except for the giant chinese ifv that’s the Inmediate Breakdown Infantry Fighting Vehicle IBIFV
Why not FIM-92Ks?
FIM82E’s are the most recent version for what i know so far they were made in 1992
The most recent FIM-92 (not 82) would be the FIM-92J alongside its datalink equipped brother, the FIM-92K, both of which are apparently from 2018
The Namer is one of those atypical vehicles. Different than average. But it is what it is and in these exceptional cases, exceptions will have to be made. It must receive the same treatment as the rest of the IFV, regardless of its weight. The namer’s playing style is closer to that of the PUMA than to a TD. Furthermore, Israel needs this capability.
Speaking of the IFV issue, Germany has many.
Gaijin should give these infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) a new category (neither LT nor TD) and new unique capabilities >>> for example some of these options:
ability to replace two crew members instead of one. ability to replace crew members without being inside a capture zone.
Ability to replenish crew members of an allied tank.
Extra fire extinguishers to assist allies.
Attack drones (aerial and/or ground).
Laying or sweeping land mines.
Or any other ability that allows its gameplay to be developed as an assistant/support and not as an assault vehicle, which is what I often see.
Yes, I see people trying to use the 30mm cannon (called PUMA) as an assault vehicle, because its anti-aircraft capability sucks and its anti-tank capability does not exist. How is it possible that we have a 30mm cannon at 10.0?
2 Likes
Well, update is tomorrow… watch them add Leopard 2A7V with worse armor than the strv122 just like the last dev server…
1 more reason to just grind the press W t90m
This is so stupid… if i had money (and friends) i would buy the Steel Beasts to avoid this Russia propaganda
1 Like
Players get mad after they release PSO in a gimped state
“Don’t worry guys we are releasing an up-armored Leopard this year”
Release 2A7V with worse armor than Strv122
Also release Strv122B+
They’re trolling lmao
3 Likes
Gaijin be like: we said “Up-armored” Leopard… just did not say how much more.
2 Likes
Excuse me suggestion of what? It is bad modeled, so at least it needs to be considered as a bug:
In game:
In reality:
Report: Community Bug Reporting System
6 Likes
GJ to all but sadly we spent time for nothing. Im leaving the game, have fun to all. Maybe ill come back when this get fixed.
What a joke of developer. Just Ridiculous how the Leo 2A7V is now the new Leopard 2 PSO
STRV 122B+
3 Likes
I wish my tank was as armoured as this
2 Likes
well looks like gaijin won’t be getting my money again, and i maybe consider to refund anything that still refundable, unless they fix 2a7v armor ASAP
5 Likes
Armored he say´s
1 Like
I hate auto correct
1 Like
@Smin1080p
What sources did the developers use that Germany removed C-tech from the 100+ 2A6s and replaced it with B-tech for the 2A6 → 2A7V standard conversion?
And what sources do the developer have that a modern version of MEXAS-H has less protection that the MEXAS-H used 30 years ago?
Others and myself are very disappointed in the implantation of the 2A7V, we have bug reported the armour since day 1 of the dev server, and we were told “Armour is not final”. What we got now was an even worse version of the first iteration of the dev server despite all the bug reporting and source material saying that it should be a much higher level of protection.
10 Likes
Ricochet bug still there?
