yes, the PSO-VT has the L/55 among other things
Also looks like the UFP add-on armour doesn’t work. It doesn’t deflect APFSDS:
PSO vs DM53:
2A5 vs DM53:
…
1 Like
PSO is based on the hull of the 2A6EX Demo II, which had the addon armor.
You can easily see its the same hull by the Europowerpack
3 Likes
Made a report about the UFP armour:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ncMYvsutoHWu
5 Likes
PSO as many vehicles on Leo2 chassis is also suffering from the issue with tracks not being alligned with their damage model so I made a report. I posted it also in the devserver thread about it. I would greatly appreciate if any of you guys hit that ‘I have the same issue button!’ ^^ as I’m trying to make Gaijin fix this issue for over a year now. :(
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2qtVvvxJlcpP
2 Likes
Does anyone happen to have information on the Kampfpanzer 3 program and, more specifically, armour developed during the program?
Hold on, doesn’t this show that the Leopard 2K shouldn’t have a laser rangefinder? Only 2AV T20 had the EMES 13A1 with a LRF, and only 2AV T19 and T21 had the EMES 15, but the 2K T11 had the simple EMES 12 with no LRF? Or is the chart wrong?
The EMES 12 included both an optical rangefinder and a laser rangefinder. The german military was not convinced at the time that a laser rangefinder alone, would have been reliable enough. They insisted that an optical rangefinder has to be available to confirm the results of the laser rangefinder.
Do you have a source on this? I thought this was true for the EMES 13, but not the EMES 12.
“All turrets were equipped with the targeting- and observationdevice EMES 12 with an optical and laser rangefinder.”
2 Likes
Thank you!
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/lower-the-combat-rating-of-leopard-2a5-2a6-2pso-tanks-to-11-3-and-2pl-to-10-7-flarakrad-on-10-7-11-3/27852
And here is the topic for lowering br
Rather off-topic but also quite relevant to general situation of German vehicles:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/j8DtWpBmprkA
Armour bug on the Obj 279 reported 2 days ago - already fixed.
Armour bug on PSO reported 20 days ago - still not fixed.
Tons of armour bugs on Puma reported over a year ago - dream on.
Lmao.
8 Likes
write an tech mod theat they at least ackwnowledge the turret armor bughttps://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XiCcfMqhI0rQ
The bug report on the PSO hasnt even been acknowledged or even looked at. Shows where their priorities are…
the floating turret is acknowledged but wasnt even fixed before released
Smin didn’t even know there was a bug report on the MEXAS-H until I pinged him about it (granted it’s not his job but… when asked about it, and having had explained to him in the same comment what the issue is about, he still thought it was about the glacis add-on… lol).
Pinged him 2 times since then about it, complete silence.
To be fair, it won’t get fixed if it’s reported either anyway, so xd.
I have seen enough great and perfectly valid bug reports rejected not to care about them anymore.
“Not a bug.”
“It’s a balance decission.”
“No valid sources.”
“Not enough valid sources.”
“No specific enough details provided.”
Or, best case scenario:
“Forwarded to the devs.” (Proceeds to be forgotten for the next several months/years.)
3 Likes
The issue is, it’s objectively incorrect. The devs decided that only Gen number is a correct enough implementation when resolutions can vary drastically between even within generations… so while it may be “correct” on paper, it’s far from being actually, objectively correct.
Rejected reports are rejected for a reason, they didn’t get the right source, or they want to change the something with implemented as a gamified allowance. In either of these cases, the report will be rejected.
Then again, that’s the issue. There’s ALWAYS a reason, no matter how valid it is, under the current guidelines and criteria. There’s always an issue, it’s never enough, never good enough, never specific enough…
Then there’s stuff such as Leclerc bugs, acknowledged yet unfixed because “according to the statistics, Leclercs do well enough already so they don’t need any changes”. Arbitrary changes.
Merkava Mk.4 having the slowest reload in Top Tier when it should be on par with Challenger 2’s for “balance reasons”- like a tank they modelled with IPM1-level armor would be too overpowered if it also happened to have a functional rate of fire…
Etc, etc, etc.
3 Likes
Yeah, its very clear bug reports are handled at leisure and with an obvious preferential treatment for certain nations.
There’s even cases like with the AIM-54C where the low smoke motor has been bug reported and acknowledged ever since the missile made it on its original dev server, but the missile was omitted of the recent addition of low smoke motors to the AIM-9M, and more importantly (because its a missile that was previously in-game) the AGM-65D.
The fact the 65D retroactively got a low smoke motor without a bug report, but the 54C WITH an acknowledged bug report did not get one is pretty obvious proof that the devs quite frankly do not actually care to follow realism or even bother with the illusion of it anymore.
Things are implemented and “fixed” or “broken” when and where the devs feel like for whatever reason they feel like, and bug reporting has lost all reason, the only people who still trust the system are those who don’t bug report, or those who benefit from the devs current whims.