theyre right, superior single-use rocket
3 Likes
‘That’s not an ammo explosion - lemme show you what a REAL ammunition explosion looks like!’
T-72 designer, probably.
1 Like
I mean mediocre armor, mediocre gun handling, mediocre firepower, mediocre mobility.
I don’t see anything good about it besides it having an APS.
Honestly afther they changed the reload from 6.7 seconds aced to 6 seconds aced and especially after they changed the reload again to 5 seconds ace the Merkava Mk.4s have become quite fun.
Only sad part is their fun strengths keep getting nerfed.
True, but an abrams with 7 seconds reload would have one of the worst firepowers of any NATO MBT while being average at everything else.
IT has good mobility man, arguably better than arbams bar in reverse, which is 17 rather than 36?
The armour is also quite nice , the issue is the surviveability of the damn LFP leaves it open if you over extend.
The Chinese round ain’t that great at all yeah.
Mines are still 6.3 I think, one is expert other is just a level 100 crew.
Looking forward to the MK4 tbh, as well as getting the raam sagol.
Yeah ; but for it to have a 7 second reload others would also need a reduction. So leos 6.5 for example, etc etc
2 Likes
Btw this means rate of fire with target acquisition and observation included. Not the mechanical value in sterile conditions like abrams tankers)
Kind of self defeating argument for you)
1 Like
Wait until you find out how they measure NATO rates of fire for documentation.
1 Like
Yeah the Mk.3s also got buffed from 6.7 aced to 6 seconds aced, which was much needed.
6.7 ace reload at 11.3-12.0 was just pure pain though back then.
1 Like
Top tier is indeed broken,dying at airfield to the SPAA shouldnt be a thing. But it is,i died to CLAWS.
1 Like
it did not, the idea was tested during WW2 by Australians
there are no pics other than the one that shows a clearly mockup missile on the airframe, and as such the image does not confirm anything
ah yes, the matte black painted seeker is obviously a real missile
every russian IIR seeker we have seen has a reflective cover over the seeker, which is very obviously missing here and replaced by matte black paint, hence the seeker is very obviously fake
eh, thats what they used for the M1128 despite lots of evidence that it isnt the autoloader speed, so I dont see why they shouldnt use that for russian tanks too
what other seeker heads are you talking abt ?
images of LMUR, the other kh-38MT mockups etc.
all of them have reflective glass over the seeker
i dont think a mockup missile will have tags ?
1 Like
why wouldnt it? and those look more like an extra strap to keep it from falling off the hardpoint, which makes it more likely to be a mockup because a real missile should not have that issue
i think u are wrong those straps are not used to keep it from falling off.
u can see the straps on aircraft in active service.
I honestly don’t understand why, after realizing that top-tier games are simply unplayable right now, people don’t just avoid that BR.
I’m just going to stop playing my Leopards for 2–3 months and focus on the lower tiers and the Chinese tech tree instead.
It’s fun too, and the Russians can go back to playing against themselves with their wonder weapons for a while. Just like when they introduced the totally not overpowered Obj 292 at BR 10.
yes those are safety pins, however they look very different from the straps in the brochure image, such as how none of them are wrapped completely around the missile, where both the mockup missiles have a strap wrapped completely around them, which does not make sense for the type of strap used on real weapons