The VBCi 2 proto alone is 32 tonns already. And it would get even heavier with the big turret of the jaguar.
1 Like
You’re seriously not citing War Thunder Wiki as a source, are you? 32 tonnes is the maximum permissible weight of the VBCI Mk2 - do tell how it could possibly be more…
Erm… Guys , off topic
2 Likes
I’m not citing wt wiki. The VCI alone already weighs 25 tons and your trying to tell me that all the addon armor to get it to lvl 6 front and lvl 5 sides from 14.5mm protection+ a turret with a 40mm only weighs 4 tonns sure
1 Like
What are you waffling about?
The VBCI Mk1 has an empty weight of 17.7t. The VBCI Mk2 has an empty weight of <19t. The VBCI Mk1 VPC here:
Has a combat weight of 23.3t. I wonder where those almost 6 tonnes come from (surely not the 12.7mm RCWS)? Or is this all beyond your comprehension?
In all seriousness - what sources are you citing? Your Wehraboo wet dreams?
Turret, loader system ammo storage, stronger engine for all i know. Eletronics thermals.
U csm get quickly up in weight
The best main battle tank battle rating 12.0 in rank 8
Please keep it on topic.
As it’s been told earlier, keep it on topic.
3 Likes
As Wareta has said, please keep the suggestion on topic.
Weak turrets right now is the standard for inmanned mbts.
Its the easiest way to save on weight there is no arguing for or against that
Nah but that breach give that tank a big forehead look. And I’m honestly not sure it’s a great direction to go to weak turrets. This make the fire control systems very weak to heavy machine guns and auto canons. Granted, there’s a video of a T90M being basically disabled by a Bradley,; but that required heavy, and dangerous fire density around its optics and turret drive, which are still fairly small targets (especially considering there’s the gunner and commander optic acting as hunter killer). Meanwhile, on something like the t14 armada, you see very lightly armoured turret that could potentially be disabled much easier due to their fairly big profile (compared to optics or turret drives)
Reason why almost every nation trying to develop light-armored unmanned turret is simple. Current MBTs were being too heavy to operate in open field, and heavy-armed manned turrets are failed to protect crews from new threats like HE shells with accurate FCS and drones. So nations have to gain both weight-reduce and crew protection. So they decide to make turret smaller with lightly armored unmanned turret, and rather focus on enhancing hull frontal and roof armor.
Besides, even with manned turrets, sights are prone to heavy machine guns and auto cannons.
Pretty sure KMW has provided an explanation for why they decided to go that route in one of the articles about the ARC.
Altho, imo yes, it does expose the weakpoints more than it should (specifically the turret ring), especially to auto-cannons and I don’t think ARC 4.0 (the likely name of the next variant) will keep it that way, that is, assuming KMW is actually serious about the ARC becoming an alternative to the Leopard 2Ax/9.
1 Like
If its not morphing to 2a9/X in the first place
ARC is privately funded afaik, whereas 2Ax/9 is government funded. They might merge however if ARC matures more and KMW gets rid of some of the more obvious weakpoints of the design though, since tbh their idea is good, it just need to be executed better, and for that they need Army testing. Optionally, some of ARC design ideas might be transferred over to the 2Ax if they prove to be better than the original design idea, but that remains to be seen.
1 Like
Sorry I can’t hear you over the German developed and manufactured lynx in the italian tree
At this point nations are mostly meaningless in game
3 Likes
Can’t hear you over the double-standards of manufacturer vs national ownership
double standard? How? It’s no rarity that countries get their prototypes or demonstrators
A company in a nation made something and only the country that actively uses and bought them gets access to them