Someones salty, its easy prove to me they have the capability.
And i am gonna say it againbthey arent zsung AHEAD, AHEAD is the specific rheinmetall round.
They might be using KE-TF , ABM etc or hows it called.
Stull fact is the existence of the IRST cant be proven on your part.
I am all for the implementation, i am strictly speaking from gajins side what is and whatbisnt possible. And which sources would work
The ability to programm is not equal to automaticaly being programmed trough IRST, for all sense or purposes it might only be manualy pr8grammed round
And friendly reminder, cvs use US bushmasters, them using US ammo isnt that far of
Except most NATO countries are buying oerlikon ammo.
Gaijin gave the 35’s their AHEAD muzzle brake. This might be one of those times where they jam a bunch of different variants of vehicles together, but still. Either give it IRST and AHEAD or fix the model and remove its ahead muzzle device.
Still ,like everything i said.
Its on you to prove that.
Assuming doesnt lead u anywhere
This is a video game about MODERN classified vehicles. The best we can do is assume from the little data we can gather.
Ahead can be used without IRST, so what you are saying doesnt mean anything.
That is the main point of the whole thing.
Sure gajin csn give them AHEAD, but would do notjing without the IRST.
Its more of a anti Infantery ammunition in the cv case
Fair enough, i think gaijin should fix their 3d modeling error then. Also maybe move the cv9035’s down, given that the puma is only a .3 higher, but can delete aircraft and has overpowered survivability.
against 20mm sure but anything else…
nah if anything its lacking and at most its balanced tbh
The bradley got IRST which it never had irl, so we clearly have unrealistic vehicles.
I have studied this further and been in contact with moderators. We will have to wait and see if any AHEAD or KETF will be implemented, likely the Dutch CV90 will get the KETF eventually. The Danish defence forces are more sparse in official information but we do know they use ABM but to what extent is anyones guess.
All CV90s can fire ABM, every 35 mm has the same programable muzzle, however, the sights can vary, the Dutch CV90 use a french sight with an extension for IRST and the UTAAS sight which is a hybrid tracking sight without IRST is used in most other CV’s. As we all know IRST is not needed to fire ABM but it is needed toghether with the VTM module to “automaticly” search, acquire and track a target, something the MkIV vehicles have in its standard configuration but not every older vehicle (depending on specification) has it.
A bug or suggestion has been acknowledged and forwarded to developers regarding the Dutch CV9035 and its KETF, they also use an IRST module for those who like to know.
I would like to see both 9035s get KETF since both uses it. It is likely that the Danish CV9035 has the same function as the Dutch one since the Danish had the same demands on its functionality and configuration as the Dutch, there are also an extension for IRST visible on their vehicles on some pictures. Perhaps the Dutch could get the IRST and the Danish could get it implemented using LR as a means to set the fuze and fire.
Beliebe me when i say its completly useless in that regard.
The shrapnel is to nerfed, to reliably work in that mode
Agree, its underperforming so it would be difficult to shot down any air targets, a plane would be near impossible for instance.
The only thing you gonna hit with ahead is a braindead hovering helicopter.
Or a Su 25 flying straight at you and u hit it with the unexploded round.
If you manualy laze the target and shoot it wont be atbthe position anymore where it would explode
Correct, that would be the main problem. The Dutch one wont have that problem but the danish would. I am still trying to get more official info about the Danish CV but it is more difficult.
If progression means growth of spawn camping and one death leavers, I don’t see how you can say that’s a good progression. And why did you tag me in a month later? If you want my attention, you can DM me.
Spawn camping is people failing to defend.
And one death leaving is people refusing to get more rewards.
If I play during China’s daylight hours, one-death-leave is not anywhere close to popular, cause they understand it’s inefficient.
Then you get a very different sort of Chinese player because I can count dozens such who one death leave.
Spawn camping is not a failing to defend, it’s a failing of the map design and the gamestyle. That’s on Gaijin for encouraging it.
Hence why I argue for bigger maps and multiple spawn points (minimum 4) to flank possible campers and ensure they don’t do that.
Whether you agree or not is not my problem, that simply is how it is.
I agree with both of you 😀
USUALLY “spawn camping” happens when one team has been mostly wiped out, often by 1 death quitters and/or people rushing face first and dying 3 times in a couple minutes.
HOWEVER, small maps ESPECIALLY coupled with the Conquest game mode (ONE single capture zone) makes it effectively impossible to counter an enemy team once they get entrenched. Even with my light tanks and/or CAS runs it is almost always a one sided match, more so the higher BR the match is.
I think multiple spawn points need to be done for all matches say, 8.0-9.0+ BR. Below that, perhaps it would be nice. But absolutely once you get to 10.0+ the tiny maps are HORRID. I have almost stopped playing my beloved light tank line ups at 10.0 because half the matches I get are conquest and extremely frustrating to play, especially on a 150m/200m grid sized map.