am I schizo or are these 2 the same reports?
sth for the pzh 2k changes
or even better the leopard 2 Damage model rework that was promised how long ago now?
Can someone from mods unpin old and pin new theme please?
i think someone scrwed up the hyperlinks
yea, looks like it xD
wanted to add it on the list when i noticed they are the same xD
Hello.
I made an Internal Report about it so there is no need for you to make one on the CBR.
Additionally as you have been told, please keep R&R in Topic.
Ive already responded to you personally on this with the current status a couple of times now.
Sorry, that sucks i just finished the report lol, thanks though
The promotional Video States and I quote
“It can be installed on any MAU-12 or “Aero 27” Bomb rack”, "Aircraft like F-4, A-7 and F-15 "
Is that not enough to prove that it was possible? The A-7E has access to the GPU-5/A even though it was only trialed by the USAF, and the report to remove it was refused due to the A-7D & -7E being identical outside the engines.
Is the F-15A somehow not an F-15 with MAU-12 Bomb racks?
I linked it to the internal one, no worries.
i mean the last one is quite a while ago, things might have changed and the holidays ended since then
They were, I’ll fix it shortly.
Photo-contrast is here
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
1 Like
Videos statements / claims alone are not accepted forms of sources by themselves. The brochure sadly is not specific. So those alone wont be sufficient.
The reports themselves would typically be directly updated and answered if there was news to share.
the leopard 2 DM rework does not have a report where we would see the progress
If there was something to announce regarding any DM rework, we would share that.
Simply because one of the promotional documents doesn’t specify F-15A / -B / -C / -D / -E, but instead go “F-15” it doesn’t count?
Are two supporting Secondary sources, somehow not sufficient proof anymore?
Sadly yes. Something for example can state “Tornado” on a source and be referring to GR.1 / GR.4 and not F.3. The sources are currently not sufficient as I have explained. Further material should be gathered to confirm the information, then it can be submitted for reconsideration.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So we here do have a lord of time himself then xD