Haha, and that’s a modern map!
We used to have quite a few more, and some of the especially “juicy” ones are not even on above map anymore…
(Btw, what pains me about this map is that Buochs is missing…)
i think this map isn’t complete either, because it’s google map one,… many army bases are missing accross the world (apart russian ones)
1 Like
@Schindibee correct me if im wrong, arent you actually Swiss and helped to restore some Swiss aircrafts for museum? I recall you posting a video where you were seen helping with restoring swiss sidewinder.
So between some random noname on forums and actually swiss guy, im gonna believe the swiss guy.
1 Like
Haha, thank you!
Yes, I was for several years secretary on the board of Mirage Verein Buochs, a club that owns a (still running but not flying) Mirage IIIRS (the one I did a semihistorical skin for the Milan for) and a IIIS.
I grew up practically ON Buochs air base, which was where the competence centre for the Mirages was. So I know quite a few pilots and technicians and other specialists and Mirage book authors and have family that worked a lot for or around those aircraft. Thanks to my connections to those people I have also been able to provide WT devs with manuals on e.g. the Mirage IIIS, for example.
Yes, I also stubbornly believe my sources a bit more. ;-)
3 Likes
The “argument from reality” is starting to get ridiculous, especially when we’re talking about a game. I admit it’s also my fault for getting drawn into this completely misguided debate.
I’m fairly certain that even in real life, the A-10 wasn’t intended to shoot down MiG-19s using AIM-9Ls and the F-5C never actually carried any countermeasures in reality… What matters is its use in the game and its position in the BR.
The Milan’s classification in the game is as a fighter, reflecting its primary intended role, and therefore it should serve as the basis for game balancing and it should be compared with fighters of similar performance at a similar BR.
1 Like
I dont know if you see chinese instead of english, but for the last time, Milans ingame classification as fighter is wrong and it was never inteded for it to serve as fighter.
You have actuall swiss museum guy telling you this.
You were informed of this fact.
You are knowingly lying at this point.
1 Like
Frankly, you’re confusing reality with in-game mechanics, and it makes everything you say irrelevant.
1 Like
youre the one insisting on comparing strike aircraft to air superiority fighter.
1 Like
There’s those who prefer authenticity to gameplay aspects, and the ones who do it the other way round.
Nothing wrong with either of them, but agreeably the gameplay aspects could be optimised to fit both parties better (decompression, game modes design,…).
I insist that an aircraft classified as a fighter in the GAME should be compared with other fighters in the GAME.
it was explained to you why this classification is wrong both IRL (which you were trying to prove wrong, only to backtrack) and INGAME as Milans kit is clearly all about ground strikes.
you demanding to have milan compared to A2A fighters is wrong on both IRL and INGAME aspect of things.
You realize that many aircraft and other vehicle are multi-role, something that is not taken into account at all in WT?
Do you consider e.g. F-4, F-16, F/A-18 strictly fighters, because that’s how they are classified?
Or look at the Rafale, who Dassault often marketed not as multirole, but as the first “omnirole” aircraft. According to WT Wiki it’s only a fighter.
Or if we stay in the Family, also the Mirage 5 is classified as fighter, even though a dedicated development for ground attack, and thus also lost its radar…
What about the ADATS? It’s main design feature is that it’s an Air Defense and Anti Tank System, yet in WT it is classified as SPAA.
I really think to base a vehicles place in a tree based on that - again - completely arbitrary and inconsistent - classification is not giving the complexity of that matter enough credit…
1 Like
ok, let me go at it then :
MILAN is a PREMIUM aircraft,… and WHAT MAKE A PREMIUM TO SELL?
a FIGHTER does
an Attacker doesn’t (except if completely under BRed)
So, Gaijin Makes WRONG designation on PURPOSES.
and you’re one of those who fall for it.
so give your “in the game” as much you want,… you’re still comparing a TRUE ATTACKER to FIGHTERS
No, those “wrong” classifications happen all through the trees, and have zero to do with premium or not.
In general it’s always a problem if people who do not know anything about the vehicles they purchase, or test them thoroughly, or think about where they will be played in what way.
1 Like
Its weird that it’s still classed as a fighter in game, as isn’t it a strike variant?
IRL as far as we know it was designed as so, ingame its kit is all about ground strikes - be it CCIP or most of its pylons being reserved for A2G ordnance.
F-106 is a interceptor. The bombers it was meant to shoot down are not even implemented.
Kit is similar to other fighters actually.
While in game we have aircraft available with weaponry and equiment only specific variants of these aircraft carried in reality as well as the most simplistic designations aircraft can be pressed into roles they were not designed for.
Some fighters came to be strike fighters in reality and various interceptors became air superiority and/or CAS platforms.
Belgian Mirage 5BA, German Alpha Jets and Italian F-104 were stationed in Turkey during the Gulf War of which at least the Mirage 5 was flying CAP missions.
In Swiss service Hunter changed role from air superiority to close air support as well. While CAP would haven been at least a theoretical possibility at any time of course.
Milan incorporated avionics designed for or inspired by fighters, strike fighters and reconnaissance platforms and inspired technology designed for Super Étendard as well as export Mirage F.1 variants.
What would have come of it in service in later years remains speculation.
Looking at the opposition I do think Milan would be fine at 9.3.
1 Like