XM2001 Crusader

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
6

First of all, it’s the XM2001. The resupply vehicle is called the XM2002. There’s no XM2000.

I spent some time researching the Crusader in preparation for a suggestion, but gave up because I couldn’t find specifications for the magnification of its direct fire sights. In fact I have found no evidence that it was capable of direct fire (unlike PzH 2000 et al.), nor any suggestions that it had LRF or, as you claim, a full stabilizer (the last I find exceedingly implausible; AFAIK no SPHs were ever meant to have a stabilizer). Sources would be appreciated.

Anyway, some more info dump. Sources aren’t particularly reliable, but its the best we’ve got:
Crew: 3
Max speed: 68 km/h
Weight: 50-55 t
Engine: LV100-5 gas turbine, 1500 hp
Armour: composite; possibly .50 cal proof based on contemporary light composite armour tests
Rate of fire: 10-12 rpm
Elevation: -3˚/+75˚, 13˚/s
Traverse: ±20˚, 10˚/s
Muzzle velocity: 958 m/s
Sources:

7 Likes
7

Okay thank you I just really want the US to get a fun SPH for higher tiers.

8

So why no suggestion?

1 Like
9

I think that could be done maybe in the form of M109A6 or M109A7.

10

All my submissions got denied

11

But the Crusader is just so much cooler

12

Alright which engineer was it that kept making these emo-looking prototypes? First the CATTB and then I see this

1 Like
13

Probably because it has zero sources, not in the suggestions tab and poorly put together.

1 Like
14

Yeah, this would not be accepted to suggestions.

2 Likes
15

ah yes another one of Rumsfeld victims! +1 althoug you need to source it properly

16

This is my first topic so I do not know how to properly make a good one.

17

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

18

I tried to put it in the suggestions but it isn’t getting accepted.

19

See?

20

Then reach out to a suggestion moderator to find out what’s wrong with it so you can adjust it to an acceptable standard.

3 Likes
21

You can look at other posts in suggestions category to get an idea of what is required of you. Currently you have a pretty bare bones post which is lacking of most useful information about the vehicle, 0 sources, no history, and a lacking text description.

1 Like
22

You’re joking, right? It’s 2 paragraphs…

23

No I’m not

24

Took 2 hr Idk what to do.
I need help with it.

25

In terms of help, I’d recommend following other people’s formats of suggestions. @WreckingAres283 has tons of suggestions, I’ve looked at their posts (and others) to create mine. Though mine are pending or still in drafts.

For a suggestion (especially a vehicle), a lot is needed. I’m gonna use their F-5E/T SCU suggestion that was implemented into the game not long ago.

It starts w/ a poll and an image, then a proper title. He gives a detailed background history, list of armament, specifications (eg crew, flight performance), along with his list of sources. If the ammunition doesn’t exist in game, then give some sort of explanation of it. You can see this here.

1 Like