oh no
Does anyone have the FOV data range or magnification information for the AJ.168 ?
Is gaijin still clinging to their outdated argument as to why the brimstone must remain in its artificially nerfed state?
i hope they act on these
Yes
Don’t suppose we can make an argument on the ground of both russia and US getting top tier tanks with hardkill APS, and also everyone having multi-vehicle SAM sites with basically enough missiles to intercept incoming brimstones?
1 Like
Hello lads feel free to check out these two reports for WW2 bombs, thank you to @Flame2512, @FlyingOstridge and @dan_rafbc for their help. I plan to work my way up the GP, MC, and HC bombs using a proper British source.
British bombs suffer from weak explosive fillers and have minor inaccuracies, especially compared to the US bombs we have on some of our aircraft. Maybe with a little work we’ll get a little more power.
Early GP 250 lb bomb incorrect
Late GP 250 lb bomb incorrect
1. A.P.1661B Volume 1, BOMBS, Air Ministry 1943 (w/ amendments to 1948)
8 Likes
There’s an ongoing thing with the addition of some 250lb GP bombs on planes where some are getting ones with the early yellow casing, some are getting ones with the late green casing, and some have ended up with an old low res model of the green casing. All seem to have the same stats, as you are noticing.
I can see in your screenshot for the late bomb, you’ve got the old low res model rather than the nicer green one
I wrote a ticket about the old model appearing on the Fireflies, but it seems in the recent rework for Heavy Cavalry, they’re sneaking on to some other planes as well, like Firebrand
Fireflies (MkI, MkV) using outdated low-res GP 250lb bomb model
2 Likes
Ah, yes we found that one in the files and on the Firebrand. “Ugly GP 250” is a perfectly workable title, there are about 5 different GP 250s in the datamine and that one clearly shouldn’t be used.
The Late GP 250 is titled uk_250lbs_43 so is presumably a 1943 skin intended for later aircraft. Reporting this lot will be something of a journey.
Changed the picture in the report and linked yours to it.
Was remembering having fun with rising storm 2 vietnam today when I remembered the Australian faction could call in napalm strikes via canberra. Decided to look this up and according to this archived newspaper the RAAF were authorised to carry napalm “if operations required”. Can’t find anything more concrete than this but then again I didn’t look hard at all. To my knowledge the RAAF only operated two types of Canberra, the B.2 (which we have in game and it even has an RAAF marketplace camouflage) and the B.20 which was an Australian licence built version with extra fuel tanks in the wings.
Either way, the B.2 getting napalm would be cool.
B.20 being introduced into the British tech tree would also be pretty cool. It could probably be foldered with one of the other Canberra’s similar to how the Beaufighter mk21 is.
3 Likes
Sorry, I had to, for the funi.
2 Likes
@Morvran_ Shameful what they did to your thread on Mode 2.
It wouldn’t be broken at all, especially when compared with total realistic and “real” systems like Kh38mt or the newly buffed LMUR.
I had some thoughts on implementation for both Brimstone and SPEAR 3, let me know what you think.
- Mark SPI - launch on INS / GPS
- Missile cruises to target at ~2000ft - impact timer displays RED (INS / GPS only)
- Missile enters seeker range ~9km from SPI - impact timer flashes YELLOW (acquisition mode)
- Paint target with laser - impact timer turns GREEN (target locked)
- Missile handed off, next missile can be fired and guided
Notes:
• Seeker range is purely based off your SPI not where your TGP is currently pointing (pre-uploaded data only).
• In #3 (acquisition mode) the seeker is explicitly in Mode 2, laser slaved, not Mode 3 autonomous (scanning). It will only steer the seeker based on laser emissions.
• #4 the seeker will only lock a target painted by the laser, otherwise it will go dumb.
• As in real life the laser will still override the radar even after locking (so turn it off after locking).
• To conform with the single datalink MITL currently being pushed, firing another brimstone will cut the datalink to the previous.
• As stated in #2, the missile should follow a preprogrammed flight path, cruising in a straight line to its seeker activation point (~9km before SPI) at around 2000ft. Once locked onto a target it will continue to cruise before entering a terminal dive for a top-down attack.
To me and many others this seems perfectly reasonable. Thr Brimstone will only be able to autonomously engage 1 target at a time, less efficiently than artificially overtuned IIR seekers too, and will present an easy, relatively slow target as it cruises in.
One thing that should be changed now that we have MITL is the range that IIR and TV seekers can lock moving targets. They should have drastically reduced lock range thus requiring the use of MITL to lock (small) targets i.e. tanks.
Finally, being deliberately obtuse isn’t very becoming smin.
6 Likes
Thank you
Reports for the GP 500 lb bombs, using data from A.P.1661B Volume 1, BOMBS, Air Ministry 1943 (w/ amendments to 1948).
Currently these reports (and the earlier 250 lb reports) result in a net loss of TNTe unless the power change to Amatol featured in the bug report Amatol Explosive - TNT Equivalence too low by @Flame2512 is applied, in which they will result in a net gain of TNTe of roughly 10-15%.
Early GP 500 lb bomb incorrect
Late GP 500 lb bomb incorrect
3 Likes
Alright, here’s a report for the GP 1000 lb bomb but you may not like it.
This bomb currently has an RDX/TNT filler and significantly too much of it, leading to overperformance.
Details
It should only have 333 lb (151.05 kg) of Amatol 80/20, leading to a much lowered TNTe. I checked forward and this figure remains the same in A.P.1661B Volume 1, BOMBS 2nd Edition (1951), so it seems that TM 9-1985-1 is incorrect in this regard.
All the more important to update relevant aircraft to carry the higher TNTe MC-series or American AN-series bombs where possible.
1 Like
Is the Sea Eagle release speed correct? (at 0.9 mach). Though it feels like it is blocking the release to more like mach 0.85 (in matches not test flight)
Yes.
Spoiler
5 Likes
Thank you
I’ve been testing the Martels on the Buccaneer S2.B
They seem very strong now, the guidance feels a lot better, they are much more manuverable and I’m yet to have a miss.
The MITL guidance mode means you can just fire them in the rough area of a target (eg. a tank) and then guide them from the missile, you can easily get direct hits on tanks from upwards of 20km away with your plane being completely out of the range of air defences.
The MITL guidance is a bit buggy atm, for example when you enter the missile guidance mode the plane seems to react to your inputs despite you controlling the missile and the missile camera is sometimes a bit wobbly. However, as far as I’m aware these are just bugs that will be ironed out.
Overall, having standoff missiles with extremely large warheads is amazing, you no longer need to get within a few KM to get a tracking lock on a tank. Just fire the missiles roughly where you want and control them into the target by selecting it when the missile is closer. If the original target you fired at dies or hides, you can easily just aim the missile at a new target so firing at long range doesn’t feel like a gamble.
Additionally, the missile automatically decreases altitude after firing, making it a lot harder for enemy SPAA to engage, which is pretty nice.
The same applies to the PGM-500s and 2000s.
3 Likes
Yeah, im actually looking forward to running the Buc S2B a lot more in GRB.
I dont think i’ll be using PGMs much in GRB, but might actually start getting taken into ARB/ASB.
Even the 500lb GBUs on the Jaguar GR1A is gunna be a handy change
1 Like
britain 11.7 is gonna be kind of amazing next update
1 Like