Yeah, it is also only a bit rough given the compression. If/when we get even a minor decompression, the gap between teh Milan and Mirage 3C might increase by a lot more than 0.3 and the net difference would be much larger.
1 Like
Wow, its been how long since my last comment?
And milan still doesnt have better IRs.
It isnt looking great for you champ.
Except your OG argument, for whcih you are being laughed at, is that you said “Milan is fighter in game and thus it should get better IRs to be more competetive as fighter”.
Which is stupid argument.
If you said instead “milan needs better IRs to be competetive as 9.7 attacker” instead, that would be argument of game balance.
It still wouldnt change the outcome as there are many 9.7 attackers being balanced around its speed and bomb payload and milan should be no different, but you wouldnt get laughed at.
Then we’ve finally arrived at the actual disagreement.
I don’t dispute that the A-10 historically carried AIM-9Ls. My point was never that the A-10 is ahistorical. My point was that War Thunder balances vehicles around gameplay effectiveness, not historical doctrine alone.
The real question is whether the Milan’s speed alone is sufficient compensation for having no countermeasures, poor maneuverability, and missiles that are common several BR steps lower.
You keep stating that its speed is enough, but that’s the very point in dispute. Many players, reviewers, and experienced Milan pilots would strongly disagree.
So the debate is not about history. It’s about whether the Milan’s overall performance package is actually competitive at 9.7. Simply repeating “it is fast” doesn’t automatically prove that it is.
You’re misrepresenting my argument.
I never said that a vehicle should receive better missiles simply because the game labels it as a fighter.
My point is that War Thunder classifies the Milan as a fighter, places it in fighter matchmaking, and expects it to operate in an environment dominated by air-to-air combat. In that context, its overall air combat capability is significantly weaker than many aircraft it faces.
The question is whether its overall performance package is appropriate for its BR. If your position is that its speed alone fully compensates for its lack of countermeasures, poor maneuverability, and weak missiles, then argue that point directly. But pretending my argument is simply “fighter label = better missiles” is a strawman.
A bit of whataboutism thrown in here, I know, but what about the Harrier Gr.1?
Comparable bomb load, worse aircraft performance, debatable whether better or worse AAM’s, slightly better avionics (but not really relevant), also lacking RWR and countermeasures - and same BR.
Alright now we’re on something we can debate.
Well after stock grinding the Mirage IIIC (which gets 9B stock at 10.0) I have found it very playable, in fact one of the most playable stock planes I’ve ever touched. So at 9.7 it seems fair to me to assume that it would be fine
That’s not really whataboutism, it’s a comparison of balance assumptions at the same BR.
And the Harrier GR.1 actually reinforces the point rather than refuting it. It is also widely considered underpowered in air-to-air combat at its BR and survives through a very specific combination of speed, strike capability, and match compression quirks - not because it is well-balanced in a pure fighter sense.
But more importantly, pointing to another potentially underperforming or differently-balanced aircraft does not answer the original question about the Milan. “Other examples of compression issues exist” is not a justification for ignoring whether this specific aircraft’s performance package is appropriate for its BR.
If anything, it highlights that BR 9.7 is already a compression-heavy environment where multiple aircraft rely on niche strengths rather than well-rounded competitiveness.