And yet Hellfire would be? Why not implement the MMW variants, if brimstone can’t be managed?
1 Like
This information has not already been attempted to be located. Nothing conclusive is currently available.
Im also not sure why you believe nations that operate Brimstone currently in active service are going to openly release by freedom of information the spesifics on exactly how to counter it.
4 Likes
Well what if you asked them nicely! You know, please and thank you, all that stuff!
EDIT: Please is the magic word for a reason!
Its very clear you believe they are and your opinion is set on this. It has been since the Tornado GR.4 blog.
Factually however mmW Brimstone does not compare to Kh 38. So im afriad I can’t help you further here as you have a preset conclusion and this would be a futher waste of time to discuss it.
3 Likes
I’ll offer a brew or too. Im sure they will take it :)
6 Likes
The best you will get and its just there is nothing to stop it
1 Like
Factually, your argument is based on the perceived lack of countermeasures. This is your argument. I am not so naive as to be convinced by “These are fundamentally different in spite of reality dictating that their effect on the environment I am considering them in is analogous” as you seem so hopeful. Either you are questionably equipped to engage with such a high brow topic, or you are being dishonest regarding it.
[Kh 38 mt launch → Target drops smoke → Target is Lost → Target stays static → Target is hit]
[Kh 38 mt launch → Target drops smoke → Target is Lost → Target moves from position → Target is reacquired → Target is hit]
[Kh 38 mt launch → Target fails to deploy smoke → Target remains static → Target is hit]
[Kh 38 mt launch → Target fails to deploy smoke → Target moves from position → Target is hit]
The only set of these events which does not result in the target being hit and destroyed with Kh 38 is the set where the missile is destroyed by retaliatory means, or physically obstructed. Except even the latter is not a guaranteed reprieve. These same set of events would play out with Brimstone having a MMW seeker, except for the necessity to reacquire the target in the event it was lost, as it would not be lost. Except you would have a notably slower rate of closure, creating a greater scope of opportunity for SPAA to engage the threat, or for the missile to encounter physical obstruction to the target.
Even assuming that by the grace of divinity, it somehow has a more effective launch rate than the Kh 38 and somehow has an effect on target that is not most closely resembling a sodden blanket, it still presents nothing new regarding a lack of effective countermeasures. You either shoot it down, or you obstruct the approach path.
You can just say your company can’t be bothered because of the shorter list of associated armaments with the guidance type and you feel the simulacrum is not worth the development time. But pretending it is a lack of countermeasures is having us on for a laugh given the presence of a missile that demonstrates effectively no countermeasures or counterplay.
3 Likes
It doesn’t work this way unless the smoke was dropped too late.
Having dropped plenty of them, I assure you, it most certainly will hit a target that is static in smoke. The only time it won’t hit a target in smoke is when you couldn’t acquire a target to begin with, and thus it remains on the rail.
There are many reasons why mmW has not been implemented. Countermeasures is one, however the reasons as a whole have been explained in detail before:
You have made your opinions very clear that you disagree with this and thats more than fine for you to hold opinions on that.
Tagging me over and over however when all answers have already been provided to you from the developers isn’t sadly going to lead to a sudden change in the devs answers.
Im going to give you a direct warning here to avoid the personal and direct negative insults you seem keen to throw here.
I have provided you with the facts as they are from the devs. You are welcome to disagree with that and leave your thoughts and views on the content matter as well as constructive feedback.
Getting personal and frankly crossing the line of reasonable constructive discussion however is not acceptable. So please rethink your approach.
Nobody is trying to deprive you of your opinion.
4 Likes
It’s almost like that’s the point of innovation, having an advantage over your opponents.
Theres also no British equivalent to KH38
That was never in question for real world application. However for game balance thats not an ideal at all.
5 Likes
Is this implying the devs have an exhaustive list of tanks that use such smoke grenades?
Kh 38 already creates the balancing problems you’re describing. As outlined previously. There is nothing MMW seekers bring to the table that is not already a problem created by the Kh 38. All it does is create a slow missile with effectively equivalent counterplay to kh 38, except it is in the air for significantly longer to shoot down.
Especially not on a missile that if your organisation’s track record for modeling similar persists, will hit like a wet noodle.
4 Likes
This means that they all used the smoke too late. Obviously, the kh38 gives you the least amount of reaction time, because it's the fastest missile. All IR missiles behave the same way when the target uses smoke.
in other news it looks like the CR2s got their HP buff on dev
1 Like
You what
the CV12 has 1314hp on dev
Well it’s not like it’s specified anywhere if US (modern) tanks are supposed to use L8(-A1 or -A3) M76, M82, or M90 IR obscuring smoke for their 66mm NATO launcher (not that the implemented “generic” grenade even matches with any of them).
And further It’s not like it could really be specified anywhere since we’d need more granularity in most cases than a specified configuration, and date, but also an end user as well since supply is constantly in flux so what was issued at any one point in time would differ between units.
I’ll get around to writing a report about it tomorrow(probably).
Holy sh- STAY CALM CHALLENGERS MIGHT BE BETTER NOW