We have yet again run into a circular problem of me having to remind you that the issue with this blog is that they don’t actually know this for sure. They “guessed” and “assumed” using their own napkin math. This blog they provided is nothing better than deflection, they outright ignore sourcing material based on their own conclusion.
1 Like
i laugh when ppl say theres no russian bias in this game.
apds normalization that gave +1º than the plate of the t54 back in the day
the russian tank barrels having more hp
the is6 issue
the wood log in the back of russian tanks having more effectiveness than rha
russian side skirts made of era that eat apfsds
the overperforming aphe
not modeling renerative steering that favoures lighter tanks (russian)
and so many others. it all comes down to this dev blog where they admit to actually making russian gear stronger by making the competition trash.
this was never a fair game but at least now they admit it…
2 Likes
Comparing apples to oranges wont do you any good. Where is the primary or secondary source of the iglas’s 16g
You said it right about the apples. That’s why all rockets have average overload or maximum overload, but not average for one and maximum for the others
You cannot do that with fucking missile systems. They are obviously different in its functionalities, mechanics, number of stabilization fins and so on. If you make a comparison of that it only shows how lacking on basic logic you are. It’s the same as saying well, I have this Volkswagen Beetle and this AMG GT-R, both have wheels and a engine. If i put the same engine on both they go on the same speed and turn the same… thats just stupid.
The developer according to igla documents calculated that if the average overload is 10.2g, the maximum is 16g.
Can you refute this?
And it was explained that due to the Iglas use of Bang-Bang control methods, it is less efficient than PID steering. Have you actually read the thread at all?
1 Like
Yes. They dont have documentation evidence that the missile is able to track targets turning 16gs. They dont have evidence of the missile being capable of 16g’s maximum overload at all. For all we know the maximum could be anything from 10 to 16gs but there is nothing on the papers of the missile that says it can do 16g
That’s why it has a max of 16g and not 22.
Does that make sense?
Okay, then all tanks, which in the documents speed is specified in mph and not kph we reduce the speed, because it is not known how many kilometers, not miles per hour he goes.
And that doesnt make any fucking sense. One thing is coverting a measurement unit, other is guessing that one system can or cannot do.
You know, if you actually read the thread you would also see my suggestion to remove the efficiency problem of the Igla so it can keep pace with the western systems. Otherwise it’s going to be left behind since it is a poor system. They choose instead to hold back western systems
If 10.2 average, the formula says 16g max. The formula is derived from the documents
You cannot know that because you dont have evidence that the internal systems or even the structure can support 16gs.
Everything is proven according to the number of turns per minute and the principle of operation.
If you don’t like the formula, prove it wrong
yeah, and this is the most ignorant thing up to now, I’ve seen regarding this game.
This is like saying, if I can’t do something, noone else can, without trying to proof or disproof it.
Also this is assuming, that the russian, known tech, is the best possible, which is very unliekely at best (looking at improvements in all technologies in the last decades)
Yeah yeah the formula cannot even be used on stingers and mistrals because they are rolling airframes and the formula is for non-rolling ones.
2 Likes
I didn’t suggest using it on the stinger. According to the formula that is derived from igla data, we can convert igla’s average overload to its maximum overload.
The formula is correct as it is made for igla.
That would be 16g. The stinger has 20 or 22, the mistral 25.
How is this different from the current situation?
this formula makes assumtions though, and those don’t have to hold. With the different sources you can expect, that they don’t hold
My blessed man, how can you not see that applying a formula for a different type of missile, using a different missile, to guess the average g on other systems that don’t have the same control system and control surfaces wrong?
4 Likes