well i dont see what is so difficult to understand there
a good example is the Aim-9b, you dont need to pull more than 5g to out-pull that missile even tho it has 10Gs of pull
like ofc the missile has to be able to pull more than the plane it wants to hit, it needs to pull lead
it was mb
i thought you were talking about the APFSDS the abrams gets
and the reduction in explosive filler is likely the result of a bug-report
I mean most of the ARH won’t hit unless you fire halfway into their NEZ at like 18km even though their statcard range is 80+ due to lofting.
well it would be quite similar to the phoenix
you would be able to force the entire enemy team to go defensive at the start of the match becuase multipathing against missiles with bigger warheads isnt that reliable
and you just can gain a maasive advantedge in positioning by that
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t set any precedent, and instead uses the same exact rule started over a decade ago; and in this case for Italian export aircraft in the Italian tech tree.
I think it doesn’t matter much against current top tier FM.
We get told there are no rules but yet Italy hasn’t gotten it’s first squadron vehicle which it started in 2019 7 years ago.
So 7 years Italy have yet to get a squadron vehicle and you tell me that not out of spite.
Even Israel out of all nations got at least one, so who are the people so bent on not giving Italy one ?
And Still Russians would complain when they get slapped by a 120D
@Deathmisser
A tech tree not having a squadron vehicle is not anything other than they haven’t found and developed a vehicle that wouldn’t otherwise fill a hole while still being neat.
Lack of vehicles is never malice, otherwise the 1 whole year without a tank the Soviet tech tree went through you’d have to see that as anti-Soviet by such a standard, when in reality the tree was healthy and focus was laid elsewhere; no malice, just finding cool vehicles regardless of nation.
Israel’s squadron vehicle is a unique Magach that fills no holes. Patience is required in life.
that cannot be used for bug reporting, it isnt even a secondary source
i would recommend you looking for the actual bug report instead of searching for a russian website that confirms your bias, Confirmation Bias
“fixed 1 year ago”
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
exactly
whats with the current change if 1 year ago it was fixed?
and there are no bug report for it???
if u think im “bias” then go find it?
when i literally spend half an hour trying to find one
“i dont have time” then zip that confirmation bias
How was that flagged ?
Whats wrong with it ?
@Morvran
The Soviet tech tree does not have a T-90S in the game; There is no T-90S outside the British tech tree.
Also mentioning air trees is proof of no malice.
If Gaijin “hated” the air trees of Sweden and Britain, they wouldn’t have hard-pushed top air introductions like they did to get them on-par with everyone else as quickly as possible.
T-90a and t-90s are essentially the same tank, one is just an export of the other, ill let you figure out which is which
Right, and is that not stupid?
Especially when far more interesting SQVs could have been added like:
Chieftain 900
Chieftain 2000
Challenger 1 Falcon
MBT-80
or given what we really really need(ed) was a decent IFV/Light tank and not another MBT, something like:
All of which would have made far more sense and been far more interesting additions. Leave the T-90s for the soviet TT
The T-90 C&P just felt like a lazy option to bodge our tree. Even though the BR that was “bodged” was actually fine.
Ah yes, a full year after everyone else is “as quickly as possible” but also doesnt explain away the lack of nearly anything for most of that year at any BR. We even still have options yet to be added like the BAE HAWK. That would have been a very interesting lower BR addition that both nations could have gotten.
A MC 205V in REAF colors in Squadron colors pleases Italy really needs a squadron vehicle
