Ah yes, classified sources cant be used by players but gaijin can? Rules for thee but not for me.
Disucssing why current day russia wouldnt be able to produce such quality seeker for single use A2G missile without making it insanely expensive would be politics ;)
They are not distributing anything. That is the key distinction. Gaijin can reference specifications within the limits of export brochures, declassified material, or manufacturer advertising. What they cannot do (and neither can we) is post or host documents that are still marked as requiring prior authorization for distribution. That is why players get the warning and why you see moderation clamp down on uploads.
It is not as if the Kh-38 suddenly had an IR variant invented in the last ~3 years. Russia has had that capability for decades. Whether it is produced in numbers is a question of cost and prioritization, not technical impossibility.
I will leave it there.
Players can’t make a valid bug report without sharing those documents, meanwhile Gaijin doesn’t need to share with anyone.
People just slinging around classified documents on the official WT forum would be a legal nightmare for them.
I literally did not talk about distributing whatsoever.
Then you are contradicting yourself.
So they either did use classified information to add Kh-38MT, which means they broke their own rules, or they did not, meaning they can share it.
If we go this way, lots of vehicles should receive buffs with all kinds of weaponry and systems. Not because they used them IRL, but because the host nation had such “capabilities”.
Not only weaponery, but also other systems…
Give bol launchers to every nato jet?
HMD to everyone?
APS to every modern tank? Etc…
But no… we have to deal with double standards
I guess we got our answer.
We would need to prove that the KH38MT doesn’t exist, with all that information out there in the world that only leads back to a brochure/paper missile. The only physical evidence we have of it, is a mock up. Never been spotted in combat, never been spotted at an airshow in recent times. Never been spotted at any arms convention.
This missile isn’t too advanced for the game according to them. They believe it should remain, despite all the negative feedback regarding it, and questionable existence.
Remember to reference this moment any time your valid report gets denied for a munition that should be in the game.
Like I’ve stated previously, I’m voting with my wallet and no longer spending any money on this game.
You guys need take a page out of the Chinese player’s handbook. Time and time again we have seen how there is only one type of feedback Gaijin actually liatens to. And that is quite sad but what can you do.
What policies and rules were violated?
Kh-38MT, if they have NDA’d documents internally, matches their requirements.
The incorrect thing about Kh-38MT is it doesn’t have programmable LOAL and it requires direct line of sight to be fired.
The specs of Kh-38 itself is exactly to what it’s like in reality. Mach 4.5ish, 70km range. Those match known documents.
Oh, and currently Kh-38MT does not dominate ground RB anymore due to at least CLAWS and SLM. Soon there will be 4 - 5 more SPAA that deal with it, and of course there’s Type 03 Chū-SAM and Patriot that can be added later as well.
Those questions have nothing to do with double standards…
The standards are: Is the vehicle in question capable of using that.
If so, great.
If not, great.
That’s been the same standard for every vehicle since 2012. I am not sure why people are thinking these standards are new or different.
Kh-38MT hasn’t been advanced for War Thunder since Leviathans.
Its platforms are easily dealt with now among top SPAA, and more are being added.
It’s sad you refuse to spend money on all games that treat NATO well.
That list would be zero examples.
As someone that has yearned to confirm my hypothesis of any hypocrisy, I’ve found zero examples.
And the fake examples people cite end up following the rules set years ago to the letter.
People complained about Yak-141 despite it being the same exact situation as Ho-229.
SPAAs still struggle to intercept munitions because of how proxy damage works. You also have way less time to intercept the munition once launched because of the speed of it.
Please go on about the new SPAA, which all of them struggled to even intercept basic munitions in the dev server so we have no idea how they’ll perform in the live server.
If Gaijin wants this magical missile in the game, they need to fix how proxy damage works. Right now if you launch a missile and it proxies behind the munition it does no damage. Its the same with recon drones. That’s why they never get destroyed when the missile blows up behind them.
IR + IOG isn’t something new and exclusive to 38MT.
If forum feedback was ever a legit sign that something isn’t right, 2S38 would be 11.7 by now.
Yes, don’t forget to add in Kikka as well since it uses guns that were never fitted to it.
Make your case as strong as possible.
I don’t know why the movement of goalposts changed to munitions interception.
This was never the goal from 2021 throughout all of 2023. No one substantially thought that intercepting munitions was necessary when CAS was the most OP it ever was.
It was about powercreeping SPAA to keep up. And yeah, it took 3 years for us to get SPAA capable of dealing with CAS.
I’d stop worrying about intercepting munitions and start focusing on doing what’s really important: Destroying the plane itself.
Cause unless that plane gets 6 or more frags, it can’t even pay for its own spawn cost.
AGM-65D/G, Hammer, and Kh-38MT are not magical missiles. They are IR missiles, and air alert as well as the kill-feed is all that’s necessary for most players to find a treeline, building, or busted tank to wait out the at most 1 minute of guidance time of the missiles.
Abysmal advice, destroying incoming munitions is a key feature of effective top tier SPAA gameplay, in order to guarantee your ability to intercept the aircraft, you first have to guarantee your survival against the standoff capabilities of the aircraft you are fighting,
You are encouraging this player to engage in my favourite behaviour to see while playing CAS, an SPAA that is looking the other way while I watch my munition guide in ( while i’m terrain masking 20km away)
This clip as shown below is a tiny bit too short for the moment when I dropped the bombs, but they were too busy looking the other way to intercept the 2x SPICE bombs i sent in that direction, and as a result 2 SPAA died
Well it’s not the standard for the SU30 now, is it?
Dude… 1 90SP SPAA vs 1 900SP plane [700SP for non-IR weapons].
The math is so obvious even if you yourself lose, the CAS player loses FAR more.
Do spawn point math, please.
It’ll make you and everyone else more effective players, and there will be less CAS up as well.
If everyone did spawn point math, there’d be no CAS at top ranks because of how inefficient CAS is.
@H_ngma
Su-30s are capable of using Kh-38s as per documents. And there was a Kh-38ML on at least one Su-30 across Google images.
Doesn’t matter what Su30s generally can. If the Su30SM is not shown to be capable of carrying and KH38MT then it shouldn’t have access to it.
Not my words. His words
If the subliminal message behind this is to use any means necessary to kill the aircraft, by extension dying to his munitions and using a backup, then sure, that could be viable.
However for the survival of a SAM system without that, you need a mix of effective cover, map knowledge and munition interception in order to reach the aircraft launching them, as previously stated, you can’t kill the launch platform if you are critically hit or dead from their bombs
Unfortunately, they likely use this justification too (from the Thai alpha jet debacle last year)
That screenshot shows no context, and is not relevant to this matter.
On top of that, Su-30MK specifically is a late 1990s aircraft which began service in 2003, it is part of Flanker-H of which so is MKI, MKA, MKM, SM, SME, and SM2.
It’s like the F-16A ADF being compatible with AIM-7s and the capability not being removed even into F-16C Block 50.
You have to prove capability was removed or added.
All vehicles’ weapons are assumed to have not changed between versions unless otherwise documented.
Id probably say the same if the screenshot was going against my position.