I’d say that Germany is on 3rd place just above america being 4th place, sweden on second and ofc russia in 1st place being the most complete TT overall, unless they add more stuff to germany like a proper top tier light tank and cas and even so they would be in the same place as sweden, reminder sweden has 3 Strv 122 with added hull armor
If we talk about overall lineups.
France and America are about on par with the abrams having better rounds and “armor” as well as the arguably better light in return for france having a better AA.
Sweden sits firmly in 1st place. Even in spite of the Gripen not being anything special CAS wise.
Russia id put at 4th place because despite their lineups being very full, theyre very weak in the air to air department, their multirole is sub par, they only really have 2 “good” MBTs and while they have the win for ease of use, their actual survivability is… pantsir best AA again though not even close, and their Helis are vile.
China sits planted at 5th place because their air power is mid, but their MBTs are just Russian MBTs with Nato mobility. Unfortunately your lights arent great and your AA got fucking whacked with the nerf bat.
What’s a proper AMRAAM carrier, is that a jet with AIM120’s or without them?
I believe he means a platform that can actually compete.
happy sweden noises
1 Like
So you mean … a jet with AMRAAMs? Does Germany have one of those?
Or is the problem that Germany doesn’t have the best one?
Really just sounds like the ariete of top tier and Germany doesn’t want an ariete.
1 Like
Germany has a plane with Amraams. The issue with the ICE is that it is incapable of competing even at its own BR.
Well its so much worse than the Ariete. As in Air, tech matters far more than skill. So while the Ariete you can cushion its massive issues by just being competent. Cant really do the same with a bad plane.
Interesting, so with the f4 you can’t get a radar lock, get in range, shoot it and let it go pit bull?
Or does it not have the ability to do that, and the players are at a disadvantage because it can’t do that.
By the time you get to altitude to launch that missile, ones already almost at you, your fm is so tragic you struggle to dodge them, and you dont even have that many countermeasures.
The Ice has to play like a vulture, waiting for everyone to merge before moving in to try to pick off scraps.
F-18 radar.
4x AIM-120s.
4x 9Lis for escaping.
Mach 1.15 on the deck.
Faster accelerating than F-14A.
Retains energy in average.
F-4 is not a “bad plane”. It’s a Mig-17 vs Lim-5Ps; Not the best, still usable.
2 Likes
Sure sounds like an ariete to me.
I like the way you make points. I agree with them.
Ariete doesnt need to play like a vulture. It can go to the front lines.
Player skill can try to account for the flaws. In air you can’t really do that.
A more apt comparison for ground would be the Sherman Jumbo when it was the same BR as the Tiger 2s.
It was just completely helpless
a jet that has good avionics and technology according to planes that is gonna be fighting not a bus with wings and a new radar and some amraams
1- You either don’t play ground
Or
2- your whole premise is predicated on, ground= skill issues, air= tech… for Germany.
No air is a tech issue for everyone. Its not a german thing. I argued this point for Britain, China, Sweden, Italy, and America at different points.
Air is worse because tech makes more of a difference than it does in ground under a lot of circumstances
Also your 2nd point is flawed given I stated the Ariete is the worst MBT and it has flaws. But the tech advantage in ground isnt as visible or impactful.
Cool. Didn’t expect you to use anything other than ad hominems honestly.
you dont need a TGP to drop LGBs
Yea, you don’t. But you need it for long-range drops against moving vehicles, the LGB cannot adjust itself if it doesn’t have a laser to track (un-enhanced GBU-12s also don’t have GPS/INS so you’d basically be dropping them blind and hoping they don’t go off-course which is rather stoopid in this day and age).
- You dont need a camera at all for mavs! Just like every other EO weapon they are literally a camera themselves.
Truly fabulous, good thing their camera’s quality is so high it can be used at extended ranges… oh wait it isn’t, that’s what targeting pods are for.
what you do need for both is the aircraft to have the correct OFP(software) and wiring(hardware) to use them. Which neither you nor anyone else on this forum has proved exists on Swiss F-18s. All the evidence is to the contrary given the swiss have said it would be too expensive to integrate. Meaning they lack either one or both requirements.
We don’t need to prove that since there’s a lack of evidence that they don’t have the required hardware & software (but if you do have proof of that, do share!).
Instead, we have you who is clutching at straws of a single statement that integrating GBU-12s into the F/A-18C would be too costly for Switzerland, following that you assume it’s because they’re physically incapable of using A2G, which is a logical fallacy (whoopie). Then, shoving the burden of proof onto us when your side’s evidence is, to put it gently, not evidence of anything that you argue it is.
On the contrary, we have a statement(s) that the only reason for not performing A2G roles had been a lack of a targeting pod, but that was recitified at a later date.
2 Likes
He’s referencing buddy-lasing which hopefully isn’t coming to War Thunder.
Why would a neat new feature hopefully not be coming?
Cause the programming of it would be entirely unique to War Thunder and not operable in custom battles etc.
The only way to do it without other people trolling you is squad restricted, which means random battles only.
War Thunder doesn’t have the civility of the DCS playerbase and even some people in the DCS playerbase have trolled others by using the same laser code.
1 Like
This infernal thing makes playing the Type 74s a pain