That will explain why it feels totally OP at 10.0
1 Like
Seems normal. That’s the same BR as the Challenger Mk2 from 1998. Only a 25 year difference in technology. I mean it faces the Japanese Type 74 from 1962 in a downtier. That is only 61 year difference in technology. Seems balanced.
And it is only having to face helicopters like the Lynx AH Mk1 (1971) and HKP9A (1970) instead of its modern adversaries that would actually be able to counter it.
2 Likes
I think earlier than that, Challenger DS which was a Mk3 is from Operation Granby. Gulf war 1991.
Yeah, quick look at the wiki chally Mk2 was 1983 - 1990/1991 Mk3 was the upgrade for DS. and the Mk3 we have is the aftermath of DS at least thats what I think it is
Chinese J8-F is 2003…
EF Typhoon is 2003…
1 Like
I think they have the late 90s upgrade in the game. I would need to scrub finer details. But if not, that just makes it even worse. They do it under this guise of “balance” but in reality it has been how they keep one nation on top through all the changes. You really cannot justify putting the 2S38 at 10.0. That would be like putting the US XM30 at BR 10.0. russian players would commit suicide.
2 Likes
1: It’s 18km.
1a: It’s only 18 km against helicopters & straight-on targets.
It’s ~7km against fast moving targets.
Hind doesn’t have Vikhrs, and Vikhrs have even less functionality modeled.
Helicopters never used Mavericks.
And 25km Spike would be OP.
And USA got HSTV-L, which never entered service.
Type 74s it sees are from the 1980s. And time doesn’t dictate how powerful something is, you should know this being in ballistics.
@Morvran
They’ve been developing anti-radiation ever since A-4E was introduced.
It takes time to develop radar code.
"We have already commented on the ARM issue in the recent Q&A. This is a rather complex type of weapon and, in our opinion, rather overrated in the eyes of our players. Given the high level of weapon realism in the game, these weapons may not give the desired balance effect with in-game SAMs for several reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of ARMs are designed to destroy "big” anti-aircraft missile systems, such as the Soviet S-75 and S-300, or American Patriot and Hawk - these are considered as the main threat to tactical aviation due to their long range. Actually, therefore, the frequency ranges of the ARM seekers coincide with the frequency ranges of such anti-air systems, while the game short-range SAMs may operate in the frequency ranges out of the ARM radar coverage abilities. Secondly, the guidance accuracy of the anti-radiation missiles might be sufficient to destroy larger air defence systems with tall antennas, but it is completely insufficient to destroy mobile SAM, especially considering that the warhead of many ARMs is equipped with a proximity fuse, and target destruction is achieved due to the fragmentation killzone.
However, we still consider the ARM systems interesting as the gameplay and balancing option, so the further research of this type of weapon is still in our plans. If we discover new data on the ARM operating modes, they might be added to the game, same as other radio warfare means, such as the ESM pods and jammers."
“The developers have confirmed that they are looking into adding Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) to War Thunder; but have doubts about their accuracy and whether they could target the SPAA we have in game.”
Anti-Radiation Missiles - Technical data and discussion.
Might be in development, but I think they’ve been a little… cagey on the subejct recently. I recall (i think) Gunjob asking about them when Gr1 was added and was basically nothing from them. I could see them ommitting them entirely for “balance reasons”
2 Likes
Many of them wouldn’t target some SPAA radar as well depending on the stuff.
I know that F-16’s HARMs to be usable requires a radar receiver mounted to the plane for the HARM to be programmed in-flight in order to be used against different radar systems.
ALARM should work though, at least it was used against much of the same SPAA system we have in game in Iraq. Including things like Rolands If I recall correctly. Though I doubt they model the loiter parachute
1 In game it says 20km guaranteed 18km.
1a Since radar is modeled incorrectly in game, it should be much much more difficult against helicopters, especially at low altitude.
Here is a photo of a helicopter firing a Maverick missile.
Time may not dictate power, it does dictate technology. For instance, Gen 3 thermals at 10.0 is pretty powerful. So is the radar and proximity shells the 2S38 gets. In fact, you can easily destroy drones with it controlling the skies while tucked away in a city and not having to worry about the noise from the radar which would be a real world problem for it. It would also struggle to see helicopters at the tree line with its radar, but in game it isnt a problem.
2 Likes
That’s clearly a test to see if it’s possible, not on an actual mass-production aircraft.
Gen 3 thermals are at 7.0 BTW. Wiesel.
Best scout Germany has.
1 Like
One thing you may not know. Not all RWR can detect radar lock from a Pantsir. I know for a fact that includes Tornado Gr1. Probably all other Tornados. I also know for a fact that a Tor-M1 can hit a Torando Gr1 flying at 30k ft, at mach 1+ doing as evasive a turn as possible (whilst keeping laser on target) to throw of that Tor-M1 and still getting hit and killed by it. Pantsir should be able to match that at least. So thats at least 10km+ against a moving target
1 Like
Everything you posted I already knew, or in the cast of Pantsir’s missiles, a bit off.
Pantsir is 10+Gs less on its missiles compared to TOR-M1.
Nothing at top BR triggers RWR to begin with cause it’s all IRT/different band.
Did you just call the Cobra a non mass produced vehicle? Also maybe you should read this:
Not a test, Mavericks have confirmed kills on tanks off helicopter platforms. To further the problem the Apache can also carry and use Mavericks. This doesn’t even touch the newer stuff, and since the 2S38 is in game should be on the table.
Also, HARM missiles should be on the table, because I know of some that could target an SPAA just fine.
6 Likes
Im dreading the nerfs to Brimstone when they are added. Imagine the moaning when they have to deal with a Torando Gr4 firing off Brimstones :P
Probably not that far off, either Tornado Gr4 or Harrier Gr9 I reckon sometime next year
1 Like
Can we get the F15 and F18 first? I mean I know the Mig 29 was a pretty big skip ahead into the 80s, and that they are using 90s seeker heads. But we need the F15 with AAMRAMS first.
We also need radar for SPAA fixed.
The Wiesel is missing its search and track. Something the russian vehicles don’t seem to be lacking… hmm…
2 Likes
I don’t want Brimstone on Tornado, and I’m mad that UK didn’t pay Boeing to add Brimstone support to AH-64s.
But, EF with Brimstone I want.
@DocUSMC
That Wiesel didn’t have search & track for air targets.
F-15 with AMRAAMs isn’t until 13.0 I suspect, so you’ll be waiting a bit.
You mean like how Helicopters didn’t have Mavericks? IRST is old, and yes it did.
3 Likes
Hehe, chronologically would make sense. Western nations are about 1995. AMRAAM was deployed 1991.
Tornado Gr4 with ASRAAM and Brimstone. Cheque please.
Going to have to be first
SHar FA2 > Gr9 > Gr4 > Typhoon. Only order things can be added i reckon from top tier onwards
Hoping for Hawks and morw Jaguars thrown in around them and to fill the holes
Well SHAR FA2 goes in naval line clearly, after FG1.