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
He is not alone, but in close proximity, literally yesterday’s fight, talking about this spaa as a whole
It’s even underperforming still, since Type 81 doesn’t actually use photo-contrast, but visible light imaging seeker.
So instead of going for the strongest contrast, it actually memorizes the specific target. Unless the background makes it impossible to track a target (which more often then not the ground won’t) it’ll still track.
This will be a great secondary missile to the ARH when the system is in a complete state at a higher BR.
Then for a lower BR, multi vehicle systems allow for base model Type 81 that’s just IR.
2S6 is even worse at those ranges against anyone that isn’t afk.
I’ve used it recently and was a fun experience.
Sorry but those can’t easily destroy targets at 14km.
Type 81 has better capabilities against planes at 1 - 8km of range, and 2S6 is mostly useless in 8 - 10km anyways. Japanese SAM can also lock helicopters past 5km, I’ve actually killed few Kamovs around 6km away, same with drones.
Yes that’s weird, I’ve did some more tests.
Average speed throughout the flight time for selected range.
4km → ~6.4s → ~625 m/s average
6km → ~9.75s → ~615 m/s average
8km → ~13.8s → ~580 m/s average
9km → ~16s → ~562 m/s average
10km → 18.5s → 540 m/s average
Average speed between two selected range values.
0km - 4km → 625 m/s
4km - 6km → 597 m/s
6km - 8km → 494 m/s
8km - 10km → 425 m/s
8km - 9km → 454 m/s
9km - 10km → 400 m/s
Somewhere close after 6km missile starts draining speed like crazy. When I get the Osa I’ll test it out as well, but I believe it should behave much better than 2S6 at 5km+ ranges, with much more energy available with similar average speeds.
Fun Experience? This wording is very vague. If you show that you can consistently destroy enemy aircraft in battle, I will believe you. In one of the recent battles, I simply could not capture the A-10A, which was flying low, the missile did not explode on the Ka-50, and in the end I was destroyed by the Su-24 with the help of the Kh-29, because I did not know about it and tried to capture the A-10, while at the same time making sure not to get a missile in the face. This air defense system cannot even be on 11.0, not to mention its current state
You can doesn’t mean is easy to do, most of the time the IR missile (including Type 81) can’t even lock the heli that only 3km away most of the time
That surely doesn’t happen most of the time.
HQ17 is significantly better than type 81C although to the 0.6 BR range extent might be a bit of a stretch. I agree with you on the point of HQ17 having good missiles, but to a lesser extent do I think 14km is the range it can hit a target. It is the exact same missile as Tor except for launch vectoring, just does not explode at 12km. The missile is just simply extremely hard to hit because 1. the huge smoke which everyone can see without even seeing the missile on the RWR, and 2. The tracking which requires your crosshair to be pointed at the plane which is not realistic. 81C is annoying only because I don’t know when someone launched one at me.