In what way is it wrong?
should look like this. basically a fat wirbelwind
2 Likes
Heavy tank In nothing but name
That’s your complaint?
It’s a quadruple 3cm gun mounted on a Pz IV chasis. Close enough.
Go buy a scale model and place it within peripheral vision while you play the GAME. You’ll be fine.
Its a L7 105mm on a STRV 103 chassis Close enough.
go kitbash a tamiya set and glue it to your face. you will be fine
4 Likes
Japan owned the Heavy Tank No.6, where it was doesn’t matter when it was fully paid for.
The F-16AJ just didn’t exist and Gaijin mistook the unrelated YF-16 Sparrow tests for a prototype when that testing ended before the F-16J was even a thought in anyones mind. Gaijin didn’t even argue that “this is enough”, they made a mistake and just avoided mentioning it again.
2 Likes
Long time since I’ve read it, but I believe Doyle said there’s no way given the state of German industry at that point they could have produced a new SPAA, not definitively that the claimed single prototype didn’t exist? You could probably say that about a lot of other game vehicles based on prototypes, too.
2 Likes
Not relevant to the discussion - weak sauce.
This is a game where a 1940s tank can face a vehicle from 2000, and you’re upset because the turret on the Zerstorer does not look right. Is that the gist of it?
Oh my…
who they face doesnt matter. Are they modelled correct does
goes against what they try to do by allowing comically poor attempts at recreating them
Wow.
Cherry-picking realism.
Got it.
Counter arguement:
Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship, Project 23.
Oh look, there it is on the Wiki because it is in-game despite being cancelled in real life, and the picture is from 1941 German Reconnaissance.
The Reality: Incomplete vehicles fall under the concept of whatever they consider subjective to change. They will add whatever they want, even if it pisses off the community cause at the end we are just $ in their eyes, sadly…
3 Likes
a cancelled pipedream. russia never could have finished that ship no matter the situation
1 Like
Yes, and now explain to me why it’s fully modelled in-game and playable.
2 Likes
They never said incomplete stuff wasn’t allowed. It was just subject to change. Unfortunately, some people jump to conclusions and assume things that are completely false case example, what Caenarvon02 has demonstrated. Not that I don’t necessarily agree with some of the points.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Aye, when I asked him about it a while back, he said it was nothing more than a proposed project that, in any event, Germany had no capacity or capability to manufacture, since the 3.7cm Flak ZW would have needed to be completely redesigned to fit into a turret. Additionally, we also know that a bigger turret would have been needed.
1 Like
This is one of the things that make War Thunder great.
For the record I have no problem with the Ho-Ri staying or going. However, it is clear that this vehicle is based largely on imagination and it is completely understandable why you are removing it.
For myself, and I imagine many other players, the issue is when it feels like the standards are not evenly applied. The Sovetsky Soyuz being in game is fine. It being insanely strong, arguably the best in the game, is ridiculous. Something never completed gets added in an obviously fake manner and Gaijin is fine with it, yet adding DU armor to the hull of the Abrams is suddenly a bridge too far even though it was done and proven through years of use.
In colloquial terms, if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Yet unless the Goose and Gander are the Russian or German Tech Tree it is said to not meet Gaijin’s standards. The Radkampwagon never was able to traverse the turret. Russian T72/80/90 are historically proven to not survive penetration to the hull. But suddenly DU armor on the hull of an Abrams is a “Maintenance Concern” (It’s not BTW. I know, I used the TWMP for six month deployments all the time.)
Just say what the real issues are:
Russia couldn’t possibly have a competitive Battleship, but since this is a game and a huge part of the player base is Russian we had to do the Soyuz and make it good enough to compete with Iowas and Yamatos.
In real life Russian and Chinese equipment is made with inferior technology and design, but this is a game and we need all trees to have competitive indigenous vehicles. Especially trees that are popular with players.
If we gave DU hull armor to the Abrams it would be even more competitive and would make playing several of the trees less attractive.
But putting some veneer of “We have standards for accuracy” when you don’t evenly apply it is frustrating . Furthermore, at higher tiers, you don’t even know what is accurate because it is all classified. We all know this. At least the educated people do.
1 Like
It has been answered multiple times that it was an intentional choice to keep it the same as the F-14B as its at the same BR, thus a balancing decision:
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/bDRhsh3bU2T6?comment=X4IyWXLaabBXAXbKQrWUsRrm
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/PBtBf7H6QEE9?comment=tTJh8kvNEdOjRI3PByZHYbUW
A ship being laid down is the only minimum requirement to be considered to be added in game. Regardless of its progress. There are multiple other ships already in game that were only laid down, and more will continue to be added in the future.
4 Likes
As mentioned several times already, the attack aircraft added in the Thai line were the replacements. The RY2 line itself may be used for other purposes in the future.
Replacements are not required to be in the same line. There is no rule on this.