War Thunder Wiki - User contributions [en]

P.108A serie 2

2024-08-31T16:13:14Z

U101816339: /* Description */ Changing link from the Hs 129 family to the Hs 129 B-3, the version that has the comparable cannon

{{About
| about = Italian strike aircraft '''{{PAGENAME}}'''
| and
| usage = the bombers
| link-1 = P.108B serie 1
| link-2 = P.108B serie 2
}}
{{Specs-Card
|code=p_108a_serie2
|images={{Specs-Card-Image|GarageImage_{{PAGENAME}}.jpg|ArtImage_{{PAGENAME}}.jpg}}
}}

== Description ==


The Piaggio P.108A ''Artgliere'' (lit. "Gunship") was an unusual variant of the [[P.108 (Family)|P.108 heavy bomber]]. Designed in response to a requirement issued in November 1942 to supplement torpedo bombers in anti-shipping duties, the P.108A was armed with a massive 102 mm 102/35 mod.14 cannon (a bored-out version of the proven [[90/53 mod.41 (90 mm)|90 mm 90/53 mod.41]] anti-tank cannon) in its fuselage, one of the largest armaments ever fitted onto an aircraft at that time. To maximize the effectiveness of the gun, the plane was to be fitted with an analog computer to help in calculating the aim, as well as a 12-round autoloader. However, due to the worsened situation of Italy, frequent Allied bombing raids, and the realization that such an aircraft was more expensive than a traditional bomber while its theoretical effectiveness was questionable at best, only one prototype was built and tested before the program was cancelled in September 1943. The sole P.108A would later be captured by the Germans but presumably destroyed in a later bombing raid in 1944.

Introduced in [[Update 1.69 "Regia Aeronautica"]] initially as a rank III "strike aircraft", but gradually reduced to a rank I aircraft. The {{PAGENAME}} is similar to the normal P.108s, but with a 102 mm anti-shipping gun containing 50 rounds, basically making it an oversized [[Hs 129 B-3]] or [[PBJ-1H]]. However, the main reason for the ''Artgliere'' to be now pitted frequently against reserve biplanes and early monoplanes rather than being used for tank-busting (or boat killing) duties like the aforementioned planes is due to it being too big, too slow, too sluggish, and too hard to get its gun on target without being hit by any enemies. The 102 mm cannon was intended to be used against large and relatively defenseless target like an average cargo ship, something that the ''Artgliere'' will rarely come across outside of Simulator Battles. Managing to hit any ground vehicle with the first shot is considered a miracle, let alone against aircraft. Since the 102 mm is the only "offensive" armament it has, the P.108A is restricted to ground attack role, something that it performed rather poorly.

In an ironic twist, the P.108A is placed at such a low BR that it can be played as a pure gunship and keep true to its official nickname ''Artgliere'', baiting any inexperienced pilots to chase your tail and hope that you can gun them down with your defensive turret. Though be warned; the plane is pretty much a sitting duck against those who know where to attack it.

== General info ==
=== Flight performance ===
{{Specs-Avia-Flight}}


It is difficult to compliment the P.108A's flight performance. It is for all intents and purposes a heavy bomber repurposed into a strike aircraft. It flies somewhat acceptably compared to other bombers but by strike aircraft standards it is poor. The P.108A is slow, turns poorly, and does not accelerate or climb well. Roll rate and energy retention are not really applicable for this aircraft. The sheer weight and bulk of the plane give it a large amount of inertia, so getting guns on target during a strafing run can be a major challenge due to its weak rudder and extremely sluggish controls. Once its altitude is expended, there is little chance of getting it back in a timely manner. Think twice about your speed and altitude before attacking a ground or naval target and avoid steep dives or you will be fighting with the controls in a futile attempt to pull up!

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="70%"
! rowspan="2" | Characteristics
! colspan="2" | Max Speed (km/h at 3,049 m)
! rowspan="2" | Max altitude (metres)
! colspan="2" | Turn time (seconds)
! colspan="2" | Rate of climb (metres/second)
! rowspan="2" | Take-off run (metres)
|-
! AB !! RB !! AB !! RB !! AB !! RB
|-
! Stock
| 426 || 412 || rowspan="2" | {{Specs|ceiling}} || 32.5 || 34.1 || 6.0 || 5.9 || rowspan="2" | 750
|-
! Upgraded
| 464 || 444 || 29.6 || 31.0 || 9.8 || 7.7
|-
|}

==== Details ====
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="50%"
|-
! colspan="5" | Features
|-
! Combat flaps !! Take-off flaps !! Landing flaps !! Air brakes !! Arrestor gear
|-
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || X || X 
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="50%"
|-
! colspan="7" | Limits
|-
! rowspan="2" | Wings (km/h)
! rowspan="2" | Gear (km/h)
! colspan="3" | Flaps (km/h)
! colspan="2" | Max Static G
|-
! Combat !! Take-off !! Landing !! + !! -
|-
| {{Specs|destruction|body}} || {{Specs|destruction|gear}} || 383 || 361 || 249 || ~3 || ~2
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! colspan="4" | Optimal velocities (km/h)
|-
! Ailerons !! Rudder !! Elevators !! Radiator
|-
| < 330 || < 310 || < 270 || > 250
|-
|}

=== Survivability and armour ===
{{Specs-Avia-Armour}}


* 8 mm Steel - Cockpit armour - instrument panel, pilot's seat, co-pilot's seat and floor plate below pilot
* 8 mm Steel - Armour plate protecting ammo located in wings
* 8 mm Steel - Side gunner armoured walls
* 8 mm Steel - Ventral gunner position
* Fuel tanks located in wings

While the P.108 series is not well known for its durability, the {{PAGENAME}} is placed at such a low BR that it mostly faces enemies armed only with small-calibre machine guns, to which the plane is capable of absorbing huge number of rounds with. However, due to the lack of protection on the gunners, they can be easily knocked out. In an uptier where large-calibre machine guns and 20 mm autocannons are common, the {{PAGENAME}} will not fare well against these enemies as they can easily dismantle you from higher altitudes.

=== Modifications and economy ===
{{Specs-Economy}}

# The first tier modifications to be unlocked should be Radiator and Fuselage repair, then Turret 7 mm. This is so you can improve the poor performance of the plane. The belts should be last as no matter what the defensive firepower of the plane with or with out the belts would still remain poor.
# The second tier upgrades should start with the Airframe so your plane is a bit more durable. Then get the New 7 mm MGs (turret) and Offensive 102 mm for increase in firepower and defensive armament. Finally go get the Compressor.
# The Third tier modifications should start off with the Engine, then unlock the Wings repair. Last of all unlock the Turret 12.7 mm.
# The fourth tier modification should start off with the New 12.7 mm MGs (turret) then Cover. And your last two modification should be Engine Injection and New 102 mm Cannons.

== Armaments ==
{{Specs-Avia-Armaments}}
=== Offensive armament ===
{{Specs-Avia-Offensive}}

{{main|102/35 mod 14 (102 mm)}}

The '''''{{PAGENAME}}''''' is armed with:

* 1 x 102 mm 102/35 mod 14 cannon, nose-mounted (50 rpg)

The only offensive armament the {{PAGENAME}} has is a massive 102 mm 102/35 mod 14 cannon cannon mounted on the nose in a downward-pointing angle, intended to aiding the pilot to hit the ship without putting the nose down.

In theory, the 102 mm cannon is capable of one-shotting any plane it comes across, and crippling any ground or light naval targets. However, in practice, the cannon is largely useless against these targets due to relatively poor accuracy and awkward firing angles, as well as the difficulty in aiming it due to the plane's poor handling.

Thus, the only realistic usage of 102 mm cannon is against static targets, which can be hit (mostly) reliably at around 500 m range, though in doing so also means that you will effectively expose yourself to any aircraft above you or even AI AA guns on the ground that could hit you due to the plane's huge size.

=== Defensive armament ===
{{Specs-Avia-Defensive}}

{{main|Breda-SAFAT (12.7 mm)|Breda-SAFAT (7.7 mm)}}

The '''''{{PAGENAME}}''''' is defended by:

* 2 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun, 2 x remote-controlled wing turret (300 rpg = 1,200 total)
* 1 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun, ventral turret (450 rpg)
* 1 x 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun, 2 x beam turret (400 rpg = 800 total)

The {{PAGENAME}} retains the same defensive armament layouts as its bomber variant, the [[P.108B serie 2]]. Even at the BR of the P.108A, these guns are somewhat ineffective against lightly-armoured biplanes and early monoplanes due to the awkward convergence, though this will be main way of getting kills by baiting any inexperienced pilots into chasing it.

However, the P.108A's turret layout still retains fatal flaws of the lack of protection for the gunners, as they are bunched close together and can be easily knocked out in a well-aimed shot, leaving the plane defenseless. In addition, the complete lack of coverage at the frontal angles will leaves the P.108A at the mercy of any enemy pilot that approaches.

== Usage in battles ==


'''Air Battles'''

The Piaggio P.108A Serie 2 is a four-engine strike aircraft. Despite being a strike aircraft, the 102 mm cannon is relatively inaccurate which means the targets that best suit this plane are large stationary targets that the cannon can penetrate and destroy. The plane's defensive firepower is relatively poor, so you should try to avoid enemy planes as much as possible. If an enemy plane is lining up to attack you from the front, try to swing your plane around and give him your tail so your gunners can shoot back at him. It is recommended to fly with squadmates or recruit an escort as a lone P.108A is easy prey for roving enemy fighters. Stay low and do not go above 1,900 m. Speed is key: try to maintain a speed of close to 200 km/h to give you wiggle room as your stall speed is 155 km/h despite the massive weight.

Bomber vs bomber gunfights are ill-advised because the P.108A's gunners are easy to knock out and their weapons do not deal a high amount of damage. Try to make the enemy bomber attack you from behind, or try to stay in front of and below him. It is possible to go low-level bomber hunting using the main cannon and its HE shell, but this is very situational and will most likely end up in you being hunted by enemy fighters. Enemy AI attackers can be hunted as they fly very predictably, but will often have potent defensive guns which can snipe your pilot as you pull up behind them. If you do manage to get a hit with the HE shell, 690 grams of TNT will blow even the largest aircraft out of the sky.

'''Ground Realistic Battles'''

In Ground RB, try to attack enemy vehicles from the side, preferably ones that are stationary and looking away from you. This is where they are the largest and there is less chance that your target will spot you before you can attack. Since the reloading of the 102 mm cannon is done manually, it will take a relatively long time to reload. A large ammo reserve means that you can take a couple of long-distance sniper shots as you get closer to your target. Make sure you can both hit the target and pull out of the dive or you will miss and crash. The large calibre gun, which was derived from the 90 mm [[90/53 mod.41 (90 mm)|90/53 mod.41]], will do significant damage to enemy tanks if it gets a hit. Try to aim for the crew compartment to maximise damage, or hit the engine to immobilise it for so you can swing around for another pass.

The aircraft is a very large target, its size and slow speed mean that enemy tanks have a chance to shoot you down with their coaxial machine guns and even their main cannon. The poor frontal armour will often get the pilot sniped or have its engines and fuel set alight on a low pass. Beware of enemy tanks that have roof-mounted machine guns. Many American vehicles like the [[M24]] Chaffee, [[M4]] Sherman, and the [[M10 GMC]] have [[M2HB (12.7 mm)|.50 cal]] machine guns for AA defense. These will do a lot of damage to your plane and pilot. Try to keep your distance from these tanks and attack when they aren't looking.

Any enemy SPAA able to get its guns on target is dangerous. If there is an enemy SPAA present, circle outside of the battlefield and try to get your teammates to dispatch it before you start attack runs.

'''Naval Battles'''

Despite anti-shipping being the P.108A's original design purpose, Naval battles are a poor game mode for the aircraft. Almost every target in Naval will have some sort of AI-controlled AA gunners that can hit you with pinpoint accuracy. It is recommended to go after vulnerable AI cargo ships and unsuspecting PT boats. On open waters and open skies, a P.108A is very easy to spot so player-controlled boats will most likely see you first and start evasive manoeuvres making them very difficult to hit. A lone Clemson-class destroyer like [[USS Litchfield]] can be a viable target as it has no AA armament, but will take multiple shots and multiple passes to destroy because of its large size.

=== Manual Engine Control ===
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! colspan="7" | MEC elements
|-
! rowspan="2" | Mixer
! rowspan="2" | Pitch
! colspan="3" | Radiator
! rowspan="2" | Supercharger
! rowspan="2" | Turbocharger
|-
! Oil !! Water !! Type
|-
| Controllable || Controllable Auto control available || Controllable Not auto controlled || Controllable Not auto controlled || Separate || Not controllable 1 gear || Auto controlled
|-
|}

=== Pros and cons ===


'''Pros:'''

* 102 mm cannon can prove devastating on a direct hit
* Large amount of ammo for the cannon
* Two turrets with two 12.7 mm guns each are placed on the distant engines allowing for more guns to face backwards
* Survivability of a four-engined heavy bomber
* Slow enough that enemy fighters have less time to fire and will often overshoot

'''Cons:'''

* Atrocious flight performance
** Very poor turn rate, roll rate, climb rate, and energy retention, incapable of flying to intercept anything
** Will be outran and outturned by almost every plane it may face
** Difficult to take off without flaps due to low horsepower engines
* Massive target, very easy to spot and hit
* Prone to fuel tank fire due to tremendous fuel load
* Awful offensive capabilities
** Inaccurate downward-pointing cannon and sluggish handling make lining up shots very difficult
** No suspended ordnance options, thus leaving the unreliable 102 mm cannon as the only "offensive" option
* Relatively weak defensive armament, even for its BR
** Gunners are bunched together and easily knocked out
** Turrets on the engines cannot face forwards, making any head-ons a death sentence

== History ==


The Piaggio P.108 heavy bomber series were the only strategic bombers to see service with the Italian military during World War II. The P.108 was developed prior to the war as a continuation of the earlier prototype Piaggio P.50. With long range and considerable bombload, the P.108 was supposed to offer the Regia Aeronautica the ability to attack ships and bases throughout the Mediterranean region, particularly at Gibraltar. The resulting aircraft was fairly advanced by the standards of the Italian industry, featuring all-metal construction, electric welding, and remote-control gun turrets on the outer engine nacelles. It looked somewhat like an Italian equivalent of the American B-17 Flying Fortress, which itself had been considered for license production in Italy. The P.108 first flew in late 1939.

The P.108 had its fair share of issues, largely related to its engines. During one test flight in February 1941, all four Piaggio R.XI engines of the P.108 prototype failed due to heavy icing. The pilot miraculously made a safe emergency landing. Later examples switched to the Piaggio R.XXII engine instead. The reputation of the bomber also took a hit when Bruno Mussolini, the son of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and the commander of a P.108 crew, died after a crash on August 7, 1941 caused by hydraulic and engine failure shortly after takeoff. The P.108 only entered combat service in 1942 and saw middling success at first; engine troubles aside, Italian crews were not prepared for the navigation and fuel management challenges that long range bombing missions entailed. By 1943, the P.108s began to encounter stiff resistance from enemy aircraft and several were lost to British fighters. After the Italian armistice, the remaining P.108s saw little service. The transport versions served to the end of the war.

The P.108A was a curious modification of the P.108B bomber variant developed in late 1942. It was designed to attack ships, and to this end it was equipped with an enormous 102 mm cannon in the lower part of the nose. The cannon was a bored-out development of the [[90/53 mod.41 (90 mm)|90/53]] cannon used by the Italian Army, capable of firing larger shells. The installation added two tons of weight to the P.108. The airframe was revised and a special gun sight was installed, later including an analog computer. The P.108A underwent extensive testing and was deemed an effective anti-ship strike aircraft. Plans were made to assemble 5 additional P.108As for a dedicated attack unit, but the Italian armistice halted them. Thus, only one P.108A was ever built. It fell into German hands and was evaluated by the Luftwaffe at their test center in Rechlin, Germany. It was damaged and later destroyed by Allied bombing some time after 1944.

The P.108 did not make a significant impact in World War II, only being produced in small numbers and encountering many obstacles during testing and operational use. It was used in Gibraltar, North Africa, and Sicily with mixed results. The P.108A avoided the developmental troubles of the bomber versions but never entered service, and the single prototype never fired its gun in anger. In spite of its faults, the P.108 can be credited with being the pinnacle of Italian bombers. It served as a basis for the improved P.133 design, which promised superior performance and armament but was canceled after the armistice and never built.

No P.108s are known to survive today.

== Media ==


;Skins

* [https://live.warthunder.com/feed/camouflages/?vehicle=p_108a_serie2 Skins and camouflages for the {{PAGENAME}} from live.warthunder.com.]

;Videos
{{Youtube-gallery|GSSJKUqU3WE|'''The Shooting Range #260''' - ''Challenge'' section at 11:34 discusses the {{PAGENAME}}.|ObEcMPqFBbE|'''The Shooting Range #259''' - ''Tips & Tricks'' section at 11:21 discusses the {{PAGENAME}}.|PrqqMtZin1U|'''The Shooting Range #48''' - ''Metal Beasts'' section at 02:35 discusses the P.108A.}}

== See also ==


;Related development

* [[P.108 (Family)]]

;Similar aircraft fitted with a large-calibre gun

* [[PBJ-1H]]
* [[XA-38]]
* [[Hs 129 B-3]]
* [[Ki-109]]

== External links ==


* [https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/365184-piaggio-p108ba-serie-2/ Official data sheet - more details about the performance]

{{AirManufacturer Piaggio}}
{{Italy strike aircraft}}

User talk:U44629479

2024-08-18T03:04:21Z

U101816339: /* Zrinyi II */

Archive: [[User talk Colok76286/Archive]]

== 100 mm/47 O.T.O. Mod. 1928 (100 mm) ==

Hey,
As always - thank you for all the edits you do improving the quality of the articles, really appreciate them. I just have a 2 questions regarding the recent edits on [[100 mm/47 O.T.O. Mod. 1928 (100 mm)]]:
Why change the order of ships in "Vehicles equipped with this weapon"? I sorted it more-or-less by what appears in the research tree (light cruisers first, heavy cruisers second), while the old order you restored seems to be random - e.g. Zara-class isn't even next to each-other, the new, top light cruiser, Duca degli Abruzzi, is second on the list. Can you tell me what's the key for the sorting order here?
: They're listed in alphabetical order. When searching for a vehicle in that particular section of a weapon page, the order in the tree has little relevance.
I was wondering what was the reason of removal of the "Sample Ship" from the "Comparison with analogues" tables? I added it specifically because guns on a different mounts can have a different Rate of Fire and Targeting speed, so it'd be good to see which specific example was taken into account for this comparison.
Kind Regards [[User:U12017485|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485|talk]]) 11:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
: To make the table less crowded, this info can added back using the annotation template for example so as not to overload the table.
--[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 12:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
::Cheers, thank you for the answers :) That explains it :) [[User:U12017485|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485|talk]]) 12:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

== Ground attack/strike vs Close Air support ==

Hey, sorry if my edits break standards on the wiki. I figured I'd ask here since it seems I must be confusing them. The military term is close air support for aerial attack on enemy vehicles in a battle, which is what air realistic mostly simulates. Does this wiki use a different definition of that term that functinally means CAS? I'd love your input so I don't mess up as much in the future!--[[User:U128413528|U128413528]] ([[User talk:U128413528|talk]]) 00:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:We define attacking ground targets in air battles as ground attack. We reserve the term [[Close Air Support]] for the role of planes in ground battles. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

== Revision approval ==
Hi, sorry, I know it's not a standard practice, but could you approve [[User:U12017485/DPSGraph]] and [[User:U12017485/DPS]]? While new templates do not need revision approval, any changes made must have them approved, or else the base version is taken. This will help with getting a correct numbers for the DPS calculation in ships that have a flanked turrets. [[User:U12017485|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485|talk]]) 21:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
: Hello, I have unapproved both pages, so any changes you make should now be reflected immediately. As long as you continue to only use the templates on your user page, this will be an adequate solution. [[User:U38088265|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265|talk]]) 21:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

== Reverting constructive edits? ==

Hello,
I'm more or less new to the wiki in itself, and I have noticed that you have reverted a few of my edits on the [[V-990]] and [[H.C Mk.I (12,000 lb)]], even though in my opinion I thought they were constructive. I do not want to blow myself up over a few mere reverts, but I realised [[User_talk_Colok76286/Archive#Reverting_changes_to_a_page_and_then_making_changes_with_the_majority_of_those_changes_yourself.3F|that this was not an isolated case.]] Yes, you are a mod and I respect your position as such, but why do you have to revert some constructive edits made by some mere editor of the wiki like myself? Other than "Undo revision ___ by _" you provide no reason at all for reverting these edits, and I would like some answers onto them, at least on the forum's private messages. (yes, I do have a forum user page)

Thanks,

[[User:U85531623|U85531623]] ([[User talk:U85531623|talk]]) 06:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

== M728 ==
+1 to this. You removed [https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=M728_CEV&type=revision&diff=153109&oldid=153101&diffmode=source my revision where I linked the M728 CEV to the M60 family of vehicles], but didn’t indicate why. Like [[User:U85531623|U85531623]] ([[User talk:U85531623|talk]]), I’m not upset by this or anything, but I ''do'' want to continue making contributions and do so in a way that follows the guidelines for this Wiki. Something as simple as a short description on the edit would have been enough; without that, I’m left scratching my head and wondering why. The tank is just a modified M60A1. --[[User:U28244977|U28244977]] ([[User talk:U28244977|talk]]) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
: The About template is used for disambiguation purposes, when vehicles carry a name close to one another like for example M60A1, M60A2, and M60A3. When the vehicle has a unique name (M728), this template should not be used to link a vehicle to a family page, that is the role of the See also section. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 18:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks for responding so quickly, I was in the process of sending you a forum message!
:: That makes sense. Is there a listing of the role of each section - or better yet, a listing of all pages describing the guidelines for contributing? My goal is to make valuable and meaningful contributions, but that’s difficult without knowing the culture of our active users and moderators.
:::No, there isn't really.
:::: Hmm. Well, maybe that’s something we should add.
:::: I discovered the rewards program through your user page; maybe I’ll end up spearheading a formalization of wiki rules and guidelines in their own section at some point. —-[[User:U28244977|U28244977]] ([[User talk:U28244977|talk]]) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:: I’m not sure I 100% agree with the assertion that this belongs in the “See Also” section, but I can’t really argue my position until I get a firmer grasp on the process here. Don’t be offended if I came back at some point and challenge this :)
:::Don't be offended either if I revert it since the rule won't have changed. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:::: Don’t worry, I won’t be :). FWIW, I’ve been reading other pages and think I’m coming to the conclusion that the best solution here might be to add a short mention in the Description that it’s based on the M60A1, then spend the time to write a full explanation in the History section.—[[User:U28244977|U28244977]] ([[User talk:U28244977|talk]]) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks again, and I hope we end up building a productive relationship here. —-[[User:U28244977|U28244977]] ([[User talk:U28244977|talk]]) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

== T-80UM2 ==

Hey, I was just wondering why you reverted the newer info on the only T-80UM2 being destroyed last year, and I was curious if talking about more recent wars is taboo on the wiki, as I was unsure of that. --[[User:U21817146|U21817146]] ([[User talk:U21817146|talk]]) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
:We do not add historical material for ongoing conflicts. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for the clarification, I will keep it in mind --[[User:U21817146|U21817146]] ([[User talk:U21817146|talk]]) 17:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

== Ho-Ro ==

Hey Colok76286,

foremost, let me thank you for helping me get used to the literally unwritten rules of this wiki through your edits.

Speaking of edits, I just became aware of your [https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Ho-Ro&type=revision&diff=166343&oldid=166335&diffmode=source "conditional approval" of the edit of the Ho-Ro article.] Let's start from the bottom: [https://docdro.id/EyHAz3t I got the spelling version from] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199891580.001.0001/acref-9780199891580 The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the US Military.] Wiktionary.com also has "breech-loader" as a secondary spelling. According to Collins, "breech-loader" is British English, and "breechloader" American.
In the end, however, it is about the presence of a hyphen, I think regardless of the spelling, this does not cause misunderstandings among wiki users.

You also changed "The howitzer's high trajectory" to "The howitzer's curved trajectory".

For users unfamiliar with ballistics, however, this expression may seem confusing, since the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory trajectory] of any projectile subject to the influence of gravity is by definition curved. Artillery projectiles differ in their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory#/media/File:Ideal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg parabolic trajectory], depending on whether the apex is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer rather high] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun rather low]
--[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

:Sure, go ahead for both topics. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 16:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

:: I see you merged it, which expedited the process further, I guess. I will stop thanking you for acting quickly in the future, I suppose this just part of your commendable work ethic.
::I'm still working on a list of questions regarding the "unspoken rules" of this wiki, which I will, after some extra work to make it less of a hassle for you guys to provide me with answers, send to one of your co-mods.
:::We don't have a list of rules to provide unfortunately.
::But since you are so prolific, I would like to go ahead and ask two questions ahead of time to maybe save you some time:
:: You guys seem to really dislike Em-dashes a lot. ;) I'll substitute them with (semi-) colons whenever possible—I remember hyphens being used instead, but didn't find a single one now. If I that wasn't a hallucination on my part, I would like to follow up on that.
:::I keep it simple by using a single type of dash. Using semi-colons, colons, or commas should be fine.
:: I use the visual editor. With every word processor I ever worked with, Shift+Enter would do a line break, just not here. Do you know the shortcut? --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 13:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I can't help on that since I don't use the Visual Editor. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 07:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

== KV-1 (L-11) ==

Hey Colok,

I just wanted to write to you about the old "General info" formatting issue, but got ninja'd apparently, great job!

My second question would've been if I corrected the ammo rack template the right way, but that question is obsolete now, I guess. 
But since you reverted my text edit, but just edited the values in the template back to the old ones: Did I make a mistake or does the KV-1 (L-11) just doesn't come with a shell in the breech? --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 07:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

:Some vehicles have unusual depletion routines (where the first shell is not considered, or with discrepancies in the depletion scheme). That's why you must not fill ammo racks table based on a supposition but on real observed behaviour (by using the test drive). --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 07:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you so much for explaining that! To make the more important things regarding ammunition easier for the player, the concept of ammo rack depletion was designed very counterintuitively. ''Especially'' in the case of the KV-1, since there is a KV-1E, too, which I used to countercheck the data. This tank can load the same amount of ammunition, uses the same layout for the ammo racks, starts with a shell in the breech at the start of the game like any other tank and "The ammo stowage is empty" not when the ammo stowage is actually empty, but when the last shot is fired. But I take on your recommendation and put on a lead apron whenever I change anything ammo racks. ;) --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 14:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

== "Abbreviations" ==

Hi Colok76286,

Firstly, thank you for your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold bolder] edit of the abbreviation article. Back home, I'm going to stick Post-Its on my desk with "No typographical quotation marks!". Just to make it clearer for me: Did you use "aircraft" instead of "aeroplane", as the term is more commonly used in a military context? According to my cursory review of several corpora, even the term "military aircraft" includes rotorcraft and lighter-than-air vehicles.
:Aircraft is the correct word to translate Flugzeug.
:: Well, a "Flugzeug" is an aircraft. But so is a "Ballon", "Hubschrauber", or "Lastensegler". I guess you could translate it that way, but don't you think that's a bit sloppy of a diction for someone who reverts "hunting tank" as a possible literal translation for "Jagdpanzer"? --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 19:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Is there a real question here? Or is it just you using an ad hominem obnoxiously because things didn't get your way?
Moreover, do you think my suggestion in "Discussion" makes sense? --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 22:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:I have no way of controlling a user's proficiency in a given language. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, that's true in more than one way, and not what I suggested, but I'm starting to see how "editor" could be misinterpreted this way. --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 19:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::: How did you mean it then? --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

== The T-34-57 and editing this wiki in general ==

Hi Colok,

You reviewed my changes to the T-34-57 article, and I'd like to start by thanking you for the second pair of eyes.
I think it was you who said this, in any case, it's obvious: there are no detailed written rules on how articles should be drafted and edited.
I hope it's okay if I treat you (and all the other moderators) like a member of the Académie Française in this respect.
:What is it supposed to mean?
::There is no written set of rules here like on Wikipedia. At that time, I thought this was informal knowledge long-time users and moderators had, and I could just copy what they did because they surely would adhere to some ruleset, right?
:::What is the relation to the Académie Française?
That being said, a few questions have arisen in going through your review.

You changed "lower rank battles" to "lower tier battles". Did I use the wrong term, or can both terms be used synonymously?
:The terms low-tier and top-tier are regularly used throughout the wiki. I don't want you to go around correcting every occurrence of the term out of pedantry.
:: Did you, Colok, just accuse me of pedantry?
:::Is there a vehicle page where you added content other than rewording what was already on the page, or correcting the punctuation and grammar?
:::: I try to add or correct information on articles. On Wikipedia, that's called "editing". It sounds like you think that's a bad thing, at least when other people do it.
Knowing your aversion to dashes, I used colons where possible. You have reverted (?) them to hyphens. They are not used like that in any language I know, including English, of course. Could you explain this briefly?
:You can't use a capital letter after a colon. Therefore the use of the dash as a separator since a new sentence starts after the colon.
:: I'm unsure if the second sentence could make any sense to me, but it doesn't. Also: you didn't use dashes, you used hyphens. I used Em-Dashes at the beginning of my time here, and they were always reverted. [[https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=User_talk:U44629479&action=edit#Ho-Ro|Instead I was told by a mod that using colons [...] would be fine]] Also, yes, according to at least two style guides, you would capitalize after the colon in these cases. I could go on and ask you why you would revert "defence" back to "defense", but I have already wasted enough time here, and this talk page and your general behaviour tells me I would just waste more. I'm tired.--[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 20:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::An hyphen is a type of dash... But here comes the real point: why do you become belligerent when your edits are corrected? It happens to other users, I don't see all of them lashing out like you do.
:::: Belligerence is what I would call calling people names, for example. I'm actually I bit sad, rather, that this Wiki (and its contributors) are treated like this.
::::Humans err, and people handle it differently when other people make them aware of an error they made. Some people are a bit angry at themselves and try to do better in the future (and say, e.g., "thank you for the effort of reviewing"). Some are more angry at the people who notice them of what could be a mistake, because firstly, they feel like they don't make any errors, and if they do, the other people were at fault for not correcting them. There are personality profiles that are more susceptible to this behaviour.
::::Furthermore, no, a hyphen is as much a dash as a colon is a semicolon (maybe Cockney has different rules, I don't know). "Mother-in-law" is an example of a hyphen correctly used. "It's not that hard—is it?" That's a dash. "..." are not ellipses, either. If we both agree that these typographical details are not super important, why do you revert them all the time? I once again agree with you, pedants are exhausting, but even more exhausting are pedants who get their pedantry wrong all the time.
You changed a link from https://wiki.warthunder.com/Pz.IV_(Family) to https://wiki.warthunder.com/Panzer_IV_(Family). This page is currently empty. Why this change?
:Nobody's perfect. But it's a wiki: you can correct any wrong link you see.
:: Colok, with this action "you" have already corrected "me", the pedant. At this point, I consider this a character flaw of mine: If someone ''corrects'' something I did, I always assume there was some thinking going on.
:::What was the need to point this out the way you did when you could correct it directly instead, except for being pedantic? --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::::What gave you the idea to change a perfectly fine link in the first place? I thought, maybe the dead page was already a work in progress nearly done, so I thought I'd ask first. Wouldn't you have just reverted my correction anyway?
You changed "Panzer IV variants armed with the KwK 40 gun:" to "Panzer IV variants armed with the 75 mm KwK40 L43 or L48 guns -". If I recall correctly, the wrong spelling "KwK40" is used in the wiki as this is also the in-game designation. Further, the "75 mm KwK40 L43 or L48 guns" are the only KwK 40s used in Panzer IVs (and at all), at least to my knowledge. This would be tautological; the reader would read a longer text without getting additional information, something that is generally avoided. I would be genuinely interested in the rationale behind this change, as it is quite incomprehensible to me, from a third-party perspective.
:Terms used in the game are our starting point. If you think the game references a name incorrectly, please submit a bug report. Historically, the term KwK40 referred to both guns on the wiki, before they were split in 2 separate pages. Nowadays, when searched on the wiki, it only [[KwK40 (75 mm)|redirects]] to the L43 version.

In retrospect, my change in "pros and cons" was not outstandingly well-thought-out, to say the least. There wasn't really any added value in terms of information (I ran out of time a bit after working on "History", a Tower of Babel). The de facto revert did not improve this, of course. Do you think we can highlight the qualities of the armament even better? I think the current version is not ideal, at least in terms of "good […] rate of fire" and "fast reload rate" (please don't lecture me about first-stage ammo racks and autoloaders now 😉).
:IMHO, the qualities for a good follow-up shot are the rate of fire and the accuracy/recoil of the gun. You dumbed it down to just the rate of fire, hence the revert.
::"Dumb down" sounds rather unfriendly, doesn't it? You seem to disagree, but I think accuracy is important for the first shot, too, so I moved it to the other general qualities of the gun.
::By the way, are you a volunteer or do you get paid in some way? Because being unfriendly to people who volunteer for a for-profit company is a good way to drive them off. So I guess this wiki has an over-abundance of contributors. --[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 11:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Last question: Why did you remove the addition "Jumbo" from the hyperlink?
:Keeping the links simple.--[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the effort of reviewing, maybe you will find time to answer these question as well (not just for me).

Cheers

--[[User:U12423867|U12423867]] ([[User talk:U12423867|talk]]) 00:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

== Pr.122A and Pr.122bis ==

Hello,

First of all, I appreciate that you have reviewed my edit and accepted the edit on the manufacturer template, but I wonder why did you reject the edit on the About template?

I would like to argue that the Pr.122A and Pr.122bis belongs to different class/subclass and also has striking visual difference, while on the other hand the MPK-163 and the premium MPK Pr.122bis are of the same class/subclass and is visually similar. On top of that, the MPK-163 also has Pr.122bis in its name so I'd say it would confuse some people.--[[User:U22067555|U22067555]] ([[User talk:U22067555|talk]]) 10:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:The template is for disambiguation of different vehicles carrying a very similar name. It is not there to list vehicles of a same family or anyhow related. If a user searches for the Pr.122A but clicks on the Pr.122bis instead, they have a quick way to go to the other page, either with a direct link or through a family page or a disambiguation page. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 10:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

::Alright, thank you for your explanation.--[[User:U22067555|U22067555]] ([[User talk:U22067555|talk]]) 10:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== T26E1-1 History ==

What exactly are you looking for to omit the King Tiger story from the history section? The 3ad link cited as a source has no sources of its own to verify the claim, and the story is extremely far-fetched. It feels like bad practice to include such a highly debatable event.

Later Edit: I have found the book that this claim originates from, as the 3ad website cites John P. Irwin's memoir ''Another River, Another Town''. Having found the section about this duel, it states in full:

[[File:Quote.png|frameless]]

Hopefully inserting that image works as intended. Anyways, it very clearly says ''Tiger'' and not anything about a King Tiger. This account is also only eye-witness testimony, so I don't even think ''that'' works as something to have in the wiki article. WW2 Tank crews are notorious for not knowing what the hell they are looking at, and it very easily could've just been a Panzer IV or something. I'm going to edit that section of the article again, and if you want to change it I would just ask you give me a reason why we should be offering such an unsubstantiated story in the history section...

== Template:TorpedoTravelTime‎ ==

Hi,

I was wondering if you could review TorpedoTravelTime‎ template? I was trying to make it as readable as possible. It should give a nice option to reflect how long it takes for torpedoes to travel within the articles and how it compares with the competitors. [[User:U12017485|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485|talk]]) 10:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

== Thanks for merging my F-15A edit! ==

This is pretty lame, but thanks for merging, let alone keeping my edit of the F-15A wiki page I made a while ago!

== Title source problem ==

Hi,
Thank you very much for your contribution to the War Thunder Wiki community. I have a question about the source of titles. When I was in Datamine, I found that some titles were purely in the game but not found in wt.wiki. Can you help me add and search for the source information of these titles?

* Re-Enactor
* Panfilov's Guardsman
* Achiever of War Thunder 2021
* Copa Hispana
* Footballer
* Sampoer
* I am here to stay

Thx！ --[[User:U75968176|U75968176]] ([[User talk:U75968176|talk]]) 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, some titles may be created but never released. It is best to base your inputs on official news rather than datamining. The official Warthunder website is the best source for this content. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, there are titles here except for [Footballer], all of which I have seen in the game, but I don't know how they got them. For example [Re-Enactor] and [Panfilov's Guardsman] should be former event titles; [Sampoer] and [Achiever of War Thunder 2021] should be the titles for DMM events; [Copa Hispana] should be a tournament title; On the contrary, [I am here to stay] is a title I did not find in datamine either. Please help solve these problems again, thank you!

== Anti-blowup flaps on planes ==

Hello.

Some updates ago, there was introduced an anti-break mechanic for flaps on some planes (i don't remember technical term, sorry). It allows the plane to automatically adjust the flap angle if plane flies too fast for the flaps to handle the pressure. This increases plane agility astronomically and does not require much of a pilot attention span.

To quote:

''Flight Model changes:

Automatic adjustment of the flap extension limit or automatic retraction of the flap depending on the current speed has been added to the aircraft with automatic flaps, “floating” type flaps and flaps with protective blow-up mechanisms. The list of these aircraft is: F8F-1, F8F-1B, P-51H-5, F-14A, F-14B, F-5E, F-16 (all variants), F-4 Phantom (all variants), AV-8A, AV-8C, AV-8B+, Harrier GR.1, Harrier GR.3, Harrier GR.7, Sea Harrier FRS.1, F-105D, A-4 (all variants), A-10A Early, A-10A Late, Mirage F1C, Mirage F1C-200, Lightning F.6, Lightning F.53, F-84F, F2H-2, MiG-21 (all variants), MiG-23 (all variants), MiG-27 (all variants), MiG-29 (all variants), J-7 (all variants), Typhoon Mk.1, F4F-3/4/Martlet, F6F (all variants), F4U (all variants), F2G-1, N1K1/2, J7W1, A7M (all variants), J6K1, Douglas AD-2/4, A-1H''

The most notable example is with Harriers being able to "pre deploy" landing flaps to use VTOL later (before the update you had to stop the plane first, turn engines vertical, and only then use flaps which made VTOL cringeworthy difficult to use) and to leave scene by simply changing thrust angle.

Is there any chance that this new mechanic on aircraft flaps will be added as a mark on every plane (maybe as a "automatic flaps" mark) that has it, or should i dig out patch notes and write it extensively on every plane? I don't own 80% of them though, so i can't know the real impact of the mechanic on those. I guess as a middle road i could try to make a special page for it and then it could be updated by someone? It's just cathartic to see it ignored.

--[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 12:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, there are no such plans currently. You can create a page as you proposed. Sorry for the late answer. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 18:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

== Su-25SM3, Su-25T and Su-39 S-25OF ==

Hey, I need some help with the S-25OF on the Su-25SM3, Su-25T and Su-39. On their pages on the wiki, it says they have the S-25OF, but when I check it in War Thunder, I cannot find anything about the S-25OF on their secondary weapon pages. If it is because I can't see them, sorry about that. I was just asking this as I had recently updated the S-25OF page on it. --[[User:U113963314|U113963314]] ([[User talk:U113963314|talk]]) 23:23, 1 June 2024‎‎ (UTC)
:Try the custom loadout menu, some weapons appear only in that view. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 00:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

== Zrinyi II ==

Hello! Thanks for whatever you did on [[Zrinyi II]] that made my edit on its ammo racks actually show up. Was a bit confused why it didn't show when I made it. Did the <nowiki>{{Clear}}</nowiki> do it or did it have to be approved because I'm new or something? Anyway, thanks again. Cheers!

—[[User:U101816339|U101816339]] ([[User talk:U101816339|talk]]) 01:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:Just saw that you had approved the revision in the logs. Thanks for that.
:—[[User:U101816339|U101816339]] ([[User talk:U101816339|talk]]) 03:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:U44629479

2024-08-18T01:19:04Z

U101816339: /* Zrinyi II */ new section

Zrinyi II

2024-08-17T11:08:12Z

U101816339: /* Ammo racks */ Added all information on the Zrinyi II's ammo racks

{{About
| about = Italian tank destroyer '''{{PAGENAME}}'''
| usage = the premium version
| link = Zrinyi I
}}
{{Specs-Card
|code=it_40_43m_zrinyi_2
|images={{Specs-Card-Image|GarageImage_{{PAGENAME}}.jpg}}
}}

== Description ==

The '''43M Zrínyi II''' was a Hungarian World War II assault gun inspired by the German success with the [[StuG III (Family)|StuG III]]. Like the StuG, a versatile self-propelled gun built on the chassis of a medium tank, the Hungarians decided to create their own version using the Hungarian [[Turan (Family)|Turán]] tank's chassis. The project was named Zrínyi, after a famous Hungarian noble family and military leader, Miklós Zrínyi. The plan was to produce two variants of the Zrínyi: one with a 75 mm anti-tank gun ([[Zrinyi I|Zrínyi I]]), and one with a 105 mm howitzer for assault operations (Zrínyi II). Around 72 Zrínyi IIs were built and the vehicle saw combat fighting against the Soviets on the Eastern Front and in the defence of Hungary. The production of Zrínyi IIs was severely slowed due to Hungarian factories being targeted by a serious Allied strategic bombing campaign.

The '''{{Specs|name}}''' was introduced in [[Update "Sons of Attila"]] as part of the Hungarian subtree in the Italian tech tree. Armed with a powerful 105 mm howitzer, this low-profile Hungarian tank destroyer with adequate frontal armour is a dangerous opponent for almost any enemy tank it might face, whilst still retaining the decent mobility, excellent reverse speed and smoke grenades of the Turán series.

== General info ==
=== Survivability and armour ===
{{Specs-Tank-Armour}}


The Zrínyi II boasts robust survivability with its frontal armour averaging 75 mm, augmented by an additional 20 mm from tracks placed on the frontal section. This configuration enables confident frontal engagements against opponents, barring high-penetration tank destroyers.

However, not all frontal armour is uniformly 75 mm thick, as the weaker spots include the driver port and gun mantlet each measuring 50 mm. The upper front plate (UFP), with a thickness of only 13 mm, angles at 75°. While this angle provides some protection, effectively safeguarding against impacts ranging from 20 to 50 mm, depending on the angle of impact. Increasing this angle involves cresting hills or other inclines, effectively hiding the LFP and maximizing protection for the UFP.

While the frontal armour of the Zrínyi II provides substantial protection, the side and rear of the vehicle are equipped with a comparatively weaker 25 mm of armour, rendering them susceptible to penetration by most vehicles, excluding light machine guns. The inclusion of side skirts, 8 mm thick, offers additional defence. These side skirts can protect against low-end chemical shells (HE / HEAT) and slightly reduce the penetration of AP shells, effectively offering a combined protection of 29 mm.

It is essential to note the vulnerability of the roof armour, measuring only 13 mm. This thin roof armour is susceptible to strafing attacks from aircraft armed with heavy machine guns or larger weaponry, posing a significant threat to the vehicle and its crew.

'''Armour type:''' 


{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Armour !! Front (Slope angle) !! Sides !! Rear !! Roof
|-
| Hull || ___ mm || ___ mm ''Top'' ___ mm ''Bottom'' || ___ mm || ___ - ___ mm
|-
| Turret || ___ - ___ mm ''Turret front'' ___ mm ''Gun mantlet'' || ___ - ___ mm || ___ - ___ mm || ___ - ___ mm
|-
| Cupola || ___ mm || ___ mm || ___ mm || ___ mm
|-
|}

'''Notes:''' 


=== Mobility ===
{{Specs-Tank-Mobility}}


{{tankMobility|abMinHp=369|rbMinHp=230}}

=== Modifications and economy ===
{{Specs-Economy}}

== Armaments ==
{{Specs-Tank-Armaments}}
=== Main armament ===
{{Specs-Tank-Weapon|1}}

{{main|Mavag 40/43M (105 mm)}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
! colspan="5" | [[Mavag 40/43M (105 mm)|105 mm Mavag 40/43M]] || colspan="5" | Turret rotation speed (°/s) || colspan="4" | Reloading rate (seconds)
|-
! Mode !! Capacity !! Vertical !! Horizontal !! Stabilizer
! Stock !! Upgraded !! Full !! Expert !! Aced
! Stock !! Full !! Expert !! Aced
|-
! ''Arcade''
| rowspan="2" | 52 || rowspan="2" | -7°/+16° || rowspan="2" | ±10° || rowspan="2" | - || 12.3 || 17.0 || 20.7 || 22.9 || 24.4 || rowspan="2" | 13.00 || rowspan="2" | 11.50 || rowspan="2" | 10.60 || rowspan="2" | 10.00
|-
! ''Realistic''
| 8.3 || 9.8 || 11.9 || 13.2 || 14.0
|-
|}

==== Ammunition ====
{{:Mavag 40/43M (105 mm)/Ammunition|105mm 38/33M, 105mm 42M}}

==== [[Ammo racks]] ====
[[File:Ammoracks_{{PAGENAME}}.png|right|thumb|x250px|[[Ammo racks]] of the {{PAGENAME}}]]

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! Full ammo
! Ammo type
! 1st rack empty
! 2nd rack empty
! 3rd rack empty
! 4th rack empty
! Visual discrepancy
|-
| '''52''' || ''Projectiles'' ''Propellants'' || 40 ''(+12)'' 38 ''(+14)'' || 27 ''(+25)'' 23 ''(+29)'' || 14 ''(+38)'' 12 ''(+40)'' || 1 ''(+51)'' 1 ''(+51)'' || No
|-
|}
'''Notes''':

* The {{PAGENAME}} uses two-piece ammunition, composed of projectiles (yellow) and propellant bags (orange). Both have separate racks.
* Shells are modeled individually and disappear after having been loaded.

== Usage in battles ==


The Zrínyi II tank features robust frontal armour, allowing for an assertive playstyle because of the ability to withstand most incoming shells from tanks within its BR range. Notably, the top speed of 40 km/h can be achieved both in forward and reverse, highlighting its agility in various manoeuvres. This versatility caters to both aggressive assault strategies and defensive positions.

Positioning and awareness are key when engaging enemies; it is crucial to expose only the frontal armour and avoid revealing vulnerable side armour. Light tanks should not be underestimated, given their agility, which allows them to flank and attack from the side or rear.

The Zrínyi stands out for its ability to eliminate adversaries with a single powerful shot, primarily when utilizing the High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) shell, which is the recommended option. This shell is capable of penetrating armour up to 120 mm, providing a more effective solution than the default High-Explosive (HE) shell. However, it's important to note that these shells have a low velocity, requiring careful aim, especially at longer ranges. Additionally, users should be mindful of the reload time on this large-calibre cannon, which ranges from 13 to 10 seconds. This aspect, combined with the low shell velocity, underscores the need for strategic positioning and accurate aiming during engagements.

In summary, the Zrínyi II's strategic advantage lies in its well-armoured frontal profile, versatile speed in both directions and potent HEAT shell. Players should exercise caution, leveraging the tank's strengths while being mindful of potential vulnerabilities.

=== Pros and cons ===


'''Pros:'''

* Powerful 105 mm howitzer can easily destroy most tanks it will face
* 120 mm of penetration on the HEAT round is enough to deal with almost any opponent you will face
* Good explosive mass for both rounds
* Has relatively strong frontal armour which can absorb a lot of fire
* Has smoke grenades
* Has an excellent reverse speed
* Has mesh side skirt armour which protects against HEAT and HE projectiles
* Has plenty of ammo

'''Cons:'''

* No machine guns
* No AP rounds of any kind, if an enemy is behind a fence, your HEAT/HE shells will just destroy the fence instead of the enemy
* Long reload
* Low-velocity rounds
* No turret
* Roof armour is weak and thus vulnerable to strafing from aircraft

== History ==

''Describe the history of the creation and combat usage of the vehicle in more detail than in the introduction. If the historical reference turns out to be too long, take it to a separate article, taking a link to the article about the vehicle and adding a block "/History" (example: <nowiki>https://wiki.warthunder.com/(Vehicle-name)/History</nowiki>) and add a link to it here using the <code>main</code> template. Be sure to reference text and sources by using <code><nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki></code>, as well as adding them at the end of the article with <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>. This section may also include the vehicle's dev blog entry (if applicable) and the in-game encyclopedia description (under <code><nowiki>=== In-game description ===</nowiki></code>, also if applicable).''

== Media ==


;Skins
* [https://live.warthunder.com/feed/camouflages/?vehicle=it_40_43m_zrinyi_2 Skins and camouflages for the {{PAGENAME}} from live.warthunder.com.]

== See also ==

'''Related development'''

* [[Turan (Family)|Turán]]
* [[Zrinyi I|Zrínyi I]]

'''Other Hungarian vehicles'''

* [[Csaba]]
* [[Toldi IIA]]

'''Similar vehicles'''

* [[StuH 42 G]]
* [[Sav m/43 (1946)]]
* [[105/25 M43]]
* [[SU-122]]

== External links ==

''Paste links to sources and external resources, such as:''

* ''topic on the official game forum;''
* ''other literature.''

{{Italy tank destroyers}}

File:Ammoracks Zrinyi II.png

2024-08-17T10:51:18Z

U101816339: U101816339 uploaded a new version of File:Ammoracks Zrinyi II.png

Descriptive image for the Zrinyi II's ammo racks

[[Category:Ammo racks]]

File:Ammoracks Zrinyi II.png

2024-08-17T10:38:07Z

U101816339: Descriptive image for the Zrinyi II's ammo racks Category:Ammo racks

Descriptive image for the Zrinyi II's ammo racks

[[Category:Ammo racks]]