Question… did they install the programming module on the Bushmaster?
If not, then tough luck.
And it does seem like the “muzzle base” is just a normal one.
From my sources (active and former active personel) they did. But i am still trying to get more “written down data” about it which is tough in these circumstances.
I do believe he meant the product advertisement of the computer game, not the actual real life hardware… ;-)
not enough / not reliable enough sources /wrong sources.
Ammo compatibility doesn’t matter if the vehicle’s FCS can’t lock onto and predict aircraft.
Funny the 2S38 comes into question lol or the bmp-2m.
BMP-2M, while OP, is also still only a squadron vehicle.
The 2S38 which is 10.0 exclusively due to its APFSDS round.
BMP-2M which is also exclusively 10.0 due to its APFSDS round.
CV9035 being 9.7 due to a lower pen APFSDS round despite as durable, and as sneaky as the 2S38… 9.7 due to half the pen and being faster than 2S38.
which it can with the UTAAS and FCS system. Ask any personel that has served on the vehicle. Or go to a showday and look around, they are happy to talk about its functions.
Sadly, hearsay and testimony is not evidence of functionality.
Just as the FCS of Strf 9040 and Lvkv 9040 were proven to be different computer systems, leaving only the Lvkv 9040 capable of tracking aircraft; hard documents are need to prove these things.
And with the fact standard Strf/CV90s don’t have this functionality, that is the default Gaijin will go with.
To repeat: Strf 9040 was proven by documentation to not be able to lock onto aircraft.
Lvkv 9040 was proven by documentation to be able to lock onto aircraft.
Hm so how is it possible then to fire programmable ammunition types such as 3p (LK90, LK95) AHEAD, KEFT etc. with different fuzes for different distances. I agree with the 9040 models, they are different.
as i said multiple times, those are not valid sources, not mentioning how their might be different version of upgrade state for the dk
Please bring valid sources, then the whole thing can be discussed, but anything you are saying right now is only hearsay
you still didnt prove this either, firing the ammunition doesnt necesarily mean the ability to programm it
They can shoot it as dumb ammunition. The all nato ammunition standard seriously doesnt mean anything. As a next step you would need to prove which ABM denmark is actualy using because you cant just say german AHEAD, its not the same
You can have the programming part without the lock part [M1A2].
And Shini addressed the other part.
This is true, however, the CVs dont shoot it as “dumb” ammunition. I understand the need for adequate information, in this case it is very difficult getting anything official written down other than what is out there which i personally think is adequate information enough. Here is another source, official one, take a look at “Lethality section”.
back to the relevant source statement. Your source here is irrelevant, it speaks about all possible CV90 variants and their possible configurations
“the CV90 is compatible with a range of armaments to suit any customer requirement”
Its possible some cv variants have the capability. But in thise case specialy you need to proof it for the CV9035 DK, you are only showing of a general advertisement for all cvs.
Thats like me saying the new leopard 2 ARC3 shoots 140mm ammunition, it was advertised as such. But in reality it only exists in a 120mm configuration currently
Then they should remove the entire vehicle and all other vehicles ingame where adequate official information is missing. There will be alot of vehicles that would be removed. I get your point about hard facts but in many cases regarding many vehicles in the game there are a lack of official documents. It creates frustration if they are to implement vehicles that obviously lack certain capabilities in which we know it should have.
My verdict here is that they should simply remove it then.
all vehicles in the game only work with the information that is released and known about them in the game
Thats the reason the damn chally 3 td doesnt have spall liners in the turret
German leo 2a7v gets worse armor then swedish strv122s because its to new
The list goes on and on
Ask the french or the israely they have it way worse. The french have a ban about publication of military stuff and israel is very convuluted as well. Look at the namer and the merkava the weight relations doesnt work at all
its gajins daily bread and butter and for those that try bug fixing etc. Honestly it wont get better
We are getting to the time period where it only gets worse. In that case this game might just not be for you.
1 Like
I get your point i really do, i just have another view of what is enough or adequate information but ofcourse, this isnt anything unique to this vehicle and i forgot about that.
Tried Emailing both companies and the Danish defence force again, ill see where it leads.
1 Like