Yes i am aware that the armor system itself exists. And has been tested.
It being installed in the leopard is another matter.
As a resumt its a mock up non functional
All the problems in Germany are caused by gaijin’s double standards
6 Likes
I am gonna looose my mind
example; Figures for the 30x173 APFSDS-T (PMC287)
Figures for the round with the worst dispersion out of all rounds (TP-T, PMC355)
Naturally they didnt reopen the report after I reported the response, so I made a new report, with a Rheinmetall publication disproving what is literally his own fairytale-type theory (that is based on nothing)…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6pScDCPEdBYz
(I literally quoted this in the report btw.)
and get this response:
Rheinmetall quite literally says that the guaranteed accuracy is 0.6mrad (i.e. max. dispersion <= 0.6mrad, which corresponds to the 0.6mil figure presented for the TP-T round, which has the highest max dispersion out of all available rounds) and that the typical dispersion is 0.2mrad ± 1 sigma - which directly contradicts the theory of the bug-reporting manager that the typical dispersion (1 sigma) is 0.5mil.
What are we even doing at this point…
7 Likes
Clear marketing lie
Do they even care about dispersion ? i’m pretty sure there was a similar bug report for the leclerc and for leo (?) and it got denied too.
Yup, there were reports for Lekek and Leopold, both rejected.
They’re not making it better
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/6pScDCPEdBYz?comment=nejByQY7Cev7zRl9O6oyGhgl
The MK30-2/ABM on Puma, Puma VJTF, KF-41 and Boxer CRV Block 2 can not fire in burst mode, but only in single- and rapid single-fire (200 rpm).
Which they also know…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/e7kV7FbU4s8l?comment=6hCrqTgcHP19LzSkeMK0ho41
And then we have the “doesnt specify what is meant by accuracy” part, which is laughable as an excuse because the source quite literally leaves no room for interpretation as the exact quote is:
The guaranteed accuracy of the weapon is 0.6 mrad in single rounds, typical values are 0.2 mrad±1σ
“guaranteed accuracy of the weapon is 0.6mrad” and “typical values are 0.2 mrad±1σ”
It is quite literally in the same sentence… The dispersion that the manufacturer guarantees and the dispersion that is typical, or in even simpler words:
“Single rounds are guaranteed to be within 0.6mrad”
“Typically, they’re within 0.2mrad±1σ” (1 sigma, so ~68.27% of shells will meet said figure)
This is more than sufficient to disprove the response that I received on the initial report, where the bug-reporting manager assumed (rules for thee but not for me aah moment) that the “<= 0.5mil” figure could be typical dispersion (based on quite literally nothing btw) - as it directly and with 0 room for interpretation, says the typical dispersion is 0.2mrad (at the same ±1 sigma figure the bug-reporting manager referred to).
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/LUUj4ZGomw8j?comment=EbMjfmK21IBS0MNfR9FQ6vME
And again, 0.6mrad as figure is listed here because that is in-fact the maximum dispersion that is listed for the weapon as a whole when considering all available ammunition-types.
APFSDS-T (PMC287) and ABM/KETF (PMC308) have a lower figure of <=0.5mil, however the target-practice round (not TPDS) has a higher (the highest of all) figure of <=0.6mil, which matches the 0.6mrad figure.
There is absolutely no need or justification for the term “accuracy” to be further defined if the typical dispersion values at standard deviation are already given and pretty much perfectly match the “<= 0.5mil” and “<= 0.6mil” maximum dispersion figures presented otherwise.
@Smin1080p_WT sorry for pinging you but maybe you have a better explaination as to why “Dispersion <= 0.5mil” and, “guaranteed accuracy 0.6mrad” and, “typical values are 0.2mrad±1σ” somehow insufficient as figures for dispersion that is modelled solely in accordance to standard deviation and maximum deviation angles - especially as both are listed explicity in Rheinmetall publications.
I cant ask the bug-reporting managers directly either because they keep closing the comments on the report.
1 Like
Hey. The explanation comes directly from the developers. So I cant really elaborate any further than has already been.
1 Like
May I ask which one specifically?
Or are they all direct responses from the developers?
I find it very odd that a figure presented as “guaranteed” and a second one presented as "typical (i.e. in accordance to standard deviation that the game models anyway) to be seen as insufficient evidence to prove that “<=0.5mil” is in fact not referring to a ±1σ figure.
1 Like
So do I conclude correctly that the other response(s) were not made by the developers?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6pScDCPEdBYz?comment=nejByQY7Cev7zRl9O6oyGhgl
Since the second report aims to show that the assumption that was made in the response you linked was in-fact not correct and that the <=0.5mil figures do not refer to the typical dispersion.
This is a problem entirely due to the state of the maps and helicopter spawns; it has nothing to do with the SPAAs. You can see that on maps with cover like mountains, this isn’t a problem, on the other hand, SPAAs have the same problem due to bad maps. On many maps, it’s impossible to use an SPAA properly because the spawn is so flat that enemy tanks can hit your radar or launchers from across the map before a plane or heli even shows up.
And what about the PARS, Spike, AGM-179, and Brimstone missiles? Is there any news too regarding the rework of the LDIRCM system against SPAAs and other heat-seeking missiles?
The thing is, Germany gets a lot of stuff, but most of it is irrelevant. Why do you think nobody ever talks about the Jaguar 2, for example? Sure, there are good things like the IRIS-T, but until recently, Germany only had the EC-665 Tiger UHT and Leopards (That their versions are also superior in Sweden). PARS 3 missiles were already complete trash before, and now they’re even worse compared to the new FnF missiles, especially those broken LMURs and there’s only a 0.3 BR difference of LDIRCM with canons while EC 665 Tiger don’t have any of this, even though one can hover at 10km while the other has to run from every radar ping. Meanwhile, the US has always had CAS at every single level. You guys are complaining with a full belly—I’ve even seen people complain about the A-10. The hypocrisy is unreal.
And don’t even try to tell me the Eurofighter (AESA) was a good addition. It’s basically a blatant copy-paste that could have just been a modification/upgrade. Even though the FnF bombs and the AESA radar seem very good, it doesn’t justify forcing players to grind everything all over again for the exact same plane.
Let’s be fair: Gaijin has issues with every nation, but the ones I mentioned have been worse for Germany. The US tree is much more complete and versatile compared to Germany.
1 Like