Jump to content

Why you always lying to us @Smin1080p? You shut us down when ever we brought this vehicle up. I mean I'm glad its finally here but so much wasted time in debate over it.

Edited by Durandle_X

Smin1080p (Posted )

I would ask you not to mislead anyone please with false statements. At no point did anyone "lie" to anyone. At the time the question was asked, months ago, the answer was entirely correct. Over time, the information has been located and the vehicle is now possible. This was the last time I answered the Vickers back in Febuary, which was entirely correct for the time: "As we said before, should more info be brought to light on the Vickers 7/2, then we can assess the situation. However currently, there is not even enough to suitable model the tank, let alone introduce it."
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Durandle_X said:

Why you always lying to us @Smin1080p? You shut us down when ever we brought this vehicle up. I mean I'm glad its finally here but so much wasted time in debate over it.

 

C'mon, he wasn't lying, 8 months is a long time to find the correct sources, what most likely happened.

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, magazine2 said:

 

C'mon, he wasn't lying, 8 months is a long time to find the correct sources, what most likely happened.

 

We've been asking up to like around 2 weeks ago though and got the same response... Even if he just didn't know though he shouldn't be pedalling misinformation as fact. Literally a waste of everyone's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Gaijin release the historical documents they suddenly found then? Because we've been told by Gaijin for ages they can't model this, now suddenly boom.

 

Especially when theyr'e saying things like how it's less protected than the Challenger 1, which is an odd statement, given the Challenger 1 is still underperforming armour wise, so does the Mk7 documents just say "less than CR1" or do they have values?

 

Or is this just another case like the initial implementation of the CR1 where Gaijin says they have sources but actually don't?

 

Also, it says the same ammo as CR1. Given this is implied to be a 10.0, does that confirm that it has L26 and thus Challenger Mk2 and Mk3 are also getting L26 to make this statement true? Or is this seriously going to only have L23?

 

I hate to have to be so cynical and skeptical, but at this point with how much Gaijin has gotten wrong we do need to treat anything like this warily.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool to see in game

My only concern is where it's going to be in the tech tree?
I've just finished the RP grind for CR1 mk 2, and I don't really want to have to grind through the Mk3 AND the vickers mk 7 to reach the CR2.

While the vickers is cool and all I generally prefer main production vehicles for use in game so would rather get to the CR2 faster even if it's an underwhelming tank. 

 

So what do people reckon? Will it be between Cr1 Mk 3 and Cr2 (which the devblog hints towards - although this may be referring to the capability of the tank rather than the research order), or will it be part of another tank line? I could see it coming after the conqueror, as right now there is nothing after that tank and it's already got the other Vickers MBT in it too. 

 

If it is in the chally lineup then I think they should at least folder the Cr1 mk2 and mk 3. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i honestly dont expect much from it.....

"leopard 2 chassis" - most likely B-tech, so only as "strong" as the 2a4

"excellent mobility like all leo2" - yeah.... they cant turn at all cause of reasons.....

low turret armour - no hull-down-chances

i expect l23 at best - so no real firepower advantage either

 

but i expect it to be after the conquerors line, as thats where the first vickers is

  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happalula said:

"leopard 2 chassis" - most likely B-tech, so only as "strong" as the 2a4

 

Hull is as strong or stronger than Challenger 1 and 2 - rounds can pretty much pen Challenger 1 and 2 hull front plate from anywhere. So this is nothing new. 

 

Quote

"excellent mobility like all leo2" - yeah.... they cant turn at all cause of reasons.....

 

The mobility is much, much better than Challenger 1 and 2 :) 

 

Quote

low turret armour - no hull-down-chances

 

So? Most nations in WT have no turret armour on top tier tanks and they just drive around, whilst the Challenger 1 and 2 can't do that, despite zooming around being the meta, the reason why the Challenger 1 and 2 are the worst top tier MBT.

 

The WHOLE point of this tank is to provide Britain with more mobility at top tier (my opinion). And this is exactly what the Vickers Mk 7 will do, something Challenger 1 and 2 CANNOT do.

 

Quote

i expect l23 at best - so no real firepower advantage either

 

Same gun as on Challenger 1. Same pen as 2A4 and Challenger 1. Not a problem.

 

1 hour ago, Dantheman66 said:

So what do people reckon? Will it be between Cr1 Mk 3 and Cr2 (which the devblog hints towards - although this may be referring to the capability of the tank rather than the research order), or will it be part of another tank line? I could see it coming after the conqueror, as right now there is nothing after that tank and it's already got the other Vickers MBT in it too. 

 

If it is in the chally lineup then I think they should at least folder the Cr1 mk2 and mk 3. 

 

Tough one. Designed to replace the Challenger 1 but is also made by Vickers, where Vickers MBT is already in the game. We'll have to wait for dev server I guess. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Durandle_X said:

Why you always lying to us @Smin1080p? You shut us down when ever we brought this vehicle up. I mean I'm glad its finally here but so much wasted time in debate over it.


At no point did I lie to anyone. At the time we was asked about the Vickers 7 (February), what I told you was entirely correct. We did not have the source material needed to create it. As it turns out, the information was provided and located making the vehicle possible. Investigations were ongoing for some time. 

 

Nobody was "shut down". I simply said the information people were putting forward at the time was not enough to actually implement the tank.

 

56 minutes ago, Durandle_X said:

 

We've been asking up to like around 2 weeks ago though and got the same response... Even if he just didn't know though he shouldn't be pedalling misinformation as fact. Literally a waste of everyone's time.

 

Where exactly are these posts from two weeks ago? They do not exist. The last time I answered this (which was months ago) the answer was entirely correct. At no point did I misinform anyone, so I would recommend not misleading people with false facts. 

 

Here was my last answer regarding the Vickers 7 in February, 8 months ago when the information was entirely correct at the time:

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's UFP and LFP is stronger than the CR1 in game. Definitely not stronger than the CR2. (If we're talking about UFP protection)

It'll offer a different play style than the current Challenger 1s. You have the options between 2 hull down and good defensive tanks (CR1 Mk2 and Mk3) with "ok" mobility and then you have a mobile tank with not as good overall armor where it counts (turret) and "good" mobility. 

 

 

I must agree with the comments above. I never expected to see this tank in game, ever.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

Where exactly are these posts from two weeks ago? They do not exist. The last time I answered this (which was months ago) the answer was entirely correct. At no point did I misinform anyone, so I would recommend not misleading people with false facts. 

 

Well alright then smin Ill just disregard everything you say from now on cause it might change in about 2 seconds. One minute its oh no we couldn't possibly make that tank stop asking for it, to oh look at this fabulous new tank we just managed to make out of thin air.

 

I've seen people asking for the mk7 up to around September with no word on it. Just annoying to see a tank that couldn't possibly be modelled now only a few months later pop up relatively quickly.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Durandle_X said:

 

Well alright then smin Ill just disregard everything you say from now on cause it might change in about 2 seconds. One minute its oh no we couldn't possibly make that tank stop asking for it, to oh look at this fabulous new tank we just managed to make out of thin air.

 

I've seen people asking for the mk7 up to around September with no word on it. Just annoying to see a tank that couldn't possibly be modelled now only a few months later pop up relatively quickly.

 

Pretty sure everytime they said no was because of lack of sources and did request anybody with anything to provide them? 

 

Why so salty man things change just as with AA missiles and ATGMs as the game progresses/new things are found

 

Overall we are getting a new tank that has speed in the British line what's not to like!

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Durandle_X said:

 

Well alright then smin Ill just disregard everything you say from now on cause it might change in about 2 seconds. One minute its oh no we couldn't possibly make that tank stop asking for it, to oh look at this fabulous new tank we just managed to make out of thin air.

 

If you do not wish to receive direct answers to questions when they are asked, then that is entirely fine :)

 

I provided you with the exact response from the developers at the time with the correct information at the time. At no point did I flat out deny this vehicle, I simply said that at the time it was being discussed, there was not enough information to introduce it. I clearly said in the last response, if more info becomes available to us, that will change. 

 

If 8 months means "2 seconds" to you, then I must say you have mastered the art of time travel very well. 

 

7 minutes ago, Durandle_X said:

I've seen people asking for the mk7 up to around September with no word on it. Just annoying to see a tank that couldn't possibly be modelled now only a few months later pop up relatively quickly.

 

Well im not really sure where they were asking, but it certainly was not a question put to me. I provided you with the last response I gave on this tank back in February where a lot has changed in 8 months!

 

It takes around 5-6 months to create a vehicle, so given it has been 8 months, im really not quite sure why its such a surprise as we did not mention it for that period.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also @Smin1080p where did the devs find the needed information for this tank? Was it from the UK national archives? I've been looking for 2 months (last year), every Friday and I couldn't find anything and I mean I LOOKED everywhere, call, email, web searches, nothing.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, USVIKILLER said:

Also @Smin1080p where did the devs find the needed information for this tank? Was it from the UK national archives? I've been looking for 2 months (last year), every Friday and I couldn't find anything and I mean I LOOKED everywhere, call, email, web searches, nothing.

 

Combination of many sources including museums, technical documentation, publications, BAE systems publications and promotional material.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright fair enough stuff does change and it has been a while actually, a lot longer than I realised. Sorry @Smin1080p Guess my memory with war thunders forums is more disjointed than I realised.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Combination of many sources including museums, technical documentation, publications, BAE systems publications and promotional material.

One thing that concerns me, yes it was also designed for export but also designed to replace the challenger 1. The export model would of had less protection than CR1 yes because the UK was highly secretive about chobham so only allowed select countries to use it etc but the british vickers 7 would of had better values than CR1 surely? Also regarding the hull I'm sure I read that they swapped the armour composition out for chobham. If that was the case wouldnt the protection be different?

Edited by *oppsijustkilledu
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

One thing that concerns me, yes it was also designed for export but also designed to replace the challenger 1. The export model would of had less protection than CR1 yes because the UK was highly secretive about chobham so only allowed select countries to use it etc but the british vickers 7 would of had better values than CR1 surely?

 

It was offered to the British army at a stage before it was up armoured to what would have been "British specifications". Since the BA did not want to pursue it and CR 2 was ultimately conceived, only really the export specifications came to fruition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

It was offered to the British army at a stage before it was up armoured to what would have been "British specifications". Since the BA did not want to pursue it and CR 2 was ultimately conceived, only really the export specifications came to fruition. 

Okay cheers for the reply smin, out of curiosity was there any thought of maybe giving the option of being able to choose what we want to use? Would of made for interesting mechanic for a ground vehicle imo. Also any chance of being able to share any of the documents used? Just intered to read about it as there is such little info available 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...