The side seems kinda off, then again there are RCVs that dont have the “gap”
Yea that was the picture I was refering too, wonder why its not on some of the earlier versions. Some kind of air filter or AC?
What’s the difference between RCV & ICV? Isn’t the only difference is the presence of the reconnaissance system ?
ICV uses unmanned turret
What’s the BR speculation? another 9.3/9.7? or would it go lower?
the french VCBI is 9.7, so probably there, same gun and all that
2 Likes
Likely 10.0- it is directly superior to the VBCI-2 but doesn’t have spikes, unlike the Vilkas.
what aspect for gameplay is it superior? the VBCI-2 has same quality thermals, same gun, and is also a wheeled light vehicle so mobility and spotting/drone are also present. Gun handling would be roughly the same too.
2 Likes
Acceleration and a lower profile. While the engine on the RCV is 30 HP less than the VBCI-2, the RCV weighs over 6 tons less, giving it a power to weight ratio of 21.92 hp/ton or over (Likely over, given it likely weighs a little bit less than the Type 16) compared to the VBCI-2’s 18.75 hp/ton. The RCV is also physically a bit shorter than the VBCI-2 as well, making it much less of a conspicuous target. As for the gun, likely it will receive High Explosive Proximity ammunition at some point in the future (Likely not when the update drops as this is a recent event and much is as of yet unknown), as Japan has ordered such ammo this fiscal year, giving it a future edge over the VBCI-2 in defense against helicopters and low flying aircraft.
3 Likes
Eh, no way in hell this is 10.0, equivalents in the TT are 9.3. 10.0 IFVs are either 40mms or have ATGMs, or both. There’s also no 10.0 line up and that is something Gaijin takes in to account at high tiers.
The VBCI is also comfortably over tiered, so I wouldn’t read too much into it.
1 Like
Which aren’t significant enough metrics to warrant an increase to 10.0 as the hp/ton and height wont matter enough to make a difference given the off road conditions of the maps and that its still a large target as well.
Given that the other 10.0 light tanks and IFVs also have much better armaments and/or mobility, there isnt much reason to put this at 10.0, and would fit rather comfortably at 9.3 or 9.7 much more
1 Like
Just to add onto this, the armor on the RCV should be superior to the VBCI too. The VBCI is only STANAG Level 4 from the front being made of Aluminum alloy with hardened steel add on armor.
Meanwhile the CTWV should have a steel base armor with composite add on armor. We know that the CTWV -both ICV and RCV- were tested against 30mm APFSDS which seems like they are aiming for STANAG lvl 6 from the front.
We can expect similar armor levels to what the Type 16 currently has in game. Stanag lvl 4 from the sides and lvl 6 from the front.
Still 10.0 seems a little too high. 9.7 alongside the VBCI or 9.7 and dropping the VBCI to 9.3. I do hope we see the air burst ammo on release though, because I really want some proxy aa at higher tiers.
5 Likes
Yea, this is a vehicle I’ll be using at top tier, 12.7 due to the nice scout capabilities. I hope it gets airburst ammo, even if not, the ability to target helis and planes so that you can a bit of multi-role capabilities.
3 Likes
True. I was just basing it on the VBCI-2, which I know is overtiered. Just saying in what aspects it’s superior.
2 Likes
I’d like to see the wing mirrors on CTWV removed.
I hope they will offer higher front base plate thickness and Spall Liners. Boxer armor can’t stop 30mm apfsds, and I don’t think an armored weakened CTWV can get to stanag lvl 6.
Considering that there are not many IFVs can defend 30mm apfsds with armor, the Spall Liners is still very important, hopefully it will be added to the game as well
1 Like
I wouldn’t call it weakened. I’d even say it might have more KE focused armor.
Essentially I believe the composite armor on the Type 16 is only that with recessed bolts, while the armor without seem to simply be hardened steel plates. The CTWVs male heavy use of such armor, which would help their protection against kinetic projectiles.
And that, combined with spall liners and the 5 crew might make for a rather survivable vehicle.
1 Like
Maybe, but I don’t trust gaijin, maybe the thicker front plate and spall liners were not implemented, the crew was weakened to 3 people, and if that really happened, all was lost
1 Like
