I was recommended by Jarms to have more than one source (yes even if its from the manufacturer otherwise it can be claimed to be “marketing BS” like a source on typhoon was yesterday) also make sure that you say which page the relevant info from the book or manual you use as your source is mentioned as the devs won’t read a whole PDF for a single change.
Full sources are accepted however arent always necessary, if applicable say what the books ISBN (or equivalent) is too
speaking about british AFV engines or around the 1960’s, why so obsessed with “60”, L60 (Cheiftain, Vickers 1/3), K60 (FV432 Family), J60 (CVR(T) (atleast early CVR(T)s) and Fox)
Is there a code behind it, L60, K60, J60,
Just general piddling
I always thought the L stood for “leyland” and J for "Jaguar but having a K for Rolls Royce throws that out the window. Then again the WD has always loved using almost the exact same designations for everything, just look at how many things are called the “L1”
One thing that could be done is to leave the Scimitar at Br 7.7 and raise the Fox to Br 8.0 or 8.3, since the Fox is clearly superior in terms of speed. Another interesting thing is to fix the mobility of the Scimitar, since it steers horribly, loses a lot of speed just by turning a little and turns extremely slowly.
I originally made a report that fixed the radio systems being labelled as ‘FCS’, and on that report @da12thmonkey made a comment about the sight system with more useful information that you might be able to use:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/F2VWSfsulEOW
Ill update my report with some of your sources in a bit, thank you
Good point and maybe it was a code suggesting civilian companies making military engines that’s just an idea though.
You’re halfway there, the number refers to the number of pistons. The letter is the manufacturer, execpt for Rolls Royce, who made a few different types of engines at this time, and gave each series a letter designation along with a number derived from the number of cycliders/pistons, (most famously the B series of WW2 use, and the C series of railway use, and the D series, though after this point the letters picked tended to be fairly random).
L60 = 12 Pistons
K60 = 12 Pistons
J60 = 6 Pistons
It might refer to the Cylinder count as all engines have 6 Cylinders, the L/K60 being opposed piston engines
Which may track as the CV12 of the Challenger 2 has 12 Pistons and 12 Cylinders, Not being an opposed Piston engine
My bad I ment cylinders, I should probably go back to bed lmao
Has the Scimitar’s awful driving model been fixed on dev?
No
They changed the modification from tires to tracks at least. Really shows they literally copied the Fox.
Ill also put this here to make a point. Gaijin should put the whole CVRT line back into development.
Isn’t the neutral steering still broken? Last time I used it the thing turned about as well as the maus.
Yes lol. along with just steering it in general it drifts all over the place.
With the amount of bug reports I have made compared with the amount that have been fixed (0) i can not really be bothered to look into that tbh.
They clearly had no idea what the armour was like. Most obvious indication of that was them not using the imperial system.
If the exact armor profile from the manual its self and a statement from the manufacturer regarding armour protection is not enough than Gaijin has lowered their standards significantly.
It was designed to withstand 14.5mm Heavy MG rounds. Gaijin clearly modeled this in game as seen below.
Unfortunately it seems exact armour thickness is either unknown or still classified.
The visual model has the upper turret plate as noticeably thinner than the lower one.
for them to achieve the same effective thickness the lower turret plate should be around 60mm thick.
Would it maybe be possible to appeal to gaijin to make the lower front turret plate thicker purely based off the visual model?
Yes good work when I get home I have some V50 information regarding AA7017. The actual material used to make CVRT as seen on striker.
Just to add to the observations you made. British vehicles from this time frame at least would actually have imperial measurements. The CVR(T) line should have all thicknesses listed as standard fractions of an inch. IE 25.4, 38.1, 44.45
Gaijin either did not know or did not care.
Nonetheless I’ve seen a Scorpion in person and that lower turret plate is easily over 2 inches thick.
As for appealing to gaijin I legit showed them a cross section of the frontal armour layout from the manual and they said no not a bug.
