panther 2
which only problem was Gun was historicially inaccurate
just slap the panther F turret on it with a 75MM and that would basically be IRL panther 2
That sounds like an amazing idea if possible. It’d be an interesting bit of information, could make some more detailed suggestions for improvement possible and might even resolve some issues entirely.
Also I’m so sorry Smin for starting (and fuelling) this whole discussion, please don’t steal my kidney.
1 Like
Are there plans to remove the Ho-Ri and other similar vehicles?
They have to add the M1A2T for Taiwan in the Chinese tech tree.
Both Taiwan and China now will have more MBTs to play
4 Likes
actually the panther 2 would have used a turret more like this tbh
Or just the normal Panther F Schmalturm, both this design (Rheinmetall “schmale Blende”) and the Schmalturm were contenders for the Panther 2 turret, but when the Panther 2 project was cancelled the turret project continued but just for the standard panther and eventually the Schmalturm design won and was to be fitted on the Panther F
1 Like
I mean, a turret was never completed, but a hull was, when it was captured the Americans stuck a panther G turret on it. It’s on display at the National Armor and Cavalry Museum at Ft. Moore, GA.
Spoiler
Defiantly not a Panther F turret though. That was designed post the cancellation of the Panther II programme, incorporating some of the developments from the Panther II. Though there’s not really a direct link, as the Panther F turret programme was transferred from Rhinemetall to DB midway through, and DB threw most of it out.
The Panther II was to be fitted with a new turret, the Turm Panther 2 (German "schmale Blendenausführung " for “narrow aperture variant”).[3] For a long time, it was assumed that the Schmalturm was designed for the Panther II, but it was designed after the Panther II had been cancelled and was intended for the Panther Ausf. F .[4]
The schmale Blende seems to be some sort of adaption of Rheinmetall’s H-SKA 86176 otherwise known as ‘Turm Panther 2 (schmale Blendenausführung)’ (English: ‘Turret Panther 2 (narrow mantlet variant)’) which the drawing dates back to November 7, 1943. The turret served as one of several proposals for the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II. It lacked the triangular roof line which accommodated the rangefinder, the rangefinder itself, and the armored guard underneath the mantlet which was designed to prevent shot traps. It is unclear if the schmale Blende is a parallel development to schmale Blendenausführung or a way for Rheinmetall to salvage the design after the cancellation of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II in May, 1944. The schmale Blende seems to be some sort of adaption of Rheinmetall’s H-SKA 86176 otherwise known as ‘Turm Panther 2 (schmale Blendenausführung)’ (English: ‘Turret Panther 2 (narrow mantlet variant)’) which the drawing dates back to November 7, 1943. The turret served as one of several proposals for the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II. It lacked the triangular roof line which accommodated the rangefinder, the rangefinder itself, and the armored guard underneath the mantlet which was designed to prevent shot traps. It is unclear if the schmale Blende is a parallel development to schmale Blendenausführung or a way for Rheinmetall to salvage the design after the cancellation of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II in May, 1944. The schmale Blende seems to be some sort of adaption of Rheinmetall’s H-SKA 86176 otherwise known as ‘Turm Panther 2 (schmale Blendenausführung)’ (English: ‘Turret Panther 2 (narrow mantlet variant)’) which the drawing dates back to November 7, 1943. The turret served as one of several proposals for the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II. It lacked the triangular roof line which accommodated the rangefinder, the rangefinder itself, and the armored guard underneath the mantlet which was designed to prevent shot traps. It is unclear if the schmale Blende is a parallel development to schmale Blendenausführung or a way for Rheinmetall to salvage the design after the cancellation of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II in May, 1944.
it be completely fine to add it anyway as PANTHER II was gonna be made just like the YAK-141 which got its missiles even though it never had radar or anything to mount them it be a good 6.0 6.3 filler for germany as br changes ruined the line up
Sadly its not something very practical to do and on the contrary, rather than delivering exciting new news and behind the scenes info (the purpose of CM disclosures) it would likely just lead to pages of back and forth discussions who agree / disagree or find fault with a specific reasoning.
In a broad sense we have already covered all the most discussed vehicles already several times over in the past. The answers and reasons hasnt changed. So those that were not satisfied with the reasons before are not suddenly going to change their minds when its said yet again.
Regardless, please lets get back to the topic at hand.
1 Like
when is mig 29 9.12/9.13 getting R73 and historically inaccurate R27ER being removed
We dont have any current plans for these to receive R-73. Their weaponry already suits their BR.
the 12.7 F16A adf has a better load out at same BR R60mk is far to easy to flare you could be FULL reheat and still flare and The early gen MIG-29 radar is weak to CM so R27R runs off all the time could we see a buff to r60s or somethiing cause your almost defenseless at BR when your R27 is gone
or bare minimum allow R27T1 be carried on seprate pylons from R27 R1/ER
1 Like
This isn’t about specific cases, more as in the general train of thought applied to each vehicle. Like a flowchart of possible considerations.
We only have examples of it being applied, but we are missing critical info on what is being applied.
Sorry, wrote before reading the whole thing. I’ll stop now.
We dont buff and nerf missiles if an aircraft is performing good or bad. If there are characteristics of the missiles that dont conform to sources of information, they can be changed.
And differing nations also have differing requirements. Rafale F.3 didnt mount HMD in operations, only in testing. Same deal with the F-2A.
How come the F-2A has been denied HMD but the Rafale gets to keep it? I just want parity in the game but it seems this is different requirements for one nation over the other.
3 Likes
Sadly at the moment there isn’t sufficient evidence to show it has been fully tested on F-2A. There is srill room for speculation.
2 Likes
The issue is almost certainly that every single IR missile is underperforming significantly due to how IR signatures are not modeled on aircraft and how it uses “thrust” and “thrust to flare ratios”.
This means that many aircraft are way too cold and a few are way too hot.
What is needed is an IR signature overhaul with exhausts temps actually being modeled.
Then we can see IR missiles being better modeled. Gunjob has a primary source showing that Aim-9Ls cannot be flared, even by large calibre flares, if the target is on full reheat.
In game, 9Ls are usually a 1 flare defeat even if the target is on reheat
You also get issues like F-5Cs being powered by cold fusion engines and the Harriers being powered by an engine hotter than the sun
1 Like
Same with the F16A(MLU) in the thai tree. That was added for balance as having a 13.7 F16 with no HMD wasnt exactly ideal… but the same couldnt be done for the F-2A?
Once gaijin opened the can of worms with A-Historical weirdness, you cant just go back to the documents when its convenient and balance when its not?
sorry to ping ya but could we give it R13M1s there like 10.7 missile its a aim 9J it would be a massive buff as they have higher flare resistance than R60MK and more range at cost of being rear aspect but ALL aspect is only good for missiles with high flare resistance
even if it didnt have them historically it also didnt have R27ER historically but for balance reasons it be fine
1 Like
HMD has already been integrated on F-16. F-2A is not a F-16.
5 Likes