaying and getting taken into the calculation of the penetration of armor based on the average armor thickness and slope across the impact surface area? I know you can't do everything but you can't improve much on a system that lacks the most basic of concepts.
Submit a complaint