AGM-114 Hellfire - Badly underperforming?

HEAT warheads dont really overpressure in WT which is the same reason why Mavericks with their 50kg warhead hit like wet farts while S-24’s with their 25Kg warhead instakill tanks with near misses.

Guess who uses a lot more pure HE warheads on their AT PGM’s…


Maverics locks on grass in most cases too…


Does the K Hellfires as bad as B Hellfires ?
This is B fired at target 7km away with good altitude advantage it barely glides and it still fell 100m short of target.

Not sure about B but K should have impact angle about 35deg.

I’ll probably try to bug report it, because it is a next to useless.


In real life you can choose between direct and loal trajectories. Clearly they don’t let us pick that in game. If someone wants, go make bug report and find some apache manuals or something. Common knowledge.


In deed, but this is to shallow even for the LOAL-FLAT or LOAL-DIR.

This is for Romeo but they say the older Hellfires are flying even higher.


So I did analyze the one of the missile flight and …

  • WT Hellfire B never reaches maximum declared speed of 475m/s, I measured about 410m/s
  • WT Hellfire B reaches apogee about 1400m from launch point in T+4.4s while it should be later about 4000-5000m from launch point and probably in probably higher altitude
  • WT Hellfire B slows down significantly, speed before impact is about 150m/s and clearly missile does not have enough speed to generate lift

So in game Hellfire B trajectory looks like this:

Conclusion: Due to probably to high drag and low engine cutoff speed (410m/s instead of 475m/s) and over all low velocity if the missile, Hellfire is flying in to low trajectory in order to keep declared TOF (Time Of Flight) to designated ranges.
As result Hellfire does not have energy to maneuver in terminal phase of flight and impact angle is very low, if any.

I’ll do the trajectory analysis of K as well as I found out that I have access to them

Note: In contrast 9K127 Vikhr engine burns indefinitely and though it also never reaches declared top speed of 600m/s it maintains speed of 400m/s during whole flight regardless the range.


Last time I tested, the AGM-114K is missing its “inertial guidance”. When I read about it, they mentioned it will use the angle of the seeker as where to head if it loses the laser. Currently in game, losing laser will make it go straight, this means that if you lose lock early, it’ll fly into space and unable to reacquire the laser.

Thing is, I definitely remember me testing the hellfire and it did have that

Yeah, I remember a while ago it did have that.

There’s a video of Hunter_i86 using it to take out a SAM he was dueling with.
(Launching with laser lock, then ducking LOS for about 7-10 seconds before hopping up to re-acquire and drop the SAM. Was quite a good tactic to see, and should be well within the capabilities of the missile with IOG)

It’s just a wholly nerfed missile.

Anyone make a bug report of this?

1 Like

Yeah I bug reported it and I was told it was a duplicate of one from like 4 years ago even though the LOAL worked fine like 2 updates ago

1 Like

I don’t know how it looks visually, but lofted trajectory is NOT fully modeled in WT. The missile travels like it has a lofted trajectory, yes, but when it strikes a target the strike angle is the angular difference between you and the target, and since usually missiles are fired from very long range, the actual angular difference is low.

If you use a direct fire ATGM and hit a tank’s roof it’ll hit it hard. This is why I don’t get why some players are so eager to get Spikes in ground vehicles. They won’t work and require workarounds to make use of.

Yes it behaves that way but that is incorrect. If the current mode suppose to simulate FLAT or DIR trajectories, than the missile should have reduced range and reach target much sooner.
I talked to AH-64D pilots this Sunday and they told me that general rule of thumb is 4s per 1km on HI trajectory and quite bit faster on the lower ones. (In first post there is video of 5500m in 16s) That means way higher average missile speed and therefore more energy and maneuverability in terminal phase of flight.
Now a tank would drive away from the Hellfire because it barely has an energy to glide to initial impact point.

I think you misunderstood me. A top attack ATGM would indeed fly the lofted trajectory in game, but the damage itself would be calculated as if the angle of attack is much shallower.

Why would the damage would be calculated from different angle then the impact angle?

I believe it technically does have inertial guidance but gaijin purposely made it uselessly inaccurate to the point where it might as well not have it. But then gaijin gives r27s perfect inertial guidance lol

1 Like

What nation doesn’t use top attack ATGMs IRL?

Russia is probably sticking most to beam riding direct attack ATGMs.

I see where are you heading, but for example Pars LR has quite steep attack angle already so i don’t think it entirely intentional.

You mean Pars LR in game actually strikes the top in the damage model?

Yes. Even hellfire do that if fired to close enough target or with big enough elevation advantage.

Well of course, as I said the calculated impact angle is the angular difference between the launching platform and the target. So if you launch hellfires from directly above the target, it’ll hit the roof.

You can test impact angles with the Freccia for example, with its Spike ER. Take it for a test drive, launch at the most distant targets as the strike angle should be steepest, and see how it strikes the front of their barrel.

+1 Needs fixing, it’s anything but surprising that they’ve botched the implementation