I even see it differently from the usual trial vehicle. The way I see it a trial vehicle is like Pakistani Oplot-M, a foreign, unmodified vehicle tested for possible adoption.
But since the Oplot-P is a different variant specifically made for Pakistan I’d argue that it’s less like a trial vehicle since it is a unique tank for Pakistan.
Where’s that report tho, I got my piece of information available as a link, do u have anything that’s not in your head and is actually tangible by others?
Then again, if Gaijin chooses to be “logical” or “mathematical” (which isn’t necessarily realistic or balanced), shouldn’t the Chinese MBTs at least have something they are good at other than being ammo racked?
There is a lot of other things wrong with the tanks than just them using the same penetration formula as everyone else, like generally underperforming armor, autoloders being slower than in reality and missing spall liners. They’d already have a lot going for them if those were fixed.
Though I have heard the Chinese ammunition underperforms because the length of 587mm used in Gaijins calculation is too short and it should be 600mm. If this is true then it would also be better while still using the same calculation formula.
That I do agree with, the weak armor and stuff that comes from guestimation isn’t the main issue tho, the big one on top of those is stuff that’s obvious like the autoloader position.
The gun breach is totally not aligned with the autoloader, it’s a miracle everything even works.
Then what else? As of now the formula method seems to be the most fair. If we used brochure numbers anyone can accuse the numbers being inflated or wrong with no way to prove either side other than ‘trust me bro’.
With the formula, you don’t even need to have penetration values. You just need the round’s specifications like dimensions and material.
Should? Idk. I didn’t design them. They should be balanced in a way for gameplay purposes sure. The way to balance any vehicle is to buff/nerf or BR adjustment according to capabilities. Gaijin should add the missing spall liners to buff the tanks survivability. What do you think they should be good at? I’m not too knowledgeable with Chinese MBTs irl.
Should be obvious, yet in the bug report about fixing the VT-4A1 they instead announced the VT-4 autoloader would be lowered. I really hope it’s just the bug report moderator getting it mixed up, and Gaijin will just move the VT-4A1 autoloader up to the correct position.
Anything would be fine really, some of my friends just wanted it to be on par with the leopards (with no gun depression) by giving it more pen or better protection (ofc with correct autoloader position). I actually do find the autoloader speed somewhat reasonable, provided that we have a better shot.
All the Chinese want is it to be balanced, but right now they have sluggish load time, sub par pen, and missing features and model errors that screw up their survivability. If they have anything they’re good at please point them out since I really don’t see those.
I saw that one in this thread, and the dude who posted it was pretty proud of it. Makes me question what’s actually going on.
Hell is rampant with the souls of the silent.
I’d rather be loud and dead then silenced and alive.
I don’t care if it pisses people off. It’s the truth. If you cannot handle it, that is rough.
I say we put the VT4 in US tech tree as China itself has got a fair amount of US, UK, and Japanese based vehicles dating from all the way back to WW2, starting from the Taiwanese M8 LAC , all the way up to the M60A3 TTS, not mention the Pakistani Al-Khalid-I which should be under the UK tree.
Doesn’t work like that bud, VT4 in the Thai subtree in the Japanese Tech tree has logic, VT4 is just irrelevant to anything American.
This is just weird. I don’t see any logic in this, please give some reason for your madness.
if we didnt stop gaijin，now u will see VT4 in JP TT
Forget the vt-4 in the Thai subtree, it isn’t good of a vehicle anyways. Instead we could see far better vehicles from Malaysia:
Then I guess the question now is what’s actionable.
Pretty sure the spall liner is a must add, but I don’t know what the issue is with implementing it.
(Is it accepted for years and never implemented? Was the source unreliable? Was the bug report badly made? Or worse, was the source reliable but Gaijin doesn’t think so?)
Another thing was what MAUSWAFFE mentioned about DTC-10’s penetrator supposedly being 600mm long but that’s not the number Gaijin used. Is there no declassified document showing it to be 600mm in length for the penetrator?
And just to clear things up for the rest who hasn’t been keeping up. Which vehicles are the ones that need fixing? I’m pretty sure Rank VII (7) and above are the ones in question right?
PS: The British Raj spanned India Pakistan Bangladesh Myanmar and even bits of Malaya and Somaliland. If India went to UK bcs of that relationship, who’s to say these others are any different. I feel like India could be grouped with some other countries to make a seperate tree tho. Them alone isn’t enough.
I dont, but i remember that some ppl asked gaijin which specs did it use for it. Meaning they have or use some of known information based on brochures or the open data.
Devil’s advocate here. I’m not sure it’s admissible to Gaijin…
This is from 3 years ago. Community Bug Reporting System
And wasn’t that a classified leak? I remembered seeing that pic from a leaks discussion. If it is… unfortunately it’s not admissible either…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Hr982185S8Vh
This is even better written despite not having official sources. It’s all individual calculations and without something saying the round is DTC-10 125, the measuring tape beside it means nothing.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tLls7xIilg1a
Again, Photos from unstated sources doesn’t count according to Gaijin.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/M0xsVo00Pnk9
This is just terrible.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/q0rjuuSg5f8l
This is likely true but with no hard evidence it’s guessing.
Possible solutions: If getting official data is not possible at this time… Y’all could ask for a change in the acceptance criteria for bug reports. That’s the only other foreseeable solution. That could open a whole new can of worms. Might even backfire and be used to buff other already strong tanks.
you didn’t stop anything, VT-4 was always delayed. Did you stop the VN-1C too?
We need action, not words. This announcement shows that gaijin don’t think he is wrong and don‘t want to make any changes.
The core goal of Chinese players has always been to resolve the ongoing problems facing the Chinese tech tree. You cannot keep diverting the conversation with unrelated remarks to avoid addressing these concerns.
