but the point still stands itโs not representative of a challenger 1 that operated in desert storm so itโs not named correctly - correct?
Itโs been fully reported and the report accepted already
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vgonJS3tbCOg
That was 9 months ago. Iโm trying to tell you that they forgot ๐ญ๐ I wouldnโt be doing any of this if it said โFixedโ now thatโs the jackpot
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
enlighten me
provide a solid explanation for why this cannot be implemented. Explain why sources such as The Tank Museum are incorrect about Challenger 1s receiving this armour during the war, and explain why the accounts of the tank crews who served with these vehicles should be dismissed.
*EDIT: Donโt actually flag/remove his reply, heโs just being goofy and Iโm frustrated.
I just wouldnโt place the word of Bovingtonโs curators on too high of a pedestal.
Theyโve perpetuated misinformation plenty of times before, such as the caliber of the weapons of the Churchill AVRE and TOG II*, or the Schneider CA1 not havng suspension.
Despite access to information, they are slow to correct themselves.
Other sources are fine, but just donโt rely on what the Tank Museum alone says.
While anyone can make a mistake, itโs far less common with The Tank Museum, and when errors are identified, they acknowledge and correct them. In this case, there is no indication that theyโve made a mistake regarding the Challenger Mk.3. Much of the information they present comes from extensive research, including interviews with veterans who served during the Gulf War.
As a museum, they also have access to archives, documents, and primary sources that are not readily available to the general public. Thatโs precisely why so many people regard them as a credible source on British armoured vehicles.
Dismissing everything theyโve said because of a couple of unrelated mistakes is not a reasonable argument. It ignores the quality of the evidence theyโve presented and does nothing to address the facts surrounding the Challenger Mk.3.
They will say โDSโ can stand for Desert Shield.
The deterrent deployment of multinational forces in Saudi Arabia, and operational build up in the 5-6 months before Desert Storm launched to liberate Kuwait.
But neither is really right for a British tank, since we called the whole thing Op. Granby
You guys are giving them the perfect excuse not to implement this. Some of the replies here only make it easier for them to dismiss a straightforward historical correction instead of putting in the effort to implement it.
I know some of you want to see this added to the game, but replies like these push the discussion backwards instead of forwards. If we want this change to happen, we should be presenting the strongest historical evidence possible, not arguments that undermine the case ourselves.
From what Iโve seen in previous discussions, including the F-14D thread, Gaijin is often quick to adopt arguments that justify leaving things as they are. Thatโs why itโs important not to hand them those arguments ourselves.
The Tank Museum is wrong all the time. Are they a good source for general knowledge or beginners? Sure. But when you actually look deeper into a lot of their publications and videos itโs poorly researched.
They also have a track record of disposing archival information. Letting vehicles rot away to later be scrapped, and also scrapping unique one-of-a-kind vehicles.
Take a hint from the last comment. Gaijin may not be aware of this, and they wonโt want to make themselves look foolish if the evidence is credible. Thereโs still a chance theyโll accept it, so thereโs no need to add fuel to the fire.
Even then, The Tank Museum is still a far more credible source than the vast majority of surface level information youโll find on the internet. It would reflect poorly on the company to dismiss well researched material produced by a respected museum, especially when one of Gaijinโs competitors has worked with them on historical content.
Do you not see that Smin1080p_WT came up with an on the spot excuse to avoid fixing these tanks?
Donโt be one of the guys who ruins everyone elseโs chances of getting the Challengers fixed by adding fuel to the fire. (Iโll be deleting this shortly and I hope you do the same, please take a hint next time)
Look, Iโm not saying the Tank Museum is the worst organisation in the world. Just that they arenโt perfect like many people make them seem.
That may be true, but Gaijin also has a reputation for using any excuse not to make a change unless thereโs significant community backlash pushing them to do so.
They wonโt even add the 20 round ready rack for the MK.3s
Donโt give them premium ideas
If you actually took the time to read the suggestions, youโd see theyโre focused on improving neglected tech tree and premium vehicles. Nobody is asking for more premium vehicles. The requests are about correcting historical inaccuracies and making existing vehicles more worthwhile to play.
Maybe if you took the time to click on my forum account, you would see that I have 17 hours of read time for a reason.
Sorry, but I donโt read Israeli ground forces suggestions, so please spare me the Terminator APFSDS talk.
Maybe if you stopped with the time talk and actually read various suggestions instead of preaching about something you donโt follow, you would see that they indeed do ask for premiums.
You know the forums are not the place for this, right?
What the actual hell are you talking about, lad? This discussion is about the Challenger tanks. Nobody is asking for a new premium or a buff for the BMPT. The request is simply to give both the tech tree and premium Challengers the option to remove their additional armour as a modification.
What youโre talking about is completely unrelated. Iโm guessing you replied to the wrong suggestion because nobody here has mentioned any of that.
Donโt be dense and actually read the discussion before replying. ๐ซต๐น
