Gaijin need to add spall liners to Chinese vehicles

Authored books are fine too, as we have those for the planes. I don’t personally know of the authored books for Chinese ground forces…

1 Like

It’s called jd-3 and for some reason gaijin named the aps on the ztz96a(p) jd-3. 3km of range, blinds anything that shines a laser at it.

2 Likes

no,JD-3 is a Infrared jammer that we have got on ZTZ96AP in game.
In the development process of ZTZ99, the laser device is named to YG-A and YG-B(automatic and semiauto),this can be found in the biography of tank designers ZhuYuSheng.

总结

99

Related universities and PLA unit 's experiments have proven that laser suppression device is very effective.

总结

create_pdf.aspx (bit.edu.cn)
M490701 (laser-infrared.com)

We can also guess ZTZ99 and ZTZ99A 'slaser suppression device performance in the game from the acceptance criteria.

总结
总结

laser

Operating distance
Under visibility of 10-20km:
Eye damage for ground combatants without coating protection: 6km (infantry)
Eye damage for air combatants without coating protection: 8km (helicopter)
Interference suppression distance: 5km ( for typical optoelectronic devices such as laser rangefinder, thermal imaging, low light night vision, CCD, laser alarms, etc)
Interference distance to air targets:11km
Interference distance to ground targets:Consistent with the range of the main gun.
Action angle:
horizontal: 360°.
vertical:Follow the main aiming field of view(commander or Gunner).
reaction rate:
0-180° required time: 2s (90°/s)
System response time: 1.5s

The laser device on ZTZ99A has been upgraded, but the name is still unknown.

8 Likes

Could we submit this and see what answer they give us?

2 Likes

@thethrill8284257 Could we use this as bug report material maybe?

Perhaps, i dont know if the bug report moderators would accept it as primary.

The issue is i’m unsure whether in the sources the ZTZ99A is directly mentioned… if not then the mods will simply deny the bug report.

Wait so the YG-B (the one found on ZTZ99s) on the LCT is defined as “optics” and on the 99s is not even modelled?

Spoiler

image
image
image

1 Like

GJB 7223-2011是99A的激光压制器检验标准
it’s a laser suppression device on ZTZ99A.

3 Likes

In fact, they are two systems,Gaijin didn’t make the laser pressing system into the game:

总结

1ccf7c34349b033b69d70bea53ce36d3d439bd8d
fc7e573b5bb5c9ea21acf4d39339b6003bf3b38d

2 Likes

If you could provide as much info as possible i’ll file a bug report for it.

1 Like

直接搜GJB编号

1 Like

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LHGtczXTHgjF

Got this up even if i feel like it lacks some stuff, any comment/additional files/help is welcomed.

Edit: I’m making a suggestion for it since the employees said that it is not a mechanic present in game yet.

1 Like

I can’t read Chinese so it’s really hard for me to find this stuff, thanks. Could you throw this in a bug report?

1 Like

Already bug reported it and since they said it isn’t a mechanic yet present in game i’ve now made a suggestion that is pending.

1 Like

Can I find it on 央视频app? I won’t be able to use Youtube for now.

1 Like

Dev stream bvvd acknowledged that this exists but said that before they could work out precise stats and how it operates they will refrain from adding it. (He called it ‘the little mushroom thing’ lol)

1 Like

Yep, so far i have a suggestion up for it.

1 Like

Bro says they need to work out ‘how it works’ lol. Not like they’re some scientist or anything, as well as all the other armies wanted to work it out.

Continuing the discussion from Chinese top tier MBT should receive spall liners

a 4 month old thread, which @Stona_WT has closed a few minutes ago.

Accepted issues have been delayed for more than 2 years, during which developers’ maintenance of an artificial, biased environment at high tier. This discrimination against the vehicles of specific technology trees, especially China, is shown clearly in their actions. Due to the importance of drawing additional attention to associated CBR reports and maintaining public pressure for beneficial change, I think it is best to maintain a general discussion thread.

Note: This response does not oppose nor dispute moderator actions.

3 Likes