Thats not the DRV thats the DW the DRV lacks the 11th and 12th road wheel
1 Like
Told you guys this was just going to end up a worse bradley at the same BR.
Also can we all have a moment of silence for the 2.5T being added to the warrior? We got a token theoretical max speed buff from 75-80km/h of which you will never reach now unless you are on the longest, straightest, flattest road or on a long downhill.
Overall in testing the warrior is realistically looking at a loss of around 10km/h max speed on the flat with a slight curve over distance.
Also obviously slower acceleration.
We can’t stop winning.
6 Likes
shouldn’t we just be showing it cant be unfolded due to it not having the mechanism. Im not sure anyone was saying it should fire on the move? all we want is for it not to require the unfolding mechanic as it doesn’t make much sense. could you expand on that, when you say fire restrictions, do they mean it cant fire on the move or that it’ll have to wait for the missile pods to raise? as fire on the move inst what we want, what we want is for it to not have an unrealistic unfolding mechanism that would only serve to make it worse for no reason.
7 Likes
So no mechanical means for it to unfold before firing… Therefore if it enters a combat situation the tow launcher should already be deployed by the crew beforehand… This animation no only doesn’t make any combat sense for the crew having to expose themselves to fire it’s also a waste of development time, this is a huge a negative towards the vehicles performance in game. The minimum speed for firing is fine… The manually folding folding atgm launcher is ridiculous (plus you’ve already showcased it in the dev blog as fixed) great way to annoy people.
5 Likes
I want to make it abundantly clear this isn’t a dig at the moderators. However, sometimes the wording is not the clearest (although im one to talk with the grammer skills of a kid). In this case it was when he said we needed to find evidence of the ability to fire on the move, and that it would have the same “launching requirements” as the Bradly? this could be taken as it simply not being able to fire on the move or it will have the folding mechanism.
would just like some clarification is all so we know what we need to report.
4 Likes
I just don’t understand their logic of a tow launcher that needs to be manually lifted and lock into position, before getting into a combat zone they absolutely would already be deployed and ready to fire. The crew wouldn’t be popping up every 20 seconds to raise and lower them both, it’s stupid…and apparently we need a source to prove otherwise… I thought common sense would be enough. The Bradley actually has a mechanical element to lower and raise the launcher not exposing the crew… Not to mention it’s double the weight of the desert warriors as it has to support 2 missiles so it makes sense to have it retractable.
9 Likes
Is Desert Warrior really worth 10.0BR? Only 4 missiles and 25mm cannons like shit. It’s not as good as Italy’s Dado, not even even the M3A3 Bradley.
2 Likes
Gaijin has always been biased against the British
1 Like
I’m glad for British lights are finally getting added to the game but Bradley 25mm is god awful.
I don’t expect much from this when its more than likely going to be equally as poor as the current Bradleys which IMO aren’t that good at all.
Haha, Gaijin has not added British vehicles using CT40, but added non-recyclable garbage to hinder British players.
Honestly, if given the choice, I would take Fox over the D.Warrior.
Then at least I have unbridled mobility and a gun thats capable of killing a MBT from more then 2 feet away at the side.
True dude
I mean, i like the 25mm apfsds. its more than usable, the only thing i think thatlle truly hold the warrior back is the lack of an actual commander view like the bradly. the ability to hide behind burms with a commander sight pocking over with atgms makes these ifv truly survivable. luckly for us our commander sight is slightly above where it should be so its still better than the gunner sight but people will still be able to hit you when your guiding the missile in.
1 Like
Give me the fox milan or fox 25mm (which i made a suggestion for but it disappeared and i cba to make it again). A fox with 2 milans and both being higher than the turret on a fox chacce would be a menace. tow wesiel but on steroids in turms of speed but with lack luster missiles. it could carry 6, 2+4.
Let’s see here…
- 3x less ATGMs than the M3A3
- Lower hp/t than the M3A3
- Worse optics layout than the M3A3
- Theoretically higher top speed that you will never reach compared to an M3A3
- No embarrassingly small spall liners like the M3A3
- Significantly worse turret traverse than the M3A3
- One degree less depression than the M3A3, huge
- Improved hull protection in areas over the M3A3
- Worse turret armour than the M3A3
- No lock and lead for air targets like the M3A3
- Better reverse than the M3A3
- Same launcher deploy restrictions as an M3A3 despite having fixed launchers
- Same BR as the M3A3
Makes sense.
7 Likes
cant we use the parade photo to show that even in non combat situations the launchers can be locked in ready to fire position?
1 Like
Give it 6 atgms, dont give it the deploying feature as its stupid and not true. Fix these two things and it will actually become worth the br lmao. the bmp 2m is going to be the same br as this, which is rather funny.
2 Likes
Even then it would still be worse than the M3A3 given that it doesn’t have the optics layout that allows bradleys to fire from cover whilst safe from anything short of overpressure.
It’s going to suck at 10.0, I will carry on bringing the fox to 11.3.
my 10.3 lineup has one extra ground slot as theres no point in bringing more than one air due to all being fing strike aircraft (i need a fighter for thsi god damn br that isnt a hunter without flares or rwr). This allows me to bring both.
1 Like
The deploy time has now been removed.
5 Likes