I would understand that. However the current tanks in game, the way they are modeled, down to everything outside of the model (which I believe even that’s inaccurate) is completely wrong.
There is no TKX or type 10 configuration at 44.1 tons with that little armor.
The 39.8 ton variant was said to have comparable armor to the leopard series tanks.
APU exhaust?
Any reports are welcome for any issues with these vehicles you have evidence or information on: Community Bug Reporting System
Those that have been reported will be investigated and responded too when they can be.
But to answer your original question:
No, naturally we will not as they are real vehicles and the reasons for the R2Y2 being removed from research have been outlined here: [Development] Announcing the Removal of the R2Y2 from Research - News - War Thunder
It would be amazing for me to make a bug report.
However even when told to properly format it I was banned due to spam. I’ll just leave the docs here for others to make the report. I’ll just wait till March 1st before we start our next major push to have the vehicles corrected
To my understanding, there’s no restriction on what can be bug reported for AIM-9M as no specific version was stated, so anything that’s not modeled in-game as far as later variants go, can be bug-reported
Sorry
I had to remove the restrictions on these folders. Anyone that wishes to make a bug report may do so. These are the fully translated pages. If you need the originals I can provide that as well. These are all primary sources
What about the entire CVRT line of vehicles the armor thickness and layout is not even comparable to what the IRL was.
The entire lower frontal plate was several inches thick to effectively stop 14.5mm anti tank rounds
The same as the lower turret plate.
Yet in game its 35mm and 20mm on the hull and 41 on the turret??
These tanks where built using imperial units to begin with so 20mm and 41 mm would not have even been used it would have been 25.4mm and 44.45 or 38.1 as seen on warrior.
Once again, please make sure that its correctly reported and the developers will be able to review it and provide a response.
These photos alone however sadly don’t show or prove anything conclusive and proper sourcing will be required to support this thesis.
I have made a report using historical and photographic evidence. No actual armor thickness dimensions exist but I do have two sources claiming the 14.5mm anti tank protection frontally with 7.62 AP protection everywhere else.
Would it not be possible to increase protection to a level enough to stop said caliber without knowing exact thickness?
Sadly not
Should be if the requirement was to stop X caliber than the armour in game should stop X caliber.
That cutaway alone should be enough to prove it was thicker than in game.
But my coax 7.62 mg can frontally pen the scimitar in a lot of places.
I feel it, in game PzH armor is nothing, will we know IRL its MG and Shrapnel save…
(Maybe it comes from the still missing Spall-Liner, not 100% on that…) but its just sad to watch
And then you just have to wait 1-3 years for the reports to be looked at with a 50/50 chance that the sources will be accepted
What better source to use than pictures of the actual vehicle as well as cut away sections of said vehicle.
God knows. Its why I try to avoid technical bug reports and focus more on gameplay ones.
To be fair though the PzH is SPAA and general armor would only need to be against small arms.
The FV107 and CVRT is legitimately COMBAT vehicle and would have a level of protection against combat threats.
Yes that is fair. Did you see the CVRT 20-40mph time is 10 seconds too slow.
Now that is a huge gameplay bug lol.
No I didnt, but if that is via a video, it wont be accepted
International Defense Review 1971 same source as ballistic protection levels
