Quite a number of 7.0 capital ships have decent AA protection to protect their own. Some exception are Bayern class, HMS Barham, IJN Hyuga/Mutsu/Amagi, which are except for Mutsu and Amagi, not a front line service capital ship anymore for each nation ingame. That’s why I exclude 7.0 as ‘spamming’ situation.
2 Likes
understandable
Wait I just realized… The US can get refits of their battleships that have modern weapons… That would actually be insane
2 Likes
Yeah, EC with a 25 min timer, the br system so you won’t get clap by a schannorst in your destroyer and my hopes that we can make the dev understand that the curent formula for naval does not work anymore.
2 Likes
EC would become very interesting with AShM
It would require some balancing changes but it could be “fun”
1 Like
I can’t wait tbh
It’s going to make naval a lot more interesting (Prob won’t be too unbalanced either with a small BR increase)
If only gaijin updates naval radar FCS so it’s easier to shoot down incoming missiles…
It’ll take more than Shipwrecks to bring down an Iowa class
1 Like
1 Like
Masurca is great, probably the closest thing any non US navy vessel will get to the ridiculousness of the RIM-8 Talos.
210kg warhead, Mach 3 speed, well over 100km range and a ramjet sustainer to keep it cruising at mach 3 for a large part of the flight. It’s also been proven in combat to be capable of hitting small agile targets, and uses a LOSBR+SARH guidance system that gives the enemy very little warning before impact.
Did I mention there’s an option to use a nuclear warhead or turn the missile into a fire and forget anti-radiation missile? I don’t think you can mix the nuclear warhead with the ARM seeker, but even then; 210kg on a fire and forget missile capable of high speed and exteme range is insane for the 1955 tech it was built on.
Definitely one of the missiles of all time.
1 Like
I want what the designers of this thing were smoking
But holly molly 3.5 tons wtf.
Masurca is only a 100kg warhead but let’s be fair it’s already enough most of the time X)
To think we went from this to hit-to-kill stuff like SM-3 or Asters all while reducing the weight 3-4 times and improving the range in the process.
I will say though, the 50s were certainly something when it comes to things that fly
1 Like
That would be really funny in game
Did actually test that last dev server when it initially looked like you could bring A4E’s into naval & dumb shit like that. We tried a bravy against both martels & kormorans and the bravy could definitely intercept two of them.
1 Like
Afaik bravy’s reload is artificially nerfed ATM so it would be a very viable AA platform
1 Like
Personally, I’d say give everyone missile ships (please gaijin, give us county class destroyer) and making sure CIWS like the AK-630 that many soviet frigates have actually works.
1 Like
Would also be nice if guns automatically led targets when you lock targets with radar
Would make shooting down missiles at longer ranges with main guns with proxy a lot more viable
2 Likes
https://forum.warthunder.com/search?q=missile%20in%20naval
Really, those missile boats are disgusting new players…
It need to be nerfed. New players are running away.
1 Like
I still don’t understand why some of you want to have missile ships vs BBs instead of isolating them in their own matches.
Missile ships vs Battleships:
- AShMs and SAMs cannot penetrate a battleship’s citadel.
- Most missile ships are unarmored, and will easily sink under BB fire.
- Interceptor missiles, CIWS, and countermeasures won’t intercept, decoy, or save you from shells.
- Battleships can’t intercept missiles. Even if they don’t sustain much damage, they don’t have a way to interact with them.
- The only time a battleship encountered a missile was USS Missouri in Iraq. By the end of the 1960s, every battleship bar the Iowas had been scrapped, decommissioned or sunk. Why should this be the standard and not the exception?
- What about (uptiered) cruisers and destroyers? Do they just die with no fighting chance?
If you instead have missile ships vs missile ships:
- Most missile ships are unarmored, so AShMs and SAMs can damage them.
- Both parties can use interceptors, CIWS, decoys, and ECM (if that gets modeled) to protect themselves, as they were intended to do.
- Basically, both sides can make full use of their equipment and damage each other.
- Doesn’t interfere with regular artillery ship gameplay.
- Has more room for growth. Are you really going to shove everything from Bravy to the battlecruiser Kirov from 5.3 to 8.7?
- Probably allows easier implementation of CAS and submarines. Put Cold war subs and missile jets alongside missile ships instead of Type VII vs ASROC, USS Barbel vs Bayern, and He 177 vs RIM-8 Talos.
- Theatrically looks nicer; missile ship vs missile ship combat is far more common than missile ships vs BBs.
Of course there are going to be difficulties in implementing the latter, but I think it’s worth isolating some things to try and make them shine instead of mindlessly dumping more ships into an increasingly incoherent soup with everything in it and saying “eh, it’s not that broken”.
Players that wants missiles are the same than wants jets and tanks in high BR.
Missile in any case at boring. Point and click or it will be lock and destroy.
Missile boats in any case should not play with regular ships.
In the actual state, newcomers are leaving cause of those missiles. Douglas at low BR and all others in 5.3.
When you are in 4.3 and die with missile where you CANNOT do anything, this is annoying.
3 Likes
I vote no.
Because it will force people to hide behind islands harder than they already do.
Bit more complicated than that but it’s fairly close.
DDGs as currently implemented can ammo snipe DDs and some CLs but the instant they fight something with a protected magazine (below water, IE Dido), they’re immediately worthless and contribute nothing but free RP.