Hey, at least you’ve traumatised them.
2 Likes
is it efficient? no.
Is it fun? yes.
3 Likes
I just checked the F53 out ingame, I have a preset loadout with 2x1000lb bombs, 4 x overwing rocket launchers and two red tops
I can mount it and use it ingame, however I cannot recreate the loadout as it says it is too heavy, very strange
Its what is called an “illegal loadout”
If you create a loadout and then Gaijin changes the restrictions on certain combos. The preset isnt deleted but you cannot make it again. There is a famous one with the Italian premium F-104 I think where you can equip a combo of AAMs or something that you normally cant.
1 Like
Damn, glad I made it before they changed it as it’s a great load out to bring out for cas.
Gaijin have a bad habit of limiting your payload options despite your plane easily being able to carry way more for artificial “balancing” reasons. A great example is the firebrand as it can either carry a 1000 or 2 250s and yet can’t carry both when it can easily do both. Along with only carrying either 2 uncletoms or bombs but not both (not even a couple rp3s). Really limits some aircraft that could have benefited massively from custom load outs.
It’s a bit like fuel amounts as the 57mm mozy was in desperate need of fuel control and yet just over an hour is still the minimum fuel amount because gaijin like to use fuel as a balancing factor for whatever reason on these bigger fighters.
Actually, I dont think so. If you have evidence it could carry that loadout, submit a bug report.
They’ve been half good in the past about matching manual weight limits with custom loadouts, like the Harrier Gr7s got fixed pretty quickly
Well im glad i can still use it
Its a bit odd that around 2000lb worth of weight is considered too much when we know the F.53 in real life could take 3000lb on each wing
Yeah… Though the limit on the wings might be higher if its all under-slung but lower with overwing weapons mounted or something.
But most likely a bug report is needed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HEHQqqHrbBWq
Hi, sorry to tag you, is there any chance you could pls take a look at the Lightning F.53 bug report? Thanks!
hopefully we can see these changes soon, the only question is if they are willing to model the accurate bombs or take the lazy route and just use what we have now. Or the even lazier route and not adding it at all…
The first case would allow us to destroy a base with the 4 bombs, the latter would then require the drag bombs on the top mounts.
1 Like
Those explosive mass’ look excellent for base bombing.
The H.C bombs would be better for that. Or the Napalm bombs. Or the White Phosphorus bombs. Probably not the CW bombs.
do we have any aircraft that would be able to carry glide bombs? or are we just gonna miss out on that until we get cruise missiles like the storm shadow
South Africans developed glide bombs, but IIRC most (H2, Raptor etc.) were the kind of TV-guided, man-in-the-loop guidance that we were denied on Martel.
I don’t think it’s really something we used. Favouring Brimstones for Stand-off and ePaveways for bombs.
1 Like
The second nuke in a chieftain this week, first was a mk 5 and now the mk 10.
I just love these fat bastards, its always an uptier and me facing half the enemy team. I just wish the mk 5 had its lrf and the mk 10 its togs, would actually make a unique distinction between them. still kinda hoping for the chieftain with the romor-a sides and romor-b turret armour/
1 Like
I’m not aware of the ROMOR Cheifitain, what that an upgrade package?
However in terms of Cheiftains, I’d love to see the:
FV4211 “Aluminium Cheiftain”
Cheiftain 900 “Super Cheiftain”
Cheiftain 2000
Cheiftain Prototype
I think especially the Cheiftain 900 would be a great addition, being the most unique cheiftain upgrade.
Seeing the Cheiftain Prototype as an 8.3-8.0 option would also be great
4 Likes
dont know how i forgot, but whats with the flare pods in the diagrams?