Proof of actual bias in War Thunder.

[Noh4x]

So, you think that after many years of development and controversy (Russian shells getting extra HE filler, lower fire chance for german ammo, negative armor modifier on King Tiger etc.)...
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/254341-t-34-76s-are-discouraging-new-players-from-continuing/&page=11#entry4926959
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/256401-t-10m-aphebc-a-bit-too-powerful/#entry4927210
...bias in War Thunder is noting more than a dead meme?

Well, fear not, Gaijin has got you covered.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/6pm70p/remember_when_your_pantherking_tiger_burst_into/

tl;dr Axis vehicles got an extra line of code so they could get set on fire from hits which did not impact the fuel/engine/transmission, or even hits which passed straight through the vehicle without causing any damage. Even non-penetrating shots.
This was in the game for a long time, at least 1,5 years, maybe even since GF started, and has only been removed in the latest update.

Affected nations:
German vehicles - 70
Japanese vehicles - 19
British vehicles - 1 (likely c&p from RakJpz)
Soviet vehicles - 2 (both captured German vehicles...)

example: https://gfycat.com/ThoseBackBigmouthbass
Credits to Scout1Treia.

[Noh4x]

Blitzkrieg Wulf の投稿を引用：

So... Does this come with a published statistic on how often/many times this extra line of code was enacted and resulted in a death?

Yeah, 100% more often than it should have.

Blitzkrieg Wulf の投稿を引用：

Really, the big question that I would like to ask, the million dollar question, is why I don't see a link to a two year old bug report, if this was such a serious problem? I would think that if it was a daily, every-match-I-play occurrence, that it would surely have been reported prior?

Nope, nobody would make a bug report for something that happens like 2 out of 10 matches if they think that the game mechenic is working correctly... and if they would have the report closed as always.
The real million dollar question here is why this absolute BS "feature" was even in the game, exclusively to one and a half nation.

[PyroPaul]

Vriz の投稿を引用：

I wouldn't dare say it's meaningless when it comes to the gun. Otherwise, you could theoretically fire all 105mm shell types out of the Type 60 SPRG's 106mm and expect the same performance for example.

Or you can fire the 120mm APFSDS round from the Chieftain out of a 105mm as an extreme example.


Still, the rounds themselves are in question here and that includes other essential factors to consider here besides Mass and Velocity such as the materials used for the round itself and the gun firing it itself

The T-62's default APFSDS round for example, despite being a bigger and faster shell than the T95e1's, actually pens less than it.

It is meaningless - because if you could achieve the same Velocities using the same Mass then it would produce the same outcome, regardless.

It is basic physics.

Type 60 SPRG weapon's are Recoiless Rifles, which would vent some of the propellent backwards to counteract the Recoil of the weapon - thus drastically reducing the munition's velocity.

The Chieftain doesn't have an APFSDS, nor was it ever issued one - as it used APDS.

But lets go with that argument.... the 120mm APFSDS fired from the Challenger 1 compared to the 105mm APFSDS fired from the Leopard 1.... Well it is the same projectile - both fire the 27mm KE Penetrator. The difference is the Muzzle Velocity because the 120mm can more safely achieve higher pressures and thus higher velocities making it perform better

But again - if you could match the velocity and mass - then the outcome would be the same.

the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System fitted with advanced version M68 105mm gun can fire the M900 APFSDS, which identical to the round fired from the Challenger I (only difference is the material used, but because Tungsten and DU both have a density of ~19 g/cm^3, that difference is negligable). The MGS can achieve just as high velocities using more advanced powders and a gun with higher pressure tolerences... as such - it performs exactly the same as the Challenger I 120mm APFSDS round.

Mass.
Velocity.

That is all that matters.


The only outlier here is the T-62's 'APFSDS' however that is not a Sabot in the sense we are most accustom to. Rather then being a solid rod penetrator made of a high density material which is what we commonly think when some one says APFSDS, it was a steel rod arrow with interchangable warheads.

The 3BM4 has a harden steel solid slug head, while the 3BM3 had a Composite Rigid core (tungsten).

Cross Section of 3BM3:
http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12011.0;attach=142946;image

Vriz の投稿を引用：

APDS is also in the same boat:

The Conqueror's APDS, although faster than the Chieftain's by 100 m/s more while being 0.9kg less shell weight, pens less than the Chieftain's by a significant margin (40mm pen less)

Conversely

The SU-122-54's APDS, despite it being bigger than the 105mm APDS by 1.6kg and slower than it by 78m/s, actually pens less than the 105mm APDS by a couple mm (4mm difference)

The APDS's shot is not the same as KE Penetrators in the APFSDS.

APDS fired sub-caliber AP rounds with a dense core, not a projectile comprised entirely of that dense material.

A visual representation:
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/APtypes.jpg

As such - the weight of the munition is not entirely the high density Tungsten commonly used for the Core of such munitions.

So as per your examples -

The 'L1G Shot' had a mass of 9.1 kg, but it's core was roughly ~4.1 kg, mean while the Chieftains L15 shot had a core that measured in at nearly 5.5 kg out of it's 10 kg mass. The difference in velocity cannot completely compensate for the difference in mass.

the SU-122-54's APDS had a projectile mass of 7.4 kg, however the Core only had a mass of 2.8 kg. Mean while the DM13/M392 105mm APDS had a mass of 4.8 and with a core with a mass of 2.7 kg. Similar mass, similar velocity, similar damage.

[AgentSMITH]

PyroPaul の投稿を引用：

It is meaningless - because if you could achieve the same Velocities using the same Mass then it would produce the same outcome, regardless.

It is basic physics.

Type 60 SPRG weapon's are Recoiless Rifles, which would vent some of the propellent backwards to counteract the Recoil of the weapon - thus drastically reducing the munition's velocity.

The Chieftain doesn't have an APFSDS, nor was it ever issued one - as it used APDS.

chieftain MK5/4 used a apfsds round i think it was called L23,not sure though

[Vriz]

PyroPaul の投稿を引用：

Vriz の投稿を引用：

I wouldn't dare say it's meaningless when it comes to the gun. Otherwise, you could theoretically fire all 105mm shell types out of the Type 60 SPRG's 106mm and expect the same performance for example.

Or you can fire the 120mm APFSDS round from the Chieftain out of a 105mm as an extreme example.


Still, the rounds themselves are in question here and that includes other essential factors to consider here besides Mass and Velocity such as the materials used for the round itself and the gun firing it itself

The T-62's default APFSDS round for example, despite being a bigger and faster shell than the T95e1's, actually pens less than it.

It is meaningless - because if you could achieve the same Velocities using the same Mass then it would produce the same outcome, regardless.

It is basic physics.

Type 60 SPRG weapon's are Recoiless Rifles, which would vent some of the propellent backwards to counteract the Recoil of the weapon - thus drastically reducing the munition's velocity.

The Chieftain doesn't have an APFSDS, nor was it ever issued one - as it used APDS.

But lets go with that argument.... the 120mm APFSDS fired from the Challenger 1 compared to the 105mm APFSDS fired from the Leopard 1.... Well it is the same projectile - both fire the 27mm KE Penetrator. The difference is the Muzzle Velocity because the 120mm can more safely achieve higher pressures and thus higher velocities making it perform better

But again - if you could match the velocity and mass - then the outcome would be the same.

the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System fitted with advanced version M68 105mm gun can fire the M900 APFSDS, which identical to the round fired from the Challenger I (only difference is the material used, but because Tungsten and DU both have a density of ~19 g/cm^3, that difference is negligable). The MGS can achieve just as high velocities using more advanced powders and a gun with higher pressure tolerences... as such - it performs exactly the same as the Challenger I 120mm APFSDS round.

Mass.
Velocity.

That is all that matters.


The only outlier here is the T-62's 'APFSDS' however that is not a Sabot in the sense we are most accustom to. Rather then being a solid rod penetrator made of a high density material which is what we commonly think when some one says APFSDS, it was a steel rod arrow with interchangable warheads.

The 3BM4 has a harden steel solid slug head, while the 3BM3 had a Composite Rigid core (tungsten).

Cross Section of 3BM3:
http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12011.0;attach=142946;image

Vriz の投稿を引用：

APDS is also in the same boat:

The Conqueror's APDS, although faster than the Chieftain's by 100 m/s more while being 0.9kg less shell weight, pens less than the Chieftain's by a significant margin (40mm pen less)

Conversely

The SU-122-54's APDS, despite it being bigger than the 105mm APDS by 1.6kg and slower than it by 78m/s, actually pens less than the 105mm APDS by a couple mm (4mm difference)

The APDS's shot is not the same as KE Penetrators in the APFSDS.

APDS fired sub-caliber AP rounds with a dense core, not a projectile comprised entirely of that dense material.

A visual representation:
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/APtypes.jpg

As such - the weight of the munition is not entirely the high density Tungsten commonly used for the Core of such munitions.

So as per your examples -

The 'L1G Shot' had a mass of 9.1 kg, but it's core was roughly ~4.1 kg, mean while the Chieftains L15 shot had a core that measured in at nearly 5.5 kg out of it's 10 kg mass. The difference in velocity cannot completely compensate for the difference in mass.

the SU-122-54's APDS had a projectile mass of 7.4 kg, however the Core only had a mass of 2.8 kg. Mean while the DM13/M392 105mm APDS had a mass of 4.8 and with a core with a mass of 2.7 kg. Similar mass, similar velocity, similar damage.

Aside from the Chieftain Mk5/4 having APFSDS...

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/333808-chieftain-mk54-mbt-new-top-tier-uk-tank/&
http://i.imgur.com/AmOpg9O.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZkRnJUT.png

Staying on the point of the gun, you've even said it yourself that with more specialized equipment, it can achieve that effect (a 105mm shell similarly performing to a 120mm shell), which would inherently mean the gun does matter to achieving said results.

Regardless, excellent explanation on the APDS and APFSDS details and differences (including the T-62's default APFSDS round)

[PyroPaul]

Vriz の投稿を引用：

Aside from the Chieftain Mk5/4 having APFSDS...

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/333808-chieftain-mk54-mbt-new-top-tier-uk-tank/&
http://i.imgur.com/AmOpg9O.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZkRnJUT.png

Staying on the point of the gun, you've even said it yourself that with more specialized equipment, it can achieve that effect (a 105mm shell similarly performing to a 120mm shell), which would inherently mean the gun does matter to achieving said results.

Regardless, excellent explanation on the APDS and APFSDS details and differences (including the T-62's default APFSDS round)

You notice the "/4" on the "Chieftain Mk5"?
Yeah, that means that it isn't the Chieftain Mk5...

it is a Modified/updated/modernized version Chieftain.

The entire FV4201 line went through this entire process with each tank being upgraded, modified, then brought up to a better standard, then modified again, to the point that it actually can be difficult to really understand the difference between them all.

Ultimately the Mk. 9 is the final upgrade to all chieftains that allowed for the storage of APFSDS - although each Mk. has it's own little "/" variation which also modified it to do just that - such as the Mk.5/4

[Blamite Delight]

yeah ive had this happend, after suffering repeated heavy transmission/fueltank/engine damage and surviving enemy bullets hitting the hull will cause engine fires for no reason

[AIntPJZ]

Bias Bias everywhere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iu0pvZP-dM

[Vriz]

PyroPaul の投稿を引用：

Vriz の投稿を引用：

Aside from the Chieftain Mk5/4 having APFSDS...

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/333808-chieftain-mk54-mbt-new-top-tier-uk-tank/&
http://i.imgur.com/AmOpg9O.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZkRnJUT.png

Staying on the point of the gun, you've even said it yourself that with more specialized equipment, it can achieve that effect (a 105mm shell similarly performing to a 120mm shell), which would inherently mean the gun does matter to achieving said results.

Regardless, excellent explanation on the APDS and APFSDS details and differences (including the T-62's default APFSDS round)

You notice the "/4" on the "Chieftain Mk5"?
Yeah, that means that it isn't the Chieftain Mk5...

it is a Modified/updated/modernized version Chieftain.

The entire FV4201 line went through this entire process with each tank being upgraded, modified, then brought up to a better standard, then modified again, to the point that it actually can be difficult to really understand the difference between them all.

Ultimately the Mk. 9 is the final upgrade to all chieftains that allowed for the storage of APFSDS - although each Mk. has it's own little "/" variation which also modified it to do just that - such as the Mk.5/4

That's a rather poor point, it still is a Chieftain just like a Centurion Mk 3 and a Mk 10 are still Centurions.

Not really enough to distinguish it as an entirely new tank, especially so when the engine, upgraded FCS, ammo types and such are all under the hood upgrades and on the outside, more modernized variants with ERA and such are effectively cosmetics to a tank when underneath, it's still the same tank.

For example, a Sherman with sandbags / track armor:
http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/patton/P40.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e2/19/7c/e2197c81ea7e46987a3cd49b3f4ed180.jpg

I'm not going to say an upgunned 76mm Sherman is a whole new tank compared to the 75mm Sherman when they're both Shermans.

Or for Russia, I'm not going to say an upgunned 85mm T-34 is different from the 76mm T-34

[Blamite Delight]

(東方) Zindai の投稿を引用：

What about german bias? Why does noone bring up the fact that if you shoot at the base of the panther 2's gun barrel headon the shot richochets off completely instead of simply gliding alongside into the turret face which is what happens to russians and brits. Or how about the fact that the germans get panzer 4's below 4.3 BR that can pen a Kv1E frontally without aiming? Or maybe the fact that the wirbelwind suffers almost no bullet drop from insane distances WITH HVAP!?

you have no idea how stupid you made yourself sound, the panther II has a strong gun mantlet, cry me a river with your god forsaken KV1's, if you don't know how to angle your armor to staff off HEAT then thats your problem. Do you even know what HVAP stands for? High Velocity Armor Piercing, not slow velocity armor piercing. Meaning the rounds will shoot out of the barrel faster and have more range, the only shells that lack range are the fragmentation rounds.

[Blamite Delight]

Foxtrot39 の投稿を引用：

(東方) Zindai の投稿を引用：

What about german bias? Why does noone bring up the fact that if you shoot at the base of the panther 2's gun barrel headon the shot richochets off completely instead of simply gliding alongside into the turret face which is what happens to russians and brits. Or how about the fact that the germans get panzer 4's below 4.3 BR that can pen a Kv1E frontally without aiming? Or maybe the fact that the wirbelwind suffers almost no bullet drop from insane distances WITH HVAP!?

1.Panther 2 didn't existed that was the Panther D wich suffered from round trap

2.Because 100mm pen HEAT is all those stubby 75mm are good for, ♥♥♥♥ velocity and shell drop like bricks

3.I think the crusader using 20mm has the same benefit, no one use HVAP to shoot plane aside the kugelblitz/Flackpanzer leopard since they can't carry different ammo belt and 20mm HVAP is only good at close range to deal damage, it won't do crap at range where the wirblewind sits outside paper box brit tanks

(raises hand) I use the HVAP with API belt for my whirblewind to shoot down planes....

[Blamite Delight]

O'neill-san の投稿を引用：

lets ignore that fact from a few weeks ago when i was using a firefly and shot a t-34 in the side directly, hit the fuel tank then the ammo rack. Direct hit. Both black. Nothing. No explosion. But whenever even one single sharpnel hits my ammo from russian shells, no matter what vehicle i use, it insantly blows up.

british shells don't have any HE filler, they are stricktly solid shot. So you probably just ruptured the fuel tank and tickled the shell rack.

[Blamite Delight]

(東方) Zindai の投稿を引用：

Schwarzblut の投稿を引用：

T10M is faster as the Superhellcat!
T95E1 -> real Speed 56 KmH -> Ingame Speed 20-30 KmH on Street
M41A1 -> real Speed 72 KmH -> Ingame Speed 40-44 KmH on Street
M163 -> real Speed 64 KmH -> Ingame Speed 30-33 KmH on Street

But all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Russians are hyper mobil!

5Kg Sabot from T55A makes more Damage as the 5 Kg Sabot from T95E1

This Game sucks more and more and change to a russian Propagandagame!

if you played russia tier 5 you would know that besides speed, russian tanks like the It1 and T62 chassis are TERRIBLE and hard to turn on anything that resembles slanted terrain; wanna turn on the side of a hill? engine dies. Wanna turn in a close street battle? mashing buttons intesifies* Wanna go up a hill greater than 35+ degrees? not possible. Allies get way better manueaverability so it balances out.

lol you ♥♥♥♥♥♥ kiddin me, have you ever tried turning in a sherman? the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ tracks move in place without turning.

[Blitzkrieg Wulf]

Noh4x の投稿を引用：

Blitzkrieg Wulf の投稿を引用：

So... Does this come with a published statistic on how often/many times this extra line of code was enacted and resulted in a death?

Yeah, 100% more often than it should have.

Blitzkrieg Wulf の投稿を引用：

Really, the big question that I would like to ask, the million dollar question, is why I don't see a link to a two year old bug report, if this was such a serious problem? I would think that if it was a daily, every-match-I-play occurrence, that it would surely have been reported prior?

Nope, nobody would make a bug report for something that happens like 2 out of 10 matches if they think that the game mechenic is working correctly... and if they would have the report closed as always.
The real million dollar question here is why this absolute BS "feature" was even in the game, exclusively to one and a half nation.

I asked an honest question, not looking for an exact "2,954 times!" answer, but also not looking for a retort. Of course it happened more often than it should have. Mistakes occur- that's the nature of developing most things.

You're telling me there's a 20% occurrence over (the better part of) two years, and not once someone went, "Gee, that was strange!?". I'd be amazed if it was 0.5%. How often does someone load straight AP, shoot into a part of the tank that hits nothing, supposedly doesn't spall at all, and hits the same spot (That repeatedly does no damage) so many times that it causes a fire? Call me crazy, but I've never seen that occur in any tank match I've played. I won't go so far as to say it can't happen- obviously it can- but the other seemingly logical explanation is that it occurs so infrequently that it took a year and a half to find.


I honestly never noticed the issue. The bug, to me, was non-existent. So what, I died an extra 1 time out of 100. Maybe 1 time out of 1,000. I honestly don't know, and neither does anyone else. I play games to have fun, and an extra death a month really doesn't bother me. I won't go out of my way to make Mount Everest out of a mole hill. I'm sure there are bugs that affect both sides of the fence, for the better or worse. At the same time, I haven't realized most of them because they are so small and insignificant in day-to-day play. Instead of going out and trying to find them, I enjoy the game for what it is, smile, try to have a good time, and if I notice something I'll point it out so it can be fixed.

[Wardog]

Explain to me why the Russian 20mm and 23mm cannons spark more than the other countries? I'm serious I have better luck with hispanoes then those things.

[Wardog]

PyroPaul の投稿を引用：

Vriz の投稿を引用：

On the part of the T-55a, makes sense since it's coming out of a bigger gun with better penetration

the size of the gun is entirely meaningless to APFSDS darts... after all, you are shooting rounds smaller then the boresize of the cannon it is fired from.

the major components that come into play is Mass and Velocity.

The T-55a's projectile velocity is lower then the T95e1's projectile velocity. Yet the T-55a seemingly violates the laws of physics and some how the lower velocity projectile is capable of penetrating more armor then the higher velocity projectile.

90mm vs 100mm cannon oh wow Alex Jones.