tanks/vehicles Schützenpanzer Marder 1A3

[Kocyra 5,742]

6 minutes ago, Retry said:

The Milan isn't standard issue until the 1A3, which is an '88 IFV.  The A3 also has rather vague "improved armor" to protect it from BMP-2's 30mm autocannon as well as cluster bomblets, which could be anything from stuffing steel onto the hull to, possibly, composite armor.  Being a rather modern IFV that's still in use today, it'd probably be rather difficult to get the documents to model the vehicle.

I see. So it'd have to be some hodge-podge mix taking features from different models of the Marder

[swpixy 1,220]

9 minutes ago, Retry said:

The Milan isn't standard issue until the 1A3, which is an '88 IFV.  The A3 also has rather vague "improved armor" to protect it from BMP-2's 30mm autocannon as well as cluster bomblets, which could be anything from stuffing steel onto the hull to, possibly, composite armor.  Being a rather modern IFV that's still in use today, it'd probably be rather difficult to get the documents to model the vehicle.

Milan was avaiable for the Marder since A1,actually.As for the armor-its the same add-on armor system that the Leopard 1A1A1 we have ingame uses,steel plates welded to the hull or mounted on rubber shock absorbers.

[Retry 7,363]

17 minutes ago, ldotEXEl said:

The milan was first introduced with the 1A3 and became a standard aramament. again there is no cuttoff date anymore. only a technology barrier. NO COMPOSITE.

Sorry m8 the '70s tank cutoff is still active.

 

The Milan was not first introduced on the 1A3, there were experiments and mountings with it on earlier Marder variants mid-70s.

 

I hope you have sources to back up your no-composite claim, the Marder 1A3 isn't your grandpappy's Marder.  It's got an entirely new armor package that's probably still classified as it's still used by the Germans.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

21 minutes ago, Retry said:

Sorry m8 the '70s tank cutoff is still active.

well sorry m8 but we were asking cokespray and he said that there only the technical barrier. thats why we started our light tank lines project in the first place. everything without composite is ok

Edited January 28, 2017 by ldotEXEl

[GreenAid 944]

No need, Begleitpanzer is much more fit for the game and in a similar position as this.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

8 hours ago, GreenAid said:

No need, Begleitpanzer is much more fit for the game and in a similar position as this.

i would really love to see the Begleitpanzer 57 ingame, i even linked it in my suggestion, BUT good luck getting historical documents. is far as i know is the project sill classified by our goverment. the data in the Begleitpanzer 57 Suggestion are mostly guessed. Even Armoured Warfare who have it ingame have used fictional values for armor and penetration. also there is not even a single prototype left to go to and measure for example armor thickness

Edited January 29, 2017 by ldotEXEl

[Vitasalato 681]

12 hours ago, Retry said:

Sorry m8 the '70s tank cutoff is still active.

 

 

You should get an update 

 

Implemented

 

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

3 hours ago, Vitasalato said:

 

You should get an update 

 

Implemented

THANK YOU

 

[Ryan_King 907]

Why not, would be nice to drive ^^

[Retry 7,363]

5 hours ago, Vitasalato said:

 

You should get an update 

 

Implemented

 

Old news, and no one was talking about 1953 being the cutoff.

 

Nice strawman.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

17 hours ago, Retry said:

Sorry m8 the '70s tank cutoff is still active.

 

The Milan was not first introduced on the 1A3, there were experiments and mountings with it on earlier Marder variants mid-70s.

 

I hope you have sources to back up your no-composite claim, the Marder 1A3 isn't your grandpappy's Marder.  It's got an entirely new armor package that's probably still classified as it's still used by the Germans.

 

Which is why we have 1984 HEAT-FS ammunition, 1975 Leopard A1A1 and various other 70's vehicles alread in-game right?

[Retry 7,363]

3 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Which is why we have 1984 HEAT-FS ammunition, 1975 Leopard A1A1 and various other 70's vehicles alread in-game right?

If you're referring to the Type 74's HEATFS, the design and production of that particular shell was actually much earlier in the 70s-ish.

Otherwise, 1975 Leo and the various other 70's vehicles are within the '70s cutoff.  So yes, that is why we have those already in-game.

 

As much as I like the Marder 1A3 (and Wiesel tankette) in Red Dragon, they don't have a place in War Thunder when the most modern fighters are subsonic Hunters from the mid '50s.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

8 minutes ago, Retry said:

If you're referring to the Type 74's HEATFS, the design and production of that particular shell was actually much earlier in the 70s-ish.

 

And the Leopard's development could be traced back to the 50's, doesn't make it any less of a 1960-70's tank.

 

8 minutes ago, Retry said:

Otherwise, 1975 Leo and the various other 70's vehicles are within the '70s cutoff.  So yes, that is why we have those already in-game.

 

'' A. We will likely add the Type-87 SPAA ''

 

That's a late 1980's tank (SPAA), pretty much confirmed for implementation, so please quit spreading the technological cut-off date myth any further.

 

8 minutes ago, Retry said:

As much as I like the Marder 1A3 (and Wiesel tankette) in Red Dragon, they don't have a place in War Thunder when the most modern fighters are subsonic Hunters from the mid '50s.

 

By that logic we shouldn't have even gone past Centurion Mk. 10's, M48's and T-54's, but we have, and FAR past that no less, so that is no longer an argument, infact, it's evidence that there is indeed only a technological cut-off mark as that is what is currently stopping further advances in aircraft implementation.

 

[Retry 7,363]

13 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

And the Leopard's development could be traced back to the 50's, doesn't make it any less of a 1960-70's tank.

If you stuff a 1950's ZSU-23-2 gun on a 1940's truck in the 2000's, it's still a 1950's era technology platform.

16 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

'' A. We will likely add the Type-87 SPAA ''

 

That's a late 1980's tank (SPAA), pretty much confirmed for implementation, so please quit spreading the technological cut-off date myth any further.

Nice quote mine.

 

Quote

Q. Is it possible we will see the Type 87 and Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman as the top SPAAGs for Japan and Britain to compare to the Gepard, ZSU-23-4 Shilka and M163 Vulcan?
 
A. We will likely add the Type-87 SPAA, in the case of the earlier versions, if we manage to find data on them we will add them.

 

Bolded the relevant part.

 

Earlier versions would be the Type 61 Chassis-based prototype model, which is most certainly not from the late 1980s.  The Type 87 will not be added itself because the chassis is from a late Type 74 which would have some elements of composite armor.  If you don't believe me you can ask the Japanese Tech Tree Project person herself, as I paraphrase the information from her.

25 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

By that logic we shouldn't have even gone past Centurion Mk. 10's, M48's and T-54's, but we have, and FAR past that no less, so that is no longer an argument, infact, it's evidence that there is indeed only a technological cut-off mark as that is what is currently stopping further advances in aircraft implementation.

"Let's go over the edge because we're going that way anyways" is not an argument.  An A-10A Warthog stripped of its fancier gizmos would technically fit the technology cutoff as well, still doesn't have a prayer's chance of being added.

[Vitasalato 681]

1 hour ago, Retry said:

Old news, and no one was talking about 1953 being the cutoff.

 

Nice strawman.

 

You were talking of date-cutoff begin still active, no matter the year.

Is untruth that any Date cut-off is still active. At the moment the cutoff is based on technology, that makes much more sense then a date.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

1 hour ago, Retry said:

If you stuff a 1950's ZSU-23-2 gun on a 1940's truck in the 2000's, it's still a 1950's era technology platform.

 

That's besides the point, the cut-off date would be present on introduction dates,

 

Quote

Bolded the relevant part.

 

That's not how I read the answer, to me they're saying they will likely add the Type-87, and if they manage to find data on earlier version(s), they will add them aswell/instead, besides, I'm sure that they could just choose to remove the composite packages entirely if they'd want that.

 

Quote

"Let's go over the edge because we're going that way anyways" is not an argument.  An A-10A Warthog stripped of its fancier gizmos would technically fit the technology cutoff as well, still doesn't have a prayer's chance of being added.

 

Isn't that what people thought about anti-tank guided missiles? yet here they are already in-game.

 

Regardless, Gaijin has already crossed that edge on multiple occasions, first from late 1940's/early 50's tech to mid 50's/early 60's, and now we're already in the early 70's looking towards late 70's, all these previous cut-off dates have been broken by now, the 1980's are no exception, further proof of that is the fact that 1983/1986 explosive reactive armour suggestions are now acceptable, that was a technological cut-off mark that's now been done away with aswell.

 

As long as certain vehicles that were designed in the 1980's do not break the current technological cut-off mark they're valid for implementation.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Necrons31467

[Retry 7,363]

2 minutes ago, Vitasalato said:

 

You were talking of date-cutoff begin still active, no matter the year.

Is untruth that any Date cut-off is still active. At the moment the cutoff is based on technology, that makes much more sense then a date.

It's a dual cutoff, and it's been that way for a long time (even when the cutoffs are moved).  Hence, no Marder 1A3, no Humvees with Grenade Launchers or TOW missiles, no Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicles, no Strykers, no B1 Centauros, and no M8 Bufords.

[Vitasalato 681]

29 minutes ago, Retry said:

It's a dual cutoff, and it's been that way for a long time (even when the cutoffs are moved).  Hence, no Marder 1A3, no Humvees with Grenade Launchers or TOW missiles, no Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicles, no Strykers, no B1 Centauros, and no M8 Bufords.

 

As you wish you can keep using the cutoff-date, is just a worthless motivation that Devs will simply ignore, whether you believe it or not.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

2 hours ago, Retry said:

It's a dual cutoff, and it's been that way for a long time (even when the cutoffs are moved).  Hence, no Marder 1A3, no Humvees with Grenade Launchers or TOW missiles, no Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicles, no Strykers, no B1 Centauros, and no M8 Bufords.

 

So I just discussed the matter with Smim1080p, his answers were as follows:

 

 

Since Gaijin has announced that they are looking into possibly adding the Type-87 SPAA (being a 1980's machine) or additionally some of it's earlier variants, I was wondering if there is no longer any cut-off date set on a specific decade, but instead a technological cut-off barrier instead, for example, could a tank as recent as being from the 2000's be added if it did not break any technological barriers?

 

'' Yes there is indeed still the technological cut off that stops around our current set of main battle tanks (Leo A1A1, T-62, M60A1). ''

 

Can more modern (past 1979) tanks be added if they do not feature any technology that breaks the current limit?

 

'' If they are needed for balance (such as the Type 87) then yes....  However for any other reason currently no. ''

 

The last bit refers back to them not wanting to go past the current set of MBT's.

 

 

As for the Type-87:

 

'' Firstly the Type 87 has no major differences to other top SPAAGs. In fact its quite comparable to the German Gepard. However, it entered service at a much later time that all of our other vehicles we have in game.  ''

 

 

So, there is no 1980's cut-off date, there is however a tech limit in place and the preference of not going past our current MBT's unless ofcourse it is absolutely neccesary.

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Necrons31467

[Retry 7,363]

1 hour ago, Vitasalato said:

As you wish you can keep using the cutoff-date, is just a worthless motivation that Devs will simply ignore, whether you believe it or not.

Gaijin isn't going to implement implement this 1988 modification of an IFV.

Well, maybe they do, but then you better expect BMP-3's to rain on your parade.

Quote

' Yes there is indeed still the technological cut off that stops around our current set of main battle tanks (Leo A1A1, T-62, M60A1). ''

The question was poorly stated because it presumed an either-or approach, which is not necessarily (and not at all) true.  Smin only confirmed what we already knew: a technological cutoff exists.  Hardly breaking ground.  He did not deny the existence of any absolute or relative timeframe cutoff ('70s is already extremely generous imho)

Quote

' If they are needed for balance (such as the Type 87) then yes....  However for any other reason currently no. ''

The Type 61 SPAAG prototype is necessary for balance and will get in, the Type 87 no, as the latter's still classified with no public details on its construction.

 

The only other area Japan will need is a SACLOS ATGM which has the Type 79 Jyu-MAT which can be mounted on jeeps or APCs.  Problem solved without hitting '80s tech once again.

 

So, for ground forces at least, all areas for T5 balance have been covered without hitting '80s tech.

Quote

'' Firstly the Type 87 has no major differences to other top SPAAGs. In fact its quite comparable to the German Gepard. However, it entered service at a much later time that all of our other vehicles we have in game.  ''

It is comparable to the German Gepard.  Unfortunately, here in the real world, it's actually quite difficult to get information on high-tech military equipment that's still in service like the Guntank.

 

Fortunately, there's still the 1970sish prototype with a Type 61 chassis and the same weapon system that would actually be easier to get information from, not to mention legal.

 

Quote

So, there is no 1980's cut-off date, there is however a tech limit in place and the preference of not going past our current MBT's unless ofcourse it is absolutely neccesary.

We already know the former, and as for the latter, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

14 minutes ago, Retry said:

He did not deny the existence of any absolute or relative timeframe cutoff ('70s is already extremely generous imho)

 

Sigh....

 

He stated that if a certain vehicle was required to be added, then it would be added, regardless of the time frame, that literally means that there is no specific cut-off date that prevents certain vehicles from being added.

 

I mean, ask him yourself.

[Retry 7,363]

3 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Sigh....

 

He stated that if a certain vehicle was required to be added, then it would be added, regardless of the time frame, that literally means that there is no specific cut-off date that prevents certain vehicles from being added.

 

I mean, ask him yourself.

All specific vehicles themselves that are necessary are pre-80s.

[AkizukiXen 23]

+1 But i'm afraid they'll add a Bradley or something with those TOW missiles...

[Necrons31467 14,236]

5 minutes ago, Retry said:

All specific vehicles themselves that are necessary are pre-80s.

 

Which in no way corresponds with there being a 1980's cut-off date, by that same line of reasoning you might aswell state there's a 1990's cut-off date.

 

So, there is no cut-off date, and as I stated earlier, stop spreading that myth.

[Retry 7,363]

6 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Which in no way corresponds with there being a 1980's cut-off date, by that same line of reasoning you might aswell state there's a 1990's cut-off date.

 

So, there is no cut-off date, and as I stated earlier, stop spreading that myth.

Devs themselves said they're not wanting to go out of the late 70s or so.  Cutoff.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Retry