As always.
1 Like
just like British light tank line.
No expectations, no disappointments
Alrighty! Thanks a ton for the clarification
Okay, gotta disagree with you here.
Thermal T-PODs I don’t think were a thing yet when Mig-27M was introduced.
& K is a system similar to Ka-50.
We’re no where close to 5th gen fighters either. Maybe 2 entire BRs away at minimum, likely 3.
@Panther2995
The F-16AJ is one of the very real prototypes for Block 15, before the new elevator & a few other things.
Kronshtadt isn’t fantasy, it was quite literally being built, cancelled due to bombing raids.
AMRAAM to Tornado F3, and adding Gripens until the BR for Typhoon to come exists. Cause right now, it seems we’re 1.0 - 1.7 BRs away from Typhoon. Just as we’re probably 1.0 - 1.7 BRs away from Su-30s.
@SuTa_basuto
Yak-141 was a prototype & got the Kikka, Ho-229, VB-10.02 treatment.
Existing weapon systems that were intended for the production model were added to it.
The same targetting pod and guided bombs were already available on the Jaguar Gr1A. Im fairly certain that was available before the Mig-27. Though could be wrong. Either way could have been added later.
Edit: quickly checked, Gr1A was added a month before the mig 27. I dont think they got guided bombs as a later update but could be wrong. Either way we could have gotten tornado with no guided bombs first, then guided bombs 6 months down the line. Like we got the PGMs (aka we could have had Tornado MFGs at 11.0 for 6 months)
Yes, we might be that far away from those jets, but that doesnt mean the typhoon coulrnt be added a year after those aircraft are in game. Leaving the F3 and Shar FA2 being our only aircraft top tier fighters for the next few years. Thats my point. Not that they are coming anytime soon. I too dont expect those aircraft soon, but i expect them to be first and typhoon to be last.
That’s the thing tho, Typhoon isn’t superior to gen 5 fighters.
Typhoon will obviously be before them, and likely around the same time we get Mitsubishi F-2 & Rafale.
GR.1A came with TIALD and Paveway.
2 Likes
Right, but its british. Mig 29 and F16 and F14 are superior to the Tornado F3. We got that afterwards. Id expect it after or at least with later Gen 4s. Like AMRAAM F15s and R-77 Su30s or Mig-31s. (I know my british jets well, but less so other nations. Id think the F15 and Typhoon would have similar performance and loadouts, but im expecting F15 way before Typhoon currently)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PqAEzzxJvw6T
This is what happens when you try to get the tanks to have the bullets they have to carry.
yeah ive had games where ive 1v4’d people but this is warthunder and sometimes you encounter premium tank users that have no idea what they are doing
but in fights against good players your round falls apart and considering i bounced a weisel the other day straight on so the round has issues
We have many fictional vehicles in-game and fictional armaments, an example of this is the YaK-41 carrying flares (which is never carried in real life). Bends in rules should be allowed for specific vehicles like the BAe EAP which 100% deserve a spot in-game and especially for already struggling nations like the United Kingdom.
The fact that the BAe EAP carried dummy Skyflashes should at least be enough for it to carry it in-game, and yet again I’ll shift focus back onto the YaK-41. It also never carried R-60Ms and was only tested with the R-27 and R-73 but look at what loadout we’ve got in-game.
1 Like
No tank has to carry any ammo.
As long as the gun can shoot the ammo it’s realistic.
We for example will not have ammo improvements unless tanks of other nations get NATO standard ammo they don’t use IRL but can fire.
Such as Ariete getting DM53.
In this case, SHARD can be given to Ariete, Type 10, Leopard 2s, etc. cause the pressures of the munition is lower than the maximum recommended breach pressures.
Well, it’s realistic as long as it’s ammunition that tank uses, it’s not very realistic that a leopard 2 or ram fires the M829A2, or the M1A2 the DM53, each tank has to use the ammunition that I carry for the game to be realistic, for For example, the Magach 3 ERA would not fire the M392A1 since there is a difference of ten years between the bullet and the tank, and the tanks of that time used the M111, and so there are many more cases, such as the T-54 1947, 1949 and 1951 fires the BR-412 D when that ammunition is from 1953, or that the 1949 and 1951 model fires the HEAT-FS and APDS when the HEAT-FS is from 1955 and the APDS is from 1968. They could fire those bullets from their Cannons? Yes. Did they really use those types of bullets at some point? I doubt it, maybe the 1951 model would use it in models that would be in the reserve or in second-rate units.
M1A2 firing DM53 would be realistic.
M1A2’s breech is overbuilt for a reason.
So the American M1A2s use the DM53 instead of the M829? That’s news to me.
Not instead of, but can as well.
There’s a reason it’s 120x570mm NATO round.
Standardization makes using ammunition easier.
But the historical thing is, do the Americans use the DM53?
Doesn’t matter.
Abrams was still designed for interoperability with other NATO MBTs.
There are cases in which ammunition from different countries was used in the same tank, since for example the Israelis used the American M392A1 in the Yom Kippur war and the British L52 for the 105mm L7, but it was only around those dates, a Once the Israelis developed the M111 the other munitions stopped using them, so in 1982 you wouldn’t see any Magach or Merkava using the APDS.
That’s why I say again. Could they shoot those APDS? Yes. Historically would they use them? No.
Wrong.
F16AJ was only stated on brochure there was no prototype build for AJ specs.
Kronshtadt is fantasy cause they couldnt even build more then %10 of the entire hull, not to mention they were so bad when it comes to building main armament they decided to buy 38cm main battery guns from Germany but those guns never arrived to Russia.
Once again you are wrong and spreading misinformation.