There was a 16% increase in hull protection even though it should have been at least 35%. AND it applied to earlier versions of the abrams but they only gave it to the sepv3
No idea, theres already like 100 new reports. But
what the report manager here states is just a plain lie. How can there be 2 numbers if the Brochure is definitely correct?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1gfPSJ51xitZ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/In55on0dtdRF
The answer is that the vehicle in the picture is not the same as we get in game so theyre acknowledging that they are 2 different versions and for the nerf its just the numbers as is but for the buff we need outside assumptions and educated guesses?
1 Like
Well, yeah?
Had it been the other way around i can guarantee that you would be mad if they didn’t use manufacturer data.
I don’t think i’ve ever personally seen this happen.
Could you link to the first two?
I’m guessing that the first one provides no sources and just speculates?
I’m guessing that the report is trying to make the limit -9 deg for both tanks? In that case the answer is correct. If there isn’t a report for making the Norwegian version have the newly found number (that is like 0.2-0.3 deg lower) then i recommend making one.
Having or not having optional side screens that can be changed relatively easily doesn’t mean it’s a different vehicle, just with and without an installed modification. Not sure what you mean by the rest.
Sure
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/U1TIoRawG4um
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/adfB92XaK4Et
Theyre essentially reports trying to show that the entire brochure is questionable at best.
How can it be correct? -7,4 is a different number than -7,67 so something doesnt add up aka its not clear that the brochure is correct otherwise we wouldnt have 2 conflicting primary sources.
Theyre not using the numbers regarding weight from the brochure due to differences that are not clearly stated in said brochure. Theyre using picture clues and context from different sources to deny the lower weight. The same is not being done with the depression figure and instead the numbers are just used as presented from the source despite other different numbers from primary sources being presented as well.
Something is not adding up.
4 Likes
Schrödinger’s Leopard.
2 Likes
I see… In that case, please take this.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MA8ugNxKkXQm
Having images of potentially a different tank in a brochure isn’t really proof that the numbers are wrong. Also, the 2A7V also has been shown to have the same vertical limits (if i remember correctly).
Trying to use third party sources to disprove a primary one is imo kind of odd. Of course the primary one has priority.
The second report is also really weird. It states things and then links to sources where those things aren’t actually said in the linked sources. I’m guessing someone made a report with AI and just trusted that it was correct and sent it.
Because it’s an answer to a report on trying to discredit the brochure. Not a report trying to make the Norwegian vehicle have the new number. You have to read the answer in the context of the report.
Here i’m not really sure to be honest. But i do see their logic in some way, if you add modules it’s going to weigh more. If the weight listed is for the standard configuration then any additions is going to be on top of that listed standard weight. But i’m not sure.
good old pick and choose bs as always sry but no more respect for the Devs
1 Like
Was accepted and sent as a suggestion. Wasn’t denied.
yea not denied just ignored like the promised DM rework 3 years ago WE HAD ENOUGH OF IT
1 Like
Precisely but theyre doing it for one number and not for the other.
Pretty sure it hasnt indipendently. Theyre using the same brochure.
Theyre both just showing inaccuracies and chronoligical impossibilities in the brochure but the important parts for my argument were the answers.
Why does that matter for the reporter statement “the brochure is not confirmed to be wrong” when there is a different primary source stating another number. They cant both be correct at the same time.
Of course there is logic in it, the reason for the weight deny makes absolute sense but it begs the question why is using context allowed to deny numbers from a primary source ok in one case but in the other case the same primary source is absolute gospel despite other primary sources also not lining up numbers wise.
3 Likes
Since we are getting Gimped Nerfed whatever you call it Leopards i Demand the 2A7V and 2A8 to be removed
1 Like
Huh?
Three years have passed since approval with zero sign of implementation. Isn’t that functionally equivalent to a rejection?
4 Likes
3 Years ago the Devs promised a DM rework of the Leopard 2s nothing since then but a Brochure with mixed data gets used right away to nerf gun depression
1 Like
Let’s not forget M735 which was changed a long long time ago by wrong data, was then promised to be looked at and reworked a shorter long time ago and it still is the same. It will probably never happen at this point
2 Likes
how can we forget the PSO too, that had changes to its armor passed, then it was shelved.
3 Likes
I have primum account and have a talisman on the leorpred 2a7v and the IRST will those 2 be a very good option to reaerch leopard 2a8
1 Like
