Can someone explain why the Namer is at a higher br, than the Terminator.
Because both the Namer and Terminators are both HAFVs. Because if anything, the BR of the Namer and Terminator should be swapped around.
The Namer can’t survive any apfsds rounds to save it’s life (let me correct myself) The Merkava tank chassis can’t survive top tier darts or less to the front)), with nerfed chemical protection compared to real life, and the Merkavas are supposed to be one of the most armoured tanks in the world, but this brings in a misconception that it’s only protected against Chemical rounds and not kinetic because of the evnrionment it’s always fighting in.
Meanwhile the Terminator has armor that the Namer should have but it’s at way lower BR with even more effective weapons.
F&F ATGMs, APFSDS and active protection system (yes I know it’s bugged). And the BMPT is most likely to go up again.
I dunno, I get OHKed probably 80% of the time one of those things hits me, of course that doesn’t count the number of them that lost tracking and didn’t make it.
But is a SPIKE carrier gets on a point on a flat map like sands of Sinai and goes hull down with infinite SPIKES you are screwed.
This is my main problem. If gaijin gave the Namers their actual armor this wouldn’t be much of a problem, but no your 60+ ton “light tank” is less armored than this Russian autocannon vehicle that weighs ~15 tons less bc yes. If there wasn’t such a thing as Russian bias before the BMPT, there is now.
Honestly Namer survivability is better than the majority of 10.7 IFV’s with spikes, its a compression problem it shouldn’t be the same BR as the CV90 MKIV which is just worse.
Same goes for the KF41 whoch is pretty mid too especially with the CRV II coming to 10.7 we need a ground decomp to 15.0 so we can properly space vehicles out and get some Overtiered vehicles a solid BR thie includes CAS and tanks as most Helicopters are either too strong (G lynx) or pretty DOA for their BR. The AH64A ect.
Having absolutely 0 autocannon ammo in reserve really kills its survivability. The moment you get hit in the turret, your vehicle is effectively out of combat. Puma and VBCI have ammo box in the hull to make up for it. CRV is going to suffer a similar fate to the namer though, 348 rounds in the turret and that’s it.
The Namer is most certainly better than the Puma and other similar IFV, but they’re all pretty underwhelming. If only the Namer had an ammo box like the Terminator.
Not sure I’d call it better than the Puma VJTF. They both have armor that can’t stop any APFSDS. But the Puma has much better mobility, much better optics, and ammo in reserve.
Pretty much the only thing the Namer has over the puma is the excellent side depression for some cheeky spots, slightly more spacious if enemy has bad aim, and APS.
Side by side, the VJTF is better than the Namer at a lower BR. Namer would be good if it had accurate armor.
Edit: Puma also has AHEAD to shoot down air targets with its IRST. Namer only has regular HE. The firepower of the Puma is also straight up better.
Just to be clear, I’m speaking about the Tsrikhon, which has an APS. It’s often slept on but is very competitive against other IFV. The APS even keeps Terminators at bay.
Not exactly. The Namer has far superior kinetic performance against autocannon fire as well as superior chemical protection. Frontally, the Namer Tsrikhon is close to immortal for a Terminator, unlike the Puma.
It would be nice if it got an AHEAD round.
While the Puma’s firepower is better for its autocannon, it isn’t the main weapon of either vehicle. As a SPIKE launching platform, the Namer holds its ground better thanks to the Siman 4’s composite, even if it’s underwhelming, and the APS. If you play the vehicle at a distance from capture points while slinging spikes, it outperforms the Puma a lot.
The same is true of the BMPT, aside from the ammo box, which have always been opposed to being added.
My opinion on the BMPT since the Dev server is that it should get darts and Kornets to bring its weapons and armour more in line and go to 11.7/12.0.
I don’t really have an opinion on the Namer as I neither have it and Israel not being played much don’t fight it often. As for the SPIKEs in general, even if they are unreliable kills (which has not been my experience being hit by them) they are extremely annoying as they offer very little chance to defend unless you see them launch or are in a tank with APS, and at the very least a hit from them means a significant repair time.
For info, I have both namer, and I do like them both. While the hull is excellent against autocannons, if the guy in front of you isn’t stupid, he’ll just instantly ammo rack your turret with his autocannon.
The maps where you can do that are extremely rare. You first off pretty much need to roll the map type with a single cap point in each spawn. Then you need a map fitting that playstyle. Sands of Sinai big, Tunisia big, or Arctic big comes to mind. If you roll any other map or gamemode type like Rhine which will be like the 90% of your matches, Puma will be better.
This is true, which is why the Namer needs an ammo box. It is currently Anemic.
Correct. It is far too situational for its true doctrine of absorbing hits.
I’m likely Biased because I don’t like playing the Puma, but with all the IFV spam you see at 11.3, it just feels better to have armor against autocannons. The Puma just isn’t very durable.