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.
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.
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
Nobodyโs being forced to be here. Youโre in a thread about the Challenger tanks, so if youโve chosen to join the discussion, itโs because youโre interested in them being improved. Itโs not rocket science.
I donโt mean to be that guy, but what is a level 6 doing lecturing people about this tank? Is this some kind of burner account? I even tried messaging you about it, but if you still canโt understand the point, then just kick rocks.
They recently added this option for the Scimitar, so thereโs no clear reason why a similar approach couldnโt be considered for the Challengers.
You might want to look at this
Hello
This post explains exactly what I said above:
I am unsure because I am not Smin, but if we look at Sminโs comment,
I assume โGaijin made Challenger DSโ based on โa specific Desert Storm tank that was driven without an additional armour package for a specific duration when it got its own package.โ
Maybe that is why Gaijin says no? When they can, if they want to, if we rely on their other standard such as 'technical compatibility '.
I understand your point. This guy doesnโt have full control over everything, but I believe he can still make a really small difference and potentially help get the issue fixed in the future. For a tank thatโs supposed to represent one that served in Operation Granby, this multi million dollar company has done a pretty poor job of researching it.
As for the name, theyโve shown that theyโre willing to make changes to improve historical accuracy, such as the recent name change for the Leopard 1 equipped with the L/44.
Well, if we get it, I might be happy, butโฆ justโฆ
My expectations went straight down under, went underground enough to visit the Ministry of Magic. :/
They gave this tank an updated damage model but didnโt bother adding any of the things I mentioned or improving the ready rack you researched years ago.
*Edit: Flame2512โs research
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m22cZZxaNPXJ
It very much does:
The version we have in game is based on the period before it was fitted with the extra armour. As I previously already explained to you, this was not a historical dispute over any lack of evidence the tank could / did carry this armour. Simply the version chosen to be represented in game by the devs was before that armour was fitted.
