4 Likes
Oh my, you are right!
That being said, they threw many BBs into 6.0, 6.3 and 6.7…
But at least it won’t face Scharnhorsts and alikes, hahah.
1 Like
Ah, you got me at the copy paste part, I guess it’s more realistic than I thought then.
Italy has also the CAMM-ER on a platform called Grifo. JFR.
Is there any documentation im missing or is your source contradicting itself?
VFM says the missile was directly modified pre service in sweden. So between 1985 and 1987.
There is only a mention of jam resistance but nowhere is it listed to what degree.
The US Paper from 1993 only states that sweden asked germany for the 9Li but never mentions anything beyond that. And the timeline in the same document is also placing full production of the Li only after 1987, so after the aim9l has entered swedish service.
Maybe im missing crucial information like an export/buy report from sweden that actually confirms that they acquired the Li upgrade and not only asked germany for it and were denied back then.
KV-1 m1942 suggestion is closed, because it’s implemented already.
Finnish StuG suggestion is still open.
Unfortunately Finnish vehicle suggestion get forward very rarely, because they still don’t count as Swedish. Instead they have to compete for the single monthly “Other Nations” slot. Specially some of their AA trucks would fit well for low to mid tiers.
Maybe there is a chance for StuGs if they decide to update the old in game model. The same is happening with T-34-85s: They are adding a new variant together with new visual model.
What’s AIM-9JuLi? AIM-9J with Li seeker?
@Smin1080p_WT Please add Mirage MF2000 rather than some Benelux F-16 knowing how Gaijin is. Gaijin could have given us AMX-10RCR T40 for a premium rather than Benelux Leopard 2.
Its not a case of one or the other. AMX-10 is not an MBT. Premiums from other classes can still come to any tree (even multiple MBTs are never ruled out). But the Leopard wasn’t “instead of” an AMX-10 or other wheeled vehicle.
The Leopard 2A4 is spesifically a premium Rank VII MBT.
6 Likes
Okay hopefully that can also come too and that Gaijin sees there is a demand for it.
It’s clear that mbt premiums are generally more popular than LT/IFV premiums at high/top tier. Just look at the M1128 WP/M1 KVT and Centauro RGO/Ariete Cartezza.
Only exception I can think of is the 2S38.
Does anyone know when t34-85 event coming out ???
Sorry to ask again, but I’m curious about something.
Are developers planning to add new APFSDS to top-tier vehicles in the near future? For example, models such as M829A3/A4, SHARD, DTC-201, DM73 and 3BM70.
2 Likes
10th
No plans to speak of currently.
2 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT Since in No.4 they tease that some nations will be getting sub trees am I correct in saying I should have a low exceptions since this is a naval focused update ?
1 Like
Hello! While we are at it, I have a question regarding, specifically, M829A3.
According to the developers, the addition of this shell wouldn’t change anything compared to M829A2.
Which makes me wonder; then why not implement it to M1A2 SEPv2, so that, at least in a Placebo manner, it feels like an improvement in at least one way compared to the previous Abrams tanks, by receiving its historical main shell choice even if it’s just a few extra mm in penetration which, again, wouldn’t make the tank OP according to the devs themselves?
And speaking of M1A2 SEPv2- the unability to uninstall TUSK II has been acknowledged for well over a year by now, but there doesn’t seem to be any news on this front. Would you have anything to share with us?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m0ITNd22gRXO
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DPGSJAYQkOlh
4 Likes
As explained in the quote above, the devs don’t believe it will make a material change to enhance its capabilities currently, so there is no reason to introduce the shell.
I dont have any news on that front. Generally if there was new news on that, the report status would be updated and a new comment added to reflect that.
1 Like
How far ahead do the devs decide on the April Fools event?
Historical accuracy, then.
If the shell does not change anything, then there’s no reason NOT to implement it.
If the issue was that it would turn the tank OP, there would be a reason not to implement it. But since it wouldn’t, there’s no reason not to implement it…
Well, that’s disappointing. See, that’s why people end up becoming bitter; this issue has been reported ever since the tank was implemented to the game, yet here we are, well over a year later, still waiting, and I doubt we will even see a solution here.
3 Likes