Janes is never used as a sole source for a change as per our policy I mentioned above. There will always need to be multiple sources that agree and then it can be used as supplementary.
No change is ever made purely from Janes.
2 Likes
Thanks for the info.
The International Defence Review 1971 source is used a few times - as far as I am aware that is the predecessor to Janes international review, which was the name from 1995 onwards. Is it ok for us to use these pre-1995 versions?
Are there any plans to fix lag in Naval battles severe lag? 3 out of 4 games today, whole teams completely lagged out and kicked out of the game.
Should be, I believe a tech mod clarified that once (the one with the patton pfp, not sure if that helps narrow it down). IDR was its own seperate thing from Jane’s from that period and is (at least still) accepted as source. What I’m wondering though is if post acquistion (by Jane’s) volumes can be used also, but I have a feeling that they can’t.
1 Like
I love how quickly you can nerf a British vehicle but take years to fix the challenger 2s armour, the Cheiftain mk5s LRF, the stormers ability to actually connect with aircraft, the apds post pen damage, the challengers mobility…the list goes on
1 Like
In the video there are only 350 hp. But not 500
IDR before the Janes takeover is considered a valid secondary supporting source as long as there is other material to agree (as with all secondary sources). Janes is not considered valid and can only be used as a supplement to the specified source requirements (1 primary / 2 secondary).
5 Likes
So why list it as a sole source in these notes?
That just creates confusion.
What are the other sources used in this instance?
1 Like
so why you only list this 1 source ?
is the usual double standard ?
Also why delete my beautifuly made npc meme ?
Did i lost some good boy points now ?
You’re misinterpreting Smin words, additionally the IDR magazine that has been used is pre-1995, so its before Jane aquisition.
Sources: International Defense Review 1978: Vol 11 Iss 2 + International Defense Review 1979: Vol 12 Iss 3.
You can see it clearly that its before Jane aquisition, which was in 1995.
You can also see some of the sources here, various sources has been sent, so i assume they just decided to include that one in the changelog because they felt like doing that.
1 Like
They should have included this information in the post to avoid confusion.
it’s good of them to clarify but its weird from the start to only list one secondary source (or a complementary source as people will understand it as without further explanation).
esp funny since the BAE Systems Datasheet says OVER 80 kph for the 90120 https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210908150343/1434585858794.pdf
1 Like
Because thats not the 90120 we have in game
From BAE as well:
Spoiler
600kW at 2350 rpm and speed of 70/40 km/h. HP and Speed are correct.
so they named it just CV90120 without the variant moniker ? because thats the -T variant, and the datasheed is from 2006, where the one i linked is from 2020 and has no variant moniker?
1 Like
Well, thats is just Gaijin being Gaijin with names,
1 Like
You’re missing the point. When fitted with the 600kW engine, the CV90120 can only go 70kph. Otherwise, by your reasoning the 100hp engine in my car should have no bearing on the possibility of my car being able to go as fast as an F1 car. Since, y’know, engine power is irrelevant to the top speed that can be achieved according to you.
1 Like
the 2020 datasheet isn’t really a datasheet as many of the points say “up to” or “above” and such.
the CV90 family is a mix and match thing where every vehicle can be customized for each costumer.
technically that specific datasheet is for the “CV90120 MkIV”
Actually Jane’s Information Group was always the author. For a time they were owned by Interavia S.A, who was the publisher from 1968 - 1995. After that Jane’s purchased the publisher to publish themselves.
I do find it a bit odd that they decided to stop considering Jane’s a valid source though. You see USAF reviews using them as a general source in the 90s, and now they are still the biggest global defence intelligence distributor. If anything their credibility has only improved.
The Janes stamp of trust means supplying our customers with timely, validated, unbiased and relevant intelligence in a world crowded with increasingly unreliable information.
With an unmatched legacy of more than 120 years, Janes has adapted, expanded, and developed its unique tradecraft whilst transitioning from a traditional military publisher to the leading global agency for open-source intelligence.
That’s the original publication from 1898.
edit: sorry I didn’t mean to reply to you Wareta
2 Likes
Apparently it had inaccuracies? I wonder if anyone remembers what these were in order to get them discredited.
I think it’s because Jane’s is such a general source, they’re bound to make mistakes, especially when concerning non-Western (or even non-Anglo) info. Like they’ll perpetuate zombie facts or just use outdated info. Sometimes they just get things wrong.
I very clearly remember an example of Jane’s being very incorrect.
In JFS, for Tanzania they have this photo
They say it’s a Type 026 MTB… except that’s clearly a Pr.183/Type 02 MTB.
For reference a Type 026 looks like
