no. they SHOULD NOT add it.
there is enough copy paste ground vehicles,
there is so much more spaas ( M113 ADMS, Magach Marksman, HVSD/ADAMS),
that should be added instead
this is it’s way of achieving all-aspect tracking in 1960s
No, it’s 4 missiles. The “6 missiles” thing comes from a museum piece that bolted extra missiles they had lying around to the outside of the vehicle. Actual ones in service only ever had 4.
And the MIM-72G definitely outperforms the 9M31M. The 9M31M’s only got a 1kg warhead, 4.2km front-on lock range, 420m/s top speed. It’s only really capable of intercepting subsonic targets, with a maximum target speed of 310m/s (mach 0.9 at sea level)
Until or if it ever gets a gimble limit, it’s practically useless for a variety of reasons o shall list below. The Machbet is a better SPAA than it at the moment because of just how ineffective its missile is for HOBS or maneuvering targets in general, and especially targets in close range above the battlefield. The only thing that made up for it was the extra range and smokeless motor.
Since it’s missing the motor and gaijin still hasn’t given it back the only advantage it has now is range, which isn’t even that much of an advantage compared to this vehicle which has more than enough range paired with a more maneuverable missile that has a gimble limit.
On top of this, if what the user suggest above is true, it has optical tracking. This means it completely and entirely resistant to flares, another major upside of this platform over the Chaparral. (I would also like to bring up the fact the MIM-72G takes awhile to start turning and gathering speed, which hinders its close range performance even further).
Finally it also has trouble getting locks at range, something optical tracking suffers from less so. Again if what the user above suggested is true, this is a major advantage as it improves the lock range of the missile significantly.
Thank you for sharing, would you be willing to provide more information about this? Just saying it isn’t enough especially when the museum that may have done this could actually be used as a primary source, and with the appropriate information we can have this suggestion appropriately adjusted to be corrected.
1 Like
First on optical tracking. The 9M31M’s optical tracking was very rudimentary- it could only be used against clear blue skies or level overcast, clouds would render it useless. Additionally, even in-game optical tracking isn’t particularly reliable- all it is in-game is FoV gating. Like on an air-to-air missile this is quite effective at close ranges but beyond a couple kilometers it can be defeated by a single flare. Remember, it’s essentially the same tech as an AGM-65B or Walleye. The strength of the 9M37M is its flight performance and not it’s seeker- the Type 93’s Type 91 missiles also have optical lock and are much more comparable to our 9M31M.
As for the ammunition count, the 9K31 carried 4. There wasn’t space inside the BRDM-2 for any additional missiles- it’s a rather small car. The argument for 6 missiles only comes from the museum 9K31 below (at the Pintér Works Military Park, Kecel, Hungary) where empty 9M31 boxes were welded onto a folding travel lock. These missiles wouldn’t be useable. Additionally, there are no history images of such an addition.
This is another museum (Ukrainian) 9K31, located in Lutsk
I highly doubt that both museums, one in Hungary and one in Ukraine just have it “welded”
Not to forget the document I shared also depicts the 9K31 with 2 missile boxes on it, which is even seen in the suggestion as I included an image of the page
2 Likes
where the hell are you seeing additional ammo boxes in that image?
My bad, saw it incorrectly, however still, the other museum also has it. There are also “drawings” of 9K31’s having 2 missiles on their hull, but do not show actual pictures
strela detected opinion rejected (please not more of them god)
This is not the same one found ingame. Different missile, downgraded one
1 Like
do you have those drawings? I’d like to see.
But I really think that these two museums are simply mistaken. For those two examples of extra missiles (in museums) there are dozens, hundreds, of historical photos of in-service 9K31s in service with a huge number of nations, all with a notable lack of external stowage.
And museums do make mistakes. Hell, the Tank Museum thought that the TOG, one of their most iconic pieces, had a 17pndr until very recently.
oh in that case i dont mind it
2 Likes
Maybe they do not have external missiles out, as well, it wouldn’t be a good idea in some scenario. I’ll still be on the lookout for one that’s not in a museum.
As for the drawings (I’ll also include some model), I would take them with a grain of salt, as once again, I cannot find an original image:
If I had to guess, maybe only the ones with the racks could have them
The “folding travel locks” on both sides have mounting points on them presumably to allow for the mounting of two additional missiles.
Here are two examples of them being used on service vehicles.
Spoiler
3 Likes
i stand corrected
1 Like
Since this is the case, a new problem for this vehicle arrises. Were these Travel Locks/Racks removed or even present in the first place on this vehicle in particular?
We have a singular image depiction of a Strela with them when talking about ours, but it’s not definitively a depiction of the vehicle being suggested as per my understanding. Perhaps images of them in foreign service could shed light onto if we could have 2 additional SAMs for this vehicle.
I understand the concern but now you’re getting treading the territory of whether or not Gaijin would even care about that. They’ve made unhistorical ammo stowage concessions before and I’m certain they’d be comfortable doing so again in this case, especially since the stowage location, by itself, is historical. It’s ultimately up to Gaijin what they do with it and I, personally, don’t believe it’s worth busting anyone’s balls over.
1 Like
Fair enough, and even though we do have precedent, keep in mind this is gaijin we’re talking about…
1 Like
Okay. Now that’s sorted. New problem(?). The vehicle seen in all these images does not actually appear to be a true Strela-1 but a BRDM-2 with a Strela-1 launcher put on top of it. I say this because the vehicle seen here has optics on the side of the hull as well as belly wheels, which are defining features of the BRDM-2. True Strela-1s do not have these optics because of the side racks and were not produced with belly wheels. This could be really good for this suggested vehicle because it means that it may be a unique one-off conversion. It could also be relatively bad because it could turn out that it’s a museum reproduction piece. There is documentation of Israel’s capture of a Strela-1 so now the real question is whether or not the museum vehicle is indeed the same vehicle.
I know that I just spoke in favor of additional missile stowage being considered for this vehicle, however, having the side mounted optics complicates things.
VS
2 Likes