Smin1080p

Fairly sizeable. But really that's always subjective to who you ask really.

We are always trying to cover as many bases as possible.

The Battle pass often has minor variants, events some more "unique" items and premiums can be a mix of both.

Just to be clear we are not breaking a rule here. Its exactly why we don't have an "offical set of rules" set in stone for vehicle criteria. It allows no real flexibility if we do that and going by past times when we did that ("We wont have supersonics in War Thunder" - "We wont have missiles in War Thunder" - "We wont add Israel as a nation" etc) its exactly why we don't want to lock these things down in that way anymore.

We have general points and guidelines that are followed, but these can change depending on the situation and needs. Ultimately its down to the developers

Its not specifically the calibre of the 120mm gun that's the issue, its the fact the M1A1 is Rank VII and a higher BR. The Leopard 2A4 premium is also Rank VI. Which is where we want this vehicle to be.

Once again your more than welcome to hold an opinion.

Plenty of others would also like to have cosmetically different vehicles as premiums. Going by the overall reactions to this vehicle, it seems to have been the right choice and something a fair few are interested in for its visuals.

This fits just fine also and is visually more intresting.

This is the F-5C with the camo from the F-5N. The F-5C never had this appearance.

Generally we aim for something cool and interesting where possible. This one fits the bill just fine and seems to be pretty popular and well received for its visuals

We do not have set in stone rules such as this. Its purely down to the developers discretion. We have other cases like this one in game and the possibility of others its not off the table.

It does not mean that every single example that can be found will be automatically added or considered just because its the same case as this tank.

In all of these cases, these are visual / cosmetic skins applied to vehicles of the same family but differing variants.

If you can link the references we can pass them on for consideration, before you purchase anything or make any detailed contacts just to raise the idea again and check if its still a balancing factor.

We certainly haven't ruled out other Panther variants. But its not applicable to the next major update.

Im not here to convince you of anything. You are perfectly welcome to have and hold an opinion of your own and that's more than entirely fine.

Others however are very much interested in this vehicle and it seems to be quite well received generally as a premium.

As for fictional. As I mentioned, its a standard M1 105mm that cosmetically has a different appearance from another variant of the same tank. We have plenty of cases like this across the game on multiple premiums and standard tree vehicles:

Ultimately however. This was a training tank. Never to be used in combat, representing a Russian tank that never existed from a nation that never existed. Quite simply its an M1 with different visuals. Its more than plausible and possible various variants of the M1 family have been used in training roles and the second you use one of the alternative winter / summer etc camos th...

It covers the gun quite clearly on the store page:

We dont plan to re-add the Panther II or King Tiger 105mm. They were not just unhistorical, but had several reasons for their removal which we have explained numerous times now. The King Tiger 105mm was physically impossible and the Panther II was a mash of about 3-4 different projects.

This is simply just a M1 that's used as an aggressor with the visuals of a made up Russian tank from a made up nation anyway.

Its advertised as exactly what it is. An aggressor visual style vehicle that is a standard M1 105mm.

Its an aggressor vehicle that was only ever used to train troops acting as a fictional Russian tank from a fictional nation. There's nothing really massively historical about the "real" thing as its purely just for training and would never have been deployed to any war or battlefield in that way anyway.

We wanted to have a suitable Abrams with a really cool and interesting visual style for Rank VI. Its not outside the realms of possibility that M1s could or would be used in this way,

IRL yes.

In game the M1 105mm was selected intentionally to replicate an aggressor Abrams to suit the required Rank and BR and not the BR of the M1A1.

Who's ready for another blog today

https://warthunder.com/en/news/8203-development-battle-pass-vehicles-centurion-mk-2-en

A source wont change a balance decision. That's indeed correct.

My answer previously was about acceptable sources. Crew statements are not one of them.

Shell / belt composition is and always will be down to the devs to ultimately decide. However we can pass on for consideration suggestions supported by materials (sources). It may not change the outcome, but its something we can do in terms of feedback

Perhaps im misunderstanding, but the question asked was was the crew statement sufficient. As a general rule the devs do not accept crew statements for any kind of game changes really unless there is further supporting evidence.

If there is viable means to show the shell was possible / used for the gun via source material, then its indeed possible to be submitted for consideration at least.

As Flame mentioned its indeed correct.

One of the Vixens I visited in person (a bit worn more than the average one mind you) had it quite prominently:

Hi guys. We have a known issue with this and our team are working to resolve it.

If you have already claimed, please sit tight. You should receive it in time.