I don’t want to make any claims about the US, but they certainly don’t want Russia to suffer.
1 Like
Welp, since shitty little brochures are now eligible as primary source, here is a brochure of Hungarian 2a7+
Where is my max speed of 72kmph ?
10 Likes
Source is literally from BEFORE the Leopard 2A8 was even properly revealed. And the NVG was clearly moved down later. Great. Huge reports with loads of detail and counter arguments, not enough proof. Tiny post just saying here’s thing, nerf Leo 2. Accepted. This hatch was literally moved and fixed it can be seen.
2 Likes
@Necronomica this is kinda why the community has issues with the bug reporting system.
Gaijin selectively chooses when they are going to uphold their rule about secondary sources.
Which in turn is an actual contradiction of their blog post a few years ago about using secondary sources because so much modern equipment is classified:
Who on this forum is able to directly address this issue? And is there anyone in the community leadership who is willing to really hold gaijin dev accountable?
There have been some pretty solid sources that once again… bug managers are just closing reports like they did with the abrams. Would’ve been much simpler to keep a big report open and allow folks to add to it rather than just shutting it down.
Also - if they’re just going to shut it down then gaijin devs need to have the chops to come outright and say “hey we are doing this and we aren’t taking any feedback” instead of hiding behind a broken and rigged system that they try to force down people’s throats.
7 Likes
The norwegian army had the -7.67 value on plaques at the official presentation of the 2A8NO at Rena
1 Like
Lol.
Why Would a dev create bug reports on the community bug report system?
Smin has on several occasions mention that they have an internal report system that players don’t see. a few quick examples:
1 Like
It’s kinda incredible how assumptions and made up arguments get regurgitated and made up by the bluefor community, it’s very pathetic from the outside.
The whole night sight argument is just made up, with no source and no logical continuity (why would it decrease the elevation angle lmao, and why would it be on the brouchoure if the limitation are on a 1 degree arch , that would be like writing the minimum elevation as the one over the engine deck lmao).
Same exact situation as the abrams hull armor where extreme copium and made up arguments where treated as gospel while everyone else cringed.
Stop making up fantasy stories lmao and find documents, the difference between elevation and depression is probably indicative of the stabilization system limiations as it can not actually stabilize at max mechanical angles in the required conditions.
This is probably another case of modeling actual real-life limitations or not (like, have you guys seen actual real FCS elevation speeds? Apart from the abrams are all around 5 degrees/s, but the stabilization system speeds are usually taken by gaijin as the one actually seen in the game).
I bet if someone gets into an active leo2a8 and tries it it will find the - 7.4 to be accurate, but i bet this difference between max mechanical depression and actual FCS depression will happen to every other stabilized tank in existance becouse by definition stabilization systems need room to actually stabilize something moving.
Maybe some systems will have a “slow or nearly still” mode or automatic transition where when the stabilization is not actually needed the system will give the operator the max range while restricting such range in situattion where more aggressive stabilization is needed? Idk and i would like to know more but i doubt such system is worth the trouble.
Also this is my humble opion and not some kinda truth came from the gods, act like adults.
Mods should instaban people who talk about conjectures and suppositions as actual data or truth becouse most bluefor players are ready to believe in litterally everything to get a slight buff or to chant russian bias.
Well not every tech tree can get those buffs without any or against availabe sources like russia can so we kinda need to discuss every tiny potential buff.
2 Likes
Well someone struggling to get 1Kd with a leo2a7 should search for any buff possible
Oh no the statshame, because someone cant make a proper argument.
4 Likes
You argument was litterally to cry russian bias lmao, while never playing with russia on top of it, you are the definition of the problem i was talking about.
Because im correct? And i dont need to play russia to see that i am.
Id rather be bad at a non competitive video game than be uncapable of constructing an argument that doesnt rely on “my number in game higher than yours”.
For nerfing nato vehicles, anything is a source.
There is a reason why the Leopards can’t drag the barrel close to the engine deck but every other tank with a 2A4 hull can.
That reason was a picture.
Yeah but that’s only the manufacturer, are you really implying that they know their product better than the supreme russian beings at Gaijin???
You are correct ? Maybe? Maybe not? Gaijin waited 10 years to give t-80s the correct reload rate, and someone needed to dig up soviet study on those autoloaders, and then made up a longer reload for 3bm60 without any source.
Yet abrams reload in 5 seconds on the move while rotating their turret , i would pay 100 $ to anyone doing the same while operating the blast doors and the reload safety in similar dynamic conditions.
Gaijin is inconsistent get over it , everything else is making up fake stories in your head.
The reason is that IRL is like that? It was confirmed by multiple documents and even actual tankers.
This is a similar problem to the current 2a8 debate. This limitation exists in a lot of tanks but gets implemented only in the ones unfortunate enough to have documentations and reports who specify it, or the ones gaijin wants to limit becouse theyr design is particoularly fit for WT, see the leo2 and t-80bvm reload rate nerfs.
Instead of making up stories and creating fantasy reality, you guys should demand a more standardized approach to hardware limitations of complex designs like FCS and stabilizers.
I should have said “ignoring technical manuals and implementing the “safe mode” restrictions all the time”.
Point still stands, it’s nothing more than a spite nerf because the company is run by supreme russian beings that can’t cope with the fact that the supreme russian vehicles might not actually be so supreme.
Yes i am correct.
Oh no the russian playerbase had to procure an actual source and make a bug report to get a buff what an unfair travesty comitted by Gaijin.
Literally a lie lol
Because every manually loaded tank in the entire game gets a fixed reload. Pretty consistent if you ask me.
Sure i guess the BMPTs fantasy ammo layout is only in my imagination,so is the completely made up loadout of the SU30SMs, and the amount of LMURs on the MI28NM, and the borderline physically impossible kinematics of the 95Ya6M, and of course the KH38MT.
You can yap whatever you want about fake stories in my head but its a fact that if russian vehicles were held to the same standards as everyone elses then the tech tree would be borderline useless at top tier.
1 Like
Dude, ffs, the brochure that was used as a “PriMarY SouRcE” is an outdated, wrong, useless piece of shit, that gets taken at face value, either becayse of the sheer stupidty, or malicious intent behind it.
How hard is it to understand that the primary source in this case, is simply wrong ?
Did you even read all the arguments afterwards ?
1 Like
I mean the 6 second reload is literally for the ideal condition of the next round being in the case over, even two cases over and you were already looking at 6.5 seconds. That is an issue with all auto loaders though.
You are also forgetting the turret basket that is just a 5mm aluminum sheet and not modeled as a basket. Because supreme russian turret drives cannot get jammed by 5mm aluminium but weak nato ones can.
1 Like