When can America get more ifvs?

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Never. Why would they bother giving us more ifvs.

We still have a shit ton of Bradley variants to get but oh well Huh?

How are people voting no hahahahah

3 Likes

theres better variants with 30mm,aps,and better tows, better engines and armor.

I am aware.

I don’t know why we dont have them already.

lav25,stryker variants would go so hard and wouldn’t really be broken, they would strengthen the brs.

2 Likes

theres too many IFVs in the game, marder, raketenautomat, bradley, 2s38 and the bmps its based on, this is a tank game not a battle taxi game I want to see more tanks not the little support vehicles

1 Like

We need them all bro!!!

the raketen isn’t a ifv, the Bradley is garbage, the marder is ok and their also still amvs.

This is not a tank game. It is a combined arms game.

Actually a flight simulator only originally.

We want all the vehicles. All support vics all!

1 Like

The bradley was meant to be with the tanks as a AMV, calling it a taxi is a stretch, the stryker is a battle taxi.

1 Like

No, enjoy yet another Abrams ‘upgrade’ that’s actually a downgrade thanks to non-removable armor packages designed for combat not even present in-game

1 Like

The m1a2 sepv2 should be leagues better but it isnt. not the tanks fault, irl it gets aps, m829a3, better computer systems and more. not the tanks fault gaijin didnt model it at all wright. Its roof shielings are supposed to stop tandem missiles but they dont.

Ground it tank centric with aircraft (and regretfully) helicopters as support, with small light fast vehicles clogging up BRs and metas its not so much about the tanks now, you can see that even in my own player records as the Fox is my most successful vehicle and that’s certainly not a tank but a reconnaissance infantry fighting vehicle. I like seeing IFVs but their implementation takes away from the main focus of grb

i think you misunderstood what i mean by “battle taxi”, its a phrase used by the British army for IFVs that carry soldiers in the back for them to dismount at the battle, a literal battle taxi so the definition fits the marder, bradley, BMP and warrior.

as for the striker it isn’t a battle taxi, the alvis CVRT hull which it is based on was used to make battle taxis such as the sultan but the soldier compartment is replaced with the ATGM housing on striker

America calls it that to… Bradley’s where designed to fight with the Abrams, the troops are optional.

1 Like

Idk, maybe when they make an IFV other than the Bradley maybe?

You’re talking SEP3.
And M829A2 is currently the best round in War Thunder, A3 isn’t needed.

On top of all that, this is an IFV topic, of which USA has no more IFVs for 10.0+ to get.
I do support more IFVs though, as they’d fill 9.X and lower.

And this is why we should have new gamemodes which focus on realistic warfare with environmental objectives and a lot of ai oriented gameplay.

This way IFVs can transport ai troops which then support tanks which fight tanks while the ifvs also fight other ai troops.

We can only dream huh

1 Like

We gotta wait on that AI overhaul to get finished.

1 Like

there’s better variants, with 30mms and better armaments like missiles and aps. we also make striker TOWS, lav TOWS, Stryker’s with hellfire’s, lav25, Stryker 30mm. so we make more than just the bradley…