Wrong ZLT11 turn diameter, Gaijin's arrogant reply

But that’s a strange circle, isn’t it?
I opened an issue to report the turn diameter error, and then Gaijin replied that the model does not allow it, so the issue you reported “not a bug”
Then I open another issue comparing the real vehicle to the model, reported the model error, and immediately closed my issue and said that I didn’t have enough sources to prove the model wrong.
So could you please tell me what I should do?
if I reopen an issue about a turn diameter error, with that article and video, will it get passed? Or again, because my model must be right, so not a bug?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I’m actually already comparing vehicles to models.If you read carefully, I have already pointed out that the wheels are a little inward, and the distance between the wheels and the chassis is narrow.
As for why I didn’t compare the width of the chassis, because the angle affects the proportional relationship, I used a more reliable straight line to compare the relative position.
Isn’t the root of the whole thing that ridiculous logic?
My model does not allow it, so all the evidence of reality is incorrect, come on, confirm that my model is wrong.
What else can I do? Steal blueprints?


the reverse speed is terrible too. GJ seriously thinks that a T-72 transmission was the inspiration of this vehicle’s gearbox


@ Gunjob
Are there any questions this time?
ZLT11 has the wrong turning diameter // Gaijin.net // Issues

arrogant snail, they just dont like ChinaTT

Welcome to the minor nation club. Britain gets this all the time. We have to write detailed essays, better referenced that some PHD dissertations to even get the most basic issues addressed.


china is always in the minor nation club, it just trun well after… these few version :(



This guy just ignores the objective evidence and insists on that arrogant logic, my model must be correct.
I have given objective evidence from 2 different sources that confirm that the turning radius is wrong, why am I being asked to prove that the model is wrong?
Provide a manufacturing blueprint, right?


Another report refused on a rather arbitrary basis.
The moderators are unnecessarily strict with what is considered “valid” and this isn’t a new issue. Players and technical moderators don’t frequently exactly see eye to eye on the issue. The ZLT11 being another casualty because not enough evidence can be provided for their strict standards even though it would be easy to prove otherwise.
(Edit for less harsh language)

A video showing the turning radius of a vehicle is as legit as it can get. Possible change of video speed is a very poor and ignorant excuse to refuse it as a source.

1 Like


First of all, please don’t insult or attack gaijin staff while participating in forum threads. The rules for reference requirements when it comes to “historic” report vehicle performance issues, have been in place since before I started being a Technical Moderator… around early 2017, they’re not things he’s just making up to block your reports.

Please note the requirements for historical matters below.

How to Make a Report

Anyone who has a War Thunder account can make a bug report. Our dedicated website allows anyone to create a full bug or historical report and let us know of any issues you have found.

Once there, you can choose what specific platform, category, and game version you want to report the matter too. Every category area has a helpful set of notes detailing what is required for the report to be the most effective. Be sure to check the area-specific (or file-specific) notes before submitting your report.

In general though, the basic and core parts of a standard or gameplay-related bug report are:

  • Clear descriptive title of the issue
  • Full description and details of the issue
  • Steps on how to reproduce the issue

In the case of historical matters, one of the following two points will be required:

  • One primary historical source (User/Factory/Repair Manual, Original handbooks etc)
  • Two secondary sources (Reference works, museums, Biographies, Books, “expert” opinion publications, websites etc)

Once you have everything ready, you can submit your report and await its review by a Technical Moderator, developer, or our QA team, who will first test and reproduce the issue where possible and then either forward the matter or request any additional information that may be required.


After viewing the reports you’ve linked, none of them have sufficient sources to be forwarded, as the magazine/book article only counts as a secondary source. You would need at least another reliable secondary source to back it up, preferably a primary one.

I’d offer some help, but none of the English-language reference books I have on AFVs are new enough to have anything on the ZBL-09 chassis.


So if someone can’t provide precise evidence at a near primary level source, it’s expected to just have the players live with a vehicle that is incorrect compared to its characteristics IRL?

The ZLT11 has a video showcasing it’s turning radius. That’s a perfectly valid form of evidence for that issue, it’s not turning speed. To say it isn’t is just plain ignorance.
There’s a reason feelings aren’t exactly positive and happy when this kind of thing happens.


1: No, not really, while primary sources are preferred, sufficient numbers of agreeing secondary sources do work as well. For example, if you had 1 or 2 publicly available books or documents that talked about that aspect of the vehicle and gave agreeing values to go with the magazine/journal article, that would work.

2: The problem with trying to estimate such from a video is that there’s no reference measurement clearly visible on the ground, which then means you’re dealing with camera angle and parallax, as well as any changes caused by lens distortion.


It’s potentially sufficient to work out the math required to determine the radius of the turn.

I can confidently say that it appears the front 4 wheels can angle at most about 40°. But I don’t have the Wheelbase length to get an appropriate guesstimate. Language barrier will likely keep it that way.

Are you kidding?Isn’t the length of the vehicle itself a reference?Does the length of the vehicle change during turning?I also have a full picture of the circle in the review I provided.


I feel like the whole thing has strayed from the facts themselves.Evidence from both sources proves that the huge turning diameter of the current model is wrong.And Gaijin’s employees refused to admit it with a very ridiculous logic.
And when I’m here to show you how he did , you’re just using wordplay and formality to justify his arbitrary behavior.And the mistake of the turning diameter has been overlooked.


If I set up a poll,do you think most people would agree that there is a huge error in the turning diameter?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The third document,Source:Vehicle & Power Technology,ISSN 1009-4687,Previous name:Acta Ordnance - Tanks, Armored Vehicles and Engines. An authoritative and core journal.2004.1
At present, the 8x8 wheeled armored vehicle developed in China uses the front two-axle steering mode.The minimum turning radius is 10 meters.

This is consistent with the 20 meters diameter of the turn mentioned in other sources.


  1. Would this image be better for estimating it? The camera is at an elevated level allowing a better view of the turning circle. We already know the width of the vehicle so it should be possible to get a ‘sufficient’ estimate from it.

  2. We understand this, but we have entered into vehicles that the data is hard to get and Gaijin themselves are taking guesses on the performance of it. Which isn’t an issue, I imagine it must be very frustrating for them to get any data on these. BUT the issue is when we provide evidence that their guesses are incorrect, we get blocked because it doesn’t meet the standards for historic bug reports. See how this is an issue? This issue is going to continue getting worse as more modern equipment is added and I think it’s time to discuss changes for historic bug reports standard of proof, that would be more productive then denying something for not meeting the guidelines but also showing strong evidence a vehicle is not performing correctly in game.

1 Like