Biggest issue with indirect fire:
The maps are to small, even with the lowest possible charge and highest possible elevation you still miss the map in almost all cases.
Even if you could aim within the map by standing on a slope to increase elevation it will take the round ~2 minutes before it lands. You’re going to miss 99% of what you shoot at because they have slowly driven away 1 minute after you fired.
2 Likes
And you reckon they’ll do this completely on their own? why bother outsourcing it then?
Can I ask if there is a good way for the AAs to counter indirect fires from heli above spawn
Or even to against those IR guided AGMs
coz i feel like nowadays AA are not anti-air anymore
It’s like anti-ammunition
Heli can just spawn and spam with almost unlimited missiles
but AA doesnt have limited missiles
How to balance well
It’s gonna be the Hummel or the Palmaria friend. The 2026 Decal told us as much.
Have you guys ever tested this mechanic? or just some speculations?
I thought this could make the match much more chaos/tense
Oh, i’m not in any way connected to development and have no contact with the developers.
I just know purely from a physics standpoint and the data from ammunition manufacturers:
Absolute shortest range is 3km and the biggest ground map in War Thunder that i can remember of the top of my head is like 3.5km end to end (red desert).
If you take the M109 that currently has an in-game exit velocity of 687m/s and angle that at 88 degrees you get this:
( Projectile Motion Calculator )
It then takes 2 minutes and 20 seconds for the shell to land 3 357m away, add some air resistance and drag you maybe cut that down to ~2 min of flight time for the round.
2 Likes
Also, if I recall correctly, shells despawn after 5 km of travel. Small caliber shells will despawn after 1.5km. That’s why being anti-air is frustrating as the rounds will literally just vanish from mid-air. For example, the M2HB had a max effective range of 2.2km but, unless the game has changed things, the rounds won’t reach that far.
Is that horisontal travel or total travel path?
when we will see the first Greek tanks and planes?
I will bet on one of the later updates of this year but maybe I’m wrong
From what I’ve seen people test, it’s total travel path
id say its more just map design being buns attica is literally worst map ever but so is fire arc which is also just as bad as they favor certain tanks with specfic capabilitys you need to have a balance as tank maps like pradesh are just not fair
maps focus on range completely suck as lets say your playing 8.0 against 8.3s you loose immeidiatly to them due to first shot first kill
or your in a sherman 76 fighting a tiger 1 in range you basically cant do anything
what we need are maps with relatively easy flanking routes that allow tanks that cant do range to flank campers
as one guy can just look up op spots and camp and get 14 kills until a plane hits them
Janes is a fairly terrible source though, it often gets multiple things wrong.
Just look at old Jane’s publication data on the f-14 and aim54 to see what I mean
yeah they should give aim-7P to F-15A and increase its BR too
1 Like
Does that mean no more sections?
I haven’t seen anywhere list that the missile is more capable in the short range aspect everything sites it as still a medium to now more effective long range missile. I do wonder if there is some confusion about the high off bore site capability. All that should mean is it is capable of firing at a target while in the notch doesn’t mean it is more maneuverable at short range.
Interestingly, I partnered with someone to see if I could model the R-37M with the same method that Gaijin modeled the R-77 and R-77-1, which you can read more about here:
The R-37M was modeled with the same launch conditions that Gaijin used for R-27ER, R-77, and R-77-1 but the range used was 200km as listed by Robosnoroexport, the same manufacturer source that Gaijin also used to model the range performance for the other missiles.
Testing done shows that the R-37M also achieved 100km in just a little over 90 seconds.
The interesting thing is that the Meteor achieved this same performance while weighing 2.5x lighter than the R-37M (190kg vs 510kg), and thus having flight model benefits.
2 Likes
No surprise, the R-37M has a solid-fuel rocket motor it has to carry both fuel and oxidizer while having either low thrust with long burn or shorter burn time with higher thrust and top speed, so it’s more like a ballistic missile with a very high loft profile (like the AIM-120s too) and, depending on the distance of the target, even leaving the atmosphere if needed.
The Meteor has a ramjet motor (airbreathing rocket engine) and only needs to carry fuel as the oxygen in the atmosphere is used as oxidizer (limits its maximum altitude due to air/oxygen density) and can also throttle its output so has a much longer burn time which also varies with the distance of the target. If the target is at the border of the missiles maximum range it will throttle down and only fly with minimum thrust at maximum efficiency (Mach 2-3) and a higher loft. If the target is inside the NEZ it will go full throttle and fly at around Mach 5 with very little regard to efficiency and most likely zero to little loft only (shortest path to target).
3 Likes
The report of PL12 also needs to be fixed. Its current performance is that of SD10, but its weight is that of SD10A. SD10<SD10A=PL12
1 Like
I’m not hinting at anything, but companies directly related with Russian army forces holds tournaments in WT.