With the introduction of the F-6C at BR 9.7, it would probably be appropriate to adjust the Milan’s missiles and give it slightly better air-to-air weapons. The Milan has terrible maneuverability, no countermeasures, and missiles that are used by aircraft at BR 8.3. At the very least, this aircraft should be given a chance to be playable.
2 Likes
Milan is an attacker. Using it as fighter will be painful…
6 Likes
According to War Thunder, its main role is Fighter, so its armament should at least somewhat reflect that in-game. More importantly, its weaponry should match the standards of BR 9.7.
1 Like
Did the Milan use any weaponry other than 9B’s for AAM’s? From what I can find, it only used 9B’s with the potential to mount Magic 1’s as it is a Mirage airframe.
The Mirage III flight model is excellent, lets you bleed almost all your speed for a turn if you want. Only other aircraft I can think of around that br that can pull better is the draken.
This argument alone isn’t valid. There’s a world between a AIM-9B on a Cougar and a AIM-9B on a supersonic jet. Though the AIM-9B is indeed quite lackluster for 9.7.
If you can suggest a missile that was used by it irl and could help it, then sure, otherwise no
1 Like
Magic 1 could easily be carried, since the F-5C also never carried countermeasures in real life, and yet it still has them in-game.
“Realism” is a very very very weak argument in War Thunder. The game has never been a strict simulator and constantly changes vehicle performance, mechanics, and loadouts for balance reasons. Claiming that an aircraft “wasn’t meant to be or carry something in real life” is meaningless when the game itself assigns it the Fighter role and places it at BR 9.7. Gameplay balance matters far more than blindly hiding behind historical arguments.
I very much doubt that the A-10 was designed to shoot down MiG-19s using AIM-9Ls, and yet that happens in-game.
3 Likes
Magic 1 would just make this thing a Mirage 5F though?
And it would certainly not get flares when the Mirage IIIC and 5F don’t have any
The best thing you can do right now is try to find if a better sidewinder was compatible/carried. If not then forget this already
If it were given significantly better missiles, it could easily be moved up to 10.0. Ideally, though, I would imagine something similar to what the F-6C has.
That’s pointless, just play the Mirage 5F at this point
You’re not gonna make this a F-6C, forget it already
1 Like
F111A at 10.7:
8 Likes
I never realized this plane only has AIM-9B lmao xD
Yeah purely pointless at that BR, if I died to a 9B at 10.7 I think I’d uninstall the game
2 Likes
Jesus this argument again.
I suppose F-117 should carry air to air missiles since the F stands for Fighter?
4 Likes
Balance in this game depends on aircraft at the same BR having a roughly equivalent performance package as a whole, not simply matching weaponry.
You know what else is a fighter in the game? The Mirage 5F. But that thing is used as an attacker, as a fighter it’s just a worse Mirage IIIC
Well I haven’t checked in details but what’s different between the 10.0 Mirages and the Milan, except for the missiles (and the lack of a radar compared to IIIC)
That’s not a counterargument. The fact that the Mirage 5F is poorly suited as a fighter and often used as an attacker is itself a balance issue. It doesn’t justify keeping other underperforming aircraft in an equally uncompetitive state.
Fair point, but that’s to show that an aircraft’s role shouldn’t be trusted to know what playstyle fits best.
The Milan’s flight performance is significantly worse than the Mirage IIIC. That’s a simple fact. Just check any youtube video with Milan. I don’t want the Milan to be overpowered, just balanced. The current state is a complete disaster.
1 Like
Milan is attacker, end of story.
2 Likes