Yes but that will not track a moving target. Only static terrain.
The actual vehicle lock range of both missiles is 20km.
You can tell what kind of track you have before launch. If it says TRACK it can see the vehicle, if it says POINT its locking onto the ground.
The AGM-65D/G can POINT lock (terrain) out to 24km vs the Kh-38MT’s 40km. But they both properly go into TRACK mode (tracking a vehicle) at 20km or less.
Er…
There’s nowhere near enough space between the decapping plate and the upper belt to go from 37+307 to 480+mm.
Unless you’re taking into account the inclination of the belt, which is fair, but in that case you also have to take into account that Soyuz’s protection will also be higher than 420mm since you won’t be firing at point blank and thus have the angle of fall to take into account, and it will very likely have its bow angled on top of that.
Fair enough if it stays that way, but I don’t know how much it’ll matter given the aforementioned armor in that area.
This absolutely sounds like something that will be fixed however.
I listed 4 things for a reason mate.
With the angle of fall accounted for? I’m dubious. It can already be difficult to get pens on Mutsu and Rodney at these distances.
If this is true that’s worse than I thought, but since there’s no video in that thread I can’t really comment. That being said the dev server is closed so I can’t check, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same was also true for Roma and Richelieu. 406+mm guns are pretty cracked.
If you think then report, at least in dev server it was.
Nah, visual model and damage model was always different, and Soyuz’s waterline(as same as Iowa) is best what she can get
Yes. Actually Yamato’s cheek is much weaker than Mutsu and Rodney’s main belt with no angle.
Roma has about 480 mm + armor thanks to spaced armor, similar to Iowa. Richelieu can empty upper shell room and Magazine, so actually best survivability when main belt is penned among all new battleships.
Alright, we’re closed for the second time. Let’s hope they won’t need a third.
You can technically get a track lock up to 30km, highly unlikely though and only basically against ships otherwise. POINT lock is also only possible up to 30km last time I tried, it’s due to the “TGP” range limitations preventing you targeting the ground beyond 30km (used to be 20km).
Point lock may become quite more important next update against the new SPAA, as they will likely not move much, and maybe you can also even actually get 20km (or more) tracking locks on them considering their size. However at that point I’d worry more about kinematic range. Kh-38s of course have nothing to worry about. 20km+ launches it can literally do with almost 0 speed at sealevel, but for the Maverick it’s another story. Unless you’re in orbit, the Maverick’s limiting factor is its range. For instance, going Mach 1 at 1km altitude, the Maverick can only about reach 11.5km, lower than its seeker track range against MBTs (roughly 12km).
EDIT: actually you can target ground beyond 30km with the sensor point of interest using map designation, or simply flying away from the point. However it still won’t allow you to lock, only stabilize.
Bug reporting the fact that the Falklands Islands are currently at about 50% scale didnt work
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/sEnxzbGLwAdE
So I guess we are just stuck with a micro version of the Falklands forever then. Real shame
Aren’t all WT maps scaled down? I’m not really surprised that the Falklands map isn’t up to scale.
I dont think to such a noticable degree and in this instance, it basically blocks it from being added as an ASB map because of how they’ve designed it, it can barely accomodate the 1 AF a side. Let alone the 3-5 you normally have for ASB. Also you have a huge amount of deadspace created by the water and the AFs/Airspawns are also quite close which means its actually one of the smaller maps in game for both ARB/ASB despite being designed to be a “Larger Map”
Overall, they’ve massively dropped the ball on this one
To be fair, I don’t think a full size version of the Falklands could fit the 6 airfields that you normally get on Sim maps either.
Full full size would be double the size of current ASB maps that can easily handle 5. But even limited to 130x130, you’d easily be able to fit 3. Would be roughly similar to a map like Port Morseby
Rather than this:
it could be more like:
Pics in reverse order?
No. If it was to scale but limited to 130x130. Then the second image would be what the map roughly look like and it would be able to accomodate 3 AFs fairly easily
Fair, looking at google maps to see how the map could be “cropped” to fit into a 131x131 format and I think it could indeed work, but the map wouldn’t really be Falklands anymore, but rather just East Falklands lol
It would still be pretty cramped though tbh
It would still be better than simply not adding anything which has been their policy for the last 3 years for ASB and its then ready to be expanded as and when they realise that 130x130 is too small for 12.0 let alone top tier
So is the 1st pic air sim, and the 2nd is a possible air RB layout?
No. 1st pic is what its like now at 50% IRL scale so that it fits in a 130x130 map.
Second pic is what it could look like if it was correctly scaled to IRL, but still cropped to 130x130.
Too Scale and uncropped would be 300x200 ish map:
Even if you spawned on an AF instead of a carrier. It would be about 200km left to right to get to an enemy AF (and if it was set up to be diaganol that increases much further)
To be fair we all knew this was going to be the result.
Yeah we did. Real shame. maybe we can get a 130x130 map of the UK where one team spawns in Glasglow and other team in London
Or a 130x130 map of the world and we can just fly about the globe lmao.
it could be a 260x260km map
