But there is momentum for me. The missile is spinning, and the fins are creating torque transfer that energy. They use servo motors to move. There are no such things as engine cutoff. you have the ;momentum of the spinning missile, and the momentum caused by the reaction time of the servo on the fins. The efforts caused by turning are vastly different than the efforts caused by a rocket for a linear acceleration, those 2 aren’t comparable at all
Double standards all over again. And we are sick of it.
We believe ( the community) that your (gaijin) assumption is wrong.
So we “assume” that you won’t change the Mistral or Stinger because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Let’s also not forget that Mistral is also capable of locking vehicule , like cars, or light ship. It was proven and tested and video is on the net.
The seeker is that sensible.
But imagine creating a mechanic for some “Inferior NATO” country.
Russian have a perfect word for that “враньё”
But we don’t take bullsh*t anymore. No more.
6 Likes
Mechanics added to War Thunder because of NATO vehicles:
Active-radar homing, thermals, targeting pods, thermal targeting pods, laser guided munitions, track while scan, pulse doppler, neutral steer, proximity fused rounds, laser rangefinders, HESH, IR guided air-to-ground weapons, ground search radar functionality, separated flare & chaff functionality [this one’s still in development], aircraft carriers, airfield arresting gear if its developed in the future, variable air intake animations, wing movement animations [F-8 Crusader], mine protection equipment [though mines aren’t implemented at this time]… just to name the ones I’m quickly aware of.
1 Like
another
we don’t think so
1 Like
What’s the point of providing PRIMARY FUCKING SOURCES when you guys just flat out ignore them for reasons that amount to “we don’t believe them”?
7 Likes
You cannot say that people still need to prove this when they say the following.
Spoiler
They are basing their conclusions on assumptions, not source material. Even worse, they contrdict themselves by using a Russian source for western MANPADS when in the Abrams blog they said they didn’t want to use Russian sources for it.
“We believe” and “we assume” are not sound reasons to deny the sources given to them. That has been the major uproar.
Thing is literally called a SPAAG everywhere I look that isn’t War Thunder.
2 Likes
They absolutely are comparable. The missile spinning is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it keeps pulling towards the target when the control surfaces go to neutral.
The key issue here is that Igla doesn’t have proportional guidance so its ability to pull towards the target is not optimized. With bang bang guidance it could only wobble towards the target or “stutter” towards it depending on the programming.
While the mistral spins at 10r/second. To achieve a 25-32g pull.
1 Like
Thank you for putting this out, it really shows a lot of the complexity that missiles and flight have. As for people getting heated over one section, I do trust the math done that 20G or 25G isn’t possible for the given dimensions.
2 Likes
Cause that’s one of its roles, it’s not the only role though.
Just like one of Strf 9040s role is SPAAG. Pretty bad at it, but it’s one of the roles.
I’m aware of the concept of secondary roles, the 2S6 and ZSU-23-4 has this as well. Don’t uselessly deflect, it’s primarily a SPAAG unless there’s a different stated purpose.
1 Like
They were provided by Flame from one his National Archives spelunking trips:
The data clearly states 20-22G for the Stinger. That cannot be interpretted any other way than that. Instead Gaijin took that data and went “that can’t be right, the IGLA can only pull 10G, therefore this source must be wrong”
21 Likes
Spinning is not irrelevant to turning, spinning things resist being turned, that’s how bicycles work, for example.
That is all irrelevant though, when you have a primary source from the manufacturer saying that “Yeah, sure, but regardless of all that junk… we as a matter of measured, observed fact, overcame that shit anyway though”
Case closed, the details don’t matter here.
3 Likes
Again, I’m only talking about the argument that the missile keeps pulling towards the target when the surfaces are at neutral, the gyro effect is important but not here.
I agree with the rest though.
Stop with the cope, you know damn well that the Stinger and Mistral are far superior than Igla and yet you deny it. There is more to their flight characteristics than merely the size of their control surfaces, namely the guidance/control system .
(Bang Bang for Igla, which is far less precise and overcorrects the control surfaces excessively relative to the missile’s roll rate, and PID for Stinger and Mistral which is far more precise and quicker despite Stinger and Mistral rolling at a much higher rate.)
12 Likes
At this point Gaijin can just be a god damn man and say “We favor the Russian because we know that western technology are superior”
Yeah just admit it openly so we can shut up about it
12 Likes
I think, they just believe in russian propagande. I don’t understand how they can just ignore one source of information, and ''WE BELIEVE ‘’ in other. It’s not what you believe, it’s about how it MUST BE. Warthunder is simulator game(you call it a simulator) so give us thing’s thet all of nations have IRL. And if you so afraid about your precious balance, IT IS NO BALANS LEFT IN THET GAME. Or give all MBT’s good front armor (like ussr has) or shut up about balance!!!
are we just gonna ignore a manpad shot down a cruise missile from russia?
3 Likes
For other MANPADS systems, open sources indicate a higher overload such as 18, 20 and even 25g in the case of the Mistral 1 MANPADS. However, these MANPADS systems have only slight differences in the area of aerodynamic surfaces compared to the 9M39, so a multiple increase in average achievable overload compared to the 9M39 cannot be expected. We believe that the slightly higher overload of other MANPADS systems is mainly due to the slightly higher maximum speed of the missiles in comparison with the 9M39 MANPADS missile.
Assuming the same rate of turn between the Igla, Stinger and Mistral, using your estimation on the surface area of the wings, and assuming that the G force exponentially increases as speed increases, it would check out that these figures would be accurate. Using Wikipedia for max speed, and the mentioned (sourced) maximum overloads provided;
Igla - 570m/s, M1.9, max speed, 10g max overload
Stinger C - 745m/s, M2.2 max speed, 20g max overload
Mistral - 930m/s, M2.7 max speed, 25g max overload
these figures look, at a glance, accurate for overload at the maximum speed.
But if the maximum overloads are taken at the moment of maximum speed, it must be assumed that the Stinger and Mistral can provide more force (due to more deflection of control surface, or some other method) for turning than the Igla can, to result in a higher achievable G force, which would mean they can just turn more in general. Because once the missile does the initial “snap” onto the target, the following turns in comparison aren’t as hard, but the missile only has so much energy. So if it can’t “snap” onto the target quick enough (which, using the provided overloads, seems perfectly possible for sharp turns in the initial boost phase) then it wastes more energy turning in the long run, which is the problem with how the Stinger and Mistral are modeled in the game currently.
6 Likes
I’ve had people tell me it spins in excess of 40 rpm.
Nevertheless, the fact that Mistral’s performance is leaps and bounds ahead of SA-14 is a testament to the superiority of western tech and PID control vs Bang-Bang control theory.
3 Likes