The only thing wrong with this screenshot is that it still has the TUSK shields on top, those needs to go in game, besides that it looks cool.
1 Like
Up, maybe someone will notice this request. It is absurd that the possibility to select them or not has not yet been given.
2 Likes
Up
1 Like
I mean technically speaking there is nothing stopping Gaijin from adding Javelin or Stingers to Crows systems given it is a perfectly viable configuration.
I’ll keep upping this topic everyday
1 Like
Up
1 Like
up
1 Like
+1[color=#]+1[/red]
1 Like
Noo but you don’t understand Spanish Avenger, how else would gaijin say that the SepV2 is a upgrade and a completely different model (totally not a copy paste) when it was introduced into the game. I’m looking at you @AlvisWisla.
In all seriousness, yeah they should make it optional but players still won’t play it because the Crow is more of a hindrance than a benefit. If they gave the ARAT better KE protection (the reddit post back in december you made during dev server) then people might play it
3 Likes
Up
2 Likes
No
Up
1 Like
Up
1 Like
CSAAM was tested on M1A1s first.
The original Heavy Commons.
Then it was tested on M1A1 AIMS in Iraq, just after I left.
Then M1A2 SEPSv1, and finally SEPSv2.
We can still attach it separate from TUSK ERA, but it’s in storage for the time being. SLAP-T ammo is expensive.
Up
1 Like
Up
1 Like
Imagine gaijins implementation of the javelin. You known it would drop like crazy on launch and nosedive into the ground.
1 Like
Hello there, @Smin1080p_WT !
I don’t normally tag you to avoid unnecessarily disturbing you, but since you mentioned it was fine to ask you a thing or two once in a while without abusing or spamming, I figured I would ask you about this!
Do you know the developers’ current position in regards to making Tusk 2 an optional modification for SEPv2, as suggested here and on the “issues platform” (as a suggestion since it’s not a bug), instead of being permanently installed?
Many users would value being able to sacrifice that little extra protection in exchange for some extra mobility, and there’s no technical or historical reason why it shouldn’t be removable.
This topic of mine is already 4 months old and has a lot of support, and the issues were report-suggested 8 months ago; in fact, ever since the vehicle was shown for the first time, many players showed concerns about this through the official channels and different social medias, so it’s getting a little tiresome not to have any news in regard to this, hence why I figured out I would ask directly ^^.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m0ITNd22gRXO
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/o4tAHTAupFSz
It is always interesting to remember that, in real life, TUSK II is valued and meant to counter; RPGs and other portable grenade launchers, IEDs, mines, suicide drones, etc… none of which is present ingame, which diminishes its role and renders it more of a gimmick against some autocanon rounds or weaker chemical munitions!
If it were optional, I am sure many people would continue to use it for that slight benefit in protection; but others would uninstall it in order to make the best out of its mobility.
5 Likes
Hello
At the moment, due to the way the model is, its currently not possible to demount the kit from the tank.
This would require a rework of the model to enable this to happen, which is why its sadly not something that can just be turned on.
At this present moment, the devs have not yet decided on the outcome of the suggestion. If they do, we will for sure update the report with the answer.
4 Likes
Oh, that’s a shame to hear, but thank you for your reply! I will stay tuned for potential updates on the matter then.