It clearly says maximum allowed loading time is 7 seconds, you don’t need an ace crew for that.
And yea, faster then 5 when sitting stationary.
Just be happy with what you have for once.
1 Like
A3, a4 have tips that beat k5. No, dm53 doesn’t have the same feature not to the same extent it still struggles with k5.
Relict beats tandemn weapons such as a3 and different missiles.
A4 is an attempt to bruteforce the armor even through operating ERA whether it beats relict tanks or not is unknown one can only guess. Marketing lies shouldn’t be considered source.
One thing is clear according to Ukraine oplot bounces orbital cannon.
1 Like
A sweedish TOW2B variant? Honestly don’t know. But the “… ???” was for you doubting the claims of the effectivnes of the Arena M, while at the same time accept the satements, claiming that A3/A4 can defeat Relikt.
You really want to do this bub?
Absolutely Sweden so handheld because they have good MBT and light tanks SPAA sht Heli super sht Gripen Obsolete
Haha so handheld.
Got any proof, I’ve at least sourced a claim that stated it’s sufficient for “3rd” gen ERA. And considering the T-14 uses Malachit, not Relict; there has to be some reason as to why, no? Why go to all the expense to improve the system if the threat system can’t yet deal with it.
Nope it’s literally just making it more accurate by facilitating the introduction of the Ammunition Data-link and feed back to the FCS based on Muzzle velocity
And yet it has a better than 60% winrrate in 11_2 GSB, where they play alone+china vs everyone…
Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 70%+ once October stats are added.
1 Like
I wouldn’t waste time trying with that guy, they are known for their…special takes.
A3 literally listed on manufacturer’s site as defeated ammo that’s why i say it confidently.
But i or anyone else has n{ info on a4 gs relikt tanks
So, You got a link?
So why is this not sufficient?
Ok so a4 is pointless then.
Do your homework
It’s still an improvement, after all you still need to actually hit the target to achieve an effect, no?
So you would make a claim with no proof? I can at least back up what I’m saying while providing receipts.
Improvement that’s not needed >n the first place.
It’s been posted on forums several times. I could but i don’t want to im not a person in charge of managing sources and modeling in wt.
You can find it yourself. Nii stali site. The devs are well aware of this
A neat concept… As much is like it and find it funny to use in WT… it will be a CAS-pocalips if added :D
Its dispenser comes in; unguided (CBU-97) , guided(CBU-105) and Glide-Kit(AGM-154B) variants, and can be carried in large quantities (each dispenser has 10x BLU-108/B’s which have 4 “Skeets” each).
It’s always nice to have something like this in the back-pocket as a trump card, since the CBU-87 and -100 can only get you so far in terms of one-upping SAM systems.
at this point we’re in dire need of a rework for the GRB/GSB, from the ground up… the current mode and maps dont work with the modern weapons and system that we allready have, not to mention thing like this…
3 Likes
It’s almost as if they can just spawn CAS and wipe the entire opposing team out with ordinance to spare from an absurd distance, with sim teams being even SMALLER than grb. Good thing that’s not the case!!! /s
All that really needs work is that the SP cost tiering of A2G ordnance is really skewed. Especially for “competent” players.
Basically;
SP gains need to be Completely rebalanced (consider splitting it into multiple disparate pools for vehicle types, adjusting gains, and introduce a mercy point award for Lost hulls to permit further contributions to a post-facto CAP flight, or light strike loadouts to retain player’s effectiveness)
-
Baseline airframe cost should be reduced somewhat, (or append a Basic CAP Fighter to Lineups, similar to the Naval mode )
-
A2A Missiles should be completely free, if not taken with anything other than basic ordnance.
-
The cost dumb ordnance (e.g. iron Bombs, Napalm & Rockets etc.) should be reduced
-
MCLOS / Anti-Radiation should be somewhat higher (but not that much higher) to provide a specialized option for counter-SAM duties (can be hard-countered, but opens up counter-play and responses).
-
SACLOS & Laser guided ordnance at a higher baseline cost
-
F&F ordnance should be scaled based on Speed, Seeker performance and warhead TNTe.
-
GPS & DL(post-release MITL control) capabilities should further increase cost.
-
Each additional pair of Missiles taken should exponentially increase SP costs, to encourage loadout diversity or downloading some stations. to facilitate the use of custom loadouts.
4 Likes