Talk:Warrior - Revision history

U42773747: /* MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart */

2022-09-13T14:43:42Z

‎MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart

U28580205: /* MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart */ Added signature and response

2021-03-31T15:47:24Z

‎MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart: Added signature and response

U22843340: /* MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart */ new section

2021-03-31T15:27:27Z

‎MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart: new section

U42773747: /* Incredibly weird hullbreak situation */ re

2020-09-11T10:07:06Z

‎Incredibly weird hullbreak situation: re

U28580205: Response

2020-09-11T07:21:06Z

Response

U42773747: /* Incredibly weird hullbreak situation */ new section

2020-09-10T11:12:41Z

‎Incredibly weird hullbreak situation: new section

New page

== Incredibly weird hullbreak situation ==

Wanted to ask, if someone knows, why this tank now hullbreaks from being hit by 105 mm and 86 mm kinetics? I feel like this is somehow tied to volumetric shell update, and it seems old rules of HB no longer exist?

https://wiki.warthunder.com/Damage_mechanics#Hull-break says that kinetics need to at least hit a critical module for instant K/O, but it seems hull itself on Warrior is now a critical module? At the very least, some patch notes said "120mm kinetics and 105+mm chemicals cause hullbreak for that tank", so I'd expect it to only instantly blow up from being hit anywhere if I got hit by 120 mm APFSDS or something along those lines.

For example, before this tank hullbroke if you hit its track even with like 50 mm gun (as long as it's not an autocannon, IE counts as normal tank gun), but it only worked if it was an explosive, like HEAT or HE.
Fair enough, tank had ERA shield for that, whatever. It still exists, though, and royal teabag removed that comment anyway.

[[File:75 mm HE hullbreaks warrior by hitting the track.jpg|thumb|[[Pz.IV F1|seems legit]]]]

Yesterday it got hullbroken twice by being shot through from side (without hitting any modules directly) by Vickers MBT 105 mm APDS, and from the front by [[Strv 81]] firing unknown shell, which has 86 mm gun, and I swear, apfsds of any caliber can hullbreak light tanks which don't have radiators, or at least 'something' in place of hit (like [[ZSU-23-4|ZSU]]), so [[Rooikat 105|Rooikat]] can regularly bust them instantly.

So, basically, I'm either forced to write something utterly heretical again (and risk it being deleted), or I don't understand something/missed some patch note. Should I, and if so, should I apply screenshots? And if I really missed some memo, I feel like hull-break section needs to be rewritten by someone, I guess.

--[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 13 September 2022
Line 24:		Line 24:
	Range is correctly listed as 2km later on. --[[User:U22843340\|U22843340]] ([[User talk:U22843340\|talk]]) 15:27, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)		Range is correctly listed as 2km later on. --[[User:U22843340\|U22843340]] ([[User talk:U22843340\|talk]]) 15:27, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)
	: We will look into this issue. Thank you for pointing this out! --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 15:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)		: We will look into this issue. Thank you for pointing this out! --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 15:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
		+	:: There is the same issue with MILAN 2 stat card, should be 2 km but says 6.5 km --[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 14:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 31 March 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:
	The first chart under Additional armament lists the ranges incorrectly (6.5km) but they seem to be pulling the specs from somewhere else that I've no idea how to edit.		The first chart under Additional armament lists the ranges incorrectly (6.5km) but they seem to be pulling the specs from somewhere else that I've no idea how to edit.

−	Range is correctly listed as 2km later on.	+	Range is correctly listed as 2km later on. --[[User:U22843340\|U22843340]] ([[User talk:U22843340\|talk]]) 15:27, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)
		+	: We will look into this issue. Thank you for pointing this out! --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 15:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 31 March 2021
Line 17:		Line 17:
	: My advice on your writing of your experiences with the Warrior is to try and be more general rather than focused on the specific details. For example, the current line "The Warrior can be hull-broken by any chemical shells of 105 mm calibre and kinetic shells of 120 mm calibre" would be invalidated from your experiences, but keeping it simple as "The Warrior can be hull-broken" would be more flexible for the variety of events, and therefore more accepting in the overall page. In regards to the inconsistent application of hull-break mechanics from published statements, anything not acting in its proper manner should be reported through the proper bug-reporting channels on the War Thunder forums. --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)		: My advice on your writing of your experiences with the Warrior is to try and be more general rather than focused on the specific details. For example, the current line "The Warrior can be hull-broken by any chemical shells of 105 mm calibre and kinetic shells of 120 mm calibre" would be invalidated from your experiences, but keeping it simple as "The Warrior can be hull-broken" would be more flexible for the variety of events, and therefore more accepting in the overall page. In regards to the inconsistent application of hull-break mechanics from published statements, anything not acting in its proper manner should be reported through the proper bug-reporting channels on the War Thunder forums. --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
	:: So, if the HB text was generalized in a way of like "tank can suffer hits of up to 105 mm kinetic and 120 mm chemical before it is almost guaranteed to hull break", it should cause less problems with people considering it a problem, even if it doesn't follow general statements to a T? I'm not sure if that is going to help, but I'll consider. As for reporting it through forums, well, I tried that twice. It didn't end well, it just was flat out deleted, because I also mentioned, that this problem was relevant for a number of tanks, even though they could just ignore the rest of the text, that they didn't deem relevant. The forum also has a very limited space for evidence deposit, so me reporting every light tank in existence would probably take 3 years. I could also try Russian forum, or to apply simplified (not full) reports, like some people do, but I think they'd be rejected even faster. I don't really have soul, or time, for that, sorry. --[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)		:: So, if the HB text was generalized in a way of like "tank can suffer hits of up to 105 mm kinetic and 120 mm chemical before it is almost guaranteed to hull break", it should cause less problems with people considering it a problem, even if it doesn't follow general statements to a T? I'm not sure if that is going to help, but I'll consider. As for reporting it through forums, well, I tried that twice. It didn't end well, it just was flat out deleted, because I also mentioned, that this problem was relevant for a number of tanks, even though they could just ignore the rest of the text, that they didn't deem relevant. The forum also has a very limited space for evidence deposit, so me reporting every light tank in existence would probably take 3 years. I could also try Russian forum, or to apply simplified (not full) reports, like some people do, but I think they'd be rejected even faster. I don't really have soul, or time, for that, sorry. --[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	== MILAN ATGM ranges incorrect in first chart ==
		+
		+	The first chart under Additional armament lists the ranges incorrectly (6.5km) but they seem to be pulling the specs from somewhere else that I've no idea how to edit.
		+
		+	Range is correctly listed as 2km later on.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 11 September 2020
Line 16:		Line 16:
	--[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)		--[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
	: My advice on your writing of your experiences with the Warrior is to try and be more general rather than focused on the specific details. For example, the current line "The Warrior can be hull-broken by any chemical shells of 105 mm calibre and kinetic shells of 120 mm calibre" would be invalidated from your experiences, but keeping it simple as "The Warrior can be hull-broken" would be more flexible for the variety of events, and therefore more accepting in the overall page. In regards to the inconsistent application of hull-break mechanics from published statements, anything not acting in its proper manner should be reported through the proper bug-reporting channels on the War Thunder forums. --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)		: My advice on your writing of your experiences with the Warrior is to try and be more general rather than focused on the specific details. For example, the current line "The Warrior can be hull-broken by any chemical shells of 105 mm calibre and kinetic shells of 120 mm calibre" would be invalidated from your experiences, but keeping it simple as "The Warrior can be hull-broken" would be more flexible for the variety of events, and therefore more accepting in the overall page. In regards to the inconsistent application of hull-break mechanics from published statements, anything not acting in its proper manner should be reported through the proper bug-reporting channels on the War Thunder forums. --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
		+	:: So, if the HB text was generalized in a way of like "tank can suffer hits of up to 105 mm kinetic and 120 mm chemical before it is almost guaranteed to hull break", it should cause less problems with people considering it a problem, even if it doesn't follow general statements to a T? I'm not sure if that is going to help, but I'll consider. As for reporting it through forums, well, I tried that twice. It didn't end well, it just was flat out deleted, because I also mentioned, that this problem was relevant for a number of tanks, even though they could just ignore the rest of the text, that they didn't deem relevant. The forum also has a very limited space for evidence deposit, so me reporting every light tank in existence would probably take 3 years. I could also try Russian forum, or to apply simplified (not full) reports, like some people do, but I think they'd be rejected even faster. I don't really have soul, or time, for that, sorry. --[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:21, 11 September 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:

	--[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)		--[[User:U42773747\|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747\|talk]]) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
		+	: My advice on your writing of your experiences with the Warrior is to try and be more general rather than focused on the specific details. For example, the current line "The Warrior can be hull-broken by any chemical shells of 105 mm calibre and kinetic shells of 120 mm calibre" would be invalidated from your experiences, but keeping it simple as "The Warrior can be hull-broken" would be more flexible for the variety of events, and therefore more accepting in the overall page. In regards to the inconsistent application of hull-break mechanics from published statements, anything not acting in its proper manner should be reported through the proper bug-reporting channels on the War Thunder forums. --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)