Mind sharing that one perhaps?
I think he means the extra composite screen that e.g. Strv 122’s get, which was actually on PSO, just a different version;
PSO-VT (2009)
Ingame PSO version is from Eurosatory 2006 / ILÜ 2007
(Eurosatory '06)
(ILÜ '07)
(sole difference between the one at Eurosatory '06 and ILÜ '07 is the RCWS afaik)
2 Likes
good looking leo.
Mind sharing it? If its not classified ofc.
I could see and probably wouldn’t mind these buffs, as it really wouldn’t change much of anything as to how 2A7 performs/plays. But I doubt this would shine the FOTM spotlight on Germany again. It would have to come with some other vehicles as well.
The PSO AspectOfTheRAGE showed or that 2A6 could mitigate this problem.
hahahaha yes I remember
Gaijin would never.
Just like I told the tech-mod Ralin, no, as it is a literal blueprint of the DM53/63, and it shows the actual construction of the penetrator.
You’ll have to unfortunately take my word for this, but it is a 682x22.5’ish penetrator with a density of over 18.500g/cc, you can plop these into the L-O calculator and see for yourself the performance it would have if fixed.
The PSO AspectOfTheRAGE showed or that 2A6 could mitigate this problem.
I genuinely doubt Gaijin would give our in-game PSO the add-on based on the PSO-VT. There’s more hope for them at least adding one of Bundesewhr’s 2A6 variants with 3rd gen thermals before 2027 than that.
4 Likes
Well then we can’t really expect Gaijin to change it then. Fortunately DM53 is not exactly a shell that suffers.
Well, it was hopium. I really like how it looked and 1650! hp engine would be sick.
1 Like
wait a minute, Ka-52M is actually capable of carrying LMURs?
is it also capable of carrying 8 LMURs while using the Iglas? as i know it has 6 pylons and LMURs only take 1 pylon per 2 missiles.
i would love to have that thing ingame, it would make grinding russian helicopters absurdly more worth it even with it’s ugly Mi-4AV.
iirc KA-52M has only been seen with single LMUR pylons
FYI, Mi-28NM has only been seen with LMUR on the outer pylons, so this still should have more, just Mi28 is modeled with too many
Are the 2A5 and 2A6 any different besides the barrel being shorter? the .3 trade off for a few mm’s pen seems too much
They’re not much different and should all be 12.3 tbh. Longer barrel is disadvantage in cqc.
Even then, 2A5/6/PSO are within the top 5 12.7s, but I digress.
3 Likes
If majority of players boycott NATO top tier, they would have to change things, but people just wont
I only have issues with ru CAS, NATO tanks easily bully t series into submission lol
1 Like
The BRs at top tier are such a mess.
T-72B3A vs T-72B3 → B3A has APS → 1.0 BR difference
SEPv1 vs M1A2 → SEPv1 has better thermals → 0.7 BR difference
2A7V vs 2A6 → 2A7V has better hull armor, hull spall liners and better thermals → same BR
Like what? How? Why?
6 Likes
B3A definitely placed too high or NATO mains said B3 placed too low lol
I do prefer the 13x gunner zoom of SEP over the 10x of M1A2, it does impact my aim reaction time when I am caught in an open, especially in a br where milliseconds matter. On bigger maps it also improves my shot placement when it comes to tiny hitboxes like a hull down target. Certain playstyles do benefit greatly from the 13x like sitting back and camp lol doing this in some maps just straight up requiring little to no skill to reach nuke requirement.
5 Likes
should be 12.0 - 11.7
should go back at 11.7
1 Like
Agreed on the B3A. However the T-72B3 is fine when compared to it’s direct competitors at 11.3 (Merkava Mk.3s and IPM1).
Ideally I would have a global decompression of course, but I doubt that is happening anytime soon.
when i played in 11.7 it was fine good armor, good round, excelent thermals, now in 11.3 with the bmpt it has made the br unplayable, T80U should go to 11.3 not T72b3
T-80U is better than T-72B3 though. T-72B3 was one of the worst 11.7s, now its fine at 11.3.
11.3 is also far from unplayable right now, its going back to normal.
1 Like