Lmao
Please stop attacking moderators assuming their conlusions are from their own.
The report was already forwarded a month ago:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mE6gc8JAXe0d
And it was closed with a developer answer:
There is another dust cover, the front screen is the same thickness as the rear one, it just has a gap, and the gap is covered with a strip to keep the dust out.
1 Like
Can you then show us the source for this conclusion?
10 Likes
So this means there should be two screens behind the ERA?
1 Like
“you should not use in-game model as proof”
I really hope he doesn’t mean as proof to prove something incorrect when contrasted to actual photos…
1 Like
Ignore how on the provided Dev screenshot they show the protection analysis at 2000m.
2 Likes
I’m not sure quite what you expect when issues are closed with no sourcing or explanation, it looks very much like the tech moderators personal opinion.
What you are seeing here is frustration building up, which isn’t unexpected considering the god awful bug handling and issue resolution at gaijin.
9 Likes
oh, so it is!
Didn’t notice that.
unless of course they’re trying to use the pop-up that appears when you’re aiming at the tank. in which case that’s even worse because that considers the effectiveness of all the plates strapped together, so of course it’d give 220mm of armour, when they’ve been specifically told the STANAG 4569 Level 5 rating is achieved with just the NERA blocks.
1 Like
Exactly, nobody is attacking mods we are annoyed with the lack of communication from them.
I mean this is 4-5 years of pent up frustration finally being given an outlet.
It’s been troubled/bugged since the get go and “deny delay deflect” doesn’t work on War Thunder players.
1 Like
Neither of the interpretations put forward regarding STANAG 4569 Page 6, Protection Level requirements are accurately depicted in game.
No matter how you spin it - the block gets penetrated ALWAYS. It is not STANAG 5 in game.
1 Like
@Gunjob I’m at a bit of a loss here. The baseplate is very obviously one solid block and is shown here. No dust cover…
2 Likes
We appreciate that there is frustration. But directing it towards moderatiors and staff is not the way to go about things.
It’s not an excuse for personal attacks and targeting as happened previously.
It’s not constructive and will not help progress things in any manor.
3 Likes
Smin, could the report regarding the challenger 2 baseplate be re-opened please? The above image clearly shows it’s a solid metal plate.
1 Like
It’s better to make a new one with all sources attached and properly sourced (where from).
3 Likes
No worries :)
1 Like
Not attacking anyone just wondering why moderators don’t have to provide sources for their answers. Because there is no source for aluminum and also no source for it being a dust cover. The problem lies with the discrepancy that changes are made that are incorrect and have no factual bases which makes it near impossible to get sources to contradict them.
Other than Trixxters “It is a dust cover” (which according to gajins own rules should have 2 secondary sources or a single primary) under every report regarding this topic we did not get any sources at all why those reports were dismissed.
I’m sorry I don’t see a developer Answer there just the answer of the moderator without any source for the claim.
And to clarify this again, I do not want to attack anybody, after all we are all humans and can make wrong assumptions and mistakes, me included.
It is simple just the issue that we need sources for everything while moderator stuff can apperantly be passed without sources like in the case of the “dust cover”
5 Likes
British engineers love dust covers, here we can see HMS King George V sporting its dust cover to protect from dust when at sea
8 Likes
While I don’t think we should be targetting anyone - The protection analysis explaination is blatantly wrong and needs to be retracted.
8 Likes