The full article linking to how reports are accepted and processed has been linked several times now. There is nothing further I can add to that. So not ignored, just already covered above.
All reports are taken into consideration and reviewed that meet the criteria: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
If they are not accepted, its answered within the report as to why that is.
Funny thing is… You’d have to be blind not to see how 2A5 and later add-on armour was improved compared to TVM…
2 Likes
That’s different level of plot from Gaijin. They state that this is used but of course every Leopard is still underperforming in the game. They could just say " hey for balance reasons we can’t just give it protection that is listed in this documents because they are good in the game right now" but of course for some reason SWE leopards are better protected than GER with explanation " SWE could provide better NERA for Leopard on 1990, but GER can do it in 2020" XDD it’s just ridiculous and it started being like that from the SEPv2 introduction and your answers in the blogs are just irrational at this point.
3 Likes
The link to the article explains how modern MBT reports are handled and accepted. There is no further information I can add to that beyond what is already covered in detail there.
If there is new material to be forwarded, we can indeed assist in any way we can in the report making process and pass that on for consideration. However at the moment this discussion appears to being going round in circular motions.
How about using the material thats already been given (like the swedish trials the devs seem to think its the catchall answer to everything, including tanks introduced TWENTY YEARS after the trials where held) correctly? Numerous people here have already pointed out the in-game tanks are not up to the levels the Swedish trial had lined out, so lets start with that
2 Likes
@Smin1080p do you at least got informations about the promised new Damage Model for the Leopard 2s or while we are at it the Challenger 2 reworks?
2 Likes
Indeed it does.
It seems like the devs are of the opinion that none of the information we provide matters and that they are the highest authority when it comes to modern vehicle protection even though they don’t even know basic things.
They even show false information on their articles which has been disproven by us multiple times.
It doesn’t exactly take a genius to figure out that the protection analysis screenshots of theirs were not even remotely close to what is actually the case.
I guess it’s time to wait another few years and maybe hope some change happens in leadership or devs so we can have a reasonable discussion.
2 Likes
At the moment we do not have any further news to report, as any DM reworks would likely take place in a major update.
Regarding the Challenger 2, as we previously mentioned, we plan a full article to cover the concerns raised.
1 Like
Here, originally Strv 122 & Leopard 2A5 used 4th generation add-on armour (lets assume that’s 320mm of KE protection, since that’s what it needs to provide the 750mm KE RHAe resistance for an Strv 122 with C-technology), it was very clearly superseded by 5th and 6th generations armour (both of which are related to AMAP).
This isn’t a flawless way of doing this by any means, but for the sake of the argument, extrapolating based on the vertical poles, 6th generation armour will provide 40% better KE protection, or for what’s it is worth, 570mm of KE protection… (this is a very flawed way btw).
So why is the modern produced add-on armour (with 20+ years worth of development and R&D) by EODH (which handled the production of the exact same armour for the Leopard 2A6 HEL as they were a subsidiary of IBD, which btw was based on the Leopard 2A6EX that according to Frank Lobitz HAS THE SAME EXACT ARMOUR AS THE STRV 122!), WORSE? Can you explain why is it worse? Can you do it for all of us?
No hard feelings.
4 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8ZZ3zEYPq9GV
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zCstA0RVXsVm
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CY2WRdzq8Er3
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ddZK5o0O3v2r
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CY2WRdzq8Er3
All of these accepted and forwarded BEFORE the answer on the spall liner post.
Is there any way we can get updates on these?
1 Like
Well yes but in case of the Leo for example even this didn’t happen.
It’s still underperforming even according to the Swedish data.
4 Likes
You are testing the wrong thing there. Shot 930687 was at the turret cheek at a 20° angle. Not the hull at a 6° angle.
Again you’re testing the wrong thing. Shot 921161 & 921156 were both against the against the turret cheeks at 30° angles, not the hull.
The Leopards 2s are incorrect according to the Swedish trials (as shown by others), but your screenshots don’t prove anything.
Read the quote.
This was a comment by the devs.
Again you’re testing the wrong thing. Shot 921161 & 921156 were both against the against the turret cheeks at 30° angles, not the hull.
Again read what I was quoting.
Granted that was a 2-part comment (technically), so I don’t blame you for missing the context.
That quote was not in to post I was replying to. You posted the same images again later on without that context, hence the confusion.
Because they’re talking about the same reports. Sorry for the confusion though.
It’s hard to keep track of things when there are about three or four different lines of discussion running parallel in this thread currently.
As soon as the report has been reviewed and there is a response to share, we will indeed do so.
5 Likes
of course. i might have worded my question badly.
i was wondering if you have the ability to ask them directly.
or is the only option to just wait?
:)
Of course he can, but he won’t. They want cherry pick that suits them better and we can’t blame, it’s their game not ours.