[2022] Schützenpanzer Puma IFV: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.

The following reports have all been resolved:

Status: Not a bug. Offical Puma source states 200 RPM: http://www.psm-spz.de/en/features/armament.html

Status: Not a bug.

Developer Comment

Status: Resolved. The back plates of the combined armor are present in the DM. They are made in one simplified block.

Status: Fixed.

Status: Fixed.

Resolved: Reverse speed is correct at 30 kph:

Status: Fixed

We posted the response from the developers on the report that was submitted and as far as im aware, a new report has not been submitted since.

On our tracker there are 18 showing from the forum. 10 have been resolved with 8 outstanding.

There are thousands of topics on this forum, all of which discussing one of the 2000+ vehicles we have in game, maps, balance matters or many, many other game topics. Unfortunately the devs cannot go topic to topic, trawling through to check posts and a myriad of sources on various matters to try and piece together what the actual individual issues may or not be.

If you believe something is incorrect, for traceability, tracking and procedural reasons, it needs to be properly reported via the correct means. Not just random forum topics.

Yes. Anything from the forum or new tracker receives the same forum tag to basically show it came from external means.

This was the comment and decision from the developers. As already stated, if you believe its still incorrect, you can submit additional evidence via a new report.

MUSS does not have 360° coverage - Known, but this feature is not in game currently for any vehicle. This will be implemented in the future.



Driver hatch incorrect thickness - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself)




3D model of 15mm frontal plates does not correlate with assigned armour value - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself).




Rear armour plates and door should contain composite or be made of thicker steel - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself).




Frontal armour not classified as composite - X-ray will be improved in the future.




CLARA ERA should protect against 30mm APDS while staying inert - The report does not currently contain reliable sources confirming what has been said.



Driver hatch dead zone too large on the right - Fixed pending implementation.


Roof plates are too thin - Confirmed. Will be implemented.


Puma cannot turn properly with forward/reverse gear - Fixed pending implementation.


Shell should launch a fragmentation cone after detonating - Partially already implemented. Restricted by in game representation.


Incorrect side add-on composite protection level against kinetic energy shells - The report does not correctly evaluate the existing armour protection, considering composite screens separately without taking into account the main protection. The data presented in the sources does not generally contradict the current configuration.


30mm cannon has to be reloaded after 100 rounds when only one type of shell is selected - The full mechanics of this are not yet in game.


Incorrect commander sight magnification - Fixed.


Missing 50mm anti-mine plate - The Anti-Mine structure has already been implemented. It will be clarified further perhaps in the X-ray later.


Turret side-armour should be partially triple layered - There is not enough information in this report. But as new data becomes available, changes may be possible.


Missing Anti-Tank Guided Missile Warning Sensor - Currently, there is no such mechanic for ground vehicles.


PUMA should have optical tracking - At the moment, we do not have these mechanics for regular ground vehicles. For example BMP-2M has the same feature in reality, but does not in game.


Incorrect side-armour composition - Requires in-depth review. So far, no immediate confirmed contradictions were located in the current implementation. It should be noted that the user’s source presents a variant of a Puma with lightweight protection, where combined armour is installed rather than the variant we have in game.

Dev blogs cover the charactistics of the vehicle in general. Not everything is necessary implemented immediately and everything is subject to change.

The mechanic itself does not exist at all for any vehicle. The BMP-2 was an example provided by the developers of another vehicle that can also have the feature.

It is not about comparing what the Puma has or BMP has. The mechanic simply isn't in the game for any vehicle yet.

Fixed pending implementation.

Nobody has clamed the vehicle has been in development for 2 years.

Guys if the topic cannot remain constructive without falling into insults at the developers, accusations of lies and other simply unnecessary comments. We will close it.

An update on the reports was requested and whilst the devs are currently focused on working on core bug reports with the major update, they took the time to briefly summarize and respond quickly to the issues that have currently been reported. I apricate some of you may not like / agree with the answers. But the spiralling negativity and flaming is not going to progress the matter faster or lead to proper outcomes.

We provided the quick responses to keep you guys in the loop, not open up direct insults, flaming and hostility. Please keep on track and constructive. Everyone here is trying to work to improve things and make things the best possible.

There is absolutely no need or justification for toxicity here.

Now you know.

These are not electro-optical active protection systems.

Im not sure who or what you are referring to here. These are all of the reports open with all of the information required.

The
MUSS is an electro-optical protection system which is what the report was referring too. We dont have anything of this kind in game. The others are hard kill.

Please check again. The report was on the system as a whole and the system as a whole was what was answered. The developers made no reference to any specific part of it. We do not have that system in game with 360 coverage right now.

I understand there is frustration that some reports have not seen the outcome you wish to see, but many of these matters, when not having fully conclusive material by the developers standards cannot be resolved quickly. They require further validation and confirmation if what was provided is insufficient.

The toxicity however is not going to speed that process up and would be best left out of the topic.

As far as im aware these people you speak of (who im unsure on who or even if they are consultants) have made no reports in any areas that I can see, with none visible on our tracker.

Check my initial response you quoted. My response was to this post:

The Puma is not the first vehicle to be implemented without all of its IRL features also being implemented at the same time. It also wont be the last, as its not uncommon for vehicles to be initially added and then more gameplay features added or expanded upon over time.

We dont have any reports currently to my knowledge.

These are the responses I was provided by the developers on the issues currently. As I've already said, many are already in progress and to be added over time.

Merkava 4 automatically detects missiles, and counters them, but it doesn't warn the player about a missile approaching before the counter system kicks in. Its part of the APS.

As we have already covered, Dev blogs cover most of the features of the vehicles in general and not necessarily everything it will have immediately. This has been the case for many vehicles in the past where their dev blog mentions features and novelties that they might not have ok launch.

We are not asking anyone to do that. Simply expalining what was submitted already is insufficient and can't be used by itself for any change.

That's not down to my decision. The developers decide what sources to accept for changes. The only part that involves me is the minimum requirement for acceptance on the forum. After that, the developers make the decisions on what sources to accept based on what they have / are using.

The criteria required to submit a report is outlined in detail here:

One primary source or Two agreeing secondary sources are required to submit a report. As I explained however, this is what's required to submit a report. The developers and consultants then check and review and make the final call.

BR changes are made based on the performance of the vehicle currently and how its doing as of right now. They are not connected to any ongoing / existing reports.

Based on if / when the developers can acquire the suitable information to make any changes that are based on source material. Any corrective changes based on reports will be posted within the changelog.

This can be used as a supporting source for a suggestion report, but two agreeing sources would be needed to confirm any values of an alternate firing mode.

The vehcile has been in game for just coming up to a month now. We have over 2000+ vehciles in game and many of those with reports on them too far older than that.

The bug report requirements are correct and not in need of any updating. They reflect what's required to pass the report. Beyond that, it's down to the developers and consultants. Many of the sources require further validation because they are either insufficient or conflict with what the developers already have.

As far as im aware, no reports have been closed due to a lack of sources and for those that have been closed / resolved (RPM and Reverse speed) we have shared where that information came from already. The responses we gave as to why the reports were not resolved at the time of asking. Reports lacking info are not closed, but placed under investigation until such a time when more info can be located. It would be helpful to know specifically what reports you are referring to that have been closed (and their forum link) as this is otherwise a rather broad and general span.

Additionally nothing has been "brushed off" with regards to a feature not being present in game yet, nor have we said it would never be added. Plenty of vehicles have been added in the past and received features later on. We have also not ruled out any missing features and have not made mention of having no intention to work on them.

Generally we do try to share our sources where possible, but due to the sheer volume of reports, this isn't always possible.

None of these reports have been closed. Thus no sources have been provided as the investigation is still ongoing.

The only one that has was this one: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548658-feedback-puma-ifv-upper-frontal-plate-should-be-a-nera-array/

The back plates of the combined armour are already present in the DM. They are made in one block (more simplified) to optimize the DM

The report is on the UFP array armour.

You appear to be referring to this report:

Which is on a different issue and still open.

The report I linked, was closed as the array is already in game:

As the developer quote explained:

The developers have confirmed the composite exists, but as with most modern tanks, the array has been simplified to optimize the DM.

There has been no mention on the side armour. The original discussion you quoted me on was on the UFP array. Not the side armour.

This quote:

Is for the report linked above from a developer on the UFP array.

There has been some on the side too, all 3 of these remain open:

Unfortunately we cannot keep posting a rolling status update on every report every single time you ping me. Particularly when every time we do, its met with the same sort reactions such as:

Proving sadly its not apricated to do so and is in fact twisted into something its not. Spam pinging on a regular basis (as is quickly becoming the case in this thread) will lead to a warning.

There are reports open for many vehicles in game and many other matters across the whole game that are far older than any of these reports. The PUMA is not new or unique in this respect. We have 2000+ vehicles now and it simply is not possible to provide up to date status updates on every single reported issue across the whole game. Some reports may also remain open whilst further investigations are conducted, already planed / scheduled reviews within a specific timeframe or a myriad of other reasons.

If you want an update to a specific report, please provide a link (not a screenshot) to the report(s) in question.

Something such as this:

Is an entirely open ended request.

Is is entirely wrong that anyone was lied too. Nothing I have said was a lie. I have only passed responses directly from the developers.

Something not yet being fixed or addressed yet does not mean anyone has been lied to. Having that sort of attitude or approach simply means its not going to be worth our time checking on matters if its going to be twisted into something its not.

That's incorrect. There have been other vehicles with more reports than the PUMA and I don't doubt there will be others after it. Sadly pinging me 24/7 also wont result in faster fixes as its not inside of my control. But the PUMA is not an outlier or exception here.

State applied to all. As you can see, they all remain open as per the last time I provided an update on them.

Dev Server sections are always closed and hidden into an archive after every update comes out. This has taken place for 10 years now. Its not new.

If something was closed as fixed / resolved but you believe it is still not, please open a new report with additional information.

Most of these assumptions are incorrect, not how it was explained and part of the overall issue with the direction of this topic. I have provided several status updates on the reports linked to the fullest extent that is possible for us to do. Whilst we can apricate some reports not being resolved or concluded can be frustrating for those passionate about this vehicle, it does not mean the PUMA is being treated differently to any other vehicle that has multiple reports on it.

I have done what I can do here to provide an update to those issues based on the information that I have to provide.

Being fed up or frustrated, whilst understandable is not an excuse to then spam, twist statements and overall start directing the topic down a direction which is not going to receive any answers from any member of staff.

Once again, this is an incorrect assumption. What you believe to be sufficient information is not all it takes. Particularly if information conflicts, is incomplete or non conclusive. The PUMA is also not the only vehicle in game requiring developer time, resources and attention for its reports. We cannot provide any further updates to those reports beyond the state they are currently in if not closed / fixed, hence why none have been provided since. Even when it is provided, the response today has once again proven it is not aiding this topic to do so.

Reports I have said are fixed are the status applied to the report from the developers. This means based on the information they have, after concluding the report, they believe it to be fixed. You may disagree with that, which you are welcome to do so. As I said, you can open a new report with any counter / new information if you believe its not been fixed.


Reports I have said lack sources are again, not meeting the developers criteria for what they believe to be sufficient. Generalising some reports to mean all reports is not a good comparison. Even if some sources were primary, they may conflict, be incomplete or inconclusive.


Again, this was the direct outcome of the report and response from the developer.

Anyone that has been here for longer than a few updates would be aware every Dev Server section is archived and hidden after the update is released. There is nothing mysterious about that. It has always been this way.

There is not only one user spamming with regards to pings or other matters. It was not a direct claim against any one person, but a general warning for the topic, that it wont help or aid our ability to do anything or answer by spamming us with pings, nor will it increase any of us being likely to respond to a topic where our answers are in fact misconstrued to be further used against the matter. The assumptions within the screenshot were not correct. Again, whilst we can apricate that fustigation leads to an opinion and attitude forming, it was not what was said.

Unfortunately I do not have an ETA to provide for those reports, or indeed many reports of that nature across many vehicles. When a developer updates a report to be fixed conclusively we would likely relay that and similarly if it was closed, where possible we try to find the origin report and do exactly that. That is part of the reason for the new bug report platform, is that it has a specific live status update on exactly the state a given report is in and when it is closed / fixed / resolved, a response is given there. On the older forum system, its not as possible to do so, particularly with the limitations of the dev server sections. Thus we greatly encourage use of the new site. Because what you are describing is exactly the reason for it being created.

I know that many of the matters @Stuhlfleischhas worked on directly and has opened his own personal reports on too, so would also be as likely as me to provide an update when a report was closed for whatever the reason may be.

There was no claim or attribution to anyone here being at fault for something not being resolved. More that I have been trying to clarify why that may be to level the situation out in this topic and prevent misunderstandings and false assumptions that have been taking place.

That report was closed last year. The developers believe the current gunners position to be correct. One such example was provided by them:

This matter has since been reopened for re-examination.

During the time between the dev servers and launch, the developers are working on key bugfixes and finalising the update ready for release cross platform. The vast majority of issues reported on dev server are fixed before live. In the Winds of Change dev server section, there were 6 pages of reports forwarded. Almost all of these were resolved before release, making the open PUMA reports the minority left. Many of the PUMA ones required more time for validation and review from the developers and its not practical, realistic or possible to delay a whole major update because there are a few historical related reports open.

The reports remain open and do not close even if they are not resolved during a dev server. We have to manually pull old reports out and can do so on request as and when it happens. Its not possible to mass transfer all reports as they have to be done manually. Most cases things are resolved anyway so there is no need to pull them over.

I have pulled them all back (as well as some others that have been fixed or answered as to why they were closed):

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/549400-214039-protection-of-pumas-side-composite-blocks-is-too-low-on-the-dev-server/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548653-214029-puma-ifvs-klara-era-provides-too-little-protection/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548654-214030-puma-ifv-lacks-nera-plates-beneath-the-clara-era/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548660-214030-puma-ifv-turret-lacks-its-nera-array/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/549488-214039-pumas-driver-hatch-wrong-thickness/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/549511-puma-ifv-lower-frontal-steel-plate-wrong-thickness/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548658-214030-puma-ifv-upper-frontal-plate-should-be-a-nera-array/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/549398-back-protection-of-puma-ifv-is-too-low/

Any report forwarded is not closed just when the dev server closes. This has never been the case.

The consultants that work with the developers generally are not public interacting members of staff. They work internally with the developers and its not part of their role / job to communicate with players. Their job is research. The former Chinse (and for that matter any other consultant) that may choose to interact with players does so under their own discretion and choice. As a reminder, all staff are under NDA.

I would also add, "it's quite obvious many of them are biased" is generally not a good way to try and seek getting a response from anyone. The situation with the former Chinese consultant was answered and resolved. Applying that to every other situation you do not agree with personally is not going to further any progress.

Just to also add, normalizing that as ok and using that as a benchmark is not a good idea. "Someone said worse things to staff/mods and still got a response" is not a justification to continue doing so or to be encouraged. If it continued / worsened, then the topic would be locked and those who did so would be issued warnings as per the forum rules.

Once again, as I mentioned previously, the responses I have posted here have been to try and help the situation as I can apricate frustration caused by those that are reporting issues that have not yet seen an outcome / had the desired outcome. That does not however mean its ok to start becoming hostile, insult or treat any member of the team in any position with "inappropriate words" or anything otherwise as a result.

Sorry to break your theory, but I simply pointed back to a comment we made first 3 years ago in 2019 and were very clear about: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6338-development-eurocopter-tiger-pouncing-on-the-prey-en

If something is done intentionally for balance, we say so. We do not "ignore" reports to keep a vehicle balanced.

So far from the 47 total Issues we have on the PUMA that have been submitted on our internal tracker (coming from the forum or Alpha Testers / Tech mods), 35 of those have been resolved / fixed.

Of the direct forum reported fixes (marked as fixed):

Reported Internally and fixed:

Ammo stored in tank hull is lost when ammo in the back of turret is destroyed




Missing roof plate




Cannon clips into driver's sight and hatch when fully depressed




Driver hatch dead zone too large on the right

Reports that are still open under further review:

As I have mentioned and explained before, dev server sections are hidden once that period closes. Its not a problem to pull reports out of those areas into the main viewable areas on request. I have done so with these.

What report specifically is this your referring too please? I can track its progress from the report link.

There's really nothing suspect about it. Nothing on this forum is ever "deleted".

If a report doesn't meet the requirements, it won't be approved. That's made clear when you make the topic, as you have to agree to have read and followed the guidelines in your topic. In the case of the 163 report, it didn't follow the guidelines.

As for Dev server reports, I have explained already here that once a Dev closes, the section is moved to storage. If you require reports to be moved, they can be done on request. I've done that with the Puma report in question.

Also did not follow the guidelines.

Visual Model

Reports that do not follow the template will not be accepted.

Follow the

yellow links for help articles in the knowledgebase.

Required files:

Screenshots taken using the in-game functionality

Sources that meet the requirements

There are no planned changes to the shells and as far as I can see, only one report open concerning its penetration:

As for other vehicles receiving target tracking, the BMP-2M, BMD-4, PUMA and M3A3 Bradley will also have this feature. If you believe something else had the feature in reality but wont in game, please submit a historical report with the evidence that shows it clearly.

Moved back to historical reports.

If you need a second opinion on a bug report, a simple PM is fine. A rant post is unnecessary.

Please don't make false claims. 38 reports have been resolved on the PUMA. Its easy to be selective with certain features or other issues which are ongoing, but please do not make simply false statements. Its not going to generate constructive outcomes to approach things in this manor.

Im not sure why you think this is a reasonable or logical step. I understand the frustration, but this is one report that was marked as such. As I said, you could (or the OP of the report) have simply sent a PM to myself or any TM for a second opinion.

The other open PUMA reports have not all been labelled "not a bug" and closed. So lets please take a step back here thanks.

Its handled as a bug as a report was made. We have already provided a reason as to why that is though. Its not a "bug" that prevents it from coming to to the game.

I haven't removed any of your posts.

If you have an issue with forum moderaton, please contact the forum moderators to discuss the issue. But please first check the forum rules before doing so.

Discussing moderation outside of PMs is against the rules however:

Do Not:

1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas.

1.1.5. Deliberately challenge moderation or administration, if you have issues or concerns with any actions taken please send a Private Message to Moderators, Senior Moderators or Community Managers/Administrators.

To provide the full context and information. Rather than speculatory conspiracies:

Your post was not approved as you did not follow the guidelines for the section you posted in. As per the pre moderated warning there, doing so means your post won't be approved.

The issue has however already been forwarded on the new platform and the Devs are working on a correction: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jGQNyp32Q4HN

Hello.

As mentioned in the report, it was forwarded. We are asking for more info in order to give the issue the best possible chance of being resolved. Many times in the past, pixel measurements have been rejected as not sufficient. Therefor this is something we advise against.

As for the nature of modern reports in general, we did our best to explain some time ago that due to their exact background, they would be handled as suggestions: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

As such, they can still be accepted and passed on for consideration, but wont be treated as bugs. Those that cannot meet the reporting standard can still be posted in topics such as this, and we will endeavour to pass on in feedback where reasonably possible as we do with issues across the forum.

As explained here, we will be using all (publicly) available information to be taken into consideration in order to achieve the values. However as it also mentions:

As far as I can see, the UFP report has not been closed or rejected. It remains open. But yes, as above, it is down to the devs decision on it.

I might be missing it, but I cant actually find a report on the LFP. So if you could link the report please, I will be able to find its status.

Just for context on that, 39 reports have been fixed or resolved with now under 20 remaining. So the bulk of the reports have already been actioned. I understand some of the more significant ones in the eyes of those here might not have been yet, but the PUMA has indeed had a fair amount of fixes and very far from "not a single one". With that in mind, its always worth reporting matters of any kind. Indeed they might not all be fixed in the timeframe desired, but there can sometimes be a number of reasons for that. Whenever a report is closed, we aim to provide a reason for that when asked. As we have already done here.

Unfortunately with 2000+ vehicles in game, it is not possible, practical or realistic to dump our entire source library for each vehicle every time a challenge is made. Be that by a report or in a topic such as this. Which happens on a daily basis.

We briefly did this for a couple of MBTs when they first come out in order to address some community concerns in a small way, even that, was incredibly time consuming for the devs to organise and make happen with all the background factors involved and in the end, it wasn't really appreciated much for the effort that went into it. So it just further proved that as well as being largely impractical to do for each and every vehicle, the gain was not there either.

In singular issue cases where its possible to do so, we can sometimes provide the sources. However we cannot commit to doing so for every vehicle with every challenge against it.

Thank you. It remains open and has not been closed.

Of those 39 resolved, 8 I can see where not closed due to not being an issue.

Two were also fixed this month, pending implementation (possibly held for the next major)

30mm gun overheats too fast (Fixed, pending implementation)


Spz Puma cannon barrel hitbox incorrect size (Fixed, pending implementation)

Of the ones I can gather at the moment and share, the following have been fixed and implemented (some others may be internal reports or Alpha reports):

30mm gun overheats too fast



Spz Puma cannon barrel hitbox incorrect size


PUMA should have optical tracking


Missing description for 5.56 MG



In the event of an ammunition fire, the internal modules start to get damaged by damaging the ammo rack in the turrets.




When firing at in the analysis, shells fly at the wrong angle into the armour




Driver hatch incorrect thickness




Missing roof plate




The PMC308 projectile has no tracer.




Ammo stored in tank hull is lost when ammo in the back of turret is destroyed




Puma cannot turn properly with forward/reverse gear




Incorrect commander sight magnification




Driver hatch dead zone too large on the right




Incorrect gunner sight magnification




Cannon clips into driver's sight and hatch when fully depressed




Incorrect forward and reverse transmission gears and reverse speed




Gunner sight does not elevate with gun barrel




Incorrect gunner thermal resolution

The following were closed as resolved with answers:

Upper frontal plate should contain additional armour - "The back plates of the combined armour are present already in the DM. They are made in one block (more simplified) to optimize the DM"




Roof mounted add-on should be composite - "On the hull, the composite armour is located under the "pins" of the anti-bomb armour.
The anti-bomb armour itself is not implemented in the game. there is no such type of ammunition in the game, and against other types of ammunition, such armour is useless"




Shell should launch a fragmentation cone after detonating - "The spread of ready-made submunitions (GGE) in a cone was already implemented from the very beginning.
The expansion distance of the GGE is limited by optimization, and at the moment it is a couple of tens of meters, which is of course lower than that of a real prototype."

Im not sure what's not "fine" about this report? The user provided primary documentation for the issue. You cannot see it, as historical sources are hidden from public view on the CBR, but the user provided the manual cover page and relevant page with the required info:

Im not sure what relevance any of this has to do with this topic. If you have issues with the bug report system, as always you are free to PM about any matters. But im not going to start or invite a discussion about it here. Its simply not relevant to the topic.

As above, this has no relevance to the thread. The report was checked with the devs before it was closed as intended behaviours and my response was also clarified from the devs. We pass on what we are told to pass on. I dont have any control over what is reported on the RU forum. I can only pass on the information I have to pass on, as can the TM team based on the answers that were given. Im sure its possible to find a plethora of reports that may have not passed on one forum, but not the other. But this is a 2 year old report not and again not relevant to the subject at hand.

This was the answer from the developers. You are free to create a new report with new evidence if you wish.

It would not be a duplicate as the original report has been closed as I already mentioned. If you have new materials to submit, we can again pass them for consideration. However as it currently stands, this was the response from the devs on that original report.

New materials would be anything that was not present in the original report.

We passed the original report and everything within it. The devs reviewed it and provided the answer that I have now provided you guys with.

Therefor in order to raise the issue again, a new report must be made with new substance of which to pass on. We cannot simply reopen the report with the existing content it had, because the devs have already reviewed and answered it already. I understand you may disagree with the outcome of the report, but that is the procedure we have to follow.

The additional sources submitted later are under consideration now. Initially it was not sufficient.

Trolling and sarcasm is not going to help matters here and I'm afraid if its the level we are going to drop too then there is little more I can do to help here. I made no mention of rejecting and valid report. Simply we cannot pass the same exact identical report twice.

As I have just explained above, the report was sent to the developers, reviewed and answered. We cannot simply reopen the same report without any new material (sources, evidence etc) whatsoever because you do not personally agree with the outcome. If you have something new to submit, then please do and we can pass it.

This was the report. Everything here was included:

Thats what I have been doing here as far as it is possible to do. I have provided you with the answers we have from the developers, status updates on reports and direct reasoning as to why certain reports have been closed. I have also explained what is required for the issue to be reinvestigated. Similarly at the same time, we have been passing feedback in the opposite direction for the devs to receive on PUMA since its introduction.

Again, I fully understand you disagree with the outcome of the report. However that alone is not sufficient for myself or anyone else for that matter to reopen it. If you have new substance, evidence, content or examples to provide, then a report can be revisited.

Sadly as I said, if we are going to drop to sarcasm or trolling, then I cannot help further here.

Forwarded on for review again. However as this report is largely a copy / paste of the previous, I would lower expectations of a different outcome.

When I said new material, I did not mean a new clog and screenshot. These dont provide any new information that was not in the previous report. However I have passed it on again regardless.

Currently its open, there is no comment or status change thus far.

We have had some similar suggestions in the past regarding this. Its defiantly something that has been considered. But we will pass it on again for consideration.

The main logistical challenges still remain with this approach to a degree however. There will still have to me significant input from the consultants and developers. As access cannot simply be given to all of our internal documents, books, resources and other information. I don't think there is even a singular person who does have access to each and every source at the send of a link currently. We have different teams that work on different vehicles and development takes place in several countries. So some serious logistical barriers remain to that.

The Wikipedia currently is open for anyone to contribute to articles, or for those super active, join the Wikipedia share program and be more closely involved. But even then, nobody currently has access to the entire source library the devs and consultants use. Currently sources are released when there are significant issues that require further clarification when the currently available material appears conclusive enough. But sadly this cant be done for every challenge.

We will pass the feedback on however.

Of the shareable ones that I can immediately find (others are internally made)

The only open AHEAD reports I can see are:

Believe the devs simply looked at common sources for the name: https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/infantry-fighting-vehicles/puma/

But I don't have any specific source or reason why its called that way. If there is enough credible evidence its incorrect, we can certainly pass on as feedback.

Hey. It was submitted in the weekly feedback, but the major update is currently the major focus for everyone.

Hey

The current overheat rate was recently increased and should be present on the dev server. So this new value is the adjusted value from the developers.

All of the tree movements have currently been paused as part of the overall planned changes announced yesterday.