I must be super stupid…
@Smin1080p_WT
Sorry for ghost-pinging you with the previous reply, but I think pinging you here is more suitable;
Is it possible to share what is meant with “conflicting information”?
Is it refering to the 3 brochures (2006, 2004, 1998) all listing different combat weights?
And is the evidence indicating the 35t figure to not apply to the ingame-variant thus currently evaluated as insufficient?
I’d gladly appreciate a response on this matter, as it’d greatly help with finding additional sources to resolve the issue.
CV 90120 / 1998 variant (Old turret & hull)
~22.4t unloaded // 25t combat weight (see: bottom left) // 445kW Scania Dsl14
CV90120T / 2002 variant (new turret, possibly different hull, new engine)
26-28t combat weight // 450-500kW Scania Dl16
ALVIS HÄGGLUNDS Brochure: CV90120T (2002)
CV90120-T / 2006 variant (same turret, CV90 Mk III hull, new engine)
up to 35t combat weight // 600 kW engine (unspecified)
Note: ingame variant based on this brochure, p1 (bottom right) 1:1 identical image as 2002 brochure.
References indicating 35t mass not to apply to current ingame-variant/depiction;
Note: Pay attention to the publication-dates! (The brochure that lists 35t is from 2006)
Show additional references
[1] Jane’s Armour And Artillery, 2005-2006 → Although unreliable, Jane’s lists the 26-28t figure for the ingame CV90120-T variant.
[2] Jane’s International Defense Review (JIDR) - Volume 39, August 2006, page 17
Note: EUROSATORY 2006 (or 2005? idk) - Same year as brochure listing up to 35t mass.
[3] CV90120 during the 2007 MSPO EXPO
Note: Fitted with all the extra equipment while still listing the “up to 35t” figure
Additional Note: The vehicle-name featuring “T”, “-T” or neither doesnt make much of a difference, since “T” or “-T” literally just stands for “Tank”;
“CV90120Tank” / “CV90120-Tank”
9 Likes
Smin specialy said not all nations might get it.
And honestly i doubt aesa efts, since their flight performance still goes strong
True, but that also means that ground shouldn’t have to wait forever for air.
Still waiting for the Type-10 with APS…
1 Like
True, but you never know with the snail
3 nations, Japan china and sweden
2 Likes
Thought they shoved the F-2 to 14.3 my bad then
1 Like
4 technically, as Israel also has no 14.3 and no true EFT counterpart.
1 Like
Don’t they have a F15E equivalent at 14.3?
I hope Japan gets some unique airframes soon. Since most of the things in the TT are C&P. From Rank I to Rank VIII.
1 Like
F-15E and I are 14.0 and are also both easily worse overall than the EFT.
In fairness the F-15E does come close albeit barely so they arent too bad off.
Well closer than Sweden, China or Japan do anyhow.
Does one even exist outside of potential F-35
Definitely not the worst 14.0 but thats compression for ya
Sadly the Radar is total crap and in modes where you don’t have markers you really feel this.
They should just add a module for the Radar, Gripen E is coming and that uses a scaled down Captor AESA Radar.
But yes you are probably right, Russia wont have one as the Su-35 uses IRBIS and that is a PESA Radar unless they add the Su-57 and just screw balance ha ha
Yeah the F-15E is questionable at 14.0, but a EFT with even 2 braincell can easily roflstomp an F-15E.
Well Gaijin need to add EW and ECCM for jets to make the fights more balanced instead we are rushing to Gen 5 aircraft and we don’t even have jammers yet.
But real talk yes a Typhoon does stomp an F-15E in War Thunder and the real world.
1 Like
Add Berkut, Felon is mid