Thats the issue as most modern stuff won’t have specifics due to being classified
So do you want people to leak classified documents?
2 Likes
This is very much not the case. We have clear rules on classified or restricted information: Source Material: Restrictions on Classified and Export Restricted information (“Military Restrictions”) - We will never use or even accept them.
The article from the developers was also very clear, only open public information will ever be used: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
Okay, so you want hard numbers, but dont want classified data. Do you see how this is very contradictory in applying armor to the most modern of tanks available?
7 Likes
This is why for modern vehicles, all types of open sources are taken into consideration: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EW6R1oAa8oHa
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vKbtHoAXTKCB
Community Bug Reporting System (this one is a bit different)
Community Bug Reporting System (“know about document”, then why isn’t it used?)
Community Bug Reporting System
Community Bug Reporting System (forwarded, no answer)
Community Bug Reporting System (links to spall liner post that talks about Swedish document, but not why the values in it aren’t used)
Community Bug Reporting System (again links to spall liner post.)
so many posts without concrete answers. the values in documents are not represented in game, but documents are used?
and no information on why the values in game are different from documents.
2 Likes
but ignored in favour of a 30 year old source that has no relation with the 2a7v anymore.
I clearly states that its improvement, but if gajin doesnt wanna upgrade them to strongly at least give them the same armor as the Strv122, but all sources state pretty much that the leo 2a7v would have stronger protection then the Strv122s, for balance reasons that would be ok, but stating it cant be like that is just wrong
8 Likes
There was an ekhem, something something (if you know what I mean) in regards to 2A5s protection sometime ago, it was cough reported via using the tables from the Swedish Trials and umm, it was rejected cus some guy on a Nii Stali forum said those “numbers” are impossible to achieve.
(They rejected a report to fix 2A5s protection because they don’t believe it could’ve achieved those protection levels… yea).
3 Likes
That’s the case. For most modern MBT there are literally 0 primary sources about exact protection but somehow Gaijin could “assume” protection for those tanks. People dug out every possible source they could just to provide information but is often rejected or provided as suggestion. “Suggestion” means:
A. We don’t give a fuck
B. For balance reasons we can’t
C. We will consider when it is needed.
And often after this being suggested is often forgotten. Like PSO reports about spallliners and missing NERA hull armour at its sides. Like Abrams intense spalling, turret ring issue and missing armour at LFP directly at fuel tanks.
Also many report that are suggested are still viable, as report based on Swedish trials about Leopard’s armor but are just ignored. We know that Devs could not do everything at once.
1 Like
Gaijin: We want only the most applicable and data specific numbers for bug reports
Also Gaijin: Well we believe…, we asssume…, we dont think that…
3 Likes
This has been forwarded as a suggestion. It has not been rejected.
This is a duplicate and explained in the last comment as to why it was not accepted.
These reports have not been forwarded yet, so has no response from the developers. They have not been rejected.
Forwarded reports that do not have an answer are under review. Answers are posted once the report is concluded.
The spall liners posts includes the developers answer on the Leopard 2A7V report that came out after this report was posted. The report itself has no references or material.
This report was the main one that lead to the response being created in the article. Hence why it was posted as an answer in response.
1 Like
lol
xD
Their response was a “nu uh” even after we showed them the protection level cannot possibly only match a prototype from 1992 (duh, completely different internal armours…). How do you even expect us to react?
9 Likes
So… talk about specific threats is insufficient?
360° RPG protection → at minimum 300mm of HEAT protection
Older armour has been tested against PG-7Ns which have ~400mm of penetration.
Mentions of medium caliber APFSDS is also insufficient?
Very, very strange reasoning.
5 Likes
STANAG protection levels are an utterly alien concept to Gaijin
resistant to 30mm APDS/APFSDS means 30mm KE effectiveness
2 Likes
So, you say that we can use secondary sources, but then tell us without hard numbers it can’t be used and when we do give hard numbers, it’s treated as a “suggestion”?
3 Likes
All modern MBT protection reports have always been considered as a suggestion: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
I do like how this question was ignored
1 Like
Yeah, so they can cherry pick what they want to introduce.
Then why even bother making posts saying they care about modern vehicles and listen to us?
Also, so we’re clear about this, “modern MBT” means what exactly?
the middle one of the three has been rejected, the others, no answer. and no answer is part of my personal issue.
the response in the spall liner post was " In the case of the protection of the Leopard 2A7V, we rely on information about the Leopard 2 armor package presented at the Swedish tender. We have no reliable evidence that armor enhancements compared to the prototype submitted to the Swedish tender were ever carried out, nor the level to which the armor could have been enhanced if this had been done, so at this time we don’t believe that it’s possible to further enhance the protection of this tank."
so if they use that document. why are the numbers different in game from the ones in the document?
this is our main question. reports made with that document has been met with “already answered in spall liner post”. when that is clearly not the case.
3 Likes
Riddle me this Batman;
- you want hard numbers
- you can’t accept primary sources (since those tend to be restricted/classified)
- secondary sources will only be treated as a suggestion (even if they provide numbers in one form or another)
And when we provide some of those (where they can give a general idea of what’s possible), it is rejected on the basis of “well, the Swedish Trials says this”, the playerbase checks out their claims and call them out on lying…?
Well, that’s some Tier 9 hypocrisy if I’ve ever seen one.
Spamming the link to that 2021 article (which IS outdated by now in terms of what’s in the game or not) is not going to magically explain wtf the devs are doing.
8 Likes