Mistral SATCP

You might want to stop talking about what you don’t know. You have such little knowledge of how missiles work in War Thunder, you just keep ridiculizing yourself …

You thought that since the statcards show “Mistral = 16G, HN-6 = 12G” you thought Mistral was stronger.
In truth, the “16G max overload” value on the MIstral’s statcard means nothing. It’s the only MANPAD in the game that doesn’t follow the typical rules of MANPAD for some reason.
While other MANPADs rarely go above their statcard max G overload value, the Mistral doesn’t actually have any limit.
That’s because the ability of the Mistral to turn is solely decided by its Fin AoA value. Even if the statcard says “16G”, changing that Fin AoA value could make the Mistral pull 100G.

Another parameter, although not as important as Fin AoA, are the autpilot parameters. Even if a missile can pull 100G, the autopilot parameters may not account for that, and prevent the missile from pulling its maximum G overload.

Currently, the MIstral is the ONLY missile suffering from both an old and low Fin AoA value (the Devs changed the Fin AoA value of the Stinger in January, following the copeblog, bug forgot to change the Mistral, making the Mistral have a Fin AoA value lower than the Stinger’s) and old autopilot parameters (currently, they are suited for 12 max G overload, even though it should now pull 16G).

Lastly, undifferently of the Fin AoA value and autopilot values, a fast missile will always have a worse turning circle than a slow missile.
Since the HN-6 is slower than the Mistral, it will always have a tighter turning circle.

So next time you come and barge into a thread trying to make it seems like “China suffers”, wonder if you have the slightest idea if you’re talking about. You will save everybody’s time and avoid making a fool of yourself.

1 Like

I’ll make it simple :
Mistral go fast. Mistral no turn good.
Mistral engine shuts off quickly, mistral lose speed quickly.
Good luck engaging a plane with the mistral under 2km (can’t turn), and good luck engaging a target over 4km (can’t maintain speed), and good luck engaging a target between 2 and 4km (go to fast can’t turn).
I don’t think I can dumb it down enough here

1 Like

How does being good at a game equate to understanding the fundamental workings of a technology ? That’s how low your argumentative has become ? Do you want a cookie for being good/playing easy to use vehicles ?
Also, comparing my 2020 stats to your 2024 stats ? damn


Why was this flagged? Gaijin nerfs the shit out of French equipment and now you can’t complain about it?

1 Like

Man’s projecting. Skill in a video game is entirely irrelevant - unless Lockheed Martin has started hiring engineers based on performance in WT…

@SneedSellsFeed trying to mount a counter-argument:


1 Like

And if you want precise numbers on my “dumbed down” explanation, I can only advise you to check this post : Everything Still Wrong with the Mistral Missile - #19 by LeGrandSarrazin
He shows the turn rate of Stinger, Igla and Mistral. The Chinese missile is basically a knock off of the igloo so consider it to have the same performances. Now you can see how bad the mistral actually is currently

1 Like

Dunno why you think that just posting your War Thunder stats is a checkmate, especially when I can use those stats to confirm that you’ve never played a vehicle that uses the Mistral, which basically automatically disqualifies you from commenting on how they perform in battle.

Because Gaijin used data for the IGLA to model stingers/Mistrals and came to the conclusion that if Russia cant build a SAM that good, the west definetly couldnt. So they nerfed Stingers and Mistrals hard

If you have a source proving its real G overload, please make a report.

The source should include evidence of what its G pull is across a sustained turn because Gaijin has said that they think 22 Gs is the pull across 1 half rotation, rather than the sustained pull. Gaijin’s argument is complete nonsense, but if you want something to change, you will have to provide a source that specifically states its sustained G pull.

1 Like

The 2 sources found for the stinger (1 from the USAF and 1 from the RAF) were basically rejected by Gaijin as being wrong. I doubt we are gunna find any better sources than those. They are all classified

1 Like

Did those sources specifically state that 22 Gs is the sustained pull? It’s going to have to state that it is specifically the sustained pull in order to have a chance at actually fixing the Mistral. I am fully aware that Gaijin’s argument here is absolute nonsense, but that’s what they’ve decided to go with so the source will have to specify the sustained pull.

It didnt in those exact words, but as the author explains in this thread. I think it should have been taken that way:

Sources as provided by Flame



1 Like

I’m fully aware that it should be taken as sustained pull. Gaijin has decided that just for the Mistral and Stinger, the listed overload is instantaneous pull across a 1 half rotation because they are just looking for an excuse to keep the Mistral as is. The source is going to have to use the words “sustained pull.”

Sorry, I don’t make the rules. Gaijin is so clearly wrong here, but I don’t make the rules.

Yeah… They also used IGLA data, which is also something they very clearly stated they would never do. Use soviet data to model western equipment and vice versa

1 Like

Then using data from the Igla I am pretty sure actually made me dumber. I think it killed enough of my brain cells to drop my IQ by a few points.

Yep… I also kinda love how we’ve not heard a single thing about it. They dropped that bomb shell. Got massive backlash and then quietly forgot it ever existed.

1 Like

Same with the M1’s armor (not actually going to have a conversation about the M1’s armor here for the sake of keeping it on topic). Suffice it to say that I’d love if someone could find a source that specifies sustained G pull because then they’ll have no excuse at all.

Yeah, Challenger 2 Remodel as well. most of the bug reports for that basically got ignored.

1 Like

Plenty of sources on this post by @LeGrandSarrazin mention the missile’s ability to keep up with a target sustaining a 8-9G turn at different altitudes. There is more than enough data in his post for them to simulate the missile and walk the variables in until the missile is close enough.

But obviously, source quality or quantity is not the problem. Mistral and stinger have much higher performance than the russian counterparts and for some reason they refuse to accept that.

bias totally isn’t real tho



And we know that, Smin clearly told us that in the French discord. The issue is that the reports for the mistral had been made by LeGrandSarazin after months/years of work and he basically pulled all the sources he could legally find, and there’s pretty much nothing else that can be used as a source.
The crux of the issue is that gaijin waited for literal years before deciding to flame down a perfectly good, well sourced, documented and detailed report. The fact that multiple primary and secondary sources have stated that the mistral can hit 8G maneuvering targets despite the mistral ‘s high speed, while in game the mistral actually struggle hitting MiG 15s flying in a straight line towards the mistral or the mistral failing to hit a stalling me262 (both happened to me a few days ago, after the last mistral patch) just shows how underperforming the mistral is. But because all those sources were already shown to gaijin, who decided to simply refuse their validity, they won’t even bother acknowledging them for a new report…