According to the datasheet from Leonardo for the Trophy HV system, it weighs 820 kg (~1800 lbs) with the M1 as an example image.
The US army source states 5000lb.
820kg is just the base weight of the system, it has to be adapted to different vehicles and that often adds extra weight. I believe the Abrams required additional ballast weight added to the turret to keep it balanced.
The vehicle images in these brochures are usually just placeholder, as is the case in the 2A8 brochure.
Even then, you would have to add ~1450 kg of other things, which is nearly double the weight of the base system additionally to its own weight. Neither counterweights nor other stuff (electronics, mounting points, etc.) could explain this discrepancy. I could understand it if they included other additional armorings in that number but like this it doesn’t really make any sense…
And that guy is still there.
Kobes, there is a massive contradiction in how Section 2.2.2 was applied to nerf this vehicle.
Section 2.2.2 only grants permission for commercial brochures to be published and shared on the forum so players don’t get banned for posting them. However, Section 3 strictly states that to actually change game data or make a bug report, a document must qualify under Section 2.2.4 as an authoritative, certified source.
A promotional KNDS brochure is explicitly classified as ‘Marketing information’ under 2.2.2, meaning it is legally shareable but it does NOT belong to the valid technical sources listed in 2.2.4. The administration directly contradicted its own sourcing policy by accepting a marketing booklet as a definitive primary military source to issue a nerf. You cannot use a document as a balancing source when the rules clearly state it only has publication clearance.
1 Like
You’re entirely misreading that. That states nothing about bug reporting.
Edit
To clarify.
Section 2 mentions which types of documents are okay to post. “However, Users are allowed to publish information or content that falls under any of the following categories:”
Section 3 mentions in what way you have to prove legality of material that could be restricted of classified. “If the User publishes documentation that may reasonably be deemed as Restricted […] the User must provide sufficient evidence that the information no longer falls within the scope of Restricted Information” , it then give the example of using a source from one of the listed items in 2.2.4 as proof of declassification.
For the brochure, they directly link to the manufacturer website (which is the first point in 2.2.4) where the brochure is publicly posted thus does not fall under restricted or classified material.
3 Likes
If you think it was accepted wrongly then you’ll need to talk to a Gaijin employee, I personally have been making reports for years and this has never been an issue though.
Also isnt this brochure not restricted information to begin with?
I’m afraid you are misinterpreting. As it does.
2.2.2 is also covering what users are permitted to share. Both 2.2.2 and 2.2.4 are under
2 Likes
It does. but in the opposite way to what the other user described (i have clarified my previous post).
1 Like
- Two additional screens per side couldn’t possible add 1 ton or more.
- The fact that tank on the photo lacks much more crucial details like APS, has things that are not present on an actual vehicle (.50 cal turret, and more importantly camera equipment on the hull and gun mantlet) is somehow of no concern?
But those were rethorical questions, issue is that at this point the reporting around that specific broshure became a complete embarasement for Gaijin. Selectively choosing one values and silmutaneously rejecting others from the exact same source, making up explanations that only further worsen your stance.
Admit the broshure turned out to be an unreliable source, make thorrow investigation, make some sensible assumtions.
If with 2A8 the story is more likely conccluded with Leo2A8 info table from roll-out event. The nerf of 2A7V was based purely on wrong assumptions from a broshure for wrong model of the tank. Not to mention people provided video with direct quotes from Budeswer.
6 Likes
Well no, they gotta do their double standards.
Like someone said earlier, they are not allowing brochures as sources.
(Unless it’s to add russian stuff like the KH38s or to nerf western vehicles)
6 Likes
That’s exactly it!
How many times have I had to read that brochures are just marketing when other users submitted bug reports suggesting improvements to NATO vehicles?
I’m reminded of the Iris-T. The issue there was that it posed absolutely no threat to the MI-28, even though it’s advertised as being immune to laser defense systems. Gaijin’s statement: “It’s a marketing lie, and every company interprets missile and defense systems differently.”
Or with the Spike, when other users criticized the angle of impact. Gaijin’s response: “The Spike is the first weapon of its generation and is therefore generally more prone to errors” (even though there was more than enough video evidence).
This double standard is just so annoying.
5 Likes
Smin has literally came in here and said they do accept them, you’re clearly wrong
Keep in mind that Gaijin has far better access to detailed information about military equipment than ordinary players do.
2 Likes
What I’d love to figure out is how Bundeswehr themselves showing video of the leopard 2 having a gun elevation/depression value of -9/+20 degrees is incorrect according to gaijin.
2 Likes
Actually, I sometimes have doubts about the management level. The proposer and the administrator are cut from the same cloth. If the administrator wants to weaken a vehicle, as long as there is an insider to propose it, it will be approved immediately. I still have some doubts about this
After all, this game is neither big nor small. Just like those apples, it looks shiny and bright on the surface, but internally it has already rotted beyond recognition
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.