Leopard 2A8 gun depression

[Nowel]

Also isnt this brochure not restricted information to begin with?

[Smin1080p_WT]

@XromAzero

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.

I’m afraid you are misinterpreting. As it does.

@Smin1080p_WT

2 .2 .4 . Information or content that is based on, and properly cited from, the following sources:

• Legally published media materials.

2.2.2 is also covering what users are permitted to share. Both 2.2.2 and 2.2.4 are under

@Smin1080p_WT

However, Users are allowed to publish information or content that falls under any of the following categories:

[Necronomica]

@Nowel_

So the 2.2.2 woudnt even apply here to begin with

It does. but in the opposite way to what the other user described (i have clarified my previous post).

[Norm_Von_Dolbit]

1. Two additional screens per side couldn’t possible add 1 ton or more.
2. 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.

[Grossaaaa]

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)

[saromir99]

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.