And the ARL-44 Bayard aswell.
1 Like
Why shrapnel penetration on naval shells is so low compared to ground shells, despite big differences in filler and mass of the shells and therefore bigger fragments with higher pen power. When it will be addressed and shells get their proper damage? With underwater penetrations being disabled, all good armored BBs that have shell storages above propellant changes are too survivable, tanking hundreds of shells from each other, without any chances to reach modules under waterline.
Naval
Ground
it also gets HEAT APKWS though
and in bigger rocket pods
obviously makes it 12.7 given that no US helis get their HEAT APKWS or APKWS in their larger rocket pods
But what about adding the VULCANO 155 round to the Italian PzH 2000? No, that’s apparently too difficult—giving new capabilities to ground vehicles that are already in service. There are even bug reports pointing out that they didn’t include the laser warning system (LWS/LR).
You know we didn’t get guided munitions for the Vidar so why would we get it for the PZH 2000?
they did add it to the rest of the abrams on the dev server
The point isn’t about why the VIDAR didn’t get them while the PzH did; it’s about features that should be implemented for the VIDAR, the PzH, and other vehicles capable of using them. I’m not asking for a monopoly, but rather focusing on the need for new mechanics or ammunition—not the infamous DM 63s, which are just an upgrade to the current rounds, but fresh, interesting mechanics.
I mean let’s be honest guided rounds would only have 2 paths with gaijin. Broken and OP as hell, or Broken and useless and a lot of people dislike HE launchers already.
Do you have any real usage for such in game? Cuz it’s the same issue with such for US and USSR as there’s not much options due to them not being a typical guided munitions like (GL)ATGMs like we already have. Those are primarily designed to be not guided like a round or even a spike, but to hit targets from above on extreme distances using sometimes external data to make its final part of trajectory.
Yeah, cuz who likes unimmersive ahistorical and gameplaywise toxic vehicles that could easily fit in 7.x BR range due to them not being by any means balanceable through WW2 era matchmaker (they usually don’t care what they’re shooting at unless the shitty overpressure mechanics is combined with volumetric, you can easily shoot almost everything up front just aiming generally either an lower turret or at roof, in extreme cases - tracks to hit the bottom of the tank). So i can’t see any reason for not moving them up to rank V when they won’t generally feel that different from what they’re now, maybe even better.
probably not as they already have the AH-64A premium for Israel, the Greek one would just be a copy with the only difference being the Greek one gets 9Ls that take up pylons that could be used for ATGMs and instead bring stingers on the wing tips
Wasn’t defending or hating them, I’m indifferent to them all the same
I mean i played alot of them myself and i can’t see the difference in gameplay between, e.g., M44 and M109 and 2S19 despite them being almost 2 BRs from eachother. They can put such artillery pieces at whatever BR they want without considering how it would affect totally not =endurance simulator= of playing any heavy tank.
One last comment, then I’ll keep quiet for a while: why did they give Russia another 3-vehicle pack? And why didn’t they give one to Japan, China, Italy, Sweden, or Israel? Were their packs really that bad?
2 Likes
Italian PzH2000 bug reports:
3 Likes
Hi Smin, any chance we could finally see these reports implemented? Small changes, but still interesting, especially for Nuclear Thunder mode.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CFwuMakodosy
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NVac6WyIpH6q
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P4gBwdqsttSZ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vy5ZjhTKRgMj
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ay2RL7nDGtch
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ns9ybAQptak8
2 Likes
It doesn’t really show up on missile simulator because you lob them but they are quite a bit better than APKWS in performance
They removed the hit/critical/destroyed pop up from ground on the windows build or is this a Linux client issue?
What performance would M1060CV give them? I wouldnt really say it hit those vehicles heavily, they were already lower BR than M1128 or CV90105. C
CT-CV90105 felt absolutely disgusting, idk about Boxer.