Funny then that gaijin has accepted reports to nerf NATO thermal arrays because their output resolution was lower than their stated generation.
Its why the 120S went from Gen 2 to Gen 1 thermals on dev when it was being added and I had to produce a pamphlet that gave a statement that the sight system is “Gen 2” and prove it had enough of a output resolution and the right sensor to match to get it returned to it’s actual generation 2 performance, since, for some reason, the marketing material saying the sight is “Gen 2” for the 120S was not enough to get it passed back then, I had to produce both the Generation and resolution.
Yeah I was looking at the 80BVM and am looking for some decent technical data. It’s supposed to use the same Sosna-U as the 90M from my knowledge yet in game it is gen3 not gen 2.
I’ve been looking and I haven’t found anything that puts the ФЭМ18М into the 3rd gen classification. So even if we give David the benefit that the BVM is a 2018 model I don’t see where they pulled 3rd gen from.
The only purpose of them moving to that thermal was to remove foreign reliance. I can’t find anything making it a 3rd gen other than the statement 3rd gen technology of mid wave. Which if that is the case we have a lot of 2nd gen thermals that are supposed to be 3rd.
too bad, there will be a bug report citing a “russian test” with diagrams drawn in MS paint that will be accepted and “fixed” before anything else that says the missile range is 10m and the radar elevation of -10 degrees to -5 degrees
I think they are looking for any clue to nerf American equipment. After all, they have already turned half of the US equipment into God knows what. God, what did they do with the Bradley, I really loved this IFV. RIP Bradley and soon RIP ADATS.
This nerf is actually justified. While the BILL 2 has a HEAT warhead (still without the tandem effect), the TOW-2B has a tantalum EFP. But idk about damage or armor Multipliers. I just don’t want touch Bradley…