You will wont be able to sustain over 9Gs for that amount of time
In my clip my pilot should have passed out minutes ago at 13-14Gs
you didnt even pull 12Gs for an extended period of time
you only hit 13Gs momentarily and not sustained
5-6 seconds flat with over 10Gs btw in the clip
While they should pen more, around 150-200 mm, you shouldn’t compate it with the bill as it has a heat warhead, for for an efp penetrating anywhere close to the bill like it used to is just bs.
Both are garbage missiles. When they were added they would just beam any tank in cover with no counterplay, they were heavily nerfed to a “breaching” tool for good reason.
You mean the same vehicle which can’t penetrate the upper front plate of a Leopard 2A4 with it’s missiles? The same vehicle which is like double the size of the BMD-4M2, has a poor reverse speed (at least for a light tank), and God awful gun depression?
Both the BMD-4M2 and ZBD04A are equal in performance overall, with the BMD-4M and BMD-4 being far superior. The missile the ZBD04A utilises is horrendous and honestly just a poor joke.
None of those are true equivalents to the BMD-4s, the CV9035, ICV (P), and VBCIs all don’t have missiles and the Strf 9040B can’t fire on the move. Many of them also lack the mobility of the BMD-4s and therefor are less competitive when flanking and taking advantage of their light tank designation in-game.
And no, saying autocannon/APFSDS wise doesn’t count, or the WMA301 and Type 88 would be equivalents by your logic
1 Like
@TPS_Hydra
You only speak for yourself.
Type 88 and WMA 301 are not equivalents by my standards, so you must be speaking about your own standards or you didn’t read mine.
And yes, the ZBD04A’s missile is below average… so you’re agreeing with me there.
Yes, both have bad gun depression… more agreement.
I haven’t seen someone defend BMD-4 this hard in ever… calm down.
Level 0 crew: CV9035: 6 seconds to 40kph. 11 seconds to traverse.
BMD4M2: 5 seconds. 8 seconds to traverse.
Dardo: 6 seconds to 40kph. 9 seconds to traverse.
BMD4M2 will go faster in open fields reaching 60kph significantly faster than the other two mentioned, however on maps that aren’t Sands of Sinai, its mobility boost isn’t as big as you think.
If you cant penetrate the Leopard 2a4 is honestly skill issue, even on bmd you should aim over the armored part of the UFP, as you actually overpressure it or one shot it more consistently, especially on the BMD4m2 due to the much longer reload.
I was referring to kinetic firepower to set an example on why comparing strictly one attribute of a vehicle is flawed reasoning as something like the WMA301 (a wheeled vehicle) can be comparable to the Type 88 in kinetic firepower when ignoring everything else, narrowing your perspective to one thing can overlook the drastic differences between vehicles.
And you’re wrong, the Type 88 and WMA301 are indeed equivalents when it comes to firepower (gun calibre and penetration), the Type 88B has 338mm of RHA penetration equivalency, the exact same as the WMA301. The Type 88B is armed with a 105mm cannon whilst the WMA301 is armed with a… Wait for it… 105mm cannon.
Furthermore, they are both equipped with the same APFSDS, the Type-83 APFSDS
I’m not defending the BMD-4M2, I’d actually prefer if all BMD-4s in-game were moved up to a reasonable BR, I was correcting your misstep. You were making poor comparisons and hyperfixating on the single attribute of a vehicle to justify a outlandish claim.
Barrel fired missiles like the APS03 found on the ZBD04A are incredibly hard to fire accurately on the move and especially when compared to high calibre APFSDS, aiming for such a weakspot whilst on the move with the addition of missile droop isn’t a realistic goal.
Most missile firing IFVs however at the very least have somewhat decent penetration for their missiles, making aiming for specific weakspots less of a hassle. The same of course can’t be said for the ZBD04A which struggles to penetrate vehicles like the Leopard 2A4, and using the overpressure feature is of course not something to entirely rely on.
And even when you want to accurately fire for the weakspots on vehicles like the Leopard 2A4, you’d have to stop to do so and when that occurs the entire point of your lightly armoured vehicle goes down the rubbish bin. Missiles are slower than kinetic penetrating munition, in a trade MBTs will usually win.
1 Like
@TPS_Hydra
I’m glad we’re in agreement to not compare on one attribute. After all, I compared the whole of the vehicle as everyone can see.
So I’m unsure why you keep bringing that up when no one’s arguing the opposite of that.
The rest of your post is continuing your strawman argument.
I agree, I actually prefer to take my IFVs to top tier more often than not, especially bmp2m with apfsds and fast fire rate.
The BMP3 series is underated and all of them need to be raised 2 BR steps due the high mobility and launching their missiles while moving.
Nobody disputes that the ML exists
This is an incorrect assumption, thermals on the drone is determined by rank, not BR. Thermal drones are on rank 7+ light tanks regardless of BR, for example Japan has the Type 16, RCV(P) and ICV (P) all BR 9.7 but at rank 7 and all 3 have thermal drones:
So there is a missile with better FLIR then top line attack helicopters or dedicated targeting pods?
Only a fool can believe that.
Says a Kh38mt is fake
Sees a picture of it
→ moves the goalpist
Only you said that…
Otherwise yes, missile with such seeker is a fake.
Oh wow a missile with an overperforming seeker that never happened before
AASM Hammer
1 Like
That is the best argument you have?
Hammers are not causing any balance issues, are they?