I’ve done testing in controlled settings & random battles alike.
Python 3s have a flares-do-nothing range of 2.5km rear aspect against an afterburning target.
Aim-9Ls are slightly shorter at 2.2 - 2.4km.
T-80s would increase maneuverability substantially with regenerative steering.
Some would see increase, namely Tornado IDS.
Many more would see decreases.
Such as 30 flares if you bring no chaff for F-5E, F-5A/C, F-104S, etc. 15 flares, 30 chaff, 60 chaff no flares.
Some would be unchanged such as Mig-29, F-4J, etc.
I guess this also should get a @tripod2008 ping.
That is how its “suppose” to be. but in reality. 1 flare = bye bye 9L
(not been bothering with capturing clips last few weeks, but I think I need to resume. I keep seeing this sitaution repeat itself)
Too as great a degree as the Chally 2 and other heavy western MBTs? Im not saying that all wouldnt benefit from it, but by differing amounts. We can all agree that the Chally 2 lumber bus performance currently has a negative impact on its capabilites in game. I dont ever bother even trying to assault obj early game. there is no point, by the time I get half way there im ebing flanked by a T-80 thats gotten behind me. 9/10s the farthest I can get is somewhere outside my spawn before I ahve to engage an enemy tank
A 1 time thing is a fluke [especially if desync releated] unless otherwise repeated.
So far no takers on someone trying to 9L me from the rear when I’m in an MLA or MLD.
But yeah, regen steering is likely in the works along with more physics items.
It’s not though. its like 90+% of the time for me though. Its why I avoid PvP in ASB these days. Gr1/Gr7 are unrealiable in PvP so I avoid PvP like the plague, Tornado F3 is 100% Reliant on SkyTrash most of the time
I was in a few sim matches recently and I noticed desync, but all my missiles made contact.
But we can go into a custom battle where you can launch 9Ls at me to your heart’s content for data.
I’ll grab any jet you want me to.
I CBA tonight, maybe another. yeah wouldnt surprise me its ASB issues .Though its been reported in ARB too. Ive seen it as well. did a few matches in the Gr1. 3 matches, 5 9Ls fired, all 5 defeated with flares on reheating targets in various aspects.
You probably could though, there would be other concerns that aren’t particularly relevant to WT.
Often chaff pods aren’t designed for tactical use but for laying strategic Chaff screens to hide movement from radars, and so would be loaded differently for their specific purpose. Nothing would theoretically stop them from being loaded as such, it would just be a matter of switchology as they would be loaded as any other store would so likely would not be deployed though the same process.
an even split between zones would see a 20:20 or 10:40 CM split between Flares and Chaff, with a the single type limit being 0:60 or 30:0 setup.
I would also assume that further detailing Countermeasures / ECM would include be revision of the chemicals makeup of the Flares instead of providing a bonus to their protection rating based on their diameter as it is currently there are also other types of countermeasures like dispensed Active Jammers and Towed & Air Launched Decoys that could also be modeled going forward to additionally provide defensive options.
We shouldn’t forget the lack of ARM missiles. They have been around since the early 1940s. The first nation that should get it is Germany with the BV246 on the JU88 or HE111.
Also the way chaff works in game, it dissipates way to quickly to perform its normal function. Those pods can create a massive cloud that would hang around for a long time.
But I have to agree that “its a game limitation” seems to be an excuse that favors one nation more than another.
Asymmetrical like one nation getting the Pantsir with 20km range. Meanwhile the US Hellfire’s are missing multiple capabilities, but also some helicopters are missing their Mavericks(22km) and Spike(25km) missiles which were both outfitted and used from helicopters.
But they had no problem giving the Hind the VIKHRs.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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”