I’d like to know when Gaijin plans to fix the stuff below and stop handing out random weapons and pointless “buffs” to China and Russia in this damn game.
AIM-120B / C-5 performing way below what they actually can do
and THE FILES ARE PUBLIC!!!
Abrams turret has Kevlar layers inside to resist spall and fragments
Phoenix 54A/B on the F-14A/B with terrible performance and awful radars, max lock at like 9 km, basically impossible to lock at close range
AIM-9M straight up loving flares and eating them at 2 km
What’s the point of having public documents and videos showing vehicle interiors if you’re not gonna implement things correctly in the game?
Why buff two nations every update when there’s no solid way to prove their weapon specs because the sources aren’t reliable? If someone claims a missile pulls 90G with 600 km range, you guys look ready to just change it in-game without questioning it.
Damn bro, I’m exhausted with the USA always being four steps behind every other nation, unable to compete properly. It’s always a Russian roulette when firing an AIM-120B/C.
1- AIM-120C seems to require dual plane maneuvering, which isn’t in-game.
So call for dual plane maneuvering to be added to War Thunder. Which will be a nice buff to at least Fakour 90, Phoenix, Magic 2, AIM-120C, etc.
2- According to all known photographs, it does not.
3- Refer to point 1.
4- It’s a different type of IRCCM than Magic 2 and R-73.
Abrams has the very thin turret ring, the turret basket affects the horizontal drive, no LFP armor improvements, APS on the SEPv2, afaik, there is not kevlar lining inside but they have armor on the personnel operating inside
The AIM-54s just miss their smokeless motors afaik and maneuverability
Meh. The AIM-9X would be better than the R-73 because it has an IIRC seeker. Maneuverability wise, it would probably the same. Maybe better range. Easily the best Fox 2 in game. As other people said. It would arrive with other Fox 2s in the game that would be better than it because the U.S. simply did not continue to invest in massively improving the AIM-9X, at least until now.
That would maybe be true besides helis. U.S. tanks are underperforming too, but i wouldn’t say behind everybody else
That would be true. There is simply no explanation to giving some buffs to some vehicles already
And hey, fixing the AMRAAM would help half the game, not only the U.S.
They just need to fix the Abrams turret with its real armor, the gun breech protection, the fire suppression system, and especially the turret ring armor.
They also need to fix the guidance on all 120 variants, because they shouldn’t be losing lock that easily like they are now and they definitely shouldn’t be losing energy, especially when fired from above.
And fix the AIM-9M IRCCM, because right now it’s actually better to use the AIM-9L than the 9M at close range, since the 9M isn’t devouring enemy flares like it should.
Fixing the basics would already help a lot, but instead they just want to give more and more and more buffs, over and over, based on documents that aren’t even reliable, from nations that you KNOW how they are.
That missile was nerfed by Gaijin because when it launched together with the F-14A in the big update, it could easily wipe out 6 players.
So no, it’s not terrible considering how many ways there are now to escape its mechanics in-game. They just need to roll back the nerf they slapped on it back when it was one of the fastest and most accurate missiles in the game.
If that were the case, it wouldn’t miss a target at under 40 km from 6 km altitude, even if the target is maneuvering and conveniently, R-77 and R-77-1 never miss, even when you notch against those damn missiles.
AIM-120C-5 — Real-World (Open Sources) vs War Thunder
Aspect
AIM-120C-5 (Real-World – Open Sources)
AIM-120C-5 (War Thunder)
Primary Design Role
Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missile optimized for long-range engagements
General BVR missile constrained by game balance and map size
Estimated Maximum Range
Often cited as 100+ km under ideal conditions (high altitude, high speed launch)
Significantly reduced by map limits, physics scaling, and gameplay constraints
Motor Burn / Energy Profile
Designed for longer burn and better energy retention at long range
Energy advantage is less noticeable in typical in-game combat
Acceleration (Short Range)
Not optimized for close-range dogfight shots
Perceived by players as slower acceleration than AIM-120A/B at short distances
End-Game Energy (Long Range)
Stronger terminal energy compared to early AMRAAM variants
Often arrives with limited energy, making evasion easier
Maneuverability
Adequate for BVR intercepts, not intended as a high-G dogfight missile
Sometimes perceived as less agile than expected
Guidance Effectiveness
Advanced guidance with strong real-world kill probability (exact data classified)
Guidance effectiveness affected by simplified seeker logic and countermeasure modeling
Comparison vs AIM-120A/B
Clearly superior in range and energy retention
Differences are small, inconsistent, or situational
Overall Effectiveness
Optimized for realistic long-range air combat doctrine
Effectiveness varies; does not consistently outperform earlier variants
In real-world open-source data, the AIM-120C-5 is clearly optimized for longer range and improved energy retention compared to earlier AMRAAM variants. However, in War Thunder, these advantages are significantly reduced by gameplay constraints, map size, and missile modeling, resulting in performance that does not consistently surpass the AIM-120A/B in practical combat situations.
