Why should jets with FnF missiles come closer than 5km from you ?
I didn’t say closer, i said fly in a straight line which makes the job easier, and you can certainly hit them even if they try to maneuver.
Your round can’t reach them, regardless if they’re flying straight or not.
Maybe under 2km.
I’d still take it over the ADATS since it’s painful to play, when you’re seeing the enemy launch the missile and you can’t see it to intercept, just J out.
@AlvisWisla (for some reason the reply button didn’t reply)
You forgot to mention that the Hammer are significantly slower than the KH38 which compensates for the Rafale superior flight performance. In addition GPS guidance only comes in handy when it’s IR sensor looses LOS. For the Hammer this is great because of the time it takes to reach the target or in other words, anything could happen during that time. For the Kh38 because of it’s extreme speed, targets have significantly less time to react which means even if the IR looses LOS, it’ll be too late as the IOG will kick in. Both are competitors in terms of pros/cons but the KH38’s benefits are put into use a lot more than GPS guidance of the Hammer. Unless the Hammer gets LOAL, it’ll be slightly worse
Agreed however with IRST, being able to pick up agms due to the heat it generates, it makes it much easier. The only challenge is finding the agm with you search radar being cluttered. It’s not impossible as it’s easy to conclude where it is depending on the where the aircraft launched it.
1 Like
I mean, it is top-tier, after all. The biggest thing about the 99 is the branch, which is not modeled correctly and leaves significant gaps compared to other MBTs. Also, the laughable 577 pen for the best round on the 99. This is after a remodel, by the way. I lost all hope for Gajin to fix the Chinese top tier for ground and air.
In my personal experience, Chinese tanks have a relatively poor depression angle and similar structure to Russian tanks, but their ammunition and armor are inferior compared to Russian tanks. The above weaknesses, combined with the lack of CAS , have led to dissatisfaction among Chinese players (especially top BR). Please understand.
1 Like
The ammunition is about the same, offering almost identical penetration, and of close mass.
I’m already use to the protection angles of ZTZ99A as it’s rather similar to T-80BVM’s in-game.
A rather large open breech area, and an exposed turret neck.
A strong upper front plate.
Granted, the primary negative to me is the reload rate, tho I feel its mobility makes up for that.
@HondaCivici Excellent post.
1 Like
There’s nothing outrageous like Kh-38s/2A7s or the BVM-like sponging of APFSDS, but I find the 99As pretty good.
It’s like USSR; but honest.
And you’re basing this information on what exactly?
My chinese vehicles are only 5.7 so i can’t speak as a top tier users for them but i’ve definately fought plenty of them to know that the vehicles are rather good and fully capable
They are rather mediocre. The common problem is Gaijin’s poor modeling of Chinese vehicles, which presents itself at every possible opportunity. The logical response is then to report these widespread problems. And they are! There are hundreds of high-profile issues on the CBR site which have received similarly high attention from players. As the information surrounding military vehicles is strictly controlled (across the entire world’s militaries, but in China especially), the only available evidence comes from official CCTV broadcasts. And here Gaijin says: “we can’t accept this as source. You know what we accept? Coffee table books or whatever” These arbitrary standards have long degraded the problem of repair of the Chinese vehicles.
Major nations’ players, such as US or USSR playerbase, have an established record as major spenders of money. They also have much greater amounts of whining about their vehicles. Therefore, Gaijin bows to their demands only, no matter if they are justified or not. We have seen 5 seconds reload for the Abrams, both due to the incessant complaints of the US playerbase that it is bad, and also due to the extremely poor skill of US mains, who have the lowest win rate at top tier despite having some of the best vehicles.
That is the theory of the situation. And the evidence? You can read this 700 post long thread about just one vehicle…
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH
I love how anyone can have opinions now they used to not let people speak on things unless they were known for good reason.
@PompousMagnus
I judge a personal bias of tech trees by how many fun lineups there are.
China has 9.
USSR had 6. [The 8.7 lineup gets deleted when everything there is spaded.]
Israel has 7.
And France ties China with 9:
This isn’t a discussion on the whole tech tree just top tier, so I have no idea why any of this would matter in the slightest. But yeah they sure do bro, they sure do.
You replied to quote addressing the whole of the tech tree, not just the top end.
Of course China’s top end is 3 good MBTs, at least one being BVM equivalent [I haven’t checked the two on the left in months], a meta light tank as a squadron vehicle, 2 mediocre SPAA, and multiple really good aircraft at fragging CAS.
Nah for reload rate, Gaijin said its a balancing thing, so its not affected by documentation, but by their choice.
just objectively wrong ZTZ’s are not “good” not even top 7-8 tanks compared to other top tier tanks. They have massive issues such as, terrible reload, terrible gun depression, 0 survivability, ect ect ect. BVM “equivalent” it is not, not even close. The only thing it does better than the BVM is reverse gear thats it. You have the worst cas in the game as well, literally every nation has better and more reliable CAS. SPAA is mid at best, terrible at worst. Yeah im sure a 8k GE light tank being the highlight of the lineup isnt ideal.
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
that was obvious after he said the VT4A1 was capable
