https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0wOFnV9yIJi9
2 Likes
Not all SPS-141 pods were with CMs. There are some variations of it.
1 Like
Only done for this one plane, not say… the F-4F Early or F-1, both at the same br in ARB, both lacking flares.
But of course, one of them is a premium.
1 Like
That’s why there’s F-4F in tech tree with countermeasures… Though at 10.7
F-1 never had any sort of countermeasures to my knowledge
Yes, that’s my point. Both of those planes are 10.3 without flares; unlike the F-5C they didn’t receive any.
1 Like
You do not want an F-5 at 9.7.
It would demolish that entire BR range.
1 Like
Another Vamilad certified BR opinion
While the F-5C didn’t operate with countermeasures in US service, the C is simply just a redesignation of the initial F-5A Freedom Fighter. (if I recall) the “C” designation was only assigned to demonstrate the F-5 platform in Combat through using it in a ground strike role in Vietnam the F-5A and F-5C are practically identical. Since Norwegian F-5As mounted countermeasures, Gaijin added them to the F-5C to make it a more enticing option to purchase or for balancing since they’d (technically) be capable of mounting them.
It’s no less ahistorical than Swedish 30mm cannons getting Tracers recently.
4 Likes
Two sources do not make up for the 4+ countries fielding F-5A/Bs with ALE-40 pods attached to the sides.
Seriously, I cannot comprehend how someone can have such bad takes regarding BR.
Dude also suggested moving the MiG-23ML series down to 11.0 to make them stronger so they sell more or something like that.
3 Likes
Yup…
It isn’t just BR, either. I think he’s just wired like that from factory ;3
2 Likes
A quick look on the F-5 wikipedia page:
Twelve F-5A Freedom Fighters were tested by the US Air Force for four and a half months in Vietnam. Modified at Palmdale plant by adding removable, non retractable air-refueling probe on the left side, 90 lb of external armor plates under the cockpit and engine, and jettisonable stores pylons.
American F-5A and F-5C never mounted countermeasures. Even though technically possible, it doesn’t matter, it was never done. It should be as simple as that…
2 Likes
That’s just not how Gaijin works though…
South Africa never purchased Aim-9, Skyflash or by all accounts BOL rails (I think). All 3 are present on the SAAF Gripen C currently
5 Likes
So… F-5A?
Refer to:
These are only F-5As pictured, too.
And Israeli Mirages never mounted Atars. Gaijin, remove Mirage 5F!
I am well aware. It does not change how things should be working.
It is my opinion that ALL such errors/made up/fictional/whatever you want to call it, should be corrected. This current topic is of the F-5C, so we are primarily discussing it, instead of everything else.
Just because there are other errors in vehicle implementation, it does not excuse errors in others.
Sure, I’m down for fitting IRIS-T onto the Gripen, but something tells me that would be worse currently.
3 Likes
And not a single one of them is in American service.
If the game wants F-5A with countermeasures as currently seen on the F-5A and F-5C in-game, then the game can add an F-5A from a country that actually mounted it.
1 Like
So you’re saying that it should be that the F-5C and any other F-5 in the American tree should be excluded from using flares, even though the F-5A, F-5B, and F–5C all had provisions to use them?
Ignoring the fact that ALE-40 was used widely in American service, should it also be excluded from the F-4E for the same reason?
Could not care less.
Or, hear me out, the vehicle capable of a system is added with said system.
If a vehicle only ever used “too good stuff” for the current version of the game - then the problem is that they added it too soon in the first place.
1 Like