You guys can’t say this and then have the F-15E at 14.0 and Su-27SM at 13.7. One is at a higher BR due to greater capabilities, so this is nonsense.
This also does not make sense since majority of air kills at top tier is as a result of fox-3s or radar missiles after the reduction of multi-path and introduction of angle-gate mechanism. IR missiles have a far less important than they used to.
So because the R-77-1 do not differ much from the R-77, it shouldn’t be added? How does that make sense. It sounds exactly like the type of solution since you guys have already stated the gap is small.
Well, in the files the R-77-1 is shown to have a good amount of increased range, but a good part of that is because of the increased battery time. In real life, the increased range of 40%, as you put it, could partly be based on the increased battery time.
But here in this developer’s post, the developers were talking about the energy, rather than range. You refer to 40% increased range while the developers were talking about the differences in energy such as delta-v and etc.
this is not a problem in only in GFRB, GFAB also has problems with CAS. An example: last night i was playing my IDF 8.7 BR Magach 6 line-up. I was vaporised bij a Apache D (the JPN variant) with hellfire II. That chopper is 10.7 in GFAB, but 11.7 in GFRB. so my 8.7 tank met a toptier helicopter, which in RB i could never ever meet. Even if our side had a SPAAG, the chances of it shooting down the AH-64DJPN are slim to none.
the technology difference is simply to great, even with 9.7 SPAAG it’s a challenge, choppers just flares through the whole fly-out and as a rule, lock-on is nearly halved from what the stat card says.
And even if you get a lock, i’ve seen choppers eat multiple Stingers (FIM-92K) and still be somewhat operational and therefor a serious threat.
Yes, but remove the battery life and how much of the extra range is provided by the new motor and aerodynamics? That’s what the developers are referring to by energy.