I was hoping for a 45 bundle like russia, Challenger, Comet, Skink (could replace the Challenger with the Centurion 1)
Hell a dream would be Cent 1, Cent 1 (20mm) and Skink
TBH I have a suspicion the Japanese pack will be an Early JSDF themed; M4A3 76, M36 or sM41 with out APDS, & The SUB-I-II. There just isn’t the SPAAGs to go lower. Although all the packs so far are rank III, so all of the vehicles I suggested being rank IV probably puts a spanner in the works for that idea.
Honestly I could see it being very similar to the Russian pack, a T-34-85, some sort of heavy, and either the Vietnamese SPAAG or the ZSD63
Edit: anyone else getting 405 Errors every time they try and post?
2 Likes
Yes it’s very annoying
Probably not, since the T-34 is 4.0 and Panzer IV is 3.7. Maybe they would do multiple T-34s though.
1 Like
Like they said, instead of listening to the people who wanted a home for said nations(like some more unpopular picks), they listened to those who cried they didn’t get a vehicle they have no relation to.
I would love that, however.
This has a massive BR gap. The Grizzly wouldn’t go higher than 3.3(At most 3.7 if given the curse the British M4A1 has) unless it’s the Firefly variant, but even then, that’s only about 4.7.
If you’re talking about the SPAA Ram that has the OQF 3.7(heavy SPAA’s are always TDs), then it and the Skink make sense, as both are 5.3, but they still need one other to join them. Any possible packs that are less than a full BR between them either need 2 vehicles not in game yet, or need 1 foreign-originated C&P.
edit:
I had been, too, I didn’t get it this time, tho. odd.
Did the Canadians operate the Comet? that would work BR wise
edit: Could always go the Grizzly Firefly with ADPS? Would be a 5.0
Constantly, and have been since the forums went down a few days ago.
I did DM a senior forum manager to let them know, but not heard back from them since an initial acknowledgement
No, this is the gap in BRs where it’s either prototype or post-war equipment. As after the Churchills were retired, Canada either used domestic builds like the Ram or hand-down lend-lease like Shermans from the British. All of which don’t exactly go above the 3.X-4.X range.
The Grizzly Firefly(only one was built) service was nothing more than a trainer left at home, so I’d doubt it would get APDS.
So, staying with a 5.X line-up, we’d have two options for the 3rd tank, a British-built Firefly model with APDS or one of the post(/Korean) war “E8s” aka 76 Shermans.
Since we have what we could call a SAM situation, so i decided to do some testing and i used Gemini and asked him the following:
Spoiler
we have a missile like IRIS-T SLM (same shape of SLM with aerodynamic cap and everything else), the missile can utilise thrust vectoring control, this missile is lunched at 90 degrees just like the SLM, this missile have complete weight of about 155kg, have diameter of 180mm and length of 3.4m, this missile also have a weight of 115kg at end of the booster burn and weight of 92kg at the end of the sustainer burn, and the burn time of the booster is 5 seconds and sustainer burn time is 10 seconds.
If this missile have an effective range of 40km and effective altitude of 20km and have a maximum not effective but maximum range of 50km and maximum service celling of 25km (altitude) how much velocity will it need to achieve this range, and how much thrust the booster and the sustainer will have to generate to reach that range? keep in mind this missile was tested, and they found out that it can successfully hit a maneuvering target at a range of 30km (not it’s max range) and 12km of altitude (not it’s max altitude) in almost 60 seconds.
And got this answers (this is the entire answer with equations and complete explanation):
This is a small summary too:
Spoiler
Missile Performance Summary
To hit its targets, your missile, similar to the IRIS-T SLM, needs some serious speed and power!
How Fast Does It Need to Go?
- For its effective range (40 km) and altitude (20 km), the missile needs to reach a top speed of about 900 to 1,050 meters per second (around Mach 3 to 3.5).
- To achieve its maximum range (50 km) and highest altitude (25 km), it needs to be even faster, hitting speeds of approximately 1,100 to 1,200 meters per second (around Mach 3.7 to 4).
How Much Thrust Does It Need? - The booster, which gets the missile off the ground quickly, needs to generate a powerful thrust of about 20,400 Newtons (20.4 kN). That’s roughly enough force to lift over 2 tons!
- The sustainer, which keeps the missile going after the initial boost, needs to produce a continuous thrust of about 5,870 Newtons (5.87 kN). This is crucial for maintaining speed and reaching higher altitudes.
These powerful engines allow the missile to accelerate rapidly, overcome air resistance, and climb high enough to intercept targets far away.
Some clarifications and my personal opinion about this:
Spoiler
-
This is something for a bit of fun plus to have a general understanding about the math and physics behind this issue plus what characteristics the SLM need to reach the quoted range.
-
This is not to be used to make a bug report this is just for discussion and even if used it will ofc not be accepted.
-
The approach behind this that i didn’t ask directly about the SLM rather than made the theoretical missile and told it its similar to SLM with all the exact ingame values, so the answers will be less basis and bit more authentic, and these are the sources:
Spoiler
Effective range:
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBDmnKd8mBI
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/landsysteme-bundeswehr/lenkflugkoerper-iris-t-slm
Maximum range:
Test parameters for the 30km and 12km in almost 60 seconds:
-
Gemini calculations seems to be a highly accurate plus almost realistic too but it seems it have some problems in conversion from m/s to Mach so be easy on him in that regard.
-
Funny enough Gemini calculations when it come to thrust seems to be close to Gaijin assumptions about the SLM thrust and i will guess that Gemini might be abit more accurate for example:
The ingame booster thrust is 18,800N Gemini sed it need to be 20,405N with the difference being almost only 1,200N for the ingame sustainer thrust it’s 5,405N Gemini say it need to be 5,870N with the difference being almost only 330N. -
Now the difference it no that big in the end when it come to thrust but that’s still a problem when it come to a max range of 50km but it’s not the problem that limit the missile from achieving the effective range of 40km.
-
The real problem is the acceleration and gaijin hard lock of top speed and acceleration of the missile since it’s locked on 710 m/s almost M2, which will make the missile not even able to achieve an effective range of 15km, which Gemini in here suggests that the missile need a speed no less than M3 and say it will need a top speed between M3.5 to M4 to achieve the maximum range of 50km and 25km in altitude.
-
How to fix this simple just increase the top speed and possibly the thrust too, there may be some problems in flight characteristics and performance but i didn’t include these calculations like drag and other things to make it less complicated.
-
Will increasing the burn correct this problem, well the answer is no if the missile keeps the 710 m/s since it will not reach the 30km and 12km altitude in the time recorded by the test which is nearly 60 seconds, so unless acceleration is correct along side thrust increasing brun time won’t be that effective.
-
In the emd this is just a discussion, that’s all the points i have and if anyone is interested feel free to share your opinion. Thank you
5 Likes
The one thing I assumed it didn’t do is include loft and ballistic range. Only I could spot pretty obviously that might account for the difference in thrust. The rest should be good, and that the Mach 2 limit does suck and it is applied to nearly every new SPAA missile.
Missile speed limits are just so absurdly retarded.
Like, does Gaijin think there is some magical force field keeping the missile from going faster than mach 2???
Especially when the missile has the thrust available.
The same can be said about battery times.
As if manufacturers make weak batteries that can’t even support weapons a bit beyond effective range.
1 Like
Devs are purposefully gimping the new aa systems. They do seem incompetent at times, this being one of them, but they’re fully aware of the systems being better irl, they just choose to nerf them for one reason or another. Same with aim120c-5. My personal theory is they believe the maps are too small currently and they’re sorta correct. I still would rather have bigger maps and fixed game modes to accommodate the better equipment, but at least for now it seems they’re nerfing missiles to fit the game instead of making the game fit the equipment.
2 Likes
I think that is the least of my problems RN cause IDK about you but my missiles have never ran out of range but rather propulsion, and that as seen from HQ17 to Tor, nothing really changed with 3 km extra guidance.
They are even inconsistent in that front. Way back when they were about to release the first event Merkava they (rightfully) ignored the British mains that were whining that said merkava should go to the British tree. Yet they didn’t do the same regarding the US skink.
They could have also added the T85E1 to the US tree to 4.3-4.7 instead of the Skink, but that would require effort.
1 Like
i could also see a M24 with the unused model from the files, a M44 and the M42 Duster for Japan as pack.
Basically an emerican pack for Japan…
I’d much rather see Chi-To tanks with a sub-II decorational theme.
Every comment I leave has this exact error
I think i would like to see a Chi-Nu, Na-To and So-Ki in a pack.
Especially the Na-To because on the photo you can see these "poles" wich i imagin are for a canvas roof wich would look sick in my opinion
5 Likes
among one of the major issues with the SAM/CAS balance