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
i agree with your point.
just to complete a bit, one of the main problem with mistrals is that it isn’t one missile. 3 versions of it exist :
- mistral 1 : M2.5 - 25G, seeker derived from magic II, range up to 6km (the one we have in game)
- mistral 2 : M2.7 - 32G, improved seeker derived from mistral 1, range up to 6.5km
- mistral 3 : M2.7 - 30G, infrared imaging seeker, range up to 7-8 km
the differences aren’t huge, but enough to spread the missile on multiple BRs, especially when a lot of vehicle can carry this missile (with varying amount).
5 Likes
Mistral 2 should have 2.7M too
Spoiler
3 Likes
edited the post, thanks for the correction ;)
1 Like
Great stuff from you! Tho I kinda wish you didn’t warn people to spin slowly. XD
LOL, lmao, even.
“since igla can’t do it, others can’t, case closed”
3 Likes
They are missing a vital component though. the missiles do not use the same control system or programming for control surfaces.
This guy has a great explanation of the difference, this post starts out the most intuitive, but you should also read the two other posts he did as they explain it very well:
1 Like
You forgot about superadvanced armour on russian tank where 42 tons vehicle is more protected then poor western tanks with 70 tons of weight made from diecast like car toy.
Especialy russian sideskirts where special carton bags construction provide 200mm protect against kinetic ammo! How epic is this?
Or in naval mode we have astonishing advanced russian battlecruiser Kronstadt, the best of the best ship in war thunder offcourse. What else she can be :) :)
Shame on them they destroy this game with they propaganda
90% of the time in ground RB we seen only KA-50 and SU-25. I cant remember where I last time see AH-1Z in game for instance
6 Likes
Because you got pantsirs or 2s38s making sure them skies stay clear. Or they normally do unless their on your team.
4 Likes
Neither do you, but here we are…
Production T80B and T80U we have ingame would disagree.
Ok so gaijin can just implement whatever they want without showing us their sources and it’s our job to prove them wrong if we want them corrected? (don’t know if they are right in this case, but the principle you are suggesting is ridiculous)
gaijin shouldn’t be able to implement something that we need classified information to disprove.
The burden of proof is on gaijin at that point.
Why are you lying?
Lmao…
Only thing i see here is you defending russian equipment in the game…
I don’t see a reason for them to be “explicitly clear”, when gaijin can just say “nuh uh, i don’t BELIEVE THAT”.
4 Likes
Multiple versions of Air-to-Air Stinger exist as well;
- ATAS based on the Stinger B/C, the basic Stinger essentially (and the in game version)
- ATAS-I based on the Stinger E, improved flight control software and general flight performance as well as enhanced performance against light targets such as drones, cruise missiles and light helis (so essentially longer range)
- ATAS-II which is a complete upgrade improving tracking and target distinction capabilities, improved IRCCM and accuracy, new battery, etc. (essentially also longer range and also better IRCCM)
(all taken from Wikipedia)
However, the Igla only has one version for air-to-air mounting, the Igla-V. As far as I know, there hasn’t been additional ones, and at least according to Russian Wikipedia the only change has been the ability to mount two at once.
1 Like
I thought they did model the progressive pull of the fins. Isn’t that why it’s simplified as a sine wave in the original post?
partly, the progressive pull they are modeling is based on the bang-bang method. the progression is then very short and contributes very little to the turning compared to a PID method since in PID the blades starts doing their movement earlier and contributing to the pull for a longer period of time. this not only makes the turn smoother but also makes the average pull higher even if the peak G’s are the same.
like the last graph in this post:
3 Likes
The jargon overload will not cancel the utter goofiness of the underlying rationale.
3 Likes
infrared imaging seeker would be extremely flare resistant and that additional range allows it to chase after jets that are trying to run away at excess of mach 1.
1 Like
We should just ignore that guy, he is a pro russian troll that spreads misinformation and constantly switches sides in arguments in attempts to make people look bad. He will also pretend to be on the side of people to try to turn them against you. I cant believe he is not banned yet.
5 Likes
You just confirmed in this single sentence that you select when you chose to follow available data and when you do not.
So now my question - why bother providing data or proving anything. Objectivity cancelled out by subjectivity.
6 Likes
it’s probably blatantly obvious that no one wanted the Abrams buff and it was just a red herring to distract from DU though
that is some really unbelievable level of mental gymnastics …
is this what WT is going to be from now on? Is the “we believe” now the be-all and end-all meterstick for Gaijin, good enough for completely ignoring technical data? Throwing sources away, cherry-pick few scraps of data and then filter those through ridiculous amount of nonsense, guesstimates and wishful thinking in order to hammer it into predetermined parameters?
remember this?
pretty sad that 2023 version is pretty much “it’s easier to lie and make stuff up” …
22 Likes
No amount of words can describe the amount of mental gymnastics you guys are pulling in order to excuse buffing anything NATO, simply because “SoViEt EqUiPmEnT cAn’t Do It, ThErEfOrE nAtO eQuIpMeNt CaN’T dO iT eItHeR”, it’s hilarious. I guess we, as a community, know what has to be done, again.
21 Likes