The Long 88 in War Thunder is over performing?

*Moderator’s Note*: Please feel free to remove any and all harsh comments or criticisms, as well as anything that is not related to this discussion. The goal of this discussion is to find a possible solution to this issue, not focus on personal attacks.

Before anyone starts screaming “It’s historical!”, this is not me saying that the 8.8cm KwK 43 was ineffective as a tank gun. Its use in the war definitely proves that it was very good. The issue is whether or not its in-game penetration and shell performance are balanced appropriately for War Thunder. The Long 88 combines several advantages that make it feel stronger than comparable guns at the battle rating:

High penetration and a strong APCBC shell let it frontally defeat many opponents at its battle rating, as well as higher BRs, with less of a need for precise aim for weak spots. For example, it can penetrate the turrets of both the T34 and T26E5 despite that being a relatively strong area of the tank. Compared with other guns like the American 90mm M3 on vehicles around 6.7–7.0 or the British 17-pounder on tanks such as the Centurion Mk 3 around 6.3–6.7, the KwK 43 feels more forgiving because it pairs better flat penetration with very reliable post-penetration damage. Even inaccurate shots often penetrate and knock out the crew or detonate ammo in one shot. That being said, it is not completely worthless: angled and spaced armor, plus awkward target profiles, can still force players to aim more carefully, especially against well-positioned opponents.

The tank offers good long-range performance and a low margin for error, making it especially useful on larger maps such as Sands of Sinai or Mozdok. At the Tiger II’s current BR rating of 6.7, many enemies still use guns with less penetration, weaker post-penetration damage, or both. The Russian 122mm D-25T on the IS-2, for example, can hit very hard, but its very LONG reload makes it far less reliable. By comparison, the Long 88 keeps lethal penetration at long range while remaining forgiving enough that imperfect aim is less punishing than other guns at the BR. At the same time, however, the Tiger II is not a perfect platform: its size, turret rotation, and armor layout mean you still have to play it very carefully, and it can be killed badly if caught out of position or forced into close-quarters fights.

I’m not saying the Tiger II should be weakened into irrelevancy, nor that Germany should not have a strong heavy tank. The concern is that the combination of penetration, shell damage, and consistency makes the Long 88 more reliable than many other guns at the same battle rating. Compared with other common guns around 6.7–7.0, it stands out not just for raw penetration, but for how often a good shot becomes a kill. With that in mind, the gun does have its limits: the reload is not as fast for a heavy tank, and its effectiveness decreases further when the Tiger II is forced into combat, where it can’t control either the range or angle.

An adjustment doesn’t require lowering the Long 88’s penetration values overall. Solutions for this vehicle includes anything from reviewing shell types, post-penetration damage, or a possible increase of the vehicle’s battle rating if its overall performance is consistently above comparable vehicles.

I want to know what everyone thinks. Do you think the Long 88 is balanced as is, or does the combination of both the amount penetration plus the amount of damage make it one of the strongest guns at its current BR?

SOURCES:

- Thomas L. Jentz, Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I and Tiger II - Combat Tactics. London: Schiffer Publishing, 1996. ISBN*** ***0-7643-0225-6

- https://panzerworld.com/8-8-cm-kw-k-43-l-71

- https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-vi\_konigstiger.php

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger\_II

(I’m fully aware that Wikipedia isn’t always the best resource for research, but it does have some great information regardless.)