War Thunder - WWII-Vietnam war Era tank and air battle game

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Quote Cursor said:
It's happened again, this time with the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter [A]. Just like the unclassified documents relating to the F-117 Nighthawk and the few other vehicles, it's 'export restricted', and specifically for the DoD and DoD Contractors.
Click to expand...
am i missing something, or are the first results on google the "Operator's Manual" and "Technical Manual" from as far back as 12 years ago? the same can be said about the past few "leaks".
 
16753235270961748364080140337973.png

Get used to seeing this image.
 
cate said:
am i missing something, or are the first results on google the "Operator's Manual" and "Technical Manual" from as far back as 12 years ago? the same can be said about the past few "leaks".
Click to expand...
From what I understand, it's some legal technicality where it's unclassified, but it's not legal to distribute or export to non-NATO IIRC. However, there have been leaks like the Challenger 2 (and a few others) that are classified overall.
 
M2A2 export restricted doesn't stop vydia autism lol.
Task & Purpose reached out to the Pentagon for comment, and an update will be provided when they respond. Army spokesperson Jason Waggoner said the “Army is aware & will provide additional information if it becomes available.”
Click to expand...
Lmao.
In this case, the leak is information that isn’t legally classified but holds nuts-and-bolts-level details that the Army considers sensitive.

The documents were posted in the “Machinery of War” discussion section of the War Thunder forums on December 12 but was taken down after several minutes. Some users were able to make copies of the documents before it was taken down, and one user sent them to Task & Purpose.
In this case, the leak is information that isn’t legally classified but holds nuts-and-bolts-level details that the Army considers sensitive.

The documents were posted in the “Machinery of War” discussion section of the War Thunder forums on December 12 but was taken down after several minutes. Some users were able to make copies of the documents before it was taken down, and one user sent them to Task & Purpose.
Click to expand...

Gayjoob claims this one came from reddit first:
“As far as we know, this particular leak did not appear on War Thunder forums first. It was published online on December 8th or even earlier and has been spreading on various platforms for days until it landed on War Thunder forums,” Yudintsev said. “While we did our part in helping to limit the leak spreading further by deleting that post, we can do nothing with what’s happening on other platforms.”
Click to expand...
 
1703409842116.png
Got a potential for another Review Happening going on right now.

For those blissfully unaware, Gaijin added the M1A2 SEPv2 TUSK II. Its armor protection is shit and its overweight, and they are currently insisting despite a tide of sources that the USA never put DU in the hull because the suspension could not handle the weight, and that the NRC only authorized five hulls. Naturally, due to the power of weaponized autism, people discovered that the NRC actually amended that license for hulls on an as needed basis instead of just five, and that the Abrams suspension was in fact upgraded explicitly as a result of frontal weight increases, such as say, from armor. Naturally, despite all of this evidence, they continue to, and I quote "believe" that it was physically impossible for the USA to add DU to the Abrams, least of all because replacing existing steel inserts with DU would somehow require the USA to lengthen the hull to accommodate the uh... denser, slimmer, but heavier blocks of metal.
 
Last edited:
Snekposter said:
For those blissfully unaware, Gaijin added the M1A2 SEPv2 TUSK II. Its armor protection is shit and its overweight, and they are currently insisting despite a tide of sources that the USA never put DU in the hull because the suspension could not handle the weight, and that the NRC only authorized five hulls. Naturally, due to the power of weaponized autism, people discovered that the NRC actually amended that license for hulls on an as needed basis instead of just five, and that the Abrams suspension was in fact upgraded explicitly as a result of frontal weight increases, such as say, from armor. Naturally, despite all of this evidence, they continue to, and I quote "believe" that it was physically impossible for the USA to add DU to the Abrams, least of all because replacing existing steel inserts with DU would somehow require the USA to lengthen the hull to accommodate the uh... denser, slimmer, but heavier blocks of metal.
Click to expand...
why the fuck doesn't Gayjin just say its because balance reasons or their simulator can't model DU inserts? I think the community would appreciate not being lied to.
 
JJLiautaud said:
why the fuck doesn't Gayjin just say its because balance reasons or their simulator can't model DU inserts? I think the community would appreciate not being lied to.
Click to expand...
(((Sekret dokuments)))
In reality I think they do it on purpose for publicity and to make people buy premiums.
 
JJLiautaud said:
why the fuck doesn't Gayjin just say its because balance reasons or their simulator can't model DU inserts? I think the community would appreciate not being lied to.
Click to expand...
Their armor simulation doesn't actually simulate anything since its all based on steel and just gives modifiers to other materials to make them better or worse, and they've already given the Abrams DU in the turret face. As to balance reasons, they've been hyping up the HISTORICAL ACCURACY for years and have Battle Rating for how OP or not something is. Which of course fails hard because you've got M109A1's from 1973 at a lower BR than the Pershing, and that tank is a whole other can of worms I won't get into in this post.

I will however add the Abrams situation is just the most egregious problem they're facing at the moment. The Chinese tank they added is a poorly-modeled piece of shit even by Gaijin standards, the Stinger pulls a max of 13G despite all the docs they were given saying it can pull 20G, they added a premium Tornado for Germany, slapped the name of Germany's advanced weapons integration center on it, then refused to give it any advanced weaponry, and then there's the spall liner issue where the T-90M got a spall-eating internal liner (as if Soviet tanks weren't already unnaturally resistant to producing spall) and they've been slow-walking its deployment on other vehicles citing the need for sources.

And that's just the new issues. The Ariete, Leclerc, and Challenger are all horribly modeled and with shit armor despite the Challenger being notorious for its ability to laugh at incoming fire, the Leclerc is missing its turbocharging turbine for its hyper-bar engine, and the Ariete has 80mm of air gap in the front hull that weighs several tons.
 
So, since some new stuff happened that's not quite connected to my earlier post, time for a second. Gaijin has decided that since the Igla could only pull a maximum of 10.2G, it is physically impossible for any NATO MANPADS to pull significantly more, despite no shortage of sources explicitly saying otherwise. This is of course despite the fact the Igla uses bang-bang control guidance for maneuver, as opposed to the Western systems which not only rotate faster in flight but also use PID controllers to allow for greater response ranges.

You see comrades, if glorious USSR couldn't create missile that can pull 20G turns, inferior Western capitalist science could not!
 
Last edited:
As great as the autistic fact-checking is, none of this shit would have happened if there was an sci-fi version of War Thunder...Of course, people would still find a way to complain about it
 
Snekposter said:
The Ariete, Leclerc, and Challenger are all horribly modeled and with shit armor despite the Challenger being notorious for its ability to laugh at incoming fire, the Leclerc is missing its turbocharging turbine for its hyper-bar engine, and the Ariete has 80mm of air gap in the front hull that weighs several tons.
Click to expand...
Playing anything above 8.0 ("modern" MBT) is more or less subjecting yourself to dice roll retardation by the snail every patch. MBT BR is full of the (((Sekret dokkuments))) shit they pull with USSR vehicles all the time. Don't forget the "bug" of setting German tanks on fire via MGs even when not penetrating that you can't see now that they've obfuscated game code on that.

Hell, you still aren't safe below 8.0, you've still got shit like PT-76 HEATFS at 5.0 able to downtier and facefuck 4.0s (Panzer IVs) Also ASU-57 at 3.7 and French reserve tanks lmao.
 
♂CANAM productions♂ said:
Playing anything above 8.0 ("modern" MBT) is more or less subjecting yourself to dice roll retardation by the snail every patch. MBT BR is full of the (((Sekret dokkuments))) shit they pull with USSR vehicles all the time. Don't forget the "bug" of setting German tanks on fire via MGs even when not penetrating that you can't see now that they've obfuscated game code on that.

Hell, you still aren't safe below 8.0, you've still got shit like PT-76 HEATFS at 5.0 able to downtier and facefuck 4.0s (Panzer IVs) Also ASU-57 at 3.7 and French reserve tanks lmao.
Click to expand...
And at the 7's you're going to get nailed by a BMP-1 shoving a SACLOS Konkurs from the 1970's your way. The basic BMP-1 would have been tolerable in the 7's with Malyutka but Konkurs? There's zero reason a T32 or M103 should be getting shot at by something like that.
 
Snekposter said:
The basic BMP-1 would have been tolerable in the 7's with Malyutka but Konkurs?
Click to expand...
If we're being fair, the Soviets would have Fagots in their tree as first atgm versus Raketenjagdpanzer 1 with a SS-11 and a HOT-1 versus the Konkurs. Meanwhile Japan and GB still stuck with MCLOS missles at 6.7. Would've been easier to make BR "secondary" to brakets of WW-2 only, late WW-2/early cold war prototypes, then Cold-War/Modern era and rank those vehicles from 1.0-10.0

The first Soviet ATGM should be based on that horrific BRDM-BMP tracked+wheeled abortion called Object 910 (KGBM-2). Built in 1964, 73mm cannon (40 rounds) and (optional on recon var) 4x Malutkya missiles. I'll let the picture speak for itself as to if this was the Soviet version of the Pentagon Wars.
019-2.jpg

Edit: Don't forget the Object 911 with retractable wheels. They ought to have just gone with a Christie suspension with removable tracks...
 

Attachments

  • 019-3.jpg
    019-3.jpg
    392.6 KB · Views: 25
  • 019-1.gif
    019-1.gif
    31.4 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
♂CANAM productions♂ said:
If we're being fair, the Soviets would have Fagots in their tree as first atgm
Click to expand...
Na, Shmel on the BRDM-1 would be appropriate for the lower BR's, then the BMP-1 past that followed by a foldered BMP-1P with Konkurs at a higher BR. For the USA I'd put the TOW carrier M113 with the BMP since it wouldn't have any defensive weaponry besides the .50. I fucking hate that 73mm since it means the BMP-1 doesn't suffer the usual weakness of ATGM carriers when forced into close combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom