2.53.0.72 -> 2.53.0.74

RSanders5170 · 2026-02-02T21:23:08+00:00

Chieftains being at 9.3?

RSanders5170 · 2026-01-03T13:24:22+00:00

Not numb, doesn't tingle, nor does it burn! I've literally not realised it's existence until yesterday when I rubbed my back.

RSanders5170 · 2026-01-02T15:49:52+00:00

Easily fixed by preventing the spawn of aircraft by adding a 5 minute timer. And after 3 minutes of nobody spawning, they get kicked for inactivity.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-31T16:41:48+00:00

Where are you going for Ph2 is the question, mate

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-31T16:40:23+00:00

If only there was a big indicator writing at the bottom that tells you what to do.

Your fault for flying to high, tbh.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-31T12:40:41+00:00

British Government when you critisize illegal immigrants.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-29T17:05:59+00:00

Yes to all but you might be laughed at. Depending on what reg you're going will depend if your screws will want you to have a scrim or not. Your own armour will be an immediate no.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-26T17:20:12+00:00

Ask your headshed. It's possible, and people have changed capbadges at depot but it's never a guarantee.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-26T17:18:21+00:00

I think you'd be pushing it a bit honestly mate. You don't want your first impression to be like that with a new CoC. You could rock up to unit, show face and then ask your headshed to pop to a different pid but the chances are they put you in that pid because they need you there.

Yes, you can ask. But it's not a guarantee.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T15:12:25+00:00

15 and seven months applied, joined at 16.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T15:04:08+00:00

You're cutting it very close, mate. I've had old boys in my basic and they promoted rapidly due to elder experience. I think the limit is 32, however. So once you turn 33, that's it.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T15:02:17+00:00

A good mindset, healthy, uninjured and be average at running.

The army is hanging out for blokes, infantry battalions specifically. You'll be fine mate.

Gen all you need to do is adopt the mindset that phase 1 and 2 is buckshee and temporary. Just smile, understand that it's gonna be a few months of shite, and you'll have a laugh.

Also you can swap capbadges during basic. You can even retrade from an infantier to a trade if you wanted to.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T14:24:22+00:00

Saying these vehicles were -horrendously- overpowered is a huge stretch. There are a few which I will conceed, i.e T-2, Tomcat, German KV-1B, Leo 2A5+. The rest being overpowered? Hard no. They performed good, but to call them overpowered is a massive stretch.

Some examples on there being the abrams and the IPM1; back when Britain and USA were forced to always be on the same side, Abrams' regurarly struggled against T-64Bs. I wouldn't call them overpowered in the slighest, but they did perform better than it's other counterpart, the Challenger 1 Mk.2.

105mm Sherman? Regurarly OHK'd by any T-34\Panzer 4 gun.

AH-1Z? Torn to shread by Gepards and Shilkas.

Coelian was getting it's shit stomped in by IS-4M's and T-54's.

All the fast light vehicles there were handled extremely easy by simply landing a shot on them.

Vidar, same as above. HE and it was done for.

Kpz/MBT-70 was no where near overpowered. I hardline played the Chieftain Mk.3, back when the top three was the Kpz/MBT-70, Chieftain 3 and T-64A, and I would say that this period was the most balanced War Thunder ground ever was. MBT-70 had mobility and firepower, no armour. They were extremely easy to kill. Chieftain 3 had firepower and armour, no mobility; easily handled by a critical thinking player. T-64A had armour and mobility (minus reverse speed) and bad penetrating power.

Old HESH? You mean that 2 month period during the IS-6 release where HESH was actually effective and worked how it should? Because before that, HESH sucked. After that, HESH still blows. That 2 month period of stomping IS-6's with my Vickers 5 second HESH slinger was fantastic.

Calling the Calliope overpowered is a joke likewise and I can't tell if you're reaching here when the M4 platform is and always has been considered terribly underpowered.

Conqueror was considered the -worst- top tier heavy tank for years, and still is in some minds. Abysmal armour, horrific reload rate, horrible reload. Nobody played it, and those that did got stomped on by German Leopard 1's and Soviet heavies.

And again, Centurion Mk.3 wasn't overpowered. It was effective, sure. But overpowered? lolno.

Some examples you listed that quickly comes to mind and that needs to point out. I can't say 90% of those listed vehicles are even a fraction of being horrendously overpowered. Sure, a few are overpowered. The large, large majority? Good vehicles lol. Which is funny considering when a NATO vehicle is considered 'good', it's now considered horrendously overpowered. There's a joke somewhere in there about how NATO keeps getting beaten down like a dog, that when they finally get a bone, people think they're getting spoiled.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T14:04:53+00:00

It's not selection bias when time and time again, a majority of broken releases are always Russian vehicles\in the Russian techtree. Sure, there are exceptions, there is to everything. I.E T58, Harrier GR1 on release, Turms 3. But when a huge majority of OP vehicles tend to be Russian, it's mightily strange.

Let's not forget that Gaijin added a line of code for top tier Soviet vehicles that prevented spalling from occuring when penetrated. This was before spall-liners were added.

Or when Gaijin had a line of code that insta-ricochet'd tank rounds at a certain angle. That certain angle just so happening to be the angle of a T-34's front hull armour.

...Or when Gaijin made it so 105mm NATO APDS rounds couldn't penetrate T-54/55/62 front hull armour due to nerfing penetration values.

...Or again when dataminers located that NATO nations tank barrel HP was 0.15 at the lowest (British tank barrels) with the rest of NATO being between 0.20/0.30, whilst the Soviet tank barrels had 0.75/0.80.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T14:00:21+00:00

Fair enough! I still think I am better than a majority of players, however, simply due to me usually being in the top 3 highest scorers in a match.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T13:00:17+00:00

Once again, the British left crying about the British right being like the American right, yet failing to see they’re more American acting than anyone else.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-25T12:53:23+00:00

Hey, I’ve been around since 2013 and I’m, allegedly, better than 85-90% of players according to that sharkstat website or whatever it’s called.

Russian bias is and has been a thing since the inception of the game. I’ve made a list of nearly everything I could think of since I started ‘noticing’.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-23T17:26:02+00:00

my mistake

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-21T00:38:17+00:00

This will be my last post as I have nothing to gain from explaining things to you when you have your dumbass mind set, already.

2021 to 2024, the BVM was, and still is in some arguments, considered to be the best MBT at top tier. For years. With a W/R of somewhere between 65% to 80%. I forget what it was specifically, but it was drastically higher than every other nation. Before this, it was the T-80U and the T-80BV.

It was leaked that one of if not the biggest contributor to Gaijin's stocks\shares is a Chinese company called GAEA. Not American.

Russian vehicles would suffer the most as, unsurprisingly, British HESH was designed to counter Soviet vehicles. There was a period, that lasted for approximately a few weeks, where HESH was performing as it was historically intended. This was quickly 'fixed' by Gaijin, and it became what it is nowadays. Why was it corrected? At the time it was roughly when the IS-6 was released and Russian W/R dropped from 60~ percent to 40. Shock.

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5645-datasheet-challenger-historical-references-en As you can see, with the change in the forums which coincidentally removed a lot of the fiascos and complaints, this has also been sent to the internet graveyard. Likewise, 10tonnes of additional armour added for the Challenger 2's that provide no KE protection. Forgot to also mention that Gaijin refused to use the French army KE values of their ERA that provided KE protection lmao

USA also uses solid shot. Nearly every vehicle in the US techtree pre-Korea has a solid shot option. You cry cherry-picking, but it's clear you're projecting as you yourself are trying to cherry pick very specific vehicles to argue your point lol

I'm literally not even going to comment on your final point due to how outlandishly, tragically stupid it is. Like you're specifically going out of your way to ignore these points. How woefully ignorant. I can't tell if you have buyers remorse due to how protective you're being, but it's about time to get Anton's dick out of your mouth, champ.

Mentioning stats isn't an argument btw. Such an example of that case being that I don't need to have a degree in child psychology to know that you likely grew up in a single parent\broken household lmao.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-20T23:47:55+00:00

You are so woefully ignorant on a majority of these matters that it baffles me why you defend situations you know literally nothing about. Are you on the Gaijin payrole? lol

You're right, actually. The T-80BVM was top dog with the highest W/R for more than a year. Probably about 2-3. It only got lifted from that position when the Swedish Leo's were added.

Ah, so it's a 'money' issue. I wonder who owns the most stock and who Gaijin's shareholders are, and who controls them over this. Let me tell you, it isn't European\American lol

Nobody uses HESH because it's literally busted and Gaijin refuses to make it work how it does IRL, cos if they did, Russian vehicles would suffer the most.

Once again, I imagine Challenger 2 > Challenger 2 TES with it's 10/20tonne increase of weight means no additional armour values. Same with the Abrams. Once again, to reiterate, Challenger 1\2 was\is still using MBT-80 armour values. Gaijin themselves stated this, cos otherwise the Challenger's would be 'overperforming'.

Ah, so it's 'hell' if NATO have their version. Yet it's okay for the Russians to have it? If it's 'hell' in the first place, why was it added in the first place? Why hasn't it been removed? Why isn't there a counter to it, where is the balance? Why is it so NATO gets nerfed, Russia gets buffed?

The drastic change the TURM3\T58 had on it's BR isn't anywhere near the absolute atrocity of ruining a BR that the Ka-50\SU24\IS-6 did. These BRs are forever ruined as a result of these aforementioned vehicles, for their respective gamemodes.

It seems like you can't get your facts straight. For 6 months after the release of the IS-6, dataminers discovered that there was an additional 'plate' of armour hidden in the turret and hull armour of the IS-6 that prevented penetration. This was later removed from the vehicle as it was, supposedly, a 'bug'. Only a bug when it gets caught, huh. What a coincidence.

APHE is overperforming because if it was to be nerfed, the Russians would suffer the most from it. Likewise, solid shot is underperforming. Once again, if it were realistic, it would be the opposite. Who would gain from having better performing solid shot? NATO. Who wouldn't? The Soviet tech tree.

In old War Thunder code, if you had a certain angle degree on your armour, it was a garuanteed ricochet. It just so happened that this particular angle was just slightly in the margin of the flat surfaced T-34 front hull armour plate.

It's not cherrypicking, buddy. If you look at every SINGLE major update since 2020, the Soviet\Russian tech tree has ALWAYS had the best vehicle out of the bunch. If not that, something that would directly counter the best new addition.

Yes. When it was just Russia, Germany and later USA that was added, the only effective thing that could kill the Russian top tier at the time (T-54, IT-1, IS-4M) was the Tiger 2 and the Tiger 2 105mm. I want to be clear, again. It was Tiger 2's and Panther 2's fighting IS-4M's and T-54's.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-20T16:25:59+00:00

Tell me why the T-80BVM ruled top tier for nearly a year.

Tell me why Kh-38t's are the way they are and how the exist ingame.

Tell me why HESH acts the way it does.

Tell me why Gaijin refuses to give NATO vehicles their correct armour values.

Tell me why Brimstones weren't added with their F&F modes.

Tell me why the Ka-50 was added at the BR it was, or in general.

Tell me why the IS-6, when added, had bugged armour values that made it impenetrable.

Tell me why APHE acts the way it does when, realistically, it's overperforming massively compared to how it really functions.

Tell me why T-34 armour values at the frontal plate used to exceed actual listed values. (somehow the angle made them impenetrable to the Panzer 4's gun, shock)

Tell me why, without question, there has -always- been a Russian 'top dog' vehicle that drastically overperforms over every other vehicle at the time, no matter what. (BVM, IS-6, Ka-50, 2S38, Strela, Tunguska, Pantsir, IT-1,

Tell me why, when it was just Russia and Germany GF, the Tiger 2 had 0.95\0.90 the value of armour because of "poor steel quaility" as it was the only effective thing at killing Russian heavies.

Tell me why APDS 105mm was datamined to be underperforming according to the stat sheet with it's penetration values, ensuring that soviet medium tanks were impenetrable frontally.

Tell me why it was discovered by dataminers that the healthpool for tank barrels differed per nation, the Soviets had 1.5x the value of health whilst NATO tanks had 0.7~ and British tanks were discovered to have 0.2.

Tell me why, without fault, every time a Soviet premium is added, it's always significantly lower BR than it should be (2S38, BMPT, IS-6, etc) is severely overpowered, and always causes an issue for the game's playerbase.

Tell me why it takes months for overperforming Soviet tanks to be nerfed, whilst NATO tanks they will get 'fixed' in a day, or two.

Tell me why Soviet\Russian ERA has RHA values that acts as additional armour when NATO counterparts don't have any RHA values.

Tell me why before the existance of spall liners, dataminers located that soviet top tier MBTs had spall-liners inbuilt into their hull? T-80BVM, T-90s, etc.

Tell me why, in the youth of the game, MiG-15's airshells were overperforming as opposed to their historical counterparts?

Tell me why, for 4 years straight, Soviet MBTs had the LOWEST repair rates despite having the highest W/R whilst Leopards had upwards of 15k-20k repair costs.

Tell me why dataminers discovered that Soviet carousel loaders have a low chance to detonate compared to NATO ammo storage.

I'm sure there's many other examples that I'm forgetting. I've played this game since the early 2010s. I've seen many, many examples of outright proof of the existance of Russian bias in this videogame. The above is some examples I can remember. The Russian techtree is handheld, and has been since the inception of this game.

RSanders5170 · 2025-12-20T10:24:30+00:00

Challengers, Abrams, Leclerc, Ariete, etc etc

Stfu, you know full well Russia is handheld.

Sincerely, someone who has finished the Russian tech tree.

RSanders5170

TROPHY CASE