I see value in it if they fix the armor to be frontally resistant to 30mm APFSDS like it’s supposed to
Before when choosing between 9040C or BILL it was a choice of armor or ATGM, now it’s possible to have both
Forgot that bit.
1 Like
I pray the snail actually fixes this and makes it competitive so it’s not DOA cause when comparing it to the CV9040 BILL it just looks like a downgrade.
-worse cannon
-slower fire rate
-no proxy fuse rounds
-a unreliable missile
-less missiles then the CV9040 BILL
**-No LWS **
-no tracking
-higher BR
-a bad commanders mast that’s height can’t be adjusted
(some of these may change)
2 Likes
Great stuff man. You could try and report this in here and fill out the form: Community Bug Reporting System
With all these sources something is bound to happen
3 Likes
We will most likely have to bug report this vehicle alot. I still dont understand why they choose this one but i guess its okay to implement it until we see the 35mm coming for Sweden.
Thats a huge IF and when. The 30mm rn is useless without any substantial changes to all the slow firing 30mm cannons.
1 Like
At 10.7 a 119mm APS is just dreadful, it’ll be like the KF41…Awfully mid, which is a shame when the 35mm is actually capable of doing damage especially at 10.7, not to mention the APS…they don’t ever really seem to put much effort into vehicles like this, which is disappointing because they can, if implemented correctly, be great, but saying that, we’ve gone like 11 updates without any sign of them correctly adding UTAAS and AHEAD, despite the hundreds of forum posts, providing them with extremely accurate information on both systems.
It would already be something if they would just fix the atrocious dispersion. Really funny how the Bmp2s gun is laser accurate which irl it isn’t and the bushmaster is just all over the place which irl it shouldn’t.
1 Like
Might be worth to pass the xurrent bug reports to WaretaGarasu to see if he can get them passed to the devs. Similar to the 9035 if we wait too long it will never be changed
2 Likes
pre-patch, dev server, is the best time to make yourself heard and get changes through, but most of this stuff has already been pushed to the devs. i.e UTAAS/AHEAD and the APS.
Could you link to the reports? so that we have them here and can reference them if needed :)
Just search UTAAS, and AHEAD for the CV90, i wasn’t very active in them, i’m more of a reader than a commenter.
I can’t find any reports that are accepted for the CV90 MK.IV ?
Yeah that’s the point ahaha, they don’t ever get accepted. Even if they have solid evidence, I opened a thread myself a few years ago 2 patches after aircraft tracking got universally implemented, asking where UTAAS was, and the response was “the guidance UTAAS uses cannot be properly implemented into the game” although the Bradely uses a similar system, but still has aircraft tracking…they don’t WANT to implement it…
1 Like
But you just said:
So now i’m confused.
You’re also talking way to universally about the CV90’s. Every specific model needs to have the functions proven for it as its a super modular system so just because one of them has it doesn’t mean the rest do.
The bradley has proven IRST tracking so no, it doesn’t use a similar system.
By pushed to the devs, I meant, Multiple posts have been created regarding UTAAS and AHEAD, and by CV90’s I mean those in game, i.e all in game CV90’s have the actual UTAAS module, modelled on the top of their turrets.
Oh, pushed to devs usually means accepted and sent to devs. Devs don’t see the report unless accepted by Techmods (i think?).
UTAAS is also modular, not all UTAAS are the same or have the same functions, so my previous statement still stands, all CV90’s need all the functions proven per model.
Edit:
Additional info found (https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2012/armaments/Wednesday14132odell.pdf)
So the Video tracking module is a separate thing from the UTAAS and that is the part we need evidence for being integrated into every specific CV 90 that has it IRL.
Images
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XgUBuQ1l65kD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Jm9QEHC2VfIO
These are the only CV90 MK.IV reports that are open that haven’t been closed, no other reports have been passed. So we are missing spall liners and UTAAS
added some extra info i had to the two reports.
i doubt we’ll be able to find info on UTASS, but since its a Tech demonstrator it can very much be argued for implementation just because it has been tested and proven. I would love to have sources for 30mm proxy rounds if someone has it. because honestly, give the MK.IV IRST and proxy and i’ll be happy as is.
The bushmaster has a 30mm airburst round that work similarly to the AHEAD system where there FCS programs the round before firing and it detonates at a set distance/time. Cv9030FIN air burst option not available - DEV - Actioned Bug Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
Community Bug Reporting System