Gaijin needs to apply a consistent standard to vehicle equipment and technical corrections. Technical compatibility can be enough in one case, while the exact equipment used by a particular country is decisive in another. Players who submit reports are then left trying to work out which rule applies and whether an accepted report will ever lead to a change.
I want clearer answers to the examples below. Each one has a public report or an official response that can be checked.
- Technical compatibility and national equipment
On 8 December 2025, Smin confirmed that Gaijin had no plans to remove the Kh-38 from the Malaysian Su-30MKM. His explanation was that weapons could be considered when technically possible and that the Kh-38 had been offered to export customers. That explains why Gaijin included it, without establishing that Malaysia operated it. [1]
In the German Typhoon discussion on 12 December 2024, the explanation was different. Smin said that the absence of IRST distinguished Luftwaffe service aircraft from other national variants, and that preserving those differences mattered for gameplay. The German test aircraft with IRST could be suggested separately. [2]
These are different aircraft and different integration questions. Even so, the selection rule needs explaining. When does technical compatibility justify equipment that was not used by the operator, and when does the national service configuration take priority? If software, a particular production standard or balance makes the difference, say which one. Players should not have to infer a new rule from each individual reply.
- The Leopard 2A8 brochure needs a consistent reading
The Leopard 2A8 gun-angle report asked for the development-server values to change from -9/+20 degrees to the -7.4/+17.4 degrees in the KNDS brochure. It was accepted and later marked fixed. On 2 November, Smin confirmed that the change came from this report and its manufacturer source. [3]
A weight report based on the same brochure was closed as not enough info because the vehicle in the photograph lacked side screens and therefore did not match the game configuration. The brochure actually says 61.5-64.3 tonnes; the weight report’s 64.5-tonne figure was a misquotation. [4]
Different equipment can explain a different weight. But once a mismatch between the brochure and the game model has been identified, Gaijin should explain which configuration its gun-angle figures describe and why those figures still apply. The old KMW 2A7NO website already listed the same angles in January 2022. Their appearance in older material warrants checking, although it does not by itself prove that the 2A8 figures are wrong. [5]
I have not found a direct manufacturer or military technical document establishing -9 degrees for the production 2A8. The camera explanation and the moderator’s suggestion of internal breech or turret differences both need supporting evidence. The practical question is what limits the gun on the configuration represented in the game: mechanical travel, the stabilized operating range or a safety restriction?
There is also a sourcing question here. Gaijin’s general historical-report guidance, restated by Smin in May 2026, allows an OEM manual or at least two unrelated authored sources. The 2A8 moderator said a primary source could only be challenged by another primary source. If counter-evidence has to meet a different requirement, that requirement should be published alongside the general rules. [3, 6]
- Gun-handling figures need one method
The Type 10 reports provide a more specific example than simply comparing vehicle stat cards. In report xnXj771yQijx, the final ruling said aiming speed should use the maximum available to the gunner, rather than the mechanical maximum used for stabilization. The request for 47 degrees per second was closed as not a bug, and its earlier accepted label was removed. [7]
In the follow-up, syvBNBNQ8wCb, the moderator repeated that rule but also acknowledged that vertical guidance speeds on several MBTs might be higher than the speeds actually used, and said the developers did not want to make drastic changes to individual vehicles before studying it. [8]
These are older reports. What came of that review? Which vehicles have since been checked against the stated rule? This also matters when players ask about Challenger 2 gun handling. An explanation based on normal gunner controls should use the same method across comparable vehicles. A higher stabilizer speed or a commander’s sight speed does not, on its own, prove the Type 10 should receive 47 degrees per second.
- Accepted reports need an answer players can find
Four reports remained OPEN with an accepted label when checked:
Challenger 3 (TD), old Challenger 2 turret damage model: mWd3XAjD2kZu. This is especially hard to understand because Smin acknowledged in June 2026 that a correction had later been incorrectly reverted. The public report is still open. What remains to be done to restore the correct model? [9]
Type 10, TKX and TKX(P), steering behaviour: OKu3KDR8Sx85. On 21 October 2025, a player linked this report when asking about progress, and Smin replied that there was no new information. The original report is still OPEN/accepted. It concerns sharp speed loss and pivot-like behaviour during turns, separate from the gun-handling reports above. What has happened since that 2025 follow-up? [24]
ZTZ99A and WZ1001(E), different protection between the two turret cheeks: AbPBpJwYQdED. The information was forwarded to the developers. Is the difference intentional, a misleading display or a model error awaiting correction? [10]
Challenger 2 TES/OES, ammunition positions: qZAtZXFlUseB. The author was asked for the complete source, supplied it, and had the report accepted and forwarded again. What was the result of that investigation? This configuration-specific report is separate from the general Challenger four-charge ready-rack dispute. [11]
An open tracker entry does not prove the behaviour of the latest client. If these issues have already been corrected, link the fix and update the report. If they remain outstanding, explain the obstacle. Either response is more useful than leaving the same forwarded message there indefinitely.
There are also closed reports that still carry accepted labels: the ZTZ99A loader height, the Chinese multi-vehicle liner report, particular VT5 liner sections and the Challenger lower-front-hull liner. Some reports cover several vehicles, and the July 2026 follow-up explicitly distinguished the VT4’s liner changes from the remaining ZTZ complaints. Each affected vehicle needs its own outcome. [12]
The Leopard 2 PSO has another long-running armour report, h0shkOiAUZbq. It argues that the 2A6EX Demo 2/TVM max chassis should have D-Tech internal hull composites. This concerns the base hull armour, separate from the request for an optional external front armour plate. The report is CLOSED/accepted, with the moderator’s reply saying it was submitted as a suggestion. It was already being linked in December 2023. On 3 September 2026, Smin confirmed that it had been forwarded and that the developers still had to review it and reach a conclusion. The public report gives no final review result or linked fix version. What did that review establish, and is a hull-armour change planned? [19]
The Boxer MGS hull-liner report, hSiewRvo43mZ, illustrates another problem with the labels. It is CLOSED/accepted, but the moderator specifically forwarded it as a suggestion. Separately, in a March 2026 discussion about liners on other Boxer variants, Smin said the report had been raised again to check its current validity. That follow-up should be linked to the relevant report. Acceptance as a suggestion does not establish a confirmed bug or promise a particular implementation. [13]
The Israeli tree has similar unresolved public records. The Merkava 4 armour report, 1eYOWMuJWJ3n, is CLOSED/accepted. Its last moderator reply says it was connected to internal reports to track progress. The page shows that reply as three years old, but gives no final technical decision or linked fix. Which parts of the armour model were reviewed, and what changed? The author’s proposed armour composition and protection figures still need independent support; the accepted label cannot establish those figures. [20]
The Eitan prototype armour report, BOO54KbfXrtC, is also CLOSED/accepted. It cites an Israeli Ministry of Defense video to identify modular armour sections, while inferring their internal composition. The moderator accepted it as a suggestion under the modern-armour policy. It would help to know which sections were assessed and what the developers concluded. A photograph or promotional video can establish that a module exists without establishing its precise protection. [21]
France’s Leclerc liner report, R0WAU20QgIes, remains CLOSED/accepted after being forwarded. The author later acknowledged that private correspondence had not supplied enough detail to meet the developers’ requirements. That limitation belongs in the discussion. Gaijin should identify what public evidence is still needed and whether the report remains under consideration. Leaving the accepted label in place does not tell French players whether the matter is pending or has reached a decision. [22]
The Ariete discussion also needs its history kept visible. On 2 March 2025, Smin said the armour report had been raised again. On 14 March, he explained that forwarded suggestions were closed and that later evidence needed a new submission because edits did not automatically reach the internal report. He also confirmed that two suitable, independent secondary sources could be used. The March 2026 changelog subsequently recorded armour geometry and parameter changes. That rules out saying the Ariete was never changed, but the report should identify which requests those changes addressed and which remain unresolved. [25]
Players should be able to tell whether a report was fixed, partly fixed, rejected after review or kept as a suggestion. At present, the labels often leave that answer unclear.
- New damage systems need a clear list of affected vehicles
The October 2026 development blog makes this more urgent. Gaijin announced separate FCS and electrical-system modules, manual loading for autoloader-equipped tanks with that capability, and functional APUs. Electrical damage is intended to disable equipment including the stabilizer, warning systems and autoloader. These changes were announced for the next major update and should be discussed as development-server work until released. [14]
This concern goes back to 7 March 2025. Gaijin justified linking the Abrams and Leopard turret-basket area to horizontal aiming partly as a gameplay decision: penetrating the centre of a tank should have a meaningful effect. It also cited electrical, hydraulic and structural reasons, said the damage model was smaller than the X-ray display, and explained that baskets could not all arrive together. [15]
The 2025 rollout needs an updated list of affected vehicles. For each stage, identify the new damage dependencies and what still works after a module is damaged, including manual aiming, manual loading and backup power where applicable. Comparable vehicles should be tested under the same conditions, with their actual design determining which functions fail. The list should also explain which vehicles are still waiting for the new modules.
- Better explanations are possible
Gaijin has already shown what a useful technical explanation can look like. The December 2025 autoloader review explained its earlier interpretation, why that interpretation changed, which tanks were affected and which sources were used. It also distinguished the T-80BVM’s longer ammunition from the normal loading cycle. That level of detail should be the normal way to explain disputed modelling changes. [16]
The replies on 26 December 2025 raised a further question. Smin described the autoloader changes as historical corrections, while explaining that the Leopard 2s did not need a reload reduction because of their performance. Those can be different decisions, but players need to know where the distinction is drawn. If loading rates can also be adjusted for balance, identify the vehicles affected and the reason for each exception. A correction based on a documented mechanical cycle and a deliberate balance adjustment should be explained separately. [26]
The June 2026 Abrams explanation provides a useful comparison for armour estimates. Gaijin said the exact SEP V3 hull protection was unknown, but used the available weight and geometry evidence to justify an estimated improvement. That makes the question for the PSO, Merkava and Eitan reports more concrete: what evidence permits an estimate, and what prevents one? Publish the same assessment method for each. The 24 June changelog also records M1A1 hull and turret steel becoming volumetric. Earlier Abrams complaints therefore need to identify what remains after those changes, rather than claim nothing was ever corrected. [23]
Gaijin also acknowledged the misleading use of Not a Bug labels in December 2023. Its modern-armour policy distinguishes estimates submitted as suggestions from actual damage-model bugs. Those distinctions should be visible in individual replies. [17]
On 26 December 2025, Smin said the Challenger reload and ready-rack questions would be reviewed separately from the autoloader changes. In October 2026, he said the older ready-rack reports had been reviewed but needed fuller documentation because the information conflicted. That later reply must be acknowledged; claiming those reports were never looked at would be inaccurate. The remaining question is what public evidence would resolve the conflict. [18, 26]
What I want Gaijin to do
- Explain when national service equipment, technical compatibility and balance determine a vehicle’s configuration.
- Identify the configuration and source behind disputed changes, including the Leopard 2A8 angles.
- Publish the current method for gun-laying speeds and the result of the review mentioned in the Type 10 reports.
- Give accepted reports a clear outcome, including the affected vehicles, a fix version or a reason for the decision, and the evidence needed for an armour estimate.
- Publish the vehicle coverage and backup functions for new damage mechanics as they are introduced.
Players spend time finding documents, checking models and responding to requests for more information. They deserve an answer that follows the same rules regardless of which vehicle they are reporting. Historical accuracy and gameplay decisions are much easier to accept when Gaijin explains where one ends and the other begins.
Sources
[1] Su-30MKM/Kh-38: official reply and development article
[2] German Typhoon IRST: official reply, 12 December 2024
[3] Leopard 2A8 angles: original report and official explanation
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7cYiyx4JXS6Q
[4] Leopard 2A8 weight report and KNDS brochure, PDF page 8
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/In55on0dtdRF
[5] KMW 2A7NO official website, archived 9 January 2022
[6] Official source requirements, restated 13 May 2026
[7] Type 10: gunner aiming-speed rule
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xnXj771yQijx
[8] Type 10 follow-up: moderator discussion of MBT vertical speeds
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/syvBNBNQ8wCb
[9] Challenger 3 turret model: accepted report and official acknowledgement of reversion
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mWd3XAjD2kZu
[10] ZTZ99A/WZ1001(E) turret-cheek report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/AbPBpJwYQdED
[11] Challenger 2 TES/OES ammunition positions
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qZAtZXFlUseB
[12] Closed/accepted reports and July 2026 follow-up
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aCvur3pO1tmd
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u1eWnPupv39Y
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lD00myi2QWZu
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/S3xGexRIXPBx
[13] Boxer MGS accepted suggestion and official March 2026 follow-up
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hSiewRvo43mZ
[14] New Modules for Ground Vehicles!, 29 October 2026
[15] Official turret-basket explanation, March 2025
[16] Official autoloader review, 25 December 2025
[17] Reporting-label clarification and modern-armour reporting policy
[18] Challenger ready-rack review response, 27 October 2026
[19] Leopard 2 PSO internal hull armour: accepted suggestion, December 2023 discussion and September 2026 official follow-up
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/h0shkOiAUZbq
[20] Merkava 4 armour report: accepted and connected to internal tracking
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1eYOWMuJWJ3n
[21] Eitan prototype armour: accepted as a suggestion
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BOO54KbfXrtC
[22] Leclerc spall-liner report: accepted, with an acknowledged evidence gap
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R0WAU20QgIes
[23] Abrams hull-armour assessment, 19 June 2026, and Heavy Cavalry changelog, 24 June 2026
[24] Type 10/TKX steering: accepted report and official progress reply, 21 October 2025
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OKu3KDR8Sx85
[25] Ariete armour: 2025 follow-up and submission rules, followed by the March 2026 changes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MA8ugNxKkXQm
[26] Reload corrections, balance and a separate Challenger review: official replies, 26 December 2025