- 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
Dear players,
We had questions from the community about the improved ballistic system update and today, War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov is going to answer the most popular in this Q&A.
Q. Is the new system going to affect HESH shells? If yes, how?
A. These changes do not apply to any HE, HESH or HEAT shells.
Q. Have you planned an update to the ricochet system? Sometimes larger shells ricochet off very light vehicles.
A. A ricochet at a given angle and range (you can check it in the ammo info card) is possible when the round calibre/armour thickness ratio is lower than 7. If the ratio is 7 or higher the armour is broken. We do not plan to review this system or make it more complex at the moment.
Q. What about the hardness of the material used in a shell? All kinds of different materials were made with varying degrees of hardness through out time.
A. Material hardness will not be taken into account in calibre type projectiles since this parameter could be really different. Depending on the time of production, hardness could vary greatly for the same round type and choosing specific values would not be accurate. However hardness (density) of the core for such rounds as the APFSDS will be taken into account.
Q. Are there any plans to change the penetration system concurrently? Shells are 1 pixel wide in game, so they can go through tiny armour gaps, for example a 152mm shell can fit in a 10mm armour hole.
A. That’s a complex and non-trivial task, we studied possible variants several times and at the moment we haven't found the one that meets all the requirements. Perhaps we will come back to it in the future, at the moment we use the method that is most widely used in games.
Q. Will document sources contradicting the results of the formula be discarded even if there is no contradiction with other documents, or could there be exceptions in the system? I know you mentioned APDS, was wondering if other shells might also be excluded in some cases.
A. Exceptions are a rare case, where no other methods allow us to gather the correct data about the round. Differences of the penetration data in different sources are not enough to add a round to an “exception list”. One of the purposes of this method is to exclude incoherence in data from various sources, otherwise penetration values will be constantly changed.
Q. Have you any plans to improve HEAT ricochets? In many case, HEAT projectiles should not ricochet, but either break or detonate. Many HEAT shells are too fragile to stay intact after a ricochet.
A. HEAT rounds can ricochet at high angles of impact, the specific angle depends on the fuse design. Of course, a round can be destroyed after impact and this is implemented in our game, after ricochet, a round loses its stability and can self-detonate.
Here is the data on the V-15 fuse for HEAT rounds. As you can see the angle is 0 to 70 degrees.
Q. Is there any plans to have the same system for aircraft guns? It’s really hard to understand how the munitions really perform, and even harder to know if they perform correctly.
A. For high-calibre guns that use similar rounds to tank rounds - yes.
Q. How about the APHEBC? (a shell type some russian guns use). Is it going to be the same as APBC/APCBC now? It has had weird characteristics for years.
A. The slope effects for these rounds will also be implemented as they were for the APBC Shell.
Q. Japanese tanks guns performance took a hit with this new system. What have you planned in this regard?
A. BR changes will be made where they are required, this affects all nations, not just Japanese.
Q. How is penetration calculated? What are the mechanics for the rounds with different cap shapes?
A. Cap shape affects armour penetration at specific angles and this is taken into account in the slope effect sheet. To get penetration value at a specific angle you should divide armour thickness by slope value for the required angle.
Q. Do these formulas apply to low-calibre aircraft weapons?
A. At the moment, we have not considered applying the formula to low-calibre MGs.
Q. Rounds of the same type and calibre may have different penetration, will it affect the calculation?
A. If these rounds have different parameters affecting penetration - mass, velocity, HE mass etc - this will affect calculation results.
Q. Can you show us the exact formula where penetration is calculated? It is unclear where we should use the mass of a core and where the mass of a round is used.
A. In the future the exact characteristics of the rounds will be shown in the War Thunder Wiki directly from the game in articles specifically for guns.
Q. De Marre’s formula does not take explosive mass into account, but using your calculator one notices that final penetration value is not linear in reference to explosive mass. Are these some kind of hidden parameters?
A. Indeed, De Marre’s formula does not take explosive mass into account, that’s why we used data from AaG that allowed us to formulate penetration value reduction depending on the filling coefficient and added explosive mass as one of the coefficients to the formula. Taking explosives into account allows us to calculate penetration value more accurately - rounds with higher filling coefficient have lower penetration values. The exact values are not hidden, you can see them below.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (186)
What about the massive change you have made with the sabre's controlability? Instead of nerfing the sabre, why not buff the mig 15 bis ish?
do bomber's gunners have bullets?
you are talking abaut realism a lot,did you fix ww2 german armor?germans used face hardenned armor-it was mutch stronger??BHN up to588?(sherman 220for examble)? realism is a dangerous word gamemakers.APHEBS?
THIS AMMOS IN THE TIGER2TURRET IS INTERESTING.FIRST NOT DISAINED TO BE,AFTER FIRST TESTING TO GET MORE AMMOS IN THE TANK THEY ADD AMMOREC IN THE TURRET,AFTER FIRST COMBAT EXPERIENCE THEY ORDER NOT TO USE TURRET AMMOREC NEVER!! so can we make copromise gaijiin-keep ammorec in the turret in tiger2p,but remove it in tiger2h??
I greatly appreciate the continued support for the mechanics in game, but I would like to raise the issue on BR, especially when 6.7 Germans face 7.7 French, American and British tanks. I/We, could not fight effectively because of the huge disparity on equipment, armour, and shells.
How are you planning to adress the fact that there are shells with inert (non-explosive) filler? For example 75 mm M61 APCBC has the same ammount of HE filler on US tanks as it has inert filler on UK tanks - "both" shells have the same penetration performance IRL, yet if you consider only HE filler in your calculation, there is a significant difference.
i really hope at some point gaijin adds Oceanic servers for us Australian players since im getting fed up with my shots disappearing or when i fire the round doesn't come out...
will the object120 get atleast 1 machine gun either on top or in turret cuz its rlly enoying getting killed the second a plane spawns in no matter where i stand or hide one burst kills the tank
why do you ask something this dumb?
*Begin extreme sarcasm* You're right... We should get MGs on all the MGless German, Japanese, Italian, French, and British SPGs as well. Forget the Americans though. They were smart enough to add them to most of their SPGs........... *End extreme sarcasm* No.
Will for aircraft firing their large rounds the aircrafts velocity be added to the muzzle velocity? If I underdstand ypur formula correctly it would not require too much of a change
"Shells are 1 pixel wide in game, so they can go through tiny armour gaps, for example a 152mm shell can fit in a 10mm armour hole." What bothers me more than this is that shells going through armor that is perpendicular (the side of tracks) is equivalent to penetrating the armor through the front. Realistically, some tanks have a track width of 500mm. The sides of armor should really count as at least double the protection.
That's not very realistic. The track is also very thin when compared to the whole side of the tank. Why would that need to double the protection of the side armor when it doesn't in real life? If I shoot between the top and bottom of the track, why would the track be considered? No offense but that's the kind of dumb stuff they do over at that other tank game.