oh hey Gaijin Entertainment look proof the GCS-1 CAN track tanks. And even better ITS IN ENGLISH
why cant the F-2A introduce the GCS-1 also?
2 Likes
Can you provide direct source of this image? I’ve seen information that this picture is from presentation of thermal or smth. But not GCS-1. Also, distance is only 1.8 km. Really-really small
Just tested the asm-1s on a custom battle with tank bots from 9.7 to 12.0.
They do kill mbts on direct hit, but it only tracks moving targuets, and if there are 2 together. It doent know who to follow, so getting them to hit its way too random, specially at longer distances
They can be shot from 14-15km, which is the spawn distance for CAS
I hope they fix the ASM-2 IR seeker soon so i can test that one
3 Likes
Why can the premium version carry more than the tech tree???
edit: I’ll put it in the dev server section probably a bug / they removed it so they probably already know
7 Likes
We might actually get naval groups to use our ASMs in ARB
Carrier Groups in maps
1 Like
Yes, and add 6 unfounded ASMs. No one notices it, including the moderators.
ASMs are not AAM-4s.
What are you talking about lol If the AAM-4 is not allowed, then neither will the six ASM-1/2 be allowed. That is already ahistoric.
Are the ASM-1 stats correct?
I was reading the suggestion and it says the explosive mass should be higher
Speed is correct acording to the suggestion
The electrical connections for an ARH missile like an AAM-4 are not the same as the connections required for an ASM-1/2, simply put.
The photos taken show that the pylons can have the missiles on them as is, the problem/concern for a real life mission would be range, hence why they usually have fuel tanks on those points. However, it does appear that missiles CAN be carried on the pylons at the cost of range.
1 Like
Just because the ASM connector and the MRM connector are different, it is not evidence.
Thanks for the dual plane report by Xeno_quaza. The mystery remains, the same off-boresight capability as the 9M while still having a larger seeker, but it’s better than it is now.
Mate, it’s just a set of anti-ship missiles you are getting so worked up about. These aren’t some op KH-38.
Saying there’s no reason for the devs to refuse to add two more ARHs, and as it stands it’s not even OP. Again, if you allow 6 ASMs, you MUST allow MRMs too. Neither of these actually exist, so there is no justification for this. It should be clear whether it is historical or realistic for the game.
1 Like
The pylons are marked identically between the 3 pylons in the images shown, and are designated as an ASM station. Dunno how much clearer that can get for you.
There was not that same evidence for the AAM which is denoted towards the back of the pylon as it’s a separate connector.
Saying ‘I have 6 apples so thus, I MUST be able to also have 6 oranges’ is… Silly.
3 Likes
It’s you who are ridiculous…
[3 pylons in the images shown, and are designated as an ASM station]
In other words, would it be sufficient to show that STA-5/7 has similar indications as those present in other stations (MRM and TRE connectors)?
In other words, the proof that’s been demonstrated is that at the very least all the pylons visible can handle the ASM connectors. If you can get a photo including any MRM branding between the three in a similar fashion, then the argument is going to be easier to make to Gaijin.
You’re welcome to make the point to them yourself, however, you will still have to prove the pylons are identical and not just similar
3 Likes
Is the only evidence that the three pylons are compatible with ASM connectors simply because they are visible?
Maintenance regulations were invented for a reason and pointless application of markings clearly doesn’t fit into them
2 Likes
i am confused what are you guys arguing about?
is it the 6 ASMs’ or 6 AAM-4?
because both of them are possible.