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.
1 Like
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.
Milan is best played as a fighter in the current matchmaker. It was a strike fighter designed for Switzerland but was not adopted as most people will know at this point.
As Milan, Mirage 5 and Nesher are derived from Mirage III they retain the qualities of a day fighter. Belgium even used it’s Mirage 5 for combat air patrols in Turkey during the Iraq war.
Receiving Magic 1 is impossible not only because it never received them in reality but also because it has the Atar 9K50 engine found on Mirage F.1. With Magic 1 Milan would undoubtedly be placed at 10.3 at minimum.
AIM-9E should be compatible and might allow the plane to stay at 9.7 while improving it’s air to air performance. If it remains limited to AIM-9B it could theoretically even be placed at 9.3 as is F-104A.
The best solution would be to keep energy when possible while not using Milan as a one way bomb truck.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work. But they didn’t even give them to the French F-100D so I doubt they’d do it for the Milan
France never operated AIM-9E I believe. The country Milan was designed for did.
Sure but on the technical compatibility matter, they’re the same
Overall I find it annoying that Gaijin gives technically compatible stuff all the time and then they looked at the French F-100D and just thought “nah you’re not getting em AIM-9Es”
1 Like
Yeah there is no reason to play it with the US F-100D and Chinese F-100A.
The SE Mistral (Vampire with Nene engine) would be a lovely unique jet.
Yeah, only reason is that the F-100D of France doesn’t face the Mirage IIIC xD Poor things get eaten by it
Definitely, one of the jets I want the most! We also lack the SE Aquilon, a Sea Venom with AA-20 and R.511 missiles. And that’s only staying on early jets, there’s quite a load we could get if you look at all ranks
The F-5C never historically had flares or chaff, yet it’s equipped with them in-game and nobody seems bothered by it. Not even the same purists who suddenly become champions of historical accuracy whenever the Milan is discussed.
Not true, this has ben discussed and lamented innumerable times.
There have been unhistorical descisions, but those should be the exception not the rule, and not an argument for yet more such descisions.
At least that’s my view, and that’s what I fight for. Strongest admittely in cases where I know enough about and where I have some emotional attachment.
2 Likes
It’s actually been the topic of countless protests and complaints, I am myself opposed to it.
There’s also a difference between giving ahistorical flares to a 10.7 and a 9.7, the meta is completely different. No flares above 10.0 is a death sentence, which is why they did it.
Great, so can we finally stop pretending that War Thunder is a historically accurate game and admit that gameplay balance takes precedence over historical accuracy?
It isn’t completely but we’re trying to make it that as much possible.
The Milan also doesn’t need flares nearly as much as higher tier planes like the F-5C. And certainly not more than the F-4C, Mirage IIIC, J35D, F-104J, Shahak, etc. Just deal with it, it’s just not happening
The problem is that historical accuracy is often treated selectively. When the F-5C gets countermeasures it never had, balance is considered more important than history. When the Milan is discussed, suddenly history becomes the decisive argument. I don’t mind either approach, but I’d like to see the same standard applied consistently.