Just because it has a 15km max range doesn’t mean it’ll hit anyone even remotely competent at that range.
955m/s vs 700m/s isn’t just slightly faster.
That missile also has larger lock range with better trigger radius and HE filler.
It should definitely be two BR steps above Strela, so anything below 11.0 isn’t an option in my opinion.
Yes they aren’t equal, Type 81 is better than 2S6 for everything that isn’t 400m away or a strike drone/helicopter 6-8km away.
this is a problem of the game, the accuracy of the radars in the game and the maps themselves. as I wrote above, if you bring everything to more realistic parameters, then the 17th will be able to hit targets at 14 km accurately, it has powerful missiles with a long-running engine
Also no, you are comparing different speeds. For the 9M311-1M missile, you took the average speed at a distance of 8-10 km (starting 910 m / s), and for Tan-SAM the starting speed. I do not know at what exact distance the Tan-SAM missile engine turns off, but it is most likely around 5.2 km. Therefore, its average speed is most likely in the region of 750-800 m/s over a full distance of 10 km; but it should be remembered that these are rockets of different weight categories.The Tunguska missile engine turns off at 1.7 km after launch. You can not compare Tan-SAM and 9M311-1M missiles by filling with explosives. In reality, the 9M311-1M has a shirt made of an expanding rod striking part (rod diameter 4 mm) and ready-made steel fragments on top + a detonator at 5 meters, this in reality gives very serious damage even to armored large aircraft. I do not know what striking part the Tan-SAM has, but I think it’s just ready-made fragments without cores. The SAM damage issues affect all missiles in the game and are just another cheat on the game mechanics side.
It’s not that simple, the game has a lot of problems with SAMs as a class of equipment and they are both bad relative to what they should actually represent.
The Tan-Sam is more of a Japanese analogue of the British Rapier, but improved in all respects. the same stationary deployment of the system to protect a certain section of the front without the ability to instantly change location. Although according to some data, the connection between the radar and missile machines at Tan-SAM could be via a radio line instead of cables, which gives much better mobility and the ability to quickly leave the territory than the Rapira.
I was talking about 9M37M found on Strela which has 700m/s max speed.
Also, I just tested, 2S6’s missile will reach a fixed point that’s 9km away in ~16s, which gives it an average speed of ~560m/s over that distance. This is of course a perfect scenario in which missile doesn’t need to pull thus energy loss would be at the very minimum.
For a 10km shot it took 18.5s and means the missile needed ~2.5s to travel the last kilometer, so that gives us the average speed of ~400m/s which means the missile is barely even supersonic at the end of it’s flight path. Dodging that becomes really easy, so this is why taking max range into the account for those earlier SAMs (especially 2S6) is not really a good idea.
We can agree on that.
Type 81 is still better for targets at range though.
Oh shit, I must be too blind and read it wrong, I apologize for my stupidity, yes 9M37(M) has a speed of about 700 m/s max, and an average of probably 580-600 m/s. In general, it is strange that the Tunguska missile has an average speed of 560 m/s at 9 km.
in general, judging by these graphs from the game, it is very suspicious that the 9M311-1M has such a sharp drop in speed after 8km, because its engine falls off already at 1.7 km. Maybe the Gaidzins broke the missile again to please CAS? 🤔
yes, I play on Tunguska and I know very well how poor its missiles are after 6 km, in fact, after 7 km we cannot hit the assault drone (the missile starts to swing a lot), and it can launch an ATGM at us from 8 km. + terrible accuracy of the floating radar (sometimes the capture mark window floats so much that it covers the drone and I cannot see it), but this is already a general problem of deception on the part of the developers
I don’t know if it’s historical but I tested it by shooting at these two points and measuring the time.
That graph doesn’t make sense to me.
Speed drops significantly after 8km but the time curve remains more or less linear.
It’s engine burns out very quickly so seeing it retain 750+ m/s all the way till reaching 8km is highly suspicious and I’m definitely not trusting that graph lol.
Oh yeah, I had drones dodging my missile from 8km like it’s nothing. It’s laughable.
Have you tried using IR lock, I found it move much less than the radar one.
of course I know and use IR capture, but its efficiency is low especially in bad weather (capture range)
Yes, there are many questions about the time schedule. And about the speed, the 90mm 95Ya6 rocket loses speed at 40 m/s every kilometer, I don’t know at what speed the 9M311 rocket with a diameter of 76 mm should lose speed.
I think 9M311-1M should have an instantaneous (not average) speed at 9 km of about 600-610 m/s
yes, this graph is absolutely wrong, at 10 km the speed should be around 580 m/s, but on the graph it is below 490 m/s
This graph has some questions about the flight time and speed of the VT-1. The fact is that the VT-1 in reality has a range of 15-16 km, and accordingly the drop in speed with distance should be much less than in these graphs. Although according to some data, the VT-1 Mk3 version (apparently an improved version of the VT-1 missile) may have a range of 15-16 km.
Yes, but the fact itself is that radar air defense systems are better than thermal ones both in terms of versatility of purpose (a flakrad can even blow up tanks) and in terms of range.
I don’t agree. There are air defense systems like the TOR-M1 on 11.0, and it will be much better. I’m still going to stick to my point of view here.
I disagree again. Type-81 loses at almost any distance, maybe it will be a little better in exceptional moments
That’s true.
That graph shows 9M331 is by far the best at retaining speed until you hit 8km, which makes no sense. Sharply falling off after 8km doesn’t make sense either.
I didn’t measure the time in the millisecond, but average speed of 560-600m/s over 9km should be pretty correct value.
I reached the target at ~10km in 18.5s, which coincides with the maximum guidance time of 18.5s the missile has, which gives us an average of 540m/s.
Considering that in my testing missile took around 2.5s to travel from 9km to 10km, the speed at the end should be somewhere around 400m/s.
You have 2S6, test it yourself.
TOR has a massive blind spot at closer ranges and it’s missile is far easier to dodge at <8km than Type 81.
Only against helicopters and drones, as Type 81 struggles to lock them. In other scenarios it’s clearly better than 2S6.
Type 81 has missiles that are really, really hard to dodge which can’t be said for 2S6’s.
the Type-81 also has a large “blind zone” where the missile cannot maneuver. Why don’t you think so?
Airplanes are not captured beyond 6 kilometers, only in ideal conditions against a clear sky, which almost never happens. Tunguska has no such disadvantage
3)Tell that to the jumping grip and all the Su-25T/Su-39, which are simply maneuvering at a distance of 6 kilometers and the missile does not have enough energy to catch up with them
I’ve killed targets well under 1km with it, TOR can’t do that.
Tunguska is crap at 6km of range regardless. I’ve used both and Type 81 is noticeably better.
Considering it has a long burning motor, it definitely should be able to have enough energy to hit targets at 6km of range.
On the other hand, motor of a 2S6’s missile burns almost instantly, making it a brick after 4-5km.
I doubt this will happen since with the confirmation of multi sam systems the type 81 might get its radar plus its ARH that and combined with the fact it can use both missiles at the same time can make for a scary sam.
I’m just tired already, I have a different time zone, so sorry, I’ll be brief
I remember Tunguska as a fun car with interesting and varied gameplay. There is a certain challenge in getting a rocket to hit, cannons in that short moment that the plane is flying over you, emerging from behind the building.
Type-81 now seems to me like a dull piece of crap that can only look at an air target, wiping away its drool, because he cannot launch a rocket, there is no lock. Did you die on a tank? now sit on this in the hope that some noob will fly at 5 km altitude on his purchased premium, completely not looking at the tank map and not seeing you. If he sees it, you’ll get kicked from 10 kilometers away from the rocket.
And if another anti-aircraft gun spawns in the team, then you’ll be out of luck.
I literly hate this SPAA right now and i’m sure- i’m not alone
no no, honestly I don’t want to keep track of time, I take your word for it. I’m just following the theory of the rocket’s linear resistance, from the simple proportion of 40 m/s for 90 mm and 33 m/s for 76 mm it follows that the instantaneous speed at 10 km should be ~580 m/s, if the rocket loses speed over the last 1-2 km noticeably faster than 33 m/s for each kilometer, this is suspicious from the point of view of game mechanics.
Absolutely not.
The missile cannot lose lock on a target when it has a photo-contrast lock with the exception of ground images halting its tracking. This means aircraft would be dealing with a 35G missle that cannot be flared unless the missile is looking downwards at an aircraft, which literally never happens ingame.
Tell gaijin to nerf photo-contrast lock first and then maybe it can go down. As of now it’s the most potent IR SAM system in the game, and it absolutely should not be 10.7 with vehicles such as the Strela-10M2. Flat out no, unless something changes.
Same with the Type 81 can only hit the fixed-wing plane within 8km while Tor and HQ17 can easily search and destroy any thing that maximum to 14 km. So anything that distance above 8km is consider the blind spot to Type 81, and we still haven’t discuss other problems like can the player spot the target or the weather of the map.
Don’t agree, Tunguska is overall better than Type 81. The only thing that Type 81 better is the capability against 4km - 8 km fixed wing air target, but as exchange it doesn’t have the capability against the helicopter and drone, capability to protect itself from the enemy vehicle and armour.
But also I had to disagree to this, because the only possible line up to it is just teaming up with 11.3 like Type 90 and TKX (P), so unless you playing it alone or Gaijin reducing it’s br to 9.7 otherwise any BR change to it won’t have any significant effect to it
Type 81 is a victim of gaijin, there is no room for it in its current state. It is extremely weak with the current BR, but would be just as strong with a lower BR.
The Type 81 needs rebalancing, it needs new missiles or a second vehicle with radar.
BasherBenDawg8, bro, it’s quite difficult to understand who you’re responding to, but I literally have one replay for all your words in your letter. It can’t be pinned here (I think), but if you’re interested, tell me where to put it. There is a clear failure of the radio fuse for rockets and there are problems with aviation
Only one xdd? How about this:
A missile flies past a helicopter
or 2 missiles can’t shoot down one F-5C
