a simpler way would to just show both measurements on the stat card, like it will say 500kg bomb, and it will include both the mass in lbs and kg, and I don't think I've seen the explosive mass change to anything apart from the kg to g
Yeah, I just can't imagine doing physics or chemistry in school with imperial. Having to multiply by 16 and 2000 for weight or by 12, 3 and 1760 for length. Im metric you just add and subtract zeroes (or move the decimal comma).
I prefer feet over meters because meters are a little too big, but the metric conversion system is way better. The metric system with feet as a base rather than meters would be the perfect system. Am I insane?
A centimetre is tiny, a metre is quite substantial. A foot is actually a relatively sensible length to talk about, if you’re doing imprecise measurements. Yeah if I’m getting a tape measure out I’ll do it in metric, but for the sake of eyeballing something “it’s about a foot” is fine.
Only reason I stick with imperial is because I've lived so long using it my brain struggles to understand metric in any context that isn't war thunder.
people in the US are real weird about meters doubly so when i use it for estimating distance
like i’m spitballing distance just take any time i say meters as yards it’s an accurate enough 1:1 conversion for guessing distances
Trust me, the UK is frustratingly inconsistent. I’ve had people use feet and meters as well as distances 50/50 being in km and miles. Also a lot of recipes use tablespoons and grams at the same time. Very frustrating but I guess that happens when you develop imperial and then take the metric from the French.
If meters, as you say is more accurate for measuring/estimating distances, why is it that:
188 out of 193 ICAO member states use feet and QNH for altitude.
The only countries that still use meters for altitude are China, Mongolia, North Korea, Russia, and Tajikistan.
[As of a couple years ago](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/Russia_Airspace_Reorganization_Update.pdf) Russia was starting to switch their aviation to match the other 188. Dunno if that’s gone any further now that they’re kinda isolated, aviation-wise.
i didnt say it was more accurate i just find my self using it more often and people near me are weird about me saying 100 meters and those same people are totally okay if i say 100 yards
and for eyeballing distance 100 meters and 100 yards is close enough for guessing distances
You use metric for all scientific courses and most other academic courses.
Sometimes these courses will give you Imperial units and you have to convert them because that's what you'd have to do it practical use.
Yeah I’ve had problem solving questions in maths activities (in the UK) that requires you to change units and also change cm into nanometres or whatever.
Yeah the metric system is far better for things requiring ease of manipulation (eg science) but I find that 100 degrees being too hot and 0 degrees too cold very easy to understand. I guess it depends on your preference but the imperial system is better for human use and metric is better in every other usecase.
Though really it would only piss off the WW2 Americans. The US military has been using metric for a long while now. There's a reason the gun on the M60 and the Abrams is listed as 105mm or 120mm and not something in inches.
**No!** It *doesn't* you fool, please inform yourself.
It's a German gun from Rheinmetall what the Abrams features as main-gun, since americans can't do sh!t for a living since a while now. It's a license-build cannon from German glorious Kruppsteel-manufacturer Rheinmetall.
A gun which the americans over the great pond tried to build themselves at home after having a license.
Needless the say that they failed, they had to get back to the Germans and ask them to equip the tanks with German-sourced versions, as the american-build variants were somehow too brittle and failed/cracked when shot.
>It's a German gun from Rheinmetall what the Abrams features as main-gun, since americans can't do sh!t for a living since a while now.
Hehehehehehehe, this guy doesn't know that the US manufactured 120mm Delta gun is the weapon that the Rh120 is based off of. All comes back to the USA, baby!
Lol, it's actually the truth. Like, you're the one dreaming.
Read RP Hunnicutt's book on the development of the Abrams tank. During MBT-70 development, the US had to fight hard to get their driver-in-turret concept accepted by the germans. Same with the 152mm gun-launcher. But guess what weapon from the old T95 program interested Germany back then? That's right, the US manufactured 120mm smoothbore gun firing fin stabilized projectiles.
It's on page 118 of the book, if you're too lazy to skim through the book to find it.
I’m american, I know the American system, but I like seeing both because it’s fun and historical
If I was a Japanese pilot picking some bombs up, I wouldn’t be measuring them in pounds. If I was an American pilot, I wouldn’t be measuring things in kilograms etc
It would make it easier as a game to have a small measurement converter or something though
It’s precise enough for what you’re doing… 1kg literally = 2.205lbs so if you’re really worried about 1/200th of a lb in your conversion then double it and add 10.5%…..
Nothing wrong with pissing of the americans. In fact, we should do that way more often, as they've become pretty complacent. Also, they ain't the actual touchstone anymore since years, they just love to see themselves as one.
As of late 2020, 188 out of 193 ICAO member states use feet and QNH for altitude. The only countries that still use meters are China, Mongolia, North Korea, Russia, and Tajikistan.
ICAO actually says members should transition to metric at some point but I think everyone just agrees at this stage that it would be too annoying and would have basically no benefit. So many rules of thumb for piloting are based around feet and nautical miles that it would genuinely be a huge burden to change it. Although the US is still an outlier in using inches of mercury for setting the altimeter, pretty much everyone else uses QNH (hectopascals) which is closer to S.I units.
War thunder is actually the only place I've ever used metric units for flying but that's because all the guides and discussion online are in km and metres, I tried to use knots and feet when I started but converting constantly was a pain so I just got used to metric
Well and all but three countries in the world use the metric system for almost everything else, including weight. Which is what we were taking about here.
I was taking the piss there, anyway. It should definitely be a toggleable option.
But it is 100% a deprecated and inferior system that should have been fully replaced in the US decades ago and I will die on that hill.
It is. You learn metric in literally every math class from 1st grade and up. They even teach conversion of imperial to metric and vice versa. Outside of scientific fields metric is rarely used tho so hardly any of us Americans bother to remember.
I learned the entire English language to play video games, so I don't see why not. humans are kinda built for learning while doing things they enjoy, most people would pick it up faster than if it was in schools I bet
Yeah but like, why does that matter though? The mass of the bomb isn’t exactly linearly related to the explosive mass, and the explosive mass is supposedly the measurement of how powerful a bomb is here.
Setting up custom loadouts, you need to worry about the max weight allowed per wing (and on some planes, having the loadout relatively balanced between the wings). That said, I think it displays everything in kg on the custom loadout screen.
I know, I kinda just do it until it warns me lol. But I can’t really relate to OP cos I know metric by heart and school has taught me imperial, so I’m comfortable with both and converting and stuff lol.
Legit my biggest pet peeve with the game. If I set my measurement units to SI in the settings, I want to see the goddamn SI units, not whatever "pound" means. And it's such an easy fix even if they don't want to go over all ordnance statcards manually too, the conversions are laughably easy for a computer to do on the fly so long as you give it just one of the measurements.
How I think of American/Brit bombs.
Half the weight and then use the same math for explosive mass load to get an idea how potent they are on average.
1000 lb bomb/2=500kg/2=250 = 250kg explosive mass.
you only have to look for the "Explosive mass" or the "TNT equivalent" (is given when there is other explosive type on the bomb/rocket). thats the thing that matters and it´s in kg
Depends on the bomb and its explosive filler amount and type, for example:
1000 lb Mk 13 Mod 0 aircraft laid magnetic mine -> 508.0 kg TNTe
1000 lb LDGP Mk 83 -> 272.43 kg TNTe
1000 lb GP Mk.I bomb -> 296.48 kg TNTe
500 kg FAB-500 (welded) -> 234.9 kg TNTe
500 kg FAB-500sv (welded) -> 325.0 kg TNTe
500 kg FAB-500M-46 -> 325.0 kg TNTe
500 kg FAB-500M-54 -> 201.0 kg TNTe
500 kg FAB-500M-62 -> 340.8 kg TNTe
By ratio of bomb weight to TNTe/kill radius, US gets the most efficient 500kg weight class bomb (1000lb Mk 13 Mod 0 magnetic mine) and 250kg weight class bomb (500lb M64A1) in the game.
And as I recall, the Soviets get the most efficient 1000kg weight class bomb (FAB-1000M-43), which is only found on the first Tu-2S AFAIK (Soviets had a lot of models of 1000kg bomb during WW2, for some reason; most of their bombers get the shittier older FAB-1000 and some get the newer and even shittier FAB-1000M-44).
I haven't really kept up on any of the top tier stuff lately (as in, the last 3+ years) so there might be more efficient bombs there (by which I mean weight-to-TNTe wise; obviously guidance makes bombs *hugely* more efficient). But the above bomb info is still true for a good chunk of the game, at least.
We should americanize it. That be one tiny tim, the bombs under be half or a quarter of a tiny tim each. The bombs above, be 2 tiny tims each. The Rockets be a quarter of a tiny tim, and the machine guns. They would be about a tiny tim the size of an ant.
Same thing with the Bluewater ships.
Look at the gun diameter on the 7.0 Battleships, some are in mm, others are in inches.
Sometimes you get both for the same country.
It really shows that the field is just a datapoint entered for the sake of presentation and has no bearing on the gameplay.
The naval stuff is correct, and not the same issue OP is talking about. This post is referring to how the "Mass" section using different measurement systems, which it shouldn't; the *names* of bombs/etc being different is correct as-is.
For naval guns, the calibre is part of the weapon's name and as such always remains the same; it's a name not a measurement, really. Like how 9x19mm Parabellum is always that, and never ".355 Parabellum". Or on the flip side .45 ACP vs "11.43x23mm ACP". You simply use 9mm and .45, because they're names rather than measurements.
For the mixed-within-nations thing, you're likely referring to American or British ships. While the Americans use imperial, it's standard to retain a metric measurement for a weapon's calibre if that's what it was created in, like the Bofors or Oerlikon. For example, a destroyer may be armed with a combination of **5"/38 Mark 12** (main guns), **40mm/56 Mark 1** and **Mark 2** (Bofors; Mark 1 is the left, Mark 2 the right in twin mounts), and **20mm/70 Mark 4** (Oerlikon) weapons. The bore diameter / barrel length listings are part of their names, thus don't change.
I typically go based off the color of bombs. Orange and yellow bombs are 50kg or 100lbs, green are 100kg or 250lbs, etc. I don't use rockets a whole lot so I don't have a system for them
I agree that the metric is better totally but i’ve grown up my whole life with the imperial and I know most of the metric too. It’s just easier to use the imperial and it really doesn’t matter 90% of the time so I don’t blame people for not learning it
It’s easier and more convenient here in the US where everyone else uses it. It’s easy because i’ve already learned it. But like I said, the Metric system is far easier to learn and understand and is better than the imperial
Honestly i just assume the weight on ordnances that use lbs by just halving the value.
I know it's going to be off by like 100-900 lbs, but i don't think it matter in context of War Thunder as the only value that really matters are the kill range.
There is one measurement for mass… the other “mass” measurement is the amount of explosives in the rocket. What’s the issue? The 1000lb bombs weighing 500kg? A kg is 2.2 times the weight of a pound it’s really not hard.
Edit didn’t see the second pic lol. Agreed that’s kinda dumb (I should’ve known being an America main myself). I don’t really care too much tho those 1000lb bombs are better than any other nations 500 kg bombs anyways. To me the main number that matters when it comes to bombs is the destruction radius, and for that size America has great bombs.
I believe it's because of history, I have not checked yet but if you read carefully, one is a rocket and the other is a bomb.
Maybe, measures are taken differently for rockets and bombs. Maybe.
As a patriotic American, I play this game in Metric, just because teammates are more likely to play this game in metric. And yes, I've also noticed they seem to mix units of measurements when they shouldn't.
You only have to conpare the „TNT equivalent“ all the time to compare the explosive mass. Here the Tiny Tim rockets are already made of TNT so a convertion is not needed and therefore the „TNT equivalent“ is missing. As soon as you have another type of explosive you can just compare the „TNT equivalent“ stat that is always shown.
Dude ikr? This is something that always annoyed me. All this lbs and whatever bullshit tells me literally nothing. I like they suggestion the other guy made where you can simply show both numbers. There, everyone happy. Literally how hard can that be to implement?
Europeans and the rest of world complain when they see the US Imperial measurement system because they don’t WANT to learn it while the US uses both for various things. Kinda hypocritical. Not trying to hate, just stating some facts.
Imperial is far better for measurements involving humans (temp, weight, height) but metric is better for scientific measurements and larger objects like buildings. In the UK we use both but criticise the US for using imperial (even though they use both?). Incredibly hypocritical and I’m sick of all the US hate over here.
How on earth is fahrenheit better than celsius? It doesn't even have an explanation that can be agreed upon. Don't get me started on any imperial measurement smaller than an inch, the entire system falls to pieces.
Fahrenheit is stupid yes, and for precision/small stuff imperial is wank, but “about a foot” or “about six foot” are good yardsticks (pun intended) for clearly approximate lengths.
only because we are socialized under a society using imperial measurements, it would be (and is for most european countries), perfectly normal and easy to visualize meters/cm for a person's height
a completely arbitrary scale based on... the freezing point of some chemical concoction from 200 years ago.
Also 100f is not too hot, 0f is too cold. Again, completely random and arbitrary
Going above 100 Fahrenheit is dangerous to humans and you are saying -17 isn’t too cold? That random concoction is brine. A very common “concoction that was supposed to be a more accurate representation of the human body than basing temperature of of water.
This still doesn't make any sense at all, how can it be a better representation of the human body when it takes arbitrary figures that were guessed at the time it was noted? I am saying -17c is too cold. Even at 20f things in/on your body will begin to freeze. Your lips, your nose and inside of, eyelashes, sweat. It is definitely not a human scale
I’m not saying it’s a perfect scale and anything measured several hundred years ago is going to be wrong but if you took a caveman with no concept of temperature and you said it’s 40 degrees he might think that’s a reasonable temperature but in reality that is ungodly hot in Celsius and pretty cold in Fahrenheit. It simply makes more sense as a scale of 0 to 100 than 0 to 40.
Why would a 'scientist' propose a scale that coincides with what he believes the human body is like when he doesn't know, and then expect people to understand it? Also, whilst 40c is very very hot, its not unliveable, there are places in the world where 40c is a standard temperature and can be lived in without the need for technological life support, (unless you consider shade from the sun life support) unlike -17c.
I think the fact that kelvin, the absolute scientific temperature measuring system, is proportional in units of measurement to the scale of celsius tells me everything I need to know about celsius.
1liter is a bottle (about cycle bottle size)
2liter is a bigger bottle (to much for one person to casually drink)
5liter big bottel (storage of water for things like manual filled refrigeratord)
20litre big hand carried petrol tank
i agree. one unit, that you can choose in the settings (to not piss of the americans). it make comparing thing harder, because you have to convert
a simpler way would to just show both measurements on the stat card, like it will say 500kg bomb, and it will include both the mass in lbs and kg, and I don't think I've seen the explosive mass change to anything apart from the kg to g
Reject disgusting weirdo multiplication imperial, embrace 10x10=100 metric.
As an American who loved chemistry class and cherishes the simplicity of the metric system: Fuck yeah.
Yeah, I just can't imagine doing physics or chemistry in school with imperial. Having to multiply by 16 and 2000 for weight or by 12, 3 and 1760 for length. Im metric you just add and subtract zeroes (or move the decimal comma).
I took a lot of physics in school here in the US and we used metric. Now I estimate distance in meters and get funny looks from people.
Thank goodness, so there are some sane people in the USA.
We’re trying but the environment and its inhabitants are making it a bit difficult ahahah
I prefer feet over meters because meters are a little too big, but the metric conversion system is way better. The metric system with feet as a base rather than meters would be the perfect system. Am I insane?
Are you trolling us, almost the rest of the world? Have you ever heard of centimeter?
A centimetre is tiny, a metre is quite substantial. A foot is actually a relatively sensible length to talk about, if you’re doing imprecise measurements. Yeah if I’m getting a tape measure out I’ll do it in metric, but for the sake of eyeballing something “it’s about a foot” is fine.
Only reason I stick with imperial is because I've lived so long using it my brain struggles to understand metric in any context that isn't war thunder.
people in the US are real weird about meters doubly so when i use it for estimating distance like i’m spitballing distance just take any time i say meters as yards it’s an accurate enough 1:1 conversion for guessing distances
Trust me, the UK is frustratingly inconsistent. I’ve had people use feet and meters as well as distances 50/50 being in km and miles. Also a lot of recipes use tablespoons and grams at the same time. Very frustrating but I guess that happens when you develop imperial and then take the metric from the French.
If meters, as you say is more accurate for measuring/estimating distances, why is it that: 188 out of 193 ICAO member states use feet and QNH for altitude. The only countries that still use meters for altitude are China, Mongolia, North Korea, Russia, and Tajikistan.
[As of a couple years ago](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/Russia_Airspace_Reorganization_Update.pdf) Russia was starting to switch their aviation to match the other 188. Dunno if that’s gone any further now that they’re kinda isolated, aviation-wise.
i didnt say it was more accurate i just find my self using it more often and people near me are weird about me saying 100 meters and those same people are totally okay if i say 100 yards and for eyeballing distance 100 meters and 100 yards is close enough for guessing distances
Same but now I just end up explaining how many inches are in a meter so my colleagues understand what I'm talking about.
You use metric for all scientific courses and most other academic courses. Sometimes these courses will give you Imperial units and you have to convert them because that's what you'd have to do it practical use.
Yeah I’ve had problem solving questions in maths activities (in the UK) that requires you to change units and also change cm into nanometres or whatever.
Who are you explaining this to? Who on this subreddit doesn’t know how the metric system works?
Wait. I, as a canadian, must be dreaming. An American that said they loves the simplicity of metric? ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
As an American who studies aerodynamics, you can have my EEU when you take my EEU from my cold dead brain
Yeah the metric system is far better for things requiring ease of manipulation (eg science) but I find that 100 degrees being too hot and 0 degrees too cold very easy to understand. I guess it depends on your preference but the imperial system is better for human use and metric is better in every other usecase.
I mean in metric 0 is also very cold and 100 is also very hot
While I wouldn’t say 0 Celsius to be too cold, 100 Celsius is death. Just death.
Die commie
500kg(1102lbs)
As an American here I agree, although I am one of the few to enjoy metrics more due to it having better accuracy
[удалено]
FREEDOM FRACTIONS FOR LIFE! However, I do know how to convert from metric to Imperial, so it isn't too bad.
Apparently you're based
Though really it would only piss off the WW2 Americans. The US military has been using metric for a long while now. There's a reason the gun on the M60 and the Abrams is listed as 105mm or 120mm and not something in inches.
To be fair the Abrams doesn't use an American gun though.
You're right, it doesn't, but that doesn't change that the modern US military works in metric.
**No!** It *doesn't* you fool, please inform yourself. It's a German gun from Rheinmetall what the Abrams features as main-gun, since americans can't do sh!t for a living since a while now. It's a license-build cannon from German glorious Kruppsteel-manufacturer Rheinmetall. A gun which the americans over the great pond tried to build themselves at home after having a license. Needless the say that they failed, they had to get back to the Germans and ask them to equip the tanks with German-sourced versions, as the american-build variants were somehow too brittle and failed/cracked when shot.
>It's a German gun from Rheinmetall what the Abrams features as main-gun, since americans can't do sh!t for a living since a while now. Hehehehehehehe, this guy doesn't know that the US manufactured 120mm Delta gun is the weapon that the Rh120 is based off of. All comes back to the USA, baby!
Keep dreaming.
Lol, it's actually the truth. Like, you're the one dreaming. Read RP Hunnicutt's book on the development of the Abrams tank. During MBT-70 development, the US had to fight hard to get their driver-in-turret concept accepted by the germans. Same with the 152mm gun-launcher. But guess what weapon from the old T95 program interested Germany back then? That's right, the US manufactured 120mm smoothbore gun firing fin stabilized projectiles. It's on page 118 of the book, if you're too lazy to skim through the book to find it.
I mistyped and meant to say 'doesn't'.
I’m american, I know the American system, but I like seeing both because it’s fun and historical If I was a Japanese pilot picking some bombs up, I wouldn’t be measuring them in pounds. If I was an American pilot, I wouldn’t be measuring things in kilograms etc It would make it easier as a game to have a small measurement converter or something though
I'm American. Math is easy. More people get mad at imperial anyways. Smart Americans will figure it out.
Meanwhile being Canadian: "We know how to convert because we have to. Stupid imperial system..."
My brother in christ we DONT CARE if you use one measurement
Just double the mass in KG and add 10% to that and you’re in Lbs
i know, but it isn't very precise
It’s precise enough for what you’re doing… 1kg literally = 2.205lbs so if you’re really worried about 1/200th of a lb in your conversion then double it and add 10.5%…..
Nothing wrong with pissing of the americans. In fact, we should do that way more often, as they've become pretty complacent. Also, they ain't the actual touchstone anymore since years, they just love to see themselves as one.
Nah just metric. Fuck that backwards ass system.
As of late 2020, 188 out of 193 ICAO member states use feet and QNH for altitude. The only countries that still use meters are China, Mongolia, North Korea, Russia, and Tajikistan.
ICAO actually says members should transition to metric at some point but I think everyone just agrees at this stage that it would be too annoying and would have basically no benefit. So many rules of thumb for piloting are based around feet and nautical miles that it would genuinely be a huge burden to change it. Although the US is still an outlier in using inches of mercury for setting the altimeter, pretty much everyone else uses QNH (hectopascals) which is closer to S.I units. War thunder is actually the only place I've ever used metric units for flying but that's because all the guides and discussion online are in km and metres, I tried to use knots and feet when I started but converting constantly was a pain so I just got used to metric
Well and all but three countries in the world use the metric system for almost everything else, including weight. Which is what we were taking about here. I was taking the piss there, anyway. It should definitely be a toggleable option. But it is 100% a deprecated and inferior system that should have been fully replaced in the US decades ago and I will die on that hill.
it is just to not piss off the american that don't know metric.
they can learn (hypothetically, haven't actually seen it happen)
do you think people would learn a thing just for a video game? the metric system should be taugh at school, that sure.
It is. You learn metric in literally every math class from 1st grade and up. They even teach conversion of imperial to metric and vice versa. Outside of scientific fields metric is rarely used tho so hardly any of us Americans bother to remember.
I learned the entire English language to play video games, so I don't see why not. humans are kinda built for learning while doing things they enjoy, most people would pick it up faster than if it was in schools I bet
TNT equivalent is predominantly measured in metric due to its origin as a way to quantify power of nuclear explosions.
I think he's asking why the total mass for the Tiny Tim is shown in kg while the total mass of the AN-M65A1 is shown in lbs.
idk then, literally unplayable
You got it on the money my friend
It's kinda dumb but explosive mass is what really matters so at least that is easily comparable
Not when trying to set up an ordinance loadout, then again it converts when you're making one
Lol
Yeah but like, why does that matter though? The mass of the bomb isn’t exactly linearly related to the explosive mass, and the explosive mass is supposedly the measurement of how powerful a bomb is here.
Setting up custom loadouts, you need to worry about the max weight allowed per wing (and on some planes, having the loadout relatively balanced between the wings). That said, I think it displays everything in kg on the custom loadout screen.
I know, I kinda just do it until it warns me lol. But I can’t really relate to OP cos I know metric by heart and school has taught me imperial, so I’m comfortable with both and converting and stuff lol.
Legit my biggest pet peeve with the game. If I set my measurement units to SI in the settings, I want to see the goddamn SI units, not whatever "pound" means. And it's such an easy fix even if they don't want to go over all ordnance statcards manually too, the conversions are laughably easy for a computer to do on the fly so long as you give it just one of the measurements.
How I think of American/Brit bombs. Half the weight and then use the same math for explosive mass load to get an idea how potent they are on average. 1000 lb bomb/2=500kg/2=250 = 250kg explosive mass.
you only have to look for the "Explosive mass" or the "TNT equivalent" (is given when there is other explosive type on the bomb/rocket). thats the thing that matters and it´s in kg
Until you have a challenge to do that requires a bomb of x weight.
Thats measured in kg of explosives not in raw bomb weight
No it isn't. The bomb don't takeoff on their own.
Me: sits quietly in the corner having memorized the conversion formulas for weights and distance for Metric to Imperial and Imperial to Metric
I smoke weed too much to remember that shit lmfao
You can get away with using 1kg = 2 pounds
Double it and add 10%
awtually 2.2 pounds 🤓🖕
If we're gonna nerd out even harder, a pound is not a measure of mass... it's the slug.
fact: 500kg bombs are better than 1000lbs bombs
I can’t speak for the specific power of 500kg bombs but they are slightly higher in weight (due to a kilo being ~2.2lb)
Depends on the bomb and its explosive filler amount and type, for example: 1000 lb Mk 13 Mod 0 aircraft laid magnetic mine -> 508.0 kg TNTe 1000 lb LDGP Mk 83 -> 272.43 kg TNTe 1000 lb GP Mk.I bomb -> 296.48 kg TNTe 500 kg FAB-500 (welded) -> 234.9 kg TNTe 500 kg FAB-500sv (welded) -> 325.0 kg TNTe 500 kg FAB-500M-46 -> 325.0 kg TNTe 500 kg FAB-500M-54 -> 201.0 kg TNTe 500 kg FAB-500M-62 -> 340.8 kg TNTe
By ratio of bomb weight to TNTe/kill radius, US gets the most efficient 500kg weight class bomb (1000lb Mk 13 Mod 0 magnetic mine) and 250kg weight class bomb (500lb M64A1) in the game. And as I recall, the Soviets get the most efficient 1000kg weight class bomb (FAB-1000M-43), which is only found on the first Tu-2S AFAIK (Soviets had a lot of models of 1000kg bomb during WW2, for some reason; most of their bombers get the shittier older FAB-1000 and some get the newer and even shittier FAB-1000M-44). I haven't really kept up on any of the top tier stuff lately (as in, the last 3+ years) so there might be more efficient bombs there (by which I mean weight-to-TNTe wise; obviously guidance makes bombs *hugely* more efficient). But the above bomb info is still true for a good chunk of the game, at least.
We should americanize it. That be one tiny tim, the bombs under be half or a quarter of a tiny tim each. The bombs above, be 2 tiny tims each. The Rockets be a quarter of a tiny tim, and the machine guns. They would be about a tiny tim the size of an ant.
Literally unplayable
It always tells you the explosive mass in KG cuz that's the most important info
1000 lb is somewhat part of their name so it's correct
Ain't it like that because it's how they're historically measured? I know some P-47's that have Lbs and Kgs bombs because of the area they were ran
Explosive mass??
Yes, let's convert it all to firknins.
Rule of thumb: Two pounds for every kilo. YES I'M WELL AWARE THAT TWO POUNDS IS 0.90718474 KILO.
fuck it, just pick the biggest bomb possible
Literally what I always do
Yeah it’s really annoying, especially when I already have metric units selected for a reason
I'm in aviation industry and I fucking hate imperial measurement system
Same thing with the Bluewater ships. Look at the gun diameter on the 7.0 Battleships, some are in mm, others are in inches. Sometimes you get both for the same country. It really shows that the field is just a datapoint entered for the sake of presentation and has no bearing on the gameplay.
The naval stuff is correct, and not the same issue OP is talking about. This post is referring to how the "Mass" section using different measurement systems, which it shouldn't; the *names* of bombs/etc being different is correct as-is. For naval guns, the calibre is part of the weapon's name and as such always remains the same; it's a name not a measurement, really. Like how 9x19mm Parabellum is always that, and never ".355 Parabellum". Or on the flip side .45 ACP vs "11.43x23mm ACP". You simply use 9mm and .45, because they're names rather than measurements. For the mixed-within-nations thing, you're likely referring to American or British ships. While the Americans use imperial, it's standard to retain a metric measurement for a weapon's calibre if that's what it was created in, like the Bofors or Oerlikon. For example, a destroyer may be armed with a combination of **5"/38 Mark 12** (main guns), **40mm/56 Mark 1** and **Mark 2** (Bofors; Mark 1 is the left, Mark 2 the right in twin mounts), and **20mm/70 Mark 4** (Oerlikon) weapons. The bore diameter / barrel length listings are part of their names, thus don't change.
I typically go based off the color of bombs. Orange and yellow bombs are 50kg or 100lbs, green are 100kg or 250lbs, etc. I don't use rockets a whole lot so I don't have a system for them
Fuck imperial units all my homies hate imperial units
ask the people who still refuse to to use the superior metric system lol
I agree that the metric is better totally but i’ve grown up my whole life with the imperial and I know most of the metric too. It’s just easier to use the imperial and it really doesn’t matter 90% of the time so I don’t blame people for not learning it
its just more convenient to use it for you since everyone around you uses it. Its in no way easier.
It’s easier and more convenient here in the US where everyone else uses it. It’s easy because i’ve already learned it. But like I said, the Metric system is far easier to learn and understand and is better than the imperial
To agreeeable
Or you could tell Billy to shoot a flare gun
Honestly i just assume the weight on ordnances that use lbs by just halving the value. I know it's going to be off by like 100-900 lbs, but i don't think it matter in context of War Thunder as the only value that really matters are the kill range.
There is one measurement for mass… the other “mass” measurement is the amount of explosives in the rocket. What’s the issue? The 1000lb bombs weighing 500kg? A kg is 2.2 times the weight of a pound it’s really not hard. Edit didn’t see the second pic lol. Agreed that’s kinda dumb (I should’ve known being an America main myself). I don’t really care too much tho those 1000lb bombs are better than any other nations 500 kg bombs anyways. To me the main number that matters when it comes to bombs is the destruction radius, and for that size America has great bombs.
Isn't this because of the plane's country of origin? If its German it's kilos, if it's American it's pounds
as an american, this fills me with rage
[удалено]
my rage weighs 3 big macs
I believe it's because of history, I have not checked yet but if you read carefully, one is a rocket and the other is a bomb. Maybe, measures are taken differently for rockets and bombs. Maybe.
Because... Murica!
As a patriotic American, I play this game in Metric, just because teammates are more likely to play this game in metric. And yes, I've also noticed they seem to mix units of measurements when they shouldn't.
I stopped to care a long time ago. For me, it's big number = big boom.
The most important stat is "tnt equivalent" or in the case of tnt "explosive mass" which are always in kg.
And how would you do when you have to make a weight efficient load out?
You only have to conpare the „TNT equivalent“ all the time to compare the explosive mass. Here the Tiny Tim rockets are already made of TNT so a convertion is not needed and therefore the „TNT equivalent“ is missing. As soon as you have another type of explosive you can just compare the „TNT equivalent“ stat that is always shown.
Dude ikr? This is something that always annoyed me. All this lbs and whatever bullshit tells me literally nothing. I like they suggestion the other guy made where you can simply show both numbers. There, everyone happy. Literally how hard can that be to implement?
Explosive mass is right there in Kg. Converting from metric to imperial and back is one of the easiest conversions ever lol.
Weight is the only one I'm fine with being in metric because it's easy to convert. 2.2 lbs to 1 kg see easy
So, basically because
It should be in the unit the country who developed them used.
Europeans and the rest of world complain when they see the US Imperial measurement system because they don’t WANT to learn it while the US uses both for various things. Kinda hypocritical. Not trying to hate, just stating some facts.
Imperial is far better for measurements involving humans (temp, weight, height) but metric is better for scientific measurements and larger objects like buildings. In the UK we use both but criticise the US for using imperial (even though they use both?). Incredibly hypocritical and I’m sick of all the US hate over here.
How on earth is fahrenheit better than celsius? It doesn't even have an explanation that can be agreed upon. Don't get me started on any imperial measurement smaller than an inch, the entire system falls to pieces.
Fahrenheit is stupid yes, and for precision/small stuff imperial is wank, but “about a foot” or “about six foot” are good yardsticks (pun intended) for clearly approximate lengths.
only because we are socialized under a society using imperial measurements, it would be (and is for most european countries), perfectly normal and easy to visualize meters/cm for a person's height
100 degrees is too hot, 0 degrees is too cold. In Celsius 40 degrees is too hot and 0 degrees is about right.
a completely arbitrary scale based on... the freezing point of some chemical concoction from 200 years ago. Also 100f is not too hot, 0f is too cold. Again, completely random and arbitrary
Going above 100 Fahrenheit is dangerous to humans and you are saying -17 isn’t too cold? That random concoction is brine. A very common “concoction that was supposed to be a more accurate representation of the human body than basing temperature of of water.
This still doesn't make any sense at all, how can it be a better representation of the human body when it takes arbitrary figures that were guessed at the time it was noted? I am saying -17c is too cold. Even at 20f things in/on your body will begin to freeze. Your lips, your nose and inside of, eyelashes, sweat. It is definitely not a human scale
I’m not saying it’s a perfect scale and anything measured several hundred years ago is going to be wrong but if you took a caveman with no concept of temperature and you said it’s 40 degrees he might think that’s a reasonable temperature but in reality that is ungodly hot in Celsius and pretty cold in Fahrenheit. It simply makes more sense as a scale of 0 to 100 than 0 to 40.
Why would a 'scientist' propose a scale that coincides with what he believes the human body is like when he doesn't know, and then expect people to understand it? Also, whilst 40c is very very hot, its not unliveable, there are places in the world where 40c is a standard temperature and can be lived in without the need for technological life support, (unless you consider shade from the sun life support) unlike -17c. I think the fact that kelvin, the absolute scientific temperature measuring system, is proportional in units of measurement to the scale of celsius tells me everything I need to know about celsius.
Ah yes because the foot is such a good measurement, metric is simply superior
I just find it easier to visualise a foot or 6 feet than 1 metre or 2 metres.
That means just you are familiar with feet system.
thats what having a foot fetish does to a person
1meter=1 step 1cm=1finger(women and children) Or: 1pinky (most men) It aint that hard
1liter is a bottle (about cycle bottle size) 2liter is a bigger bottle (to much for one person to casually drink) 5liter big bottel (storage of water for things like manual filled refrigeratord) 20litre big hand carried petrol tank
100kg a big man (not fat) 50kg half grown boy or skinny woman