GBU's maximum release speed on new F-16's

Recently I noticed something, the new F-16C Block 50 and the Barak II (F-16D Block 40) has something pretty annoying, a maximum release speed for GBU’s (IR/Optical guided and Laser guided bombs)

For some reason, none of the other planes with Laser GBU’s has this speed limit. This makes the Barak II, specially, pretty ineffective against long range/modern SAM’s since it lacks it’s Mavericks.

Is it intentional or a bug? Also, if it’s intentional, what’s the reason?

1 Like

1st question: i don’t know
2nd question: there is multiple potential reason.
But in any situation, they must have found a document that says something about it.

For another POV, feel free to found those limitation on all other aircrafts ^^"

Simply remove air to ground guided weapons from the game and problem solved

1 Like


Since I have almost every top tier jet in game, I already did that.

There’s only 3 aircraft with speed limits on laser guided bombs, MiG-27K, F-16C and F-16D

But there’s a few with those limits on optical guided weapons, GBU-8 on A-10A, A-4E, PGM-500 and 2000 on Tornados and Mirage 2000-5F, Kab-500 on MiG-29SMT, Su-25T and 39 and a few others. The point is, the same weapons aren’t limited on other planes, GBU-8 aren’t speed limited on F-4E and F-16A, GBU-10/12/16/24 laser guided bombs aren’t limited on Kurnass 2000, Tornados, Harrier GR.7, AV-8B+, Mirage 2000-5F but are limited on the new F-16’s for no reason.

I’ve been checking the F-16C Block 50/52 flight manuals and found nothing about, I’ve been searching a lot on the internet too and also found nothing about. I would be glad if someone provide a good reason for these limits other than “cuz gaijin wants”

1 Like

I said : “found those limits in order to make a bug report”

The reason behind the limitation might be found documents find by Gaijin, so go found docs for all other aircrafts ^^"

My saying was: “no why would Gaijin do that?”

Because it would significantly increase the health of the gameplay and remove some of the buggiest interactions in the game. I see absolutely 0 downside to such a change. Period

It goes against Game design,… so it’s no gonna happen even in 10 years,…

1 Like

how does “improving gameplay” go against game design

not Spam, a Question

Game design is about having CAS in Game, and with a realistic way of doing so,

therefore having GBU’s is realistic, since it is mostly used in CAS mission IRL today.

1 Like

Yeah, I can see that you’re pretty new to the game… So, yeah, they won’t remove something from the game just because you can’t learn the basics of the game to counter something.

I’m asking for a reason for limiting only few aircrafts with a speed limit while others don’t have any limits, but even with those limits, I still can do my job with those weaponry and the new F-16’s still performing flawlessly, a bit harder than other’s, but flawlessly.


Realism is not Gamedesign

Your entire statement is not related to game design. At best and with a lot of closed eyes it would be under design direction. Which is a tangential topic and below game design

CAs would remain. But having a weapon in a game about ground warfare which eliminated ground warfare as modeled in the game is contrary to the design of the game.

War thunder is not designed as a modern combined arms game.- It is designed as a Word War 2 combined arms game.

Therefore modern combined arms weapons are against the design of the game as modern combined warfare has a complet reliance on CAS and weapons and tanks being relegated to a support role. In game tanks are the Main force and CAS the support. Therefore a weapon responsible for that shift in doctrine is against gameplay and breaks with every game design law in existance.

Guided air to ground munitions, and helis if we are already naming stuff, are not compatible with the chosen style of gameplay and therefore incompatible with the game design of War Thunder. Hence why they are impossible to balance.

Yea sure buddy. I was against the guided munitions years before they where released. And every single argument against them came true. Every single one. They caused exactly all the problem everyone warned off. Yet gajin did not listen. Top tier went from the most played to the least played in a single year and remains such. Totally not the case of the skill level dropping significantly once the game hands players weapons requiring 0 skill with 0 active or passive counters to them.

Your insults show your true colours. Basics of the game? If you understood the game you would agree with me. Basics of countering a 10km range guided bomb a in a 7.7 vehicle? Make me laugh harder.

Guided air to ground munitions have no active hard counter. They are fired beyond render range of most SPAAs and all tanks, they follow their target without any skill required on part of the user, they are not noticeable by the target. The only way to “defend” against them is to be lucky and be close to a big building which offers hard cover. You can not predict, dodge or otherwise counter them. Outside of an SPAA you can not retaliate, and even then only a few SPAAs actually can, all of which are situated at BRs higher than the lowest Guided bomb users will ever reach.

Peak “Game design”

Again you can say whatever you want.

Guided munitions are contrary to WTs gameplay design and will never be balanced unless the style of gameplay is changed. aka. WT ceses to be WT

So, planes are ingame way before tanks, so following your logic, which btw is totally irrelevant for this topic, they should remove the tanks, not the aircraft armaments, it was a plane game way before tanks join the battle

1 Like

No you just showed that you did not bother reading what i wrote. and I will not repeat myself.


My original post would fix your issue, past that I just responded to allegations insults and off topic remarks, trying to bring them back to topic. So please go ahead and further show that you have a rotten character and can only insult others.

You made that up,…

You do what now? Nah you’re trying to forces your view,… that’s just how a debate works,…

But you do not have any single f clues on how is designed that game,…

That is simply a fact.
Tanks where planned from the very start as where ships. A combined tank and plane mode was in the works during the development of the tank beta.
The scope of the game was until a few years ago limited to just around the korean war.
Every single major design element of ground RB was put in the game during that time, the balancing of maps, cas and vehicle spawn costs where all designed around this era of combat.
This is all a fact which can be checked with simple google searches.

The move to post korean war era stuff instantly created issues steming from how the gameplay was not designed around these kinds of weapons. (That was prior to the first guided missile,bomb or anything similar was added) just the sheer increase in speed of vehicles alone was enough to topple the meta and change the balance, sth which remains an issue to this day (post vietnam fast lights fighting with mid WWII stuff for example).

You just again did not bother ro do any research, read any information or nother to actually think about stuff for more than 1 second.

If providing facts and making informed assumptions extrapolated from those facts is “forcing my views on you” so be it. But at least provide facts to back your points up. That is how a debate works. Not by calling the other side a lier just because you are ro lazy to make your own arguments or providing any aditional information.
Same to the second point. You showed that you have no idea what you are talking about and do not care to do any research on the matter. You just insult me by stating easily disproven opinions designed soely to insult and discredit.