Oh it gets akeron ? i thought they would use everything but that missile.
Yeah, Akeron is an odd but welcome choice for it. I expected more Spike’s.
1 Like
Saw some conflicting sources, some mentioned it being Akerons, some said it’s SPIKE like the rest, was anything confirmed?
Personally I’ve only seen sources state RBS 58’s which are Akeron MP’s.
2 Likes
Maybe it’s compatible with both ?
Systems using multiple chassis.
Other SPAAs (maybe some can be considered top tier):
1 Like
Seen both hence unsure, do you know if the colored lines have any significant meaning?
Noticed they sometimes differ, the CV90 used during Akeron testing had 2 thick yellow lines next to each other
while a D-series turret with SPIKE has 2 yellow + another color (brown/black?) with some space between them, same as the Mk.IIIC
or maybe i’m just reading to much into that
T-90 Bhishma Mk. III
- While externally it is very similar to the base T-90S Bhishma, the Mk. III is equipped with indigenous Explosive Reactive Armor Mk. 2, an indigenous ERA based off of Kontact-5 that increases overall protection against CE and KE-based munitions. It’s also equipped with an updated FCS that’s capable of target tracking as well as a new Thermal Sight for the Commander. Upgrades are continuing with a focus on a new powerpack, new FS-APDS round, and active protection system.
No, i don’t know, i know that the one of the vbci that France tried to sell could both use akeron or spike that is why i was suggesting that.
From my understanding, the Netherlands is equipping there CV9035NL MLU’s with Spike LRII’s while the Swedish military is adopting the RBS 58’s.That’s probably why there’s been images of both Spike’s and Akeron’s. The D-series turret is pretty adaptable, showing off both probably draws in more export sales too, at the very least interest in it.
On a side note of adaptability, there’s this thing for the Czech’s:
CV90 CZr
yeah, meant to beat PL-15 and such
Norway also did some testing using an earlier version of the same turret i believe
3 Likes
There is no reason to add cp if there is allready spaa 0.3 br higher in the same role
Whats the diffrence?
A bit better radar?
It has the same hull same turret and same gun unless it has some type of new ammunition or it can carry missiles i dont see a reason to add this
1 Like
Completely different fire control and different radar.
Why shouldn’t it come for a nation that used it. (The Dutch used it even longer than the Germans)
If you wanna read more:
But if you’re so against CP then let’s just give the french this:
2 Likes
Fcs dont rly matter in the game and at this br all radars act similar it diesnt matter if u lock the mig 15 from 13km or 10km
The point is it will feel like playing the same gepard we know and love(or hate)
Idk if this geprad is with mistrals but if so it will be cool to see if it has stingers like the germans it can be folded with the roland 1
And this is totally okay since it’s in a different tech tree.
Otherwise we can also discuss T34s, M4 Sherman’s, Leopard 2s, M60s and so on which are in multiple tech trees
Since foldering exists there even is a way to add it without being a research obstacle
2 Likes
Yea and its hella annoying
Tec just published a video on it
If it foldred with smt i dont mind it but gepard is 8.3 and there is no 8.3 to fold it with this
Th missiles gepard can be foldred with the roland or santal if its mistrals(it is?)
Oh when the youtuber whos content is comprised of 80% reading of devblogs and 20% making increadibly bad takes such as Naval is an example why we dont need decompression says it, it must be true
There really is no issue with vehicles that have been in service with multiple nations being in said nations. Especially when they are different such as the PRTL GWI
Folders do not need to be the same BR
just as an example
3 Likes