That’s what I figured.
Still, seeing CFTs on a J(M) is… interesting.
1 Like
Does japan operate any arm’s? A bit of a shame that the f18 and su 30 are the only things with them at the minute.
Unfortunately not - ASM-3 has some kind of ESM slave mode iirc, but there is no true ARM in JSDF arsenal.
Whether AARGM-ER will be acquired for F-35 fleet is unknown.
4 Likes
Could we see asm-3 in game anytime soon? What are its capabilities over the asm-1/2 in game. Im assuming its an mmw seeker and thats why we dont have it in game yet or something
It is super sonic ASM
No, it’s seeker use 3cm wave length
Its pretty much a Kh-31AD, Ramjet powered Anti-Ship-Missile.
3 Likes
Damn, makes me want it in game now. Can it be carried by everything that can carry the asm-1/2?
Anyone noticed that Gaijin completely forgot to give all of the other A6M’s their missing 250kg bomb?
Which, for some reason, only the A6M2 has, but the rest, up to the A6M2 Mod 22 “Ko,” only have 2 50 kg bombs.
Issue is that there isn’t mentions of A6M3 carrying 250kg bomb
While it was modification to carry 250kg under A6M2, it looks like A6M3 wasn’t used for this operations
Just F-2.
4 Likes
checking in with this did you get a post for this written? Or did the mods nuke it?
That would make the F-2 a lot funner in Nuke Thunder.
Thats what im thinking. If, and when its added back its all im going to be playing mostly so i want more options for taking out carrier groups than asm-1/2 as they miss quite often and do very little damage.
If we also get an arm version alongside it, it would help alot with how i play the f-2a in ground as i usually ripple fire gps bombs at their spawn and then run cap.
As a side note, i have found the glide bombs to tend to loft into the stratosphere quite often when doing this even when launched from a 10 degree loft. Is this a known bug with all glide bombs or just the ones the f-2a gets?
1 Like
While there are no sources for it, it shouldn’t be rocket science to safely assume it did.
It also makes a lot of sense that it would have the option to carry one. Especially by the end of the war, when many models were used for Kamikaze actions, and we already know aircraft were all being modified to mount larger payloads.
There is no sources no because we don’t have sources but because A6M3 is not mentioned there and it is an issue
It is the point - we know exact models which were used in Kamikaze missions
There is documents where is listed for example army planes modifications for using in Kamikaze
Also known data about creation Bakusen - A6M in usage as dive bombers (250kg bomb under A6M was attached firstly for dive bombing missions, not Kamikaze) and modifications of A6M2 to carry fuel tanks under the wing to let it use fuel tanks with 250kg bomb under fuselage.
We have documents about using 250kg bombs, 500kg bombs under Zero. But issue is that only version listed there are Model 21 and Model 52 and no Model 32/22 mentioned.
It is why it looks like A6M3 was never modified to use 250kg bomb until there won’t be source showing it
1 Like
The keyword in your whole essay is “Looks like.” What this tells me is you prefer to trust strictly sources, rather than come to your own conclusion based on the available sources.
That’s what we call blind faith. We need to consider that the majority of Japanese sources were burnt. Shot, or other sorts that would destroy them.
So while I understand your point of view. I do not personally agree with it; basic common sense dictates from what we do have that even if it wasn’t written down, it is not hard to come to conclusions that later A6M3 models can mount a 250-kilogram warhead. That is basic logic, and the Japanese aren’t saints; within context, of course cause they have lied, stretched the truth, or just didn’t bother writing it down and even overlooked it. In case hostile forces somehow obtained some of this info, or just pure laziness.
151 words in an essay now? FYI your response is 151 words too. Look at you “essay” writer.
Your own conclusions are not suitable evidence for a bug report.
No, That’s called basing in actual evidence.
1 Like
"151 words in an essay now? FYI, your response is 151 words too. Look at you, “essay” writer.
The shortest essay was 0 words. "
An essay just refers to a short, structured piece.
It does not refer to what schools refer to as an essay.
“Your own conclusions are not suitable evidence for a bug report.”
It would not be considered a bug at all cause it isn’t a bug; it’s a missing addition.
“No, That’s called basing in actual evidence.”
No, that’s blind faith; you blindly believe it without questioning how true it actually is and are unable to come to your own conclusions and understand that while you can be wrong, it is unlikely due to the evidence on the table.
This shows that they strapped different warheads to different aircraft of variable sizes. This makes it difficult to believe the idea that Japan would ignore or bother to convert their A6M3 models into Sen-Baku’s.
With the little available info stating they didn’t do this isn’t enough evidence to prove that they didn’t, and with the tides of war turning out of their favor, they were becoming more fanatical and desperate. It’s really not hard to figure that the circle falls into every hole.
Whats with the type 24s accuracy? Has it gotten the bmpt treatment or has it always been this bad. Also, nice being ammo racked while hulldown using the crewless turret, glad to see its consistent with the btr3.
Yup, all Bushmasters have the same basic dispersion of 0.08 degrees, this goes for the GI30 and the Mk.30-2 aswell.
(BMPT and the BTR-3 etc, have 0.2)
(Weirdly the most accurate 30mm is the Rarden with 0.05)
I have no source for this, I swear I remember something about dispersion being cumulative and it’s better to tap fire/fire in bursts/ But I can’t remember where I got that from.