Challenger 2 engineering fallacy in dev update

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1

“Technically, ensuring the equality of protection between the main armor sections (large dimensions, thick steel plates on the outside and a thick base) and the mantlet (required for stabilizing the gun, where it’s impossible to accommodate a large armor dimension) is a very difficult task.”

I want to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to anyone at Gaijin working on this project. I am in no way calling them stupid or incompetent, I only want to form an argument to a statement in their dev post.

It’s clear that they are talking about the balance point of the cannon being right at the pivot point of the cannon. Which is important for the traversing of the cannon, this is something that has been known on tanks since all the way back into WW2 and some from WW1. It would be very difficult to traverse the cannon up and down without the cannon being balanced.

The issue with this point is that they are saying it’s a difficult thing to do in this case, meaning that it’s a difficult thing for them to believe. This is there way of saying “it’s not going to be as much as the turret cheeks”. I don’t think the team doing the research on this case fully understand that the armor can extend towards the inside of the pivot point, providing that extra protection as well as providing additional balancing weight on the inside of the turret. Another problem with their argument is that only having armor on the front of the pivot, is what gives it a proper weight distribution; This would make the cannon very front heavy.

If we look back at the Challenger 1, which has the turret cheeks right up against the cannon; Why would the engineers sign off on creating a giant weak point right in the center of the turret as opposed to the (in War Thunder) superior turret design of the old Challenger?

3 Likes
2

They went full mask-off with the Russian bias a while ago. The recent dev blogs on MANPADS and the Challenger 2s is just further proof at this point. Lots of “we think” and “we believe”, using no evidence at all. Or even better using soviet sources for western tech - breaking their own “rules”.

5 Likes
3

“We believe” is actually correct wording to use.
Has Gaijin made the tests or manufactured the parts themselves ? Don’t think so.

So yeah, only thing they can do is to believe the sources.

4

Belief is not the same as knowing.

“Sources indicate”, “we know this because”… That’s the language we should be seeing in dev blogs. Not “we believe” things should be this way because “we can’t see how” such similar missiles have such different performance…

Then there is the fact that they actively ignore evidence, or come up with ridiculous excuses to ignore it. Like all sources indicating the Stinger has a much higher g overload limit than it has in game. But GJN have modelled it with the same guidance and mechanical systems as an Igla. It’s funny they don’t multiply the 10g for the Igla by the same compensation correction/cope factor that they do for western MANPADS. What’s the rationale for that? They aren’t even consistent with their copium.

4 Likes
5

The point he was making is they have used the we think and we believe statement to discredit, undermine or reject legitimate sources or overwhelming evidence. Manpads for eg they effectively said yes we see all the first hand sources saying the missiles are way better but we believe it can’t be so we aren’t changing it to match.

4 Likes
6

They literally used “we believe” to dismiss those sources.

So “we believe” 100% isn’t the right way to go about this.

4 Likes
7

You can’t know something for certain if you haven’t done it.
You’ll still have to believe the sources.

Have they put the source they have and that made them believe those other, player-posted sources are not correct ?

8

So primary source states signifigantly higher g-load, but gaijin just decides to not believe it.

Also all of the sources on this devblog are irrelevant, as in the abrams devblog they just said how soviet/russian sources can’t be used for western equipment… Lmfao

4 Likes
9

It would be different if they were saying “we believe it should be this way because the sources say so”. But they aren’t. They are saying they are not going to believe the sources “because they believe differently” without providing any sources to back up this idea that the referenced 20g is the instantaneous max g, and that the average g is less. They’ve never shown any evidence this is the case, and it would make little sense for documentation about the stinger to include the instantaneous g instead of average g. It’s so it’s not only unfounded “belief”, it’s irrational belief.

Why are you playing ignorant? Have you read the MANPADS and Challenger dev blogs?

4 Likes
10

So I just read their thing:
Therefore, we assume that for the MANPADS FN-6, FIM-92 and Mistral, the documents indicate the peak overload achieved at the moment when the rudders are in the maneuver plane.

Did that source write the peak or average G loads, because Gaijin assume such a big difference in sustained load is impossible because “only slight differences in the area of aerodynamic surfaces compared to the 9M39” ?

I mean, someone has to be right here, one side states it’s average load, meanwhile other side states it’s peak load.
Are there any sources backing up any of those claims ?

11

Their assumptions and beliefs are irrelevant.

So when igla sources state 10.2G, it’s “assumed” to mean average, but when western sources state 22G, it’s “assumed” to mean peak G load… Lmao

Again what gaijin thinks doesn’t matter at all.

They aren’t qualified to make these assumptions against manufacturer sources.

Also once again… They are using russian sources to dismiss western sources about western missiles… Right after themselves stating that russian sources can’t be used to buff western tech. (nerfing ofcourse is perfectly fine)

Not a single customer would do anything with those peak G-loads.

Not to mention that these missiles wouldn’t perform anywhere near what the manufacturers state they do, if it’s peak pull instead of average.

And that would lead to legal problems for the manufacturers.

Also:

3 Likes
12

I hate to break it to you, the replies from this account are beyond not knowing the situation. I’d assume it’s a stealth account or has fully consumed the copium.

I liked how you compressed all the data though. It was a very well formatted read.

3 Likes
13

There are more than a few accounts that flock to such threads with a suspiciously ‘Gaijin can do no wrong’ outlook. They also parrot out the same logic so one does wonder…

4 Likes
14

Not having the source explicitly say it’s average/peak load leaves the people guessing, both Gaijin and yourself.

I agree, find a source that states those loads are either average or peak and submit a bug report.

If they say it can pull 20G at peak and it does just that, missile is performing exactly as described, so what are you on about ?

Missile with 13G average load is extremely maneuverable, in real life.
This is WT however, where planes can pull 180 degree turns at 10G+ time after time.

15

mistral (in game) at 16G can’t intercept a target evading at 8G head on, while by all primary sources given, it should. From there on, the peak overload explanation loses all credibility.

A few more points though :

The lack of PID and the use of an obsolete bang bang guidance method on the igla, while not being proof, can also explain the difference, since the fins won’t behave the same way on both missiles.

A customer doesn’t care about peak or medium overload, they just want to make sure that the targets goes boom once they fire their missile. Selling a 24G capability in a brochure based on a “peak overload” that will never be reached is just shooting yourself in the foot, as a weapons seller.

Finally the double standard regarding soviet sources is also a problem.
A bug reporter wants to buff the abrams using one of those => not acceptable.
Gaijin wants to nerf western manpads, using a soviet source, therefore breaking their own rule ? acceptable.

Anyway, sry for off topic

3 Likes
16

no i think youre fine with this king of “off topic” because i think its all part of the same problem, how the devs treat western documentation vs russian documentation. they simply treat western documentation as fiction because they cant see how someone could surpass the glorious russian equipment.