I was checking around on the maverick 65F and it’s features.
Is this just a listing glitch for the missile?
The explosive mass in game is listed as:
39KG = ~89LBS
But the air force (link below) indicates that the F variant is a 300LB penetrator.
Does this mean the current AGM-65F has 1/3 the explosive mass it should have? Or is this one of those “actually has it but it’s a typo” things.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104577/agm-65-maverick/
it isnt to low.
it is actually to high
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/elXPRxl5e8GA
From the bug-report:
AGM-65E/E2/L/F/G Warhead
It should be 80 lb (36.2874 kg) of PBX-108
the warhead itself weighs 300lb but that dosent mean it has 300lb of explosive mass
Thanks, reality is often disappointing.
Incoming AGM-65 nerf lol
That should be around 8-9kg of less TNT if implemented?
I won’t be surprised if this change gets implemented this week.
i havent found any infos on PBX-108 but PBX is usually better than TNT, public sources give some estimates of RE factors for common PBXs like PBX-9501 or PBX-9404 in the 1.3x to 1.6x range so id say its around 1.5 or so
which mean that it would have like 10-15% more explosive tnt equivalent
updated:
Still waiting for the flight performance bug report to get implemented, it’s been over 6 months now. AGM-65 Maverick likely incorrect flight performance // Gaijin.net // Issues
Yeah I just found confirmation. The warhead itself is 300lbs, shipping explosive weight listed is 80lbs.
Unclassified
~37kgs of PBX-108, would be 46.25kg of TNT
wait
oh scheibe its worse
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Recently reported another one for the rocket engine, slightly longer burn time total (0.1s lol), same booster thrust but more sustainer thrust. Should result in roughly 15% more dV.
Another report for the IIR Mav zoom/FoVs was made too, instead of current 30-15° fov it should be 3.0-1.5°. I personally suspect the 30-15° seen in weapon delivery manuals is just a typo with the decimal point being lost.
Both accepted, the rocket engine one is hidden (source can’t be publicly shared).
Idk what will happen with the flight performance report though. The 15% engine buff alone went be enough to explain the discrepancy still I think. So lofting and drag may still probably have to be looked after.
The drag is definitely cooked right now on AGM-65s because irl you can hit targets out to 14km when statically launched while in game you cant hit anything past 3.5km lol. Either way, gaijin did not do their research
This is from a brochure of some sort right? I always kinda doubted this though. For standstill at 0 altitude it says ~35k ft, which is around 10.6km. At 100 kts, around 44k ft, 13.3km. However weapon delivery manuals give lower ranges than this for higher speeds even. For the lowest speed figures they give, around 200 kts (M0.3), at 0 altitude (technically 150ft, the minimum altitude for terrain clearance), AGM-65G gets 26k ft, 7.9km and AGM-65D only gets to the same range in the same conditions when launched at M0.5 (there’s no M0.3 graph for those).
So afaik these numbers on the brochure are not valid for the helicopter ones. The M0.9 aircraft launches seem pretty accurate however, but a bit too high for the low altitudes.
The weapon delivery manuals also kinda contradict themselves by saying AGM-65G range being lower than 65D range, whilst all graphs say the exact opposite. Logically, 65Gs should have less range only when launched without any substantial speed, but with higher launch speeds it will benefit more as it is heavier and holds its speed for longer.
Anyways, expecting such long range from the Mav, substantially more than the hellfire, with a missile with a fairly weak engine is pretty odd. So I want to believe these weapon delivery manuals are more accurate here.
EDIT: actually looking closer, the brochure graph might actually match if the lowest altitude given (bottom of graph) corresponds to roughly 3000ft altitude. However, in WT this would still be underperforming to the real graphs regardless, but just don’t expect the real deal to do 10km+ at 0 speed at 0 altitude.
SAP variant is weird though, that one matches better if the graph does start at 150ft altitude.
