Oh, so what I’ve been calling them this entire time.
I literally agree with you.
I am unsure why people would be upset anyone would the FGR and FG1 Phantoms when talking to them in plural… FGs… literally the first two letters, with the 3rd alphanumeric being a 1 or an R.
No.
Because you didn’t.
and you mentioned as mixture of British/American designation
F-4FG.
it is F-4K Phantom FG.1, and F-4M Phantom FGR.2
You can call it in
full british designation
Phantom FG.1/Phantom FGR.2
or just shorten it.
FG.1/FGR.2.
Or in American designation
F-4K/F-4M, F-4K/M.
Or just call those British Phantom, because F-4K/M are a British-exclusive variant.
Well, some players might disagree because if you calls like that, you are unintentionally excluding F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3.
Or you can call those Spey Phantom, because F-4K/M are equipped with Spey engines.
But not those cursed mixtures like F-4FGs.
@Stockholm_Blend
So your post’s line of reasoning leads to “Phantoms” being “cursed mixture”.
If that is not your intent to have your post have that, I’d recommend re-thinking.
Especially since people saying “Phantoms” don’t mean the OG Phantom, but Phantom II & all of its derivatives.
When people say “Warthog” they’re speaking about the Thunderbolt II.
It’s just using the first two letters of the designations both aircraft use, and common practice for the vast majority of people in this hobby of ours.
P51H meaning P-51-H-NA until there’s another P51H added to War Thunder.
And yes, I’m trying to exclude F-4J UK because that deserves to be 11.7 due to poor engine performance & not even having the radar missiles of F-4S.
If I say “British F4s” it’ll include at least one Phantom I don’t want included.
it should also remove the AIM-9G from the F-4S as it does have an improved version named the AIM-9H which just has a faster seeker refresh rate vs the G (12 degrees a second ,G, vs 20 degrees a second, H), with it getting the 9Ls
I think you are the one who need re-thinking.
There are tons way of calling Phantoms,
But you specifically picked the worst way of calling it.
F-4FG, when Spey phantoms are neither F-4F or F-4G.
I explained why it is ridiculous nickname.
Calling Phantom FG.1/R.2 as F-4FGs are almost same like
calling
Harrier GR.1/3 as AV-8GRs
Harrier GR.7/9 as AV-8BGRs.
Harrier T.11 as TAV-8BT
AH Mk.1 as AH-64AH
and such.
You are unintentionally or intentionally strawmanning here again.
I am telling that you shouldn’t use your specific term ‘F-4FG’ because Spey Phantoms are not F-4F or F-4G, those Are F-4K and F-4M.
If you want to call them just ‘FG’? It might be confusing a bit, but who cares; there are no other british planes with [Whatsoever FG.X] designation in this game…
Oh, if you call those ‘FGR’, then it might be confusing with Eurofighter FGR.4
What I am calling ‘cursed mixture’ is
F-4 + FG.
You can call those Phantom FG or just FG if you really want to.
Don’t use that specific cursed way of shortening the terms.
If you want to use “F-4”, then call those F-4K/M,
If you really want to use “FG”, then Phantom FGs, FG, and such
Just don’t do “F-4FG”.
And honestly, it seems calling those Spey Phantom wouldn’t need extra handiwork compared to typing F-4FG to me.
Yeah.
With the introduction of the AIM-9L, the AIM-9G will become largely obsolete. That said, there’s not much point in removing it since it’s a premium vehicle, and the effort required to change it just isn’t worth it.
I want to come back to this and point out that the AIM-9L isn’t some terrifying missile that would completely break 12.0 if it were given to the F-4J and F-4S. It’s relatively easy to flare, and there’s already a growing number of aircraft below and at the same BR equipped with it too.
At this point, it honestly feels like Gaijin may have simply forgotten to add it, much like they did with the F-14A, which sits at 12.7.
People will successfully flare your AIM-9Ls in a head on engagement eight times out of ten. That was my experience with the AJS 37 at 11.0, an aircraft equipped with AIM-9Ls. In comparison, the Fox 1 missiles are far more effective at doing that. Players can also pull off stuff like this.
This is a hastily put together example that gives a general idea of the Battle Rating decompression I had in mind. The goal is to give very capable Fox-1 and very capable Fox-3 aircraft more breathing room, reducing the frequency of full uptiers where Fox-1-equipped aircraft are constantly forced to face more capable Fox-3 aircraft.
Full uptiers occur primarily due to popularity.
If 5.0 is more popular than 4.0 and 6.0, more uptiers will occur due to the 4 player restriction [8 players total].
Ultimately, this is why uptiers aren’t that dangerous when things are balanced [6.7 ground].
But this does mean when things are unbalanced [F-14B sharing the BR with Tornado F3 Late or Sea Harrier], then one side gets an F-14B while the other gets notably worse aircraft of the same BR.
Cause while 7.7 ground shows no notable vehicles over others, 13.0 air shows a number of vehicles vastly more powerful than most 13.0s.
And cause most 13.0s are worse than the powerful stuff, they’re more likely to cause issue in 13.0 matches if on opposite side.
F-14B, Su-27, etc wouldn’t be as devastating to teams if all 13.0s were their power level, but they aren’t. That and I’d still lobby for them to be 13.3 anyway.
They’re good aircraft, but they aren’t strong enough to justify a 13.3 BR. With these changes, the Phantoms would be much more capable, so there’d be no need to move F-14, F-15s, and Su-27s that high.
Why? You act as if aim9ls will turn the phantoms into prime F14A. 12.0 will be fine with aim9l as it is very easy to flare off a 9L. Any competent player at 11.0-13.0 can flsre off an ir missile and if they cannot thats their fault. Also you can easily dodge Aim7s as well by rolling, no chaff needed.
If you’re slow, and need afterburner, no it’s not easy to flare off AIM-9Ls launched at you within their launch parameters.
R-60Ms might see a flare on an afterburning target, AIM-9Ls almost never do.
Rolling requires you to start from an energy advantageous position, which is a failure of the AIM-7 launcher to not notice when firing on you.
Zero have successfully rolled from my AIM-7s, and less than 10% have flared an AIM-9L while in the rear aspect on afterburner [you can guess which engines they were running, hint: Tiger].
Those situations are pretty uncommon, and they can happen with most Fox-2 missiles around the 12.0 BR range.
Oh hey, from an energy state, and poor launches at the same time, just as I stated.
Sure, mate.
You’re the same guy who claimed the British versions are some of the best phantoms in the game, so that tells me everything I need to know. No amount of evidence or reasoning is going to change your mind about why these aircraft genuinely need these improvements. The stock grind is exactly where the problem becomes obvious. The F-4EJ Kai is stuck with AIM-9Ps and AIM-7Es at 12.3, while the F-4J and FGR.2 are forced to use AIM-9Ds. That leaves them at a significant disadvantage until they’re fully upgraded, which is another reason why these changes are needed.
The best flight models*, which remains true as proven by Statshark & in-game testing.
And yeah, the stock grinds of F-4J/FGx, Mig-23s, and a number of others are awful compared to EJ Kai. Something I’ve stated multiple times here, and hundreds of times across the years.
You’re just repeating my takes back at me.
Turn off afterburner or just spin and flare. Also what plane at 11.0 isnt able to sparrow roll??? Don’t get into positions where you know you wont get out of them. Also the flaw people have is rolling when its far away, wait for it to get near then juke it out, also drop chaff every 45 degrees in the spin as well for extra effect.
euff
