But for the most part, your deflecting the questions when it pertains to specific bug reports. This is either due to you not knowing or not being able to tell us, the latter of which i think is the real problem because if the devs have decided to fully ignore any reports on those subjects from now on shouldn’t we know so as to not waste anymore time bug reporting something the devs have decided isnt worth their time?
6 Likes
However what we have is without APS, so why not rename it to the LEP variant for the best accuracy
6 Likes
the trophy-less version is/was used for CR3 marketing and honestly the slight difference in name doesn’t matter that much
2 Likes
I have answered every question on all reports with all of the available information I have, both from the developers and report responses. Im sorry if you feel that’s deflecting, its just answering with everything I have information wise.
Its not been decided to ignore anything. They responded to the L27 report and I have passed on all of those responses. Equally everything raised has been passed in the opposite direction and updated into the report.
It was not, as there were still errors in the alignment of the armour on the roof. Only the cheeks and part of the sides (not all) were corrected.
Which has been ignored.
Nothing, because this is the CR2 forum, not the 3.
Smin, what certainty are we sure the T80Us armour is correct versus an L27 type round?
Is there some strong basis for its protection without ERA or is it based on the devs own understanding of it without a primary?
7 Likes
Again, its referred to as Challenger 3 in other mediums too. Its not clear exactly when in the timeline the change from Challenger 2 LEP > Challenger 3 occurred. However currently there is not fully conclusive information to prove its only ever been known as CR.2 LEP.
Due to this ambiguity, it means its down to the developers to decide, and from a game point of view, CR.3 TD is a better distinguishment over yet another CR.2 name. It was also what was reported initially by other players too. So it appears to be a subjective matter on many levels.
1 Like
Any issues with the T-80U protection are welcomed to be reported. But currently there are no open reports on that or investigations ongoing.
You cannot answer straight faced and say using the game engine is a valid measure to determine if a bug report is correct or not?
All we see it as is a way for gaijin to try and deny the changes needed for l27a1 and or the t80u’s armour.
7 Likes
As I said earlier, the devs do not believe L27 can penetrate a T80 because they do not believe L27 can penetrate a T80. It is circular reasoning and nothing else.
6 Likes
Could the information used in the l27a1 report be used to report the t80us armour?
5 Likes
So does that mean that potentially the T80U is catastrophically wrong in terms of protection? (not saying it is)
Leaving error possible on both sides of the coin whether it be misunderstanding of the L27 or the T80Us equivalent protection and therefore it cannot be ruled out that the issue is not the round itself
5 Likes
It is, just go look at the Russian armour forum where a guy when in excruciating depth explaining how Russian armour is overperforming.
1 Like
No? The T-80U has been configured based on all available public data on the vehicle, entirely separately from this L27 document. We cant sadly assume all other information on T-80U is incorrect based on this one L27 report im afraid.
Again, if there is potentially conclusive information to suggest the T-80 is incorrect, reports on that are welcome. But thus far, there are no reports suggesting that at all.
What public data lead gaijin’s devteam to come to the absolutely insane conclusion that the T-80’s composite, composed some 1/3 of textolite, is stronger than its own thickness in steel? I feel we should be allowed to request their sources.
4 Likes
If you feel as though something is incorrect regarding the T-80Us protection, as mentioned, reports are welcomed: Community Bug Reporting System
This is the Challenger 2 topic however, and thats what we are trying to focus on here.
I remember there being reports out on russian armour in general, specifically for the t64 series and its derivatives which included the t80? Pretty sure the recent changes to the t64 was a result of this.
I dont want to take peoples word for it, i want answers lol
But i want to know if its better to look at L27 or T80U as the biggest factor rn
I understand that but if the publicly available data is limited it has the potential to have a great margin of error which is what i want to know personally to best define where i should start nosing around for sources
What we are trying to focus on is the expected performance of L27A1, where we have a primary source, that being the UK MoD, stating it can penetrate, frontally, a T-80U at the required range of 2km.
The shell cannot do this in game for a T-80U with the ERA stripped, let alone with the ERA fitted.
The conclusion to be made is either:
- L27A1 is underperforming by a large margin
- T-80U is overperforming by a large margin
- both of the above
Therefore it is important to figure out which of these, or whether both of these, are the case.
6 Likes