Hi everyone,
I wanted to start a proper discussion on top-attack ATGMs at top tier — because right now there seems to be an odd imbalance in how they’re modeled:
JAGM (AGM-179) – In real life, it’s the successor to Hellfire. It inherits the top-attack flight profile (climb and dive onto the roof) and adds dual-mode seekers (millimeter-wave radar + SAL).
Source: U.S. Army fact sheet (Redstone Arsenal press release, 2018): “JAGM provides the capability to strike targets from the top attack angle with precision in all weather.”
PARS 3 LR (MBDA) – A European fire-and-forget ATGM with imaging IR seeker, explicitly marketed for top-attack against MBTs.
Source: MBDA brochure: “PARS 3 LR uses a lofted trajectory to attack targets from above, striking the weakest armor.”
Ref: Products | MBDA
LMUR (Izdeliye-305) – Russia’s newest ATGM, and in War Thunder it does have a steep dive / loft profile modeled, making it behave like a top-attack weapon.
Source: Rostec export description highlights its over-the-horizon and top-attack style terminal profile.
The inconsistency
LMUR gets its advanced profile in game.
JAGM and PARS — which are equally documented as top-attack weapons — are stuck as direct line-of-sight Hellfires.
Questions to discuss
Why is LMUR allowed a top-attack trajectory in WT, while JAGM and PARS are not?
Is Gaijin holding back NATO missiles for “balance,” or is it due to selective use of sources?
Would giving JAGM/PARS their intended roof-attack actually break GRB balance, or just level the playing field with LMUR?
Curious what other players think, especially those flying Tiger UHTs or Apaches vs MI-28NM. Right now, it feels odd that Russian ATGMs are given their full real-world features, while NATO’s equivalents aren’t.
Edit:
Bug report link:Community Bug Reporting System
