Should the Devs consider Russian sources for NATO vehicles and vice versa?

Machinery of War Discussion
,
1

Currently the devs outright ignore any Russian sources for NATO equipment unless it is the Russians testing that piece of equipment. However, as we move towards more and more modern vehicles, the publicly available information becomes increasingly diminishing.

I believe that all sources should be considered regardless of language for any particular vehicle. As long as the source is credible then it should be considered.

If we consider this recent bug report I have made about the Leclerc: Community Bug Reporting System, you can see that Russian sources align with Polish, Ukranian and French sources despite being entirely unrelated. However, the devs will dismiss the Russian sources even if I am directly quoting the Russian MoD…

Obviously not all sources are equally credible; however, this suggested change to the requirements of bug reports would ensure greater historical accuracy for all vehicles. For example, the Russians estimate that the hull of the M1A2 Sep v1 is about 700-750mm KE and if the devs considered this source it would mean the Abrams would get its accurate armour.

The source for the Abrams hull armour (have a read through it and tell me whether it should be ignored): Upload Files | Free File Upload and Transfer Up To 10 GB

Should the Devs consider Russian sources for NATO vehicles and vice versa?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
8 Likes
2

Honestly, it seems obvious to me that the treatment by Russian experts regarding NATO vehicles cannot be impartial. Russia and NATO are major rivals and there will always be a bias, even if minimal. This applies to both sides, of course. In summary, in the presence of documents from the same origin as the vehicle and documents from a rival nation, the “native” documents should take precedence over those from a rival nation

3

Yes, but our point here is that the Russian documents corroborate OTAN documents, and yet they are rejected

8 Likes
4

Your absolutely right, native sources will always take precedence.
However when making a report that requires multiple sources sometimes it is impossible to just quote western sources because of the nature of the information that is needed to correct a vehicle. A Russian source can help by reinforcing a report, and shouldn’t be immediately dismissed because it isn’t western.
If the Russian source confirms several other sources with the same information, then why dismiss it?

10 Likes
5

It’s true that doubts remain about the impartiality of authors, as indicated by the OP: if a source is recognized as expert and reliable, it can be considered valid. In cases where it is our only source, it is appropriate to remain vigilant and check if the data is not exaggerated. When we have documents from both NATO and Russia, it is wise to examine both to confirm the validity of the first source consulted. Having two complementary sources is preferable to just one. This is similar to writing an essay based on multiple references: the quality of the work can only be improved.

I believe that information is more secure, fair, and complete when it is drawn from multiple reliable sources, each providing relevant insight provided they are credible. It is very likely that the authors of the documentation used by the developers themselves relied on various sources

4 Likes
6

And that is basically what our stance is. However, Gaijing, through @Smin1080p and @David_Bowie clearly stated to us that they would not accept Russian sources, period. Sorry to ping you guys, but I think it’s important to have this kind of discussion to improve transparency between Gaijing and the highly dedicated members of the forums. I think having a definitive stance on this is the way forward, so that we can avoid double standards.

5 Likes
7

Especially since you are doing a really great job of research that is also well-sourced. You’re making their work easier, they just have to check and apply. It’s not very wise on their part…

4 Likes
8

Quite frankly? No. Last time they were seriously considered, Mistral and Stinger both got sent to 10G pull.

Russian sources are also far more likely to be nothing more than inaccurate estimations based on then available knowledge, that a lot of the time is incomplete, and most of the time, based on assumptions rather than facts (example of such: the Russians thought DM53 has a lower performance than DM43/OFL F1).

Russian sources could be used as supportive material, if native sources confirm them, but native sources also should be crystal clear - i.e Swedish ones are like that, they tell you everything you need to know straight up, there’s no room left for interpratation.

1 Like
9

Except that in the case of the Leclerc, Swedish sources have caused massive nerfs to the Leclerc, as they received pre series Leclerc for their tests, when French tanks that entered service received major upgrades, including armor packages, which Gaijing is now refusing to admit because of the Swedish trials. And it just happens that Russian sources agrees pretty well with estimations given in OTAN documents on the armor of the Leclerc. See ? nothing is black or white, you need to cross reference everything, instead of refusing sources just because they are Russian so they don’t apply for OTAN tanks

8 Likes
10

It’s completely deplorable…

1 Like
11

You are free to prove this. Leclerc provided to Sweden would’ve been a final configuration (how much does the S1 in French service weight?).

And it just happens that Russian sources agrees pretty well with estimations given in OTAN documents on the armor of the Leclerc.

Russian sources are also trying to tell us that NATO countries are capable of breaking the laws of physics at will, and creating armours better than steel per milimeter (which was not possible until the invention of nano-ceramics and other nano-materials).

I don’t buy that, even if that would be result in buffs across the board, something like that is straight up impossible. Leclerc’s hull armour will never be able to achieve protection levels like ~700mm KE in a 60 degree arc, that is simply against the laws of physics (but that’s what the Russian sources are telling us).

Leclerc’s armour was no different from what other nations were capable of at the time, but just like the Challenger 2 - it lacks the armour depth neccessary to achieve results like the M1A2 or the Leopard 2s of the time, and of today as well.

See ? nothing is black or white, you need to cross reference everything, instead of refusing sources just because they are Russian so they don’t apply for OTAN tanks

Russian sources could be used as supportive material, if native sources confirm them, but native sources also should be crystal clear - i.e Swedish ones are like that, they tell you everything you need to know straight up, there’s no room left for interpratation.

And it just happens that Russian sources agrees pretty well with estimations given in OTAN documents on the armor of the Leclerc

Which are? Books that come with many inaccuracies, and aren’t connected in any way to active military personnel or institutions are nothing but third-rate sources. I’ve seen the google drive shared by the OP in his report, and majority of the “sources” are articles (some of which speak of things that have never been actually said or written down).

12

We already went through the Swedish trial fiasco : Community Bug Reporting System
You should keep being informed before jumping at your conclusions so easily

4 Likes
13

You guys are some kind of WT Community’s lawyers, what a work !

2 Likes
14

Good for you that that’s the case for Swedish sources, but it’s far from the case for other sources.

Good luck finding sources for the SEPv2 hull armor with actual protection values. There were only a few and 90% of them were books.

15

T1, Which France never accepted in service, because as it’ve been said even on the document provided during Sweden Trials, it was too “mature”

Spoiler

IMG_5029
IMG_50291920×2560 322 KB

IMG_5068
IMG_50681920×2560 270 KB

Swedish document:

Spoiler

image

Another thing that can show the Leclerc was not “mature” at the time of Swedish Trials can be found when the same Tank partecipated at the Greek Trials, beating everyone except in protection, which wasn’t tested.

Spoiler

image
image869×1227 207 KB

@FurinaBestArchon i would like to see as well your source stating Leclerc got penetrated by MILAN, and also your source stating Leclercs provided to Sweden/UK was production ones and not T1 Batches though.

3 Likes
16

And even if it was indeed a Milan that penetrated the tank, as it was in the driver port which is known by all the sources and recognised in the report (which he clearly has not read before whining in the report comments lol), that still is in line with the true expected armor values that we have given in the report.
you can also provide him the Assemblée nationale document showing that the early production prototypes were not up to the French standards

1 Like
17

That… doesn’t prove anything? Have you ever actually read through the trials to get why the Swedes considered the Leclerc “immature”?

It was due to the powerpack and other soft features like the FCS (which at the time was unreliable), it had too high of a fuel consumption, liter per km ratio of 138, i.e a score 50% worse than the Leopard 2, and nearly on par with the M1.

18

Which again proves it was an early batch and not a “final configuration” one as you stated, because the issues you are mentioning was later fixed on other batches, but you are free to prove im wrong, also would you mind sending the source stating that the Leclerc got penetrated by a MILAN? I don’t recall Yemen having MILAN’s on their equiments.

1 Like
19

Also, two different sources that talks about the protection of it, which again prove it was a T1 Batch and not a production one.

Spoiler

image
image

Spoiler

image
image

Or in your opinion Polish and French sources are not reliable enough?

1 Like
20

From the bug report:

"3.3. In testing by GIAT Industries, an armour module that would be integrated into the Leclerc was able to defeat OFL 120 F1 and two anti-tank missiles [7; pg. 26, 16]. It is important to note that according to photographic evidence in Marc Chassillan’s “Encyclopedie Des Chars De Combat Moderne: Tome 1”, this testing was conducted indoors. Therefore, the distance from the cannon which fired OFL 120 F1 and the armour module would have been relatively short.

According to an aforementioned French parliamentary report, the performance difference between the “obus flèche au tungstène” (OFL 120 F1) and “obus flèche à uranium” (OFL 120 F2) is that the latter is able to penetrate the same amount but at a greater distance [pg. 38, 4]. Therefore, at closer distances the penetrative ability of OFL 120 F1 and OFL 120 F2 should be almost identical. OFL 120 F2 is estimated to penetrate 640mm of RHA at 2000m [14; pg. 26, 16]. Therefore, the protection offered by this armour module would be at the very least approximately 650 – 700mm KE."

Sources 7 and 16 are the pages that Wareta has attached respectively.

It is also worth mentioning that every APFSDS in-game is underperforming compared to IRL since everything is standardised using the Lanz-Oddermatt equation. This has its limitations. Charm 3 performs similar to OFL 120 F1 in-game, but IRL it had about 700mm of penetration: Community Bug Reporting System. Similarly, 3BM60 has about 700mm of point blank penetration according to the manufacturer IIRC.