No, that is just on Gaijin’s side. PID is objectively more efficient than Bang-Bang. That is a fact. Missiles with PID fin control should not be limited by missiles that use Bang-Bang to control their fins.
5 Likes
5.0s reload is objectively slower than 4.9s reload. That is a fact.
You know you need hard evidence to actually prove missile’s average load is 22G, right ?
Until then, as I said, you have nothing more than a speculation, just like Gaijin.
Keywords such as average or peak are missing there buddy.
I’m going to assume you have a document that explicitly states that, since you can’t be speculating, right ?
I know English isn’t your first language, but you can at least try to look up what lateral acceleration means. On that note - the Russian source they used for the average g load of the igla, doesn’t say the words average or peak either. They just assumed it was average in that case. See the double standard yet? What am I saying, of course you don’t.
That Jaguar tactics manual has the “lateral acceleration” listed for plenty of other missiles too, and they all match up with known AVERAGE G LOADS. How about you find me ONE example of a source that lists instantaneous acceleration instead of average?
You sure you don’t work for GJN? You seem perfect for them.
We’re done here.
7 Likes
I see things are getting heated in here
2 Likes
No? I’ve said before that I wouldn’t care if they were consistent with their assumption here. The issue is them assuming one thing for the Igla and another thing for all the western missiles. The double standard. But I’ve told you that before already. I was wrong - it’s actually worse than conversing with a brick wall. A brick wall can at least give an intelligent response with an echo.
The sources you asked for are in firestarter’s thread. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend they don’t exist, that’s your prerogative.
3 Likes
If there’s no average/peak load being explicitly stated, it’s not a source at all.
10 Likes
Oh no! a Russian on the WT forums is saying our sources aren’t real!
Anyway,
Give it time - they might discover the wheel any moment now.
8 Likes
İ highly doubt that…
Something non existent can’t be real buddy. This thing is pretty simple and you’re making a fuss out of it for some reason.
Find a source explicitly stating it’s average/peak and then we can talk. Until then you’re free to mald as much as you want, that isn’t anyone’s problem.
If according to your logic, China can obtain Leopard 2 and F14 because they have driven and considered purchasing them before
And China has truly obtained T72 and T80
Is this what you want to see?
M1A2 has also participated in Swedish testing, should it be added to Sweden as well?
replacing it with a Norwegian leopard 2 is the simplest thing to do
the vehicles you mentioned will gradually join the game in the future
Damn, I’m breaking my stomach by laughing.
Would one that contradicts their simplifications underpinning the entire thing do?
5 Likes
There is no point. Even when you direct him to sources he denies they are there and what they say. You can lead a horse to water…
2 Likes
You’re talking about a guy who claims frontally penning enemy tank=aiming for weakspots.
İ suggest dont expect anything in this case.
4 Likes
why waste time with russian tech tree mains? Nothing we show them no matter what document matters.
4 Likes
Most people who are crying about the 2S38 just never played it.
Is it good ? Yes it is, but it’s not OP.
Could it go to 10.3 ? Yes
I own it and i also play multiple other nations, never had a problem with the 2S38. When i did, it was a skill issue on my end. It is also not as easy to play as people think it is. It is a glass cannon, slow and has no gun depression.
Against braindead helis and jets it’s very good. You also run out of your ready rack pretty quick if you don’t pay attention and from then the reload is very long.
People crying about russian bias tend to never have played the russian tree to top tier anyways.
But i guess since 2 years now it makes you extra cool to hate russia.
2 Likes