After my tests on three types of missiles: cm502kg, Product 305, and Long Nail, regardless of the missile’s performance.
The cm502kg maintains an incidence angle of around 20°, while Product 305 can even reach above 60°, and even Long Nail has an incidence angle of about 40°.
It’s hard to imagine, is this really the trajectory that a high-explosive warhead missile should have? Using a pure high-explosive warhead to attack the main armor of a tank is no different from using grenades to blow up the main armor of a tank. Eight rounds of cm502kg are just like eight large grenades.
Mr. BVVD fired three cm502 missiles during the live broadcast, two at a small truck and the last one at the A4. It’s hard to imagine that while testing a high-explosive air-to-ground missile, he would suddenly think of attacking a truck. During the tests of the 179A and product 305, it was clear they only targeted MBTs. When BVVD saw the missile hit the A4 and only damage one observation device, he chose not to fire again to clarify the issue of collateral effects, and instead quickly exited the test field. Can I assume that Mr. BVVD already knew about the collateral effect problem of this missile, prioritizing the targeted attack on a small truck to create confusion?
The CM502KG, as a 12.3 rear-guiding missile, is currently in a completely unusable state during testing. The testing has been going on for several days, and the CM502KG has yet to receive the necessary improvements; it was only modified by changing the semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead to a high-explosive warhead in the data card. I believe this is also a form of weakening, as semi-armor-piercing high-explosive is definitely superior to pure high-explosive.
The game development team needs to give us players a response!
