Who cares what militaries used or didn’t use in combat?
If you want to LARP, go for it, but militaries don’t dictate what vehicles can use; manufacturers of weapons & vehicles dictate capabilities.
1 Like
and the eurofighters ain’t use SPICEs, the F-14A is fully incompatible with R-27s and the F-4F never used the AIM-9J.
stop making a big deal of whether something had a weapon or didn’t. if its compatible (which it is) and would improve the aircraft’s balance, then add it.
Will you stop bringing your ridiculous LARP things and forcing everyone to accept them?
Gaijin cares when they want to buff or nerf something artificially.
F-5A/C in USAF service was never able to use the countermeasure pod and AIM-9E, but Gaijin gave them anyway because ‘Foreign exported versions can, Northrop said that’
Meanwhile, F-4J in RAF service were used ex-USN F-4J Phantom that theoretically capable of using AIM-7F and some fancy USN ground ordnance that they were used back in the USN era, but Gaijin pushed Full NO about it because ‘RAF never used AIM-7F and never had massive stockpiles of napalm. So it is historically incorrect, then no.’
Or F-100D of French Service were F-100D, so if we apply F-5C solution, then they could use AIM-9E but Gaijin also doesn’t care about giving them AIM-9E despite F-100D(FASF) sharing the same BR with F-100D(USAF) and F-100A(ROCAF). I heard it from the forum that the reason is ‘French’s sidewinder rail is not capable of equipping AIM-9E’
And there are also some examples of Chinese bombers such as Tu-4(CN) and H-5(Chinese IL-28) that lost their capability of carrying old Soviet ordnance because Chinese didn’t use those despite the fact that they are same plane.
Or there could be another example of British ground forces being stuck with the Solid AP version of 75mm M61 APCBC, because Gaijin never wanted to believe that British Force were used M61 APCBC-HE too, and wanted to nerf British tanks artificially.
Oh, then also there are other examples of JAS39C(SAAF).
It is a total abomination of this game because of confusing standards hopping left and right.
-They got AIM-9M even though South Africa didn’t adopt those, because SAAB said so
-They got R-Darter because SAAB suggested SAAF integrate it, even though South Africa said no about it.
-But they failed to get AIM-120A/B, which other JAS39C has, even though SAAB probably says full yes about mounting AIM-120 AMRAAM on their Gripen.
Gaijin cherry-picking their standards between military standards and Manufacturer standards.
And you are acting like Gaijin never cared about military standards and treating users who want to ‘historic loadout’ as LARP Yapper.
So, F-5E shouldn’t be able to use AIM-9P-4 if Gaijin want to keep F-4J(UK) suffering with skyflash
Or if F-5E need to get AIM-9P-4, then other cases also need to get similar treatments.
2 Likes
Dont forget HOSBOs being germany exclusive despite there being no obstacle for italian and uk typhoons to get them as well.
1 Like
Its only accurate to a soviet source and an in-accurate american one or something, But according to the actual USAF Flight manual, its overperforming by around 4°/s in STR
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hIzLAh45I9sD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hqLuX2tQIZDa
Its been proposed quite a few times over the years and is planned for the EFT EK, but its primary reason for its addition is as a placeholder for our actual A2G loadout options which have thus far been denied, such as Brimstone and Spear
So theres technical reasons the NETz gets all the CMs while the rest are scraping 45?
Or what what stops the f16a using the f16Cs dispenser?
The chinese MLU gets 60 the other 13.3s get 45?
Actual reasons?
I’m not making a big deal I’m just correcting someone who made an incorrect statement lol. The USAF never directly used Aim-9Ps because they were meant for export. I don’t care about any of your examples, I’m just saying why USAF didn’t use the Aim-9P
If you actually read my comment you would realise I am correct in saying the USAF has never used Aim-9Ps in combat because they literally haven’t. A specification of some manual shows that they CAN carry the 9P but if you look into it the USAF has never used 9Ps in combat
And if you read the sentence at the bottom of the image it explicitly states the 9P was never used in combat with the USAF
1 Like
This is because the AN/ALE-40 dispensers can either fit 30 standard or 15 large. The F-16s by default have 2
Gaijin for some reason randomly decided they would have 1 dispenser with standard and the other with large, where on teh MLU it just keeps 2x standard.
What they should implement is a system where you can pick what you have in the dispensers.
F-16C uses the same dispenser but has 4 of them instead of just 2
3 Likes
Yes but it also states they where carried on the first night of desert storm so it was carried but not fired and if the USAF didn’t use the aim9p at all why would they even inventory them? Much less bring them along to desert Storm.
And from very surface level reading it seems that the p-5 was the export model and the p-3 was a training model used to teach pilots legacy fox 2 tactics if they ran out of all aspect ir missiles in a conflict
So no real reason all f16s have recently had their CMs reduced 25% ?
And no technical reason that they cant have more for balancing?
Who looked at the f16s 0.5 KD and thought nerfing them was a good idea?
and? they did carry it into combat but didn’t use it because they didn’t face enemy aircraft.
can you show me where gaijin says a weapon can only be added if it was fired in combat? i can show you that a nation doesn’t even have to purchase a weapon to receive it in the game.
As far as I am aware, no.
Though its not quite as clean as a 25% CM reduction because LCMs are generally multiple times more effective than a standard CM. Not sure on the relationship between flares, but chaff its something like 5.5x more effective.
So there is an argument that the current configuration is potentially more effecient and effective, but the issue is ARBs 16v16 needing quantity over necessarily quality (In ASB the current configuration is potentially a buff)
But ultimately it should be the players choice and this is something Gaijin fails at massively and constantly. They assume the player is stupid and is unable to make decisions/choices for themselves.
1 Like
Gaijin cant even balance the gane even when its same model and BR - its prime example of the problem that stinks WT out
F16 13.7- 45 CMs.
F16 13.7- 90 CMs
13.7 sufa - all the CMs…this is not balance
12.7 AJ the same as 6x 9Ms ? Just no.
Cant put 4x sparrows on the AJ as “realism” makes sense whenit didnt even exist.
Cant move the AJ as “what about the f16A”
Leaves 4 f16s that are worth using from 21 in total
All this is convieniently ignored when it suits though. And its way deeper than just decompresssion
That rule is so heavily cherry picked its become genuinely stupid.
The number of times Ive seen them deny certain weapons purely because “that nation doesnt use them, you have to prove they did” is actually really stupid.
Like the F4JUNKs which are ex-US F-4Js, but cant have napalm or Aim-7F because Britian doesnt use them
3 Likes
…looking sideways at Swiss early Hornet, with not a single weapon that Switzerland ever used…
3 Likes
Compatable though as same jet.
Whats the excuse for mig29s getting 27ers?