Not what the 80s F15 manuals say
F16C/D block 40 could use AMRAAM off the bat
The only thing MSIP II provided was better radar and data link
Ok then. Just because they have the same central computer doesn’t mean that CIRCM has been integrated onto the UK Apache. There’s no proof at all that the UK has integrated it, while for other things like JAGM there is extensive proof
All the new electronics set up for the AMRAAM
No just software that it already had
Because you know the 80s manuals saying it can use AMRAAM
Which one?
Integration =/= Compatibility, you’re having two different arguments, there is nothing different about the DAS interface that would prevent the use of CIRCM.
5 Likes
But wouldn’t they need to integrate it for it first to be compatible? CIRCM isn’t a standard system with the AH-64E
Only if your purporting that it wasn’t built with the intention of integration of the CIRCM. Ergo the 64E was finished before CIRCM but it was built with the CIRCM in mind, this is verrrry typical.
3 Likes
So there is hope…? 🥺
64E program started before CIRCM program though. And AH-64E was the last platform to be tested and integrated with CIRCM
From a bit of reading the CIRCM program started in 2009 and production of the modules started in 2015. the Apache E program or Apache D Block 3 started full scale production in 2012 with the British program for their Apache Es in the 2020s.
They were already testing the AH-64E (at the time it was called AH-64D block 3) in 2009
I’d at least qualify that as only those that use the Digital Hellfire backend, not the Analog electronics used for the First generation of the AGM-114.
So it should be possible for most relevant vehicles still in service at this point in time; There are a small number of Coast Guard Cutters & Patrol boats (and early S/N “steam gauge” AH-64As, and assorted MQ-9s ) that would probably need an electronics refresh first.
I still think they should drop the Centurion 3 down to 7.3 and replace it with the 7/1. We already have the Mk 7/1 hull in-game, on the Action X. Could easily then copy over the Mk 3 turret.
Centurion Mk.3 would be too strong at 7.3,
Maybe if they removed the APDS it would be fine, but with it? Definetly too strong
Especially when we have other unique vehicles that can go there (can’t remember off the top of my head, but some based on the “Universal” hull like the Caernarvon + Conq, an earlier caernarvon keeping the 20pr with added downsides would fit 7.3 nicely, theres also a 17pr variant iirc too)
If it’s realistic, it’s fine. Now all that’s missing is decent maps, a realistic damage model, revised penetrations, and the correct Br for tanks.
Nah, it’s incredibly similar to the FV4202.
Yeah I kinda agree with you tbh. The only thing holidng back 20pdr is weird shatter issues that are only noticable on things with overlapping plates. IF they actually fix this stupid inconsistent mechanic Centurion Mk 3 is still good enough for 7.7 but it’s a shame there isn’t a clear place for things like Mk 5/2 or 7/1.
Even Cent Mk 10 at 8.0 isnt overly cutting edge especially when Sho’t Kal Alef sits at the same BR with better ammo (M728 and HEAT-FS), better turret front armour (because its a Mk 5 and Mk 8 - 10s mantlet armour is still dodgy) an extra machine gun and a more powerful engine (750BHP!). Mk 10 does have the better upper hull though and curiously in game both have the same mass of 51.8t.
Yes sorry I meant to say Hellfire II.
the Centurion Mk.3 is Objectively better than the FV4202
Top speed, Reverse speed, armour, Traverse speeds, armour, similar mobility, same firepower
It’s a direct downgrade, with its only redeeming factor being a Slight increase in HP/T (Centurion still feels like it accelerates better personally)
i don’t even notice “Shell Shattered” to be too much of an issue, sure it happens but when it does you have a new round through quickly, and it does fair damage, unlike the 120mm L1A2 of the Conq, where you need to wait business days to reload, and does little damage
it already is, its perfectly fine, I’d much rather take the Cent Mk.3 than the Conq, and only really the Caernarvon i’d say is outright better (better HP/T, better Hull armour, Identical turret)
Although I’ve never played it, it does not seem to be significantly inferior, it at all to the M48A1/A2C,
Never played nor really seen the Kal Alef in battles, but the Mark 10 does perfectly fine, even if it is worse, i don’t see why it should move down, though it should definitely get its mantlet fixed, and more ammunition would be welcome to deal with IS-4s and the such,
It definetly isn’t my first pick for the 8.0 Lineup for sure, Vickers Mk.1 is just better for the current state of the game, Personally much prefer the Mark 10 to the Leopard 1 at the same BR