I totally am not taking that out of context
Murica in a nutshell: why should we make ground to air armament when we can use air to air
1 Like
Make it a 12.7 and call it a day, or 13.0
1 Like
Hey don’t ask me. It’s just on the amazon station I’ve got going for background noise. It is kinda an ear worm tho
I think it’s more of the “we’re beating the absolute snot out of dudes without an airforce” meanwhile Russia collapsed and most of the other nations we view as a threat are a regional power at best, so why devote money to something when we have a “good enough” solution
And we’re finally breaking out of the “has to be an American design/idea” and using good systems from other nations.
The Piorun is an amazing missile, much better than the Type 91/Stinger. Mostly because it’s way newer and has more lessons learned. Like the Javelin vs the NLAW
There was a game limitaiton so until it got fixed, it was a lot larger/longer range as a bodge job. Then when they fixed the issue, they nerfed it. Was beginning of the year I think
True in that. USA barely fought anyone with an equal airforce in the past three decades but it is a bit sad that it is also the reason why they didn’t make good all in one SPAA vehicles like the Pantsir, the heavy focus was on air to air and air to ground rather than ground to air
lol Sure, when Su-25K goes to 13.0.
try 8.3 in air rb
1 Like
Well we had plenty they just didn’t earn their keep at the time.
Bradley Linebacker, Avenger, SLAMRAAM plus we also preferred dedicated emplaced units because they offer advantages over mobile units because there were a lot of drawbacks due to immature tech.
The really cool IADS units are all relatively new. And while the Tunguska and Pantsir are good, our new Sgt Stout has some pretty cool features too. And the Stinger replacement will really level the field between nations.
Not to mention we’ve got a DE-MSHORAD program that has fielded multiple vehicles though they’re still a WIP
But that’s its whole own topic. In game because we can’t slant team numbers the way Bluefor/Redfor do we have to balance vehicles, so even if something isn’t real (like the M247) it has to exist in the game to offer parity between sides. Otherwise we would need the mass nato air advantage to offset the Russian/Soviet tank number advantage.
1 Like
You’re right and I imagine a mobile SPAA unit wouldn’t align with US tactics anyways, since the USAF would achieve air superiority before the army goes in and their only concern would be guerillas and insurgents
1 Like
Which is funny because the older longer laser acquisition ranges were likely more correct than current values. I bug reported it, because the values I have found in a document seem to almost perfectly line up with in-game values (for Paveways), so I assume it was the document (a NATO paper) that was used as internal source. This source got pretty used out of context, and as result in-game values suffer from worse stats.
I think the nerf was like for Paveway like bombs specifically from ~7km maximum laser seeker range down to 3657m (12k ft). Now you might think this isn’t too bad, but this range drops off the further you are designating from. So if you want to lase at say 15km away (even in perfectly clear weather), the bomb will basically only acquire the laser at <1km, often missing as result. This is very much not in line with real life performance and documentation. Devs won’t care though, same with Stingers etc.
1 Like
Yeah, I’ve heard its not right, but alas yeah, they wont change them again.
At this point I kinda just accepted it, and am hoping that more modern variants of the Paveway at least get better seekers. So I was very happy to hear the new Tornado was getting Paveway IV and EGBU-24. So tomorrow I will get to see if their seekers are any different (hint: IRL nothing about the seeker changed, I wonder why?).
Then there is also the big funny that Paveway III share the same seeker range as Paveway IIs despite being significantly larger, but oh well, I don’t know what the real value for that thing is either, so fair enough. AFAIK the laser seeker values of most other weapons are a bit made up as well.
1 Like
I am really interested by the ePaveways. They sound like a powder keg for bugs, but sound like they could be really interesting/fun to use.
But yes, hopefully they’ll be a flat buff in terms of laser performance as well
Every spaa can spot it within their maximum engagement zone, if not even beyond that
You might want to think about 8 decades…
The USAAF fought nobody with a somehow equal airforce (regarding numbers) since spring 1944…after they suffered heavy losses without noticeable success in A2A combat above Europe and North Africa 1942 - 1943.
In the Pacific the majority of experienced fighter pilots of IJN were gone after the Battle of Midway in 1942 - together with the majority of their combat ready fleet carriers. So just a numbers game for the USN/USMC pilots after that.
Any further combats & conflicts were just asymmetric wars regarding air power, either they totally outnumbered opponents or those had no airforce. Even in Korea total US/UN losses exceeded CHN/USSR/NK aircraft losses.
lol “zombing” with two (2) whole bombs
1 Like
Its a stealth plane, knowing gaijin, radar won’t pick it up.
8.3 air rb? Wow. We are really letting the USA have the run of the place now.
I imagine the Su-34 will be at 13.0 or 13.3
How the **** do you find this to be overpowered
2 Likes