War Thunder – Dev Q&A 10.01.2018

Q: Do you have any plans to split the Ki-200 into the Army and Navy versions to expand the Japanese 8.0 Lineup? The Ki-200 currently has skins for both the J8M and Ki-200. All that is needed is the aircraft’s cannons to be changed. The model is correct for both. The Army Ki-200 has Type 5 30mm cannons whilst the Navy J8M has Ho-105 30mm cannons. This would really help grow the Japanese rank 5 with little work needed.

A: We have doubts about the need for such an extension of the  Japanese aircraft tree for the 5th rank. In update 1.75 we added the more interesting Saber F40 version and we find it more interesting.

Q: What will happen to the DB.7 and D.521 premiums in the British tree? Will we see them in the French tree soon? What of the Hawk 75 (French P-36) that was found within the CDK?

A: DB-7 is not an exception. About Hawks – in the update 1.75 we have added two variants Hawk 75-H-75A-1 and H-75A-4.

Q: Has there been any changes to the decision regarding the Sturmtiger? Larger calibre SPGs are really popular and fun!  Perhaps a Rank V premium,or event gift?

A: Probably only as a collector’s vehicle, like it was with BM-13, which means that there won’t be any guarantees of effectiveness in battles. There are no specific plans, but it will probably appear for some future event.

Q: Italians are currently lacking premium aircraft right now, are there any in the works?

A: Yes, there are several models in preparation, but we can not say which will be first.

Q: Do you have any intention to include the missing early Seafire variants? There is a gap in between the Sea Hurricanes and Firefly/Firebrand where the Merlin powered Seafire Mk I, Mk II and Mkiii could easily fit. Also the Griffon powered Seafire XV. Perhaps these could be included in the French tree later with the Aéronavale line or premiums?

A: Yes, we have such plans (regarding early Seafires).

Q: Most nations now have very capable SPAAG’s at 8.0 now. Britain still has the Falcon, which does not compare greatly to the Type 87, Gepard, Shilka and M163. Now that we have Rank VI and more expansion in Rank V, are the Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman SPAAGs possible now?

A: Yes, it is not excluded. These SPAAGs are being considered to be added to the game.

Q: Do you have any options to expand the aircraft ranges for the top rank? Currently ground forces pushes into the 1960s and 1970s, however aircraft still remain in the 1950s. Is it possible we could see unguided missile later aircraft like the Gloster Javelin, A-4 Skyhawk, Later MiG-17s, FIAT G.91 R/3 or G.91Y, F-86H, Hunter F.6? This could also open up the possibility to include new bombers like the Tu-95, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant and B-52?

A: Yes, we believe that there are such opportunities, even if it is not about aircraft with missile weapons, so we can make attacker aircraft.

Q: Now that we have the SM.81, is it possible we can now see the bomber modification of the German Ju-52 Tante Ju as a 1.3 aircraft or premium/gift? It could carry up to 500kg (1100lb) of bombs as well as having defensive armament. The aircraft is very similar in characteristics to the SM.81 and would be a very popular event/gift/premium machine.

A: Unlike the specialized SM.81, which can carry up to 2 tons of bombs, the Yu-52 is primarily a transport aircraft with weak flight characteristics and we don’t consider it necessary to add it to the research tree, it may be possible as a collector’s vehicle.

Q: Now that the B-24 has received a new model, is it possible we will see additional variants? In addition, is a British Fleet Air Arm premium Corsair modification possible now they also have new models?

A: In update 1.75 we added the British Corsair Mk.2. Regarding the B-24 – we don’t have any plans for any other modifications of it at the moment.

Q: Can you give us any hints as to which aircraft will receive new models/variants in the future? Perhaps the Spitfire Mk V series, Bf 110, P-40, Blenheim or Mosquito? All of these aircraft have many different modifications available and could do with reworked existing models.

A: Spitfire V is now in the process of creating an updated model, and we have plans for the P-40 and 110 series


Q: Will the factory modifications of U5 and U6 be added for Bf 109 G6-G14? I would especially like to try the MK-103 on the 109th. And will there be a modification of the Il-28Sh and MiG-9 with a 57mm gun in the game?

A: As far as I know, there is something in the plans and I recently received documentation from historians on this topic.

Q: Is it possible for an aircraft such as the Ki-91 to appear in the game as a response to the top heavy bombers of other countries? It was existing, but did not have time to fly.

A: As far as we know, in reality this aircraft did not exist, the aerodynamic models were wind tunnel only, so there are no plans for this aircraft.

Q: Is it possible, including on the eve of the fleet, to introduce late Japanese torpedoes, namely the versions of the Type 91 torpedo with a larger mass of the warhead? In the current reality, Japanese torpedoes are the weakest in the game, and there are no alternatives in the form of bombs, in view of the small load, unlike to the bombers of other countries.

A: Yes, we are thinking of the Type-4 oxygen torpedoes for B7A2 and P1Y.

Q: Is it planned to implement the T-64A with a gas turbine engine? For example, as premium on the 6th rank. The tank existed in reality and even passed testing phase. Actually, this is a prototype of the T-80.

A: As with the vehicles of the 30s and 50s, first of all we introduce more mass and well-known machines, and after that different prototypes and objects. Primarily, we would like to add mass produced versions of the T-72 and T-80 families, and only then their rarer versions.

Q: Which new sound effects are in the plans?

A: Now we have begun to deal with reworking the sounds of weapons, in particular, machine guns, then we will turn to cannons. Processing is primarily for the purpose of atmospheric sounding at different distances. There will also be a change in the sound of tank engines depending on the position of the camera (as now it happens with the sounds of aircraft engines for example). We can not say anything about ETA at the moment. The work is voluminous, most likely, it will all come out in a parts, from patch to patch.

Q: What about the sounds of French tanks, have you managed to copy from real vehicles?

A: Yes, those tanks that survived and with authentic engines, we have recorded. This applies to the rest of the tanks in the game. By recording the tanks, large-scale work was done. Despite the fact that there are not so many vehicles with authentic running engines – we and our team managed to record a large number of aircraft and tanks. Some of them are in a individual.

Q: Are there any third-party sound libraries used for sound in ground vehicles?

A: No, if we are talking about the sound of engines, we have a very rich own database of “live” recordings. If it is needed to synthesize a sound, we use it. But the more difficult to get sounds, for example, hits, some shots (some, because we have also written some of the tools available from reality). Then yes, we can use other libraries.

Q: Will there be new soundtracks?

A: Yes, recently we recorded some new music, after the new year they should appear.

Q: Will the work continue in the direction of the national voice, meaning the general commands, for example “attack point A”.

A: Yes, with regard to voice acting, some work is under way in this direction. The national voice-over is of course needed and we will definitely develop it.


16 thoughts on “War Thunder – Dev Q&A 10.01.2018

    1. There are rockets an player controlled missiles on tanks, I am sure they are developing missiles and more modern planes but there is no rush on that crap yet


    2. I think they are only referring only to missile-only air superiority aircraft, those intended to shoot down other fighters with heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles, which I would agree because it removes the player skill variant to the equation if you live or die in a dogfight, however I do not agree that it also gets applied to bomber and attack aircraft, what’s the point of defensive armament if the current META tells you they aren’t enough UNLESS you are in a formation of 3 or more bombers OR are in a Tu-4?
      I myself would rather play with a Avro Vulcan or de Havilland Sea VIxxen than most other bombers, the gameplay would not be much different from now:
      start with a bit advantage >> cimb to 5,5 to 6km early >> point your nose down by 5º >> reach target and drop >> return to re-arm at AF >> take off exactly as the match ends
      the difference? none, just like now your survivability depends heavily on whether or not your fighters will climb and reach you fast enough

      the only variation I can see them add in terms of guided munitions would be GBU’s, bombs like the Fritz-X and such to be used in naval forces against ships, or maybe even wire-guided missiles because you would be extremely vulnerable and easily killed and that would cut-off the guding


        1. me too, I understand that it was faster to model the Canberra since it could be used for 2 different nations but the Stratojet even fits the “needs defensive armament” criteria, other interesting choices would be the B-45 and B-66 (both slower than the Mig-17 or Hunter, just like the B-47) with 22k and 15k lb payloads respectively (not much different from a Tu-4), even more interesting would be the A-3 Skywarrior (from which the B-66 was developed) because it can land on carriers (not in the miniatures currently in the game, but…) and carries a “normal” 12000 lb payload


  1. Well I hope the sturmtiger isn’t like the E 100 BS , iconic German tanks made only possible for no lifer contests. I don’t care if it has a 3 minute reload I want to be able to play it in the game.


    1. you would probably only be able to fire 3 shots per match, then they have to solve how to deal with the massive numbers of TKs and secondly there’s the issue with destructable environment, the reason being, for both the TKs and desctructable, it was a weapon that supposedly blew everything appart in a radious of 500 meters

      the TKs would mean you would be penalized and not earn anything from a match while de destruction radious could be imply the game would need to tranfer so much data to each player that it would be massively laggy, add that to players with slower internet speeds and you would get cases of players still recovering from the lag while others would already be playing normally


    1. Lmao, WT is on an incline so far, with even more content and mechanics being added as an increasingly faster pace. Meanwhile in WoT: Zzz


  2. the 1st and 13th questions mean a lot to me since I am one of those who have enough knowledge, from hours spent on the forum, to know the Japanese aviation TT can still get a serious increase in the number of options, some of which are even more important considering the upcoming naval forces

    while on the 13th question it comes down to a case to who has the best evidence on the case, some claim the wreck of a full scale prototype was found on a bombed factory while Gaijin claims nothing more than the Ki-91 windtunnel test model was built, the 1st question is completely different, if you have the option of adding a aircraft designed and built in Japan why will you argue that adding a modification of a foreign design is a better choice?

    first of all they don’t fit the same role in the TT, secondly the player clearly stated «to expand the Japanese 8.0 lineup», they can’t forget that there are currently 2 main uses for aircraft and 2 of them allow you to stack several aircraft of the same BR in order to not get a penalty in the MM, both in air AB and ground RB ou need to have a decent lineup in each BR in order to be competitive even if you are defeated once

    I do not understand why they claim it like this especially since the soviet TT is full of same BR clones, but to me there’s also a deeper meaning because this situation applies to the Nakajima Kikka as well, the Kikka was develloped in parallel with Japan’s attempt of reproducing the german jet-engine, this means several companies took the initiative and while the Kikka was designed there were 5 companies developing engines, it is known that the Ne-20 finished first and was installed and even managed to get the Kikka airborne, although it ended needing the help of Rato

    the thing is that some sources say 2 other engines were already available to test as well, both of those were more powerfull than the Ne-20 and apparently the plan was to fit whatever engines there would be available to the over 20 Kikka fuselages being produced/started, the problem is that Gaijin does not want to recognize and add this (at least 2) other variants of the Kikka that would work wonders filling some gaps in BR with proper japanese jets

    this issue gains a whole other perspective if you contextualize Gaijin’s decisions for the japanese jet-age aircraft, the thing is that one of the engines developed in paralell to the Ne-20 and the Kikka was exactly the same they used on their “unfinished” (to be gentle) interpretation of the R2Y2 attack aircraft (I think the Ne-330, the most powerfull of the eninges, version of the Kikka was at least in the same category of the R2Y2’s) and the other was the engine mentioned by the J7W creator when he said the piston engine could be exchanged for a jet one when such became available

    they are just inconsistent with their decisions, the natural thing would be all or nothing and since some are already in the game the best course is following the players advice and add the rest, btw it seems the Ki-201 also fits the conditions of being partially built, and since it was rather closer to a Me.262, than the much smaller Kikka, they could use a slightly tweaked Me.262 FM for it


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s