War Thunder – ‘New’ Boats ‘Leaked’

The redditor Sonoda_Kotori decided to pull the game apart and render a few of the new boats, awaiting a new test wave.

Nasty class PT

Project 123 Bis


Project 191

‘New’ Project 191M

Bonus pic of all of the boats in-game, minus the Japanese PT


10 thoughts on “War Thunder – ‘New’ Boats ‘Leaked’

    1. I like this idea, davidblader. always wanted to see the romanian TDs added to the game, specially the R-35 vanatorul de care, and the TACAM. do you have more info and pics abput those tanks?


    2. There are two potential Romanian tier 10 medium candidates. However, it’ll depend on the thickness of the turret armor.

      The tank above is, in my opinion, 99% one of the TR-77-580 prototypes called the TR-77 and/or TR-800 (not referring to the TR-85-800). I have CIA documents and General Tiberiu S. Urdareanu to back this up.

      This tank was likely an experimental sister of the TR-77-580’s prototype which probably had the same elongated turret as the TR-77/TR-800 (the picture above). It was supposed to be equipped with the MTU 800 hp engine, but due to deadlines, a Romanian built 580 hp V-55 engine was installed temporarily. There are some hints that it actually did mount it around 1978.

      So depending on the armor, both the TR-77-580 and TR-77/TR-800 can be tier 10 while the TR-77-580’s prototype can be tier 9.

      However, the TR-77/TR-800 can be tier 9 while the TR-77-580 is at tier 10.

      Again, this will depend whether the armor of the TR-77/TR-800 is weaker than the TR-77-580.

      The illustration above is a bit of photoshopping I did. This is how I imagine the TR-77-580’s 1976 prototype and the early 1979 series production TR-77-580 to look like.


  1. surprised? not really, I’ve always defended (on the forum, youtube or here on TAP) that going with only boats could not work, why? simply because the US and Japan could not stay competitive with only AA guns and torps
    I always thought it was “suspicious” why they decided to make excuses to only incorporate the type of BOATS the USSR actually had an advantage, and why did they have an advantage? out of necessity, for several ocasions they needed to cross rivers to recover some land (which gave origin to the infamous Order No. 227), this means a armored river assault craft armed with cannons would prove really usefull to support the assaulting troops
    there would be no problem if the other nations had something to compete at long range like the soviets do, however only the germans and british invested in something similar, the british have the MGB!? with what I believe to be a anti-sub howitzer (generally 120mm, I believe the Japanese and US had something similar but in larger ships dedicated for ASW role), the british also have 2pdrs on ships but with no real one-shot capacity like the soviets
    on the other hand the germans have the “famous” gun-barge/battle-barge with 88mm flak (there are other variants with 75mm cannons and mid caliber AA) but looking at it’s origin I would say it was a AA dedicated craft to defend the Malta landings (developed from a tank carriage barge intended for german and italian assault on Malta, never went through) with the 75mm armed variant meant to attack coastal defenses
    in the american and japanese cases it is different, due to its geography the USA would be attacked from the sea, even if they have some large rivers there is no real tactical reason for their enemies to send river crafts all the way to North-America, that’s why the US focused on sea-going ships and fast attack crafts (FAC)
    however they, like the british, did build a few monitor ships that could navigate a fair bit up rivers as well as act as mobile coastal defenses, the issue is that they are usually larger than a few DDs and are armed with LARGE caliber guns, the largest I know from both american and british monitors are 16inch (406mm) guns (usually 2, either in a single turret or 2 individual turrets), they had a few submarine chasers/gunboats with one 3in gun and some AA
    for the japanese it is similar, being a Archipelago all of their mainland was a potential assault point, furthermore they had quite a bit of smaller islands spread in the pacific, it is obvious their focus had to be in large ships to repel the enemy fleet and FAC to patrol or quickly deploy and counter enemy landings, furthermore their geography meant that river assaults were not efficient and thus not a threat, besides both their industry and resources was not enough to waste on ships that could barely fight a enemy troop transport ship (american built troop and tank transports were covered with 40mm bofors, some even 5in/127mm guns)

    of course I think it is a good sign that they decided to add DDs but that reinforces my belief on their real reason being protecting the soviet player base
    it is known that the soviets never completed a BB capable of standing against british, american, german, japanese, french or italian top-of-the-line BBs, most of their BBs were pre-war and coastal defense BBs, some of them were sunk in way before the war by a far inferior, both technologically and numerically, japanese fleet (Battle of Tsushima)
    in regards to cruisers there is a mix of pre-war and post-war cruisers, the post-war cruisers are probably on equal terms to the best of the other major nations unless they add BGMs to naval forces which would leave Germany, Italy and Japan clearly lagging behind
    in terms of WWII cruisers the soviets clearly lack options and would make a big gap in their line
    finally there are the DDs, in this aspect they are not too far behind in number and power, HOWEVER it shows their true intent «there’s no problem about adding ships that benefit or give “equal” conditions to the russians»

    and why is that? it has something to do with their initial claim «larger ships are too slow and inflexible», if so why not go step-by-step? I mean, there’s a kind of progression in ship size from class-to-class, in between FAC+gunboats (river patrol crafts, battle barges, etc) and DDs there are several other smaller classes, of those we can probably exclude minesweepers, monitor ships, subs and transports
    we are left with ASW specialized ships (like submarine chasers), Aviso ships, Corvettes and Frigates, all these ships are “small” gunboats as gaijin desired and yet none has been announced, yet I must be impartial and say they are in a similar situation to the soviet river gunboats, especially Frigates and Corvettes that were mainly built, used and sold by the US and UK for convoy protection, still some of them are small (similar length to the battle-barge) and usually only have 1 main gun, from 76mm to 102mm (low velocity), plus various AA and depth charges, they would play like the gunboats they were

    this means they could do for others what they did for the soviets and add a relatively exclusive class of ship within their initial claim for boats but chose not to
    I hope they eventually start make decisions based on the whole picture and not in what is in favor to A, B or C playerbase


    1. Just wait until the Soviet boat line gets the Project 1190 monitor. 3 twin 130mm turrets, 77mm belt armor, 40mm deck armor, 100mm turret armor.


      1. all nations had some type of monitor ship, even Sweeden had them despite not having much of a Navy
        still, 9x130mm guns isn’t much vs british monitors:
        2x 15in (380mm) guns in single turret (3 classes)
        but above else
        2x12in (305mm) + 1x18in (460mm) (2 ships from Lorde-Clive class)
        british monitors usually mounted 12 or 14 inch guns but a number of them mounted 15 and 18inch guns + a bunch of secondaries (100mm, etc…), but there were also monitors with 6, 7 and 9.3 inch main batteries
        USN monitors are most likely too old for gaijin, which brings us back to the USN lacking gunboats, luckly DDs were confirmed because only having PT boats would not be good, as seen in previous CBT players simply stopped using them, imagine wanting to grind the US naval tree and many times being the only american ship in your team (in RB, in AB is mixed and would not have as much impact)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s