@Smin1080p_WT welcome back from your holiday good sir.
Any plans to include reverse thrust on the new strategic bombers? They’re a bit… interesting to land in Air RB matches. Would help a lot in slowing down after touchdown.
I’m reminded of this clip whenever I see people attempting to land (timestamp 39:35):
i cant use the b52 tail gun for some reason, it just wont let me switch to gunner view.
when i use the menu to pick gunner view it just puts me in the bomb sight
It’s been like that since it was added
If they have them in reality, then its something that can be considered via a report. As far as I understand with the B-52 however, it just has a breaking parachute.
not a challenger 2 question for once i know its shocking but i noticed the NAMERS weight is interestingly heavy, for example its weighs only a ton less than a black night and a ton less than a merkava while not having a turret
for comparison
its only .6 of a ton lighter than a merkava, does this mean the merkavas turret only weighs 0.6 tons (or the more obvious being the NAMER is way to heavy)
because its meant to be a heavily armoured IFV like the BMPTs
Gaijin just thinks its armour is a myth
still though i feel it should be lighter considering its missing a turret. it should be only around 35-50tons by the looks of the thing
If there are sources to suggest its wrong, it can be reported and reviewed. But comparisons to other tanks wont be accepted as an indicator.
Im not aware of any open forwarded reports on its weight being incorrect.
Namer is MK4 body
Namer should be what imaginary BMPT is, but russian ehm would burst open full. Tears streaming down how not fair is that russia doesnt have most op IVF.
Boat triad
the mk3 and mk4 weigh the same
that makes a bit of sense
the comparison was more to show how unrealistic it seems i can try find actual sources of it being incorrect but merkava mk4 chassis with a crewless turret 30mm only being .6 of a ton lighter seems very odd
PS1 Tiger II, 3 polygons
irl its heavier cuz 3m equivalent of steal from frontal perspective and build to withstand ussr round from side which is +/- 800mm equivalent of steal armour. My friend´s fiancé is driver, he was okay after got left shot from RPG on driver in Mk4M… so
“Modern Variants (RPG-29/28): Can exceed 900mm RHA penetration, capable of challenging main battle tank (MBT) frontal armor” → so yeah russian bias is hard on Israeli tree
“The Merkava 4 is powered by a V-12 diesel engine rated at 1,500hp. The engine compartment and one fuel tank are at the front of the tank and two fuel tanks are at the back. The new engine represents a 25% increase in power compared to the 1,200hp powerpack installed on the Merkava 3. The Mk 4 Merkava has six rubber-tired roadwheels on either side with the drive sprocket at the front, idler at the rear, and four track-return rollers. Each roadwheel is suspended by a separate helical spring with suspension arms for two roadwheels, each caged in a housing.” - Merkava 4
| Armament | Armor |
|---|---|
| One 120 mm rifled gun, three 7,62 mm machine guns, one 12,7 mm machine gun, one mortar 60 mm, and 12 smoke dischargers. | Composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy. Sloped modular design. |
| Country users | Weight |
| Israel | 65,000 kg |
| Designer Country | Speed |
| Israel | 60 km/h |
| Combat Equipment | Range |
| Firing gun computer control system, NBC protection system, night vision | 500 km |
| Crew | Dimensions |
| 4 | Length: 7.6 m hull; Width: 3.72 m; Height: 2.66 m |
מבצע "צוק איתן" | כיפת הברזל של הטנקים פועלת בעזה: "התקפית" - וואלה חדשות → about how good armour mk4 meil rauch has.
3 minutes on google Namer
Just ask IDF soldier he said around 60t with newest eq.
The Namer is armed with a Samson Remote Controlled Weapon Station (RCWS). This system can be configured with either a .50 calibre M2 Browning Heavy Machinegun or an Mk 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher. The vehicle is also armed with a 7.62 mm FN MAG machine gun and a 60 mm mortar tube. An IFV version of the vehicle is under development which is armed with a 30 mm autocannon mounted in an unmanned turret. The vehicles are also under evaluation for being armed with a Spike ATGM.
Like the Merkava Mark IV, the Namer it is optimized for providing a very high level of crew survivability on the battlefield. The Add-on-Armor consists of a laminate of ceramics and steel-nickel alloy plates. Above this armor is an additional layer of ERA. Namer also integrates V-shaped belly armor to provide protection against mine blast and IEDs. The armor is actually said to offer more protection to the vehicle and crew than does the Merkava IV armor, as the weight saved by removal of the turret was added to vehicle protection systems. While originally intended to field the new Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS), due to budget restraints Namer’s are being equipped with the older Trophy APS. → “namer 30”
Edit*
“Despite not being equipped at the time with an APS system the Namer’s were struck on multiple occasions with RPGs and ATGMs without incurring any serious damage to the vehicles and with armor penetration or crew injuries reported.”
BMPT rockets frontally cannot kill namer or merkava mk4s
Greetings @Smin1080p_WT, I would like to ask if these Reports regarding the Puma IFV could be reviewed/forwarded.
1: Puma IFVs missing Spall Liners
2: Puma IFVs ERA underperfoming against KE Threats
3:Puma VJFT & S0 UFP armor is mismodeled. This Report was forwarded but i would like to ask if its still into consideration as the armor on both Pumas is still mismodeled.
The place to make reports is here: Community Bug Reporting System
Not this thread.
This is not a viable source. Its a wiki.