According to the comparator of the app, the Milan has better speed, climb and turn than the Mirage 5F.
Actually, have you even played the Mirage IIIC or Mirage 5F?
Once again:
“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.
Mirage IIIC and Milan yes. Completely incomparable in every aspect.
Tbh it is bad attacker for 9.7. No flares, no fnf munitions, just some bombs and snebs. And 1 mclos nord which is bleh considering rendering and desync issues. Nowhere near to a4e or squadron hunter. Also there are alpha jets and saab105 at lower br and still with ccip. And just 0.3 br higher there is ayit…
There’s absolutely no use in copypasting the same paragraph. We read that and disagreed.
What I said is the exact same for the Mirage IIIC. I just took the Mirage 5F as an example because that’s the actual counterpart. For your information the Mirage IIIC and Mirage 5F have almost identical flight performance.
The massive performance is purely in your mind, they’re identical according to every single piece of information I can find on the wiki or the app. Unless you can prove it, you’ll just be lying from now on.
Just find any video from any relevant YouTuber who reviewed the Milan. If you actually look at them, the conclusion is pretty consistent across most reviews: the Milan is widely considered underperforming. Then compare it to reviews of the Mirage IIIC and its flight performance.
1 Like
Its not.
The Milan was a modification of the Mirage IIIE to make it a ground attacker for the Swiss, though they ultimately went with modernising the Hunter and buying F-5s
In-game designations are consistantly innaccurate and dont really mean much. For example the Sea Harrier FRS1 was a Fleet Defence Aircraft / Interceptor IRL, but is classed as a strike aircraft in-game.
4 Likes
I’m just watching right now a video on it from a month ago, it confirms everything we’ve said: fine flight model, mediocre missiles, mostly good at bombing and then gunfighting
That’s exactly the point though — in-game designation and historical intent are not what defines balance.
Yes, the Milan is based on the Mirage IIIE and yes, the Sea Harrier FRS1 had a different real-world role, but none of that determines how a vehicle performs in War Thunder. The game already overrides historical roles, loadouts, and even intended doctrines whenever needed for gameplay reasons.
What actually matters is the in-game performance at its BR: flight model, missile capability, countermeasures, energy retention, and match environment. If a vehicle ends up significantly outclassed in those areas, pointing to its historical classification doesn’t change that imbalance.
So using real-life role or designation as an argument is irrelevant in the context of War Thunder balance, because the game itself does not follow those constraints consistently either.
Sorry, but “fine flight model” is just a lie and you know that.
The Milan though is largely fine. The issue is:
- major compression at and around 9.7
- Lack of meaningful value or gameplay for a ground attackers at the moment.
Increasing its performance, such as giving it Magic 1s, would ultimately increase its BR to 10.0
1 Like
I am OK with Milan on 10.0 with Magic 1s.
Look I have no idea why he says it turns worse but the stats say the fm is the same or better. Give me some actual stats or a demonstration that it’s worse, some guy saying something in a video is no more a proof than you saying it
And by the way, even admitting the Milan has a worse fm than the Mirage IIIC, giving it Magics would mean turning it into a straight up worse Mirage IIIC/Mirage 5F (and again, I have no idea why you compare it to IIIC and not 5F, when the Milan is in fact closer to a Mirage 5F). If it got magics, you would be here complaining that it has no flares and suffers
The better solution may just be to reclassify it as strike. It’s a strike jet, not a fighter. This has been proven by previous posts so I’m not going to copy their sources, but it would be a quick change that would fix the complaints about it being a bad fighter.
1 Like
The Mirage III flight model lets you bleed almost all your speed while TRYING to turn and doing a joke of a job at it.
Only the Mirage IIIC can handle somewhat decently, the others are around 1 ton over the already mid dogfighting FM of the IIIC
It can pull really well for a few turns. Simply you shouldn’t go in turnfights you can’t win fast, because the engine isn’t strong enough to sustain it. But the airframe is very much fine, I was able to do pretty well even with only AIM-9B before I got the magics.
Matter of facts, I had a positive kd from the start and all the way through stock grind which is a rare thing for me
The milan has maximum instantaneous turn rate of 25º/s at min fuel which can last about a turn, but results in fast speed loss and eventually you will be hovering at a 14º/s turn rate. They handle like a mig-21 but a bit worse
That’s what I said isn’t it? Can pull hard if needed but don’t do it for long. Do quick passes and pull hard to hit the shot perfectly if needed (or to save your life from a missile), then go away.
Suffering comes mostly from compression
You said it is an excellent flight model. They are easy to trap by making them bleed speed, and are a subpar mediocre FM for dogfighting, worse than the average jet it faces