Panzer_Leader Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Ssnake said: With regret, I need to pull my claim that version 4.0 will have MANPADS. Looks like I was a bit too eager here (and I guess we're all so tired by now that our impulse control is slowly giving away...). I'll try to be more cautious in future statements. No worries, we've still got one at least - the RBS 70. It can be used as a proxy in the admittedly reasonably rare situations where another MANPADS is desired in-game. Edited May 11, 2016 by Panzer_Leader 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Panzer_Leader said: No worries, we've still got one at least - the RBS 70. It can be used as a proxy in the admittedly reasonably rare situations where another MANPADS is desired in-game. All good we still have the 2S6/ZSU23/24/ plus its good practice for IFV gunners to down some helicopters the 40 on the CV-90 with proximity fused ammo will do nicely. Has anybody ever downed a helicopter with the RBS 70 I tried a couple of times but no luck. Edited May 11, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Ssnake said: With regret, I need to pull my claim that version 4.0 will have MANPADS. Looks like I was a bit too eager here (and I guess we're all so tired by now that our impulse control is slowly giving away...). I'll try to be more cautious in future statements. Are any infantry improvements coming to 4.0 then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) To Nil's credit, there is a LOT of new stuff with this update. To the point that some of us have forgotten about things we've done/updated etc. He may have pulled the trigger early on the Manpads, but as he stated over there, the Avenger is indeed going to be in the update. And that means NATO finally has a dedicated air defense vehicle in SB, which is a very good thing. Edited May 11, 2016 by RogueSnake79 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 17 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said: ... the Avenger is indeed going to be in the update. And that means NATO finally has a dedicated air defense vehicle in SB, which is a very good thing. But a Gepard would have looked much sexier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I don't know, the Avenger looks pretty nice: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostdog688 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Nice! Thanks for the new vehicle! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Crewable? Paf. Psshooooow! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Still needs some shiny rimz - Greevil would be happy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Hedgehog said: Crewable? Paf. Psshooooow! If it were I mite just join a Air defence regiment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 11, 2016 Members Share Posted May 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Gibsonm said: But a Gepard would have looked much sexier. Yes. Yes, it would have. One day... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 7 hours ago, Gibsonm said: But a Gepard would have looked much sexier. With the exception of the M1, I agree, American ground vehicles are nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as their German, British, and Russian counterparts. As the saying goes, money can't buy class. Just kidding, that was unpatriotic of me. Anyway, I think the M163 would qualify as "cute". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 And at least it will be used "in role". No risk of people trying to use it as a huge MG on tracks to clear urban areas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Sir, does this mean Ann Margaret is not coming? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Gibsonm said: And at least it will be used "in role". No risk of people trying to use it as a huge MG on tracks to clear urban areas. Well it worked for the Russians in Grozny. They used ZSU 23/24 to clear high roof tops of rebel ATGM teams and snipers I would speculate that's why they built the terminator support vehicle Edited May 12, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 the Terminator was a US idea long ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Retro Posted May 11, 2016 Members Share Posted May 11, 2016 Does that look familiar to anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Crux is nearly upside down. I'm trying to figure out where you would have to be to see it like that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Scrapper_511 said: With the exception of the M1, I agree, American ground vehicles are nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as their German, British, and Russian counterparts. As the saying goes, money can't buy class. Just kidding, that was unpatriotic of me. Heading way off-topic, but to give US AFV designers their due I'd argue the M48 was an aesthetically pleasing design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt DeFault Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 28 minutes ago, Chaplain said: Crux is nearly upside down. I'm trying to figure out where you would have to be to see it like that... Australia, for one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 8 hours ago, Panzer_Leader said: Heading way off-topic, but to give US AFV designers their due I'd argue the M48 was an aesthetically pleasing design. M48 = Fnerg. M48 with the Leo 1 engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostdog688 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I know it doesn't count as a tank, but I always had a fond appreciation for the ITV. But maybe that's my nostalgia for playing Team Yankee on the Atari ST as a kid talking... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Lion Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) As far as aesthetically pleasing, I like the Polish concept design PL-01 by OBRUM that is based on the CV-90-120. It is simple, clean, and quite functionally futuristic in design. Edited May 12, 2016 by Azure Lion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 looks to much like a GI joe tank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 It isn't difficult to take pretty images with some of these new models.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.