As expected, no response.
Lol no,thier tanks are fine. Compared to isreal and italy, more amour, better reload, better mobility and better cas / cap. Dont just look at WR go look at the actuall tanks.
I might be wrong, but I think you have the “upper hull” and “glacis” backwards, that aside, its pretty obvious gaijin is outright blatantly lying about their protection for the late leo 2’s matching the swedish trials, and that the entire leo 2’s are underperforming
I rather suspect that they got those two terms wrong in the document itself.
Otherwise, the armour values don’t make any sense.
The developers provided a full article concerning reports on modern MBTs in 2021, detailing how these reports are handled and how modern armour is created: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
1 Like
They should update them. Their rules are quite frankly outdated (how do you expect us to properly report newer vehicles when “primary sourcing” is simply not available, better yet, the current reports are all treated as mere suggestions that they can reject on a whim…).
Aside from that I love how Necron’s questions were basically dodged.
14 Likes
But this has turned out to be a big fat lie.
I’m sorry to be so blunt about this, but PRIMARY source material is being dismissed or not acted upon. Even worse than that, the armour values in-game don’t even match the sources Gaijin claim they use.
Gaijin claims:
‘‘We will consider every protection report that is made in compliance with the general guidelines and contains general, evaluative information from secondary sources, such as monographs, articles, and studies.’’
Here’s a concrete example, the following source was used as the basis of a bug report: https://www.ointres.se/2011-03-18_pansar_strv122b.pdf
This is an article written by the literal head of the program which concerns the Strv 122B+, it concretely states armour improvements over the previous Strv 122 models were carried out.
As a response to this bug report, the following was said:
''Not a bug. No information was provided on how much protection should be increased or the thickness of the “new” additional protection blocks. Errors related to the protection of the armor of modern tanks are accepted only if there is information about protection in units of measurement (mm, cm, inch, etc.)‘’
So what the hell happened to the following statements by Gaijin?!
''We are unable to just rely on primary sources in the reports, since in most cases concerning modern MBT’s, such sources are likely to be classified.
Therefore, like the projectile penetration formula, a different approach has been adopted. The protection in an armoured vehicle is a model based on available open information. In some cases, it might be calculated based on publicly available data. Examples are photos and videos of destroyed vehicles. In other cases, protection will be assessed only on the appearance of the vehicle, the location and size of the armour modules, as well as possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle.‘’
11 Likes
As mentioned in the article, all reports with all the valid materials listed are taken into consideration as suggestions and reviewed by the developers. If the information is not sufficient to lead to a change, the response from the developers as to why will be shared.
As you highlighted here:
Every report will be taken into consideration and reviewed.
Fun fact… you could probably extrapolate the protection for AMAP (5th generation passive protection per IBD, 4th generation is the MEXAS-H that Leopard 2A5/Strv 122 use) from this:
2 Likes
''Not a bug.
No information was provided on how much protection should be increased or the thickness of the “new” additional protection blocks’’
That’s the response you get when trying to bug report armour issues.
Gaijin wants hard numbers, and unless hard armour values are provided, you’re bein brickwalled. They won’t get any hard armour values because this is obviously classified for such modern machines.
In the article you have linked, Gaijin claims they would therefore use secondary sources and estimate armour based on any available data, because primary source material listing hard armour values aren’t publicly available (classified).
They contradict themselves.
9 Likes
As the article explains, in cases where hard numbers cannot be specifically obtained, then the next most primary or reliable sources that do provide some indicated or specified values will be used in order to base it on something.
Sadly sources that use words such as just “improved” or “enhanced” do not provide any clarity or means of which to make a change. So a report that does not provide any new values or clear indication of how much of an improvement there was, sadly cannot be used by the developers.
Then can you ask them why reports in the form of this (Leopard 2A7V discussion & bugs - #479 by Necrons31467) with sources they say they already use are dismissed and/or not actually used in game?
its very odd from a player/reporter point of view if we give appropriate material, good sources that are already used by the developers and to not have them then used in game. without any sort of explanation.
It’s extremely frustrating to not get any feedback on why something was not implemented when the source is so good that it is already used by them (and even talked about and referenced in one of the latest discussions on MGT armor and spall liners made by the devs). why would the numbers in that source then not be in game?
a response there would be nice.
5 Likes
our sources state" to the protection value of the arrowheard turret", thats a quite specific number.
Besides that the game just reached the point where we cant do that anymore, we just cant find the protection values of the newest vehicles anymore
The game needs to go with the times and change its approach in the matter
4 Likes
If you wish to submit a new report for consideration with your materials, we can certainly pass that on.
We do indeed always aim to answer every valid report with a reason as to why it was not accepted and in some cases have gone further in articles to explain in depth why the protection of a given vehicle is at the level it is. Unfortunately its simply not viable for a developer to review and respond to every single forum post or claim that a vehicle is incorrect. This is why we please ask for a report to be constructed with all materials and points in a singular place, that we can pass on for review.
the last one got straight deleted, since the devs didnt want to go trough it anymore
2 Likes
If the report contains material we have already reviewed and answered previously, then yes, that cannot be re-forwarded for consideration again after it has already been reviewed unless there is significant new information from which to support a new report.
But they don’t.
Simple as.
There are bug reports out of the M1A2 SEP missing turret side armour. There is primary source material in the form of U.S. budget allocation sheets giving a concrete value of +250% increase in turret side protection against CE.
Yet it seems even ‘‘250%’’ is too vague for Gaijin, so nothing has been done about it and they did not even bother addressing this in the article dedicated to the M1. Furthermore, the M1A2 SEP has been present in the game for around one and a half years now, time surely isn’t the issue here either.
Gaijin claims the Strv 122 armour is based off of the Swedish trails documents, however, when bug reports are made that indicate the armour does not even match the very source they claim to use, it get’s brickwalled and nothing is done about it.
6 Likes
we already have, several times, it is not being used, its not being implemented and its not being explanied. which is why i asked for you to check with them about why. i’ve seen several people make reports with sources Developers already use just for the reports to not be implemented.
I’m not saying “not a bug”, i’m saying it was sent to developers and then no answer or closed without implementation. we want to know why.
but we have not gotten an answer. only " we will implement to best of ability’s according to available sources". when the available sources say other numbers that’s a very confusing answer.
(Thanks for taking the time to answer btw!)
“At the same time, the turret’s resistance at heading angles of +/-20 degrees is exactly close to the resistance of the hull armour under frontal fire.”
Bruh. So close it’s off by nearly 90mm. That’s ignoring how that’s for a vehicle with significantly inferior armour configuration (B-technology & D-2 add-on).
Meanwhile here’s what the armour should be providing right now considering Germany & Sweden both used C-technology & MEXAS-H (D-technology) for their armour starting from the 2A5 (why would 2A7V downgrade to B-technology from that, especially when it received new inserts for the hull, so an upgrade from C-technology??)
Now the hull armour is off by an average of 100mm! If we shrink that to 20 degree arc for C-tech + D-technology configuration, we could probably get averages of 850mm…
1 Like
If you can please link specifically the reports that were closed with no answer at all, then we can investigate to find out why there was no response. Whenever a report is closed, it is generally always answered as to why.