look like i need to join a Bundeswehr and tell them what it looks like seriously even idiots are smarter than them.
2 Likes
İt feels like we returned to 2015-2016 where Gaijin refused almost every single report about Nato vehicles.
@Smin1080p sorry but this is unaccaptable, if you guys will refuse any kind of report without even checking properly then whats the point of creating them in the first place.
1 Like
In most cases create bugreport is a useless thing…
The report on 2A7 has been accepted a month ago:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/JoVCTLEehFPa
Moreover, there is another report on 2A7V that has been accepted in December:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zCstA0RVXsVm
There is no point in creating more reports about the same issue over and over again.
3 Likes
Great!! there a question i think people love to know.
“When it gonna get fix according to source?”
you see Furina keep doing his best to get thing correctly and now it too long now thing still don’t get fix.
3 Likes
Which none of them contains information about hull armor protection.
You guys claimed 30 year old new tank has lower kinetic resistance then Strv122 on one of the bug reports which is very laughable.
Why should anyone trust you and gaijin if you guys constantly ignore reality and take actions based on your bad assumptions?
2 Likes
Neither report is about the core issue. Overall protection (which includes the hull protection).
My new report was exactly that, but also had more information to it i.e Germany and Sweden using the same armour packages since 1995, to prove that there is no magical “Swedish protection”, but a common standard shared by both countries, hence there should be no difference at worst.
In fact my report also containted information on the Strv 122…
Aside from that, you banned me from the report site for no reason what’so’ever. Instead of adding new information to the pile, you reject it and temp-ban the poster… great.
12 Likes
Agreed. Can you please make a separate report on hull protection? Without duplicating your previous reports on the turret. Making duplicates, even partially, only confuses. We already have too much reports on Leopards’ protection.
Also, there is no need to mention this issue:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8ZZ3zEYPq9GV
2 Likes
I… have?
This new report that you closed includes the information already about that (albeit not all that I posses), the bit about the turret is only an extra.
In fact all the sources are about how the Strv 122 & German Leopard 2s starting the 2A5 share armour packages, both internal AND external, and they address the core issue, the newest German variant for some unexplainable reason is just worse despite having 100% identical armour…
Like, y’know, could have filtered information that’s useful and forwarded that, would’ve made it a lot easier for both of us.
6 Likes
About half your report is about a turret. Also it’s impossible to understand from the report which pictures came from which source.
The pictures are scattered and not labeled properly.
1 Like
What’s the problem with it being partly about the turret? It’s still new information not included in previous reports, and it ties with the general problem of the 2A7V being worse protected than the TVM still.
If you had a problem with understanding which source is being mentioned, simply ask about it? I would’ve bern more than happy to explain in the report or in DMs…
Generally it’s a limitation of the website, if we could include pictures with the text, we’d pin the front page under the source’s talked about.
5 Likes
It’s better to make one report focused on the hull please. This keeps it spesific to that matter.
2 Likes
Okay then.
3 Likes
bro what :sob: aint no way man
haha, cant wait to see someone drive a A7V into gaijins office…
(Im kidding ofc…)
1 Like
The fact you still have the patience and drive to make reports is incredible
This also coincides with “we want accurate hard numbers for reports” “but also don’t leak classified data plz”
3 Likes
I’m not…
Wow, reading trought this thread was depressing. How much effort was put into reports just to get them ignored and even the person that made the report banned from the bug reporting sight? Just what in the world is this…
4 Likes
i mean, its unfortunate, but at this point, its par for the course. Russia has nothing to compete with at top tier anymore, so Gaijin will never model NATO vehicles correctly, and will continue to selectively interpret every source they get.
No amount of primary sources, or even outright visual evidence will change their mind. Case in point:
"External composite with NERA elements" in-game, with a modifier of 0.16x vs KE (ie: MASSIVE artificial nerf to the Leo 2 turrets):
The block irl is pretty clearly almost 100% steel, either RHA or HHA, but in-game, its worse than rubber (0.16x KE modifier vs 0.2x KE modifier). This leads to unusual weakness of the Leo 2/Strv122 turret/mantlet, particularly at angles. The blocks were specifically added over the old 2A4 mantlet to drastically reduce the portion of the turret front that could be considered a weakspot, and even the mantlet itself was massively improved, yet here we stand, with pictures of blocks of steel that gaijin models as blocks of styrofoam, while they lament the playerbase being “too harsh” on them.
Gaijin should remove the bug report site, its a complete and total waste of time for players.
9 Likes