Maybe fewer ammo counts of missiles? (2 Magic-2 IR with 2 Super-530D SARH)
still, it feels dumb since there are non-F1C variants of F1C which has bullshit RWR on 12.0 BR.
I only flew with the Event version of M2K though, I liked it.
(TMI: I tried to grind M2KD-R1 before BR decompressing and exploiting the flaws but failed miserably thanks to the broken SL wallet of my account.)
M2K has a clear advantage up close but I still say the F-14A is about as good just going by how it defines the meta at the BR with phoenixes
Being Historical is not all that matters. This is a game first and foremost. History is furthermore inherently inaccurate since it is usually written by the winners or forgotten due to the ferocious extirpation by a Regime (book burnings by the NSDAP or the extermination of intellectuals and religious during the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia for example) Thus War Thunder should respect history but not set it as a Dogma.
F104S.ASA
Well, I think your reply is slightly out-topic but managed to walk a tightrope.
We know that Adding ‘some’ of unhistorical weaponry can be considered for balancing despite the fact that many of the players in the player base don’t like it. (well some guys like it though)
We can see some examples like the infamous ho-ri or R2Y2 Keiun, and F-16AJ which never existed over the advertising paper level. or Panther 2/King Tiger with 10.5cm/Flakpanzer 341 which are terminated by Gaijin.
ah, we can also consider AIM-9L/M/R-Darter on SAAF JAS39C as a placeholder (according to my knowledge, SAAF never bought AIM-9L/M and R-Darter was used on Cheetah, Also considered as Gripens loadout but ended with not integrating them and uses IRIS-T only)
or AIM-120A on F-15J(M) as an example. (JASDF never used AIM-120 widely before purchases of AIM-120C in 2014. Still, MSIP upgrades integrated AIM-120 into the weapon system. bought a few Earlier variants of AIM-120 and test-fired them with ADTW. so It isn’t fully unhistorical but rather semi-historical.)
The problem of adding unhistorical/semi-historical loadout or removing historical loadout for balancing issues is, that Gaijin loves to have double standards.
Some planes have an unhistorical loadout thanks to compatibility with sisters in other nations, while others don’t.
South African JAS39C may be a perfect example of contradiction.
It received unhistorical AIM-9L/M thanks to compatibility with the Swedish original sister but failed to get AIM-120B. I think R-Darter is an interesting choice but why not both? since JASDF F-15J(M) succeed to got both.
Also, Why did Gaijin remove Panther II if they were planning to keep the R2Y2 alive and kicking?
If Gaijin is allowed to use R-27R1 in F-14A IRIAF then will Gaijin reimplement the JDAM on F-4EJ Kai despite that it has never been used JDAM in real life but mounted for a grounded exhibition purpose only?
While nearly every AIM-9 capable plane of the British aerial fleet was able to use AIM-9L, Britain’s main IR missile in the Cold War era but unable to mount AIM-9L in WT and stuck with AIM-9G?
I am quite tired much about Gaijin’s double standards about adding new things. so, Sorry. I can’t agree with you. sir. I think Gaijin need to get rid of unhistorical things unless it is critical for balancing the vehicle properly.
Talking much about this problem seems out-topic so I think we need to find another topic for discussion if we need to.
And, ‘History written by winners’ and ‘adding unhistorical weapon/vehicle in war thunder’ differ at the basic level. if you wrote this paragraph to reinforce your theory then this paragraph was the fifth wheel. also can lead us to a terrible derail shitshow which will cause this topic to lock down.
Quick way to have paper fantasy vehicles in game that ruin it
Your post is exclusively misinformation, outright claiming SAAB and F-15’s manufacturer are liars, a lie that R2Y2’s removal is a double standard despite there being precedent with Tiger 2 105, and other fictions…
All while claiming historical accuracy is unhistorical…
You really always show up at Tomcat Topics. isn’t it?
Half Jokingly, I think you are the one who got paid by Grumman. :|
Defending Tomcats with the best efforts… and that level of enthusiasm? If I were you, I never do it for free.
We all know that SAAB made JAS39 compatible with lots of missiles. but the only missile of JAS39C SAAF that South Africa bought was the R-Darter. Which was never used on their Gripen.
If JAS39C SAAF can get AIM-9L/M which is never used on SAAF, then why AIM-120 can’t be used with the same theory?
While F-15J(M) received both of their test-fired AIM-120(Early) With AAM-4 thanks to Gaijin’s new standard.
(I can accept it because I consider it as semi-historical. I think that might be a placeholder like Skyflash which was on Gripen before.)
Plus+
Adding R-77 on MiG-21 Bison was rejected because the picture can’t be a trustworthy source,
but Gaijin decided to add R-27R1 to their new F-14A IRIAF with pictures.
I think this is quite much of Double-Standarding to me.
Ahh… Now I get it. You are not a stupid autistic guy as introduced by yourself. You are a malicious man who loves to move the goalpost and make the opponents look dumb.
Every time I try to have good discussions, It seems to me that you are here to sow people and boost your self-esteem rather than a productive discussion.
It feels more like that every time I discuss topics with you.
I’m sorry if you were offended.
@Stockholm_Blend
War Thunder is not a military LARP game, War Thunder is a war vehicle game where we participate in war games.
We are not playing as the South African air force, nor the United States air force, nor the Iranian airforce in the case of the F-14A being added.
We are playing as ourselves using aircraft produced and procured around the world in a realistic situation of physics and armament.
Manual and statements from manufacturer being universal across all production of that version, and pictures being relevant to that specific unit which must be verified via tail number, and usually multiple photographs.
In the instance of Mig-21 Bison, lack of verification is present.
I know I needed a minimum of 3 photographs to prove BGL-1000s on wing pylons for Mirage 2000D, and ultimately someone else found the photographs before me and made the bug report; fortunately.
That and Bison already has historical loadouts currently, and it can be expanded.
All loadouts are historical because they’re stated in manuals, manufacturer statements, and/or photographic evidence.
Unhistorical weapons get removed or not added to begin with.
And at the end of your post you accuse me of being something I am not rather than treating me with the same respect I’m treating you.
At no point did I ever accuse you of anything; I have exclusively critiqued the content of your posts; your post that included claims that SAAB’s statements that Gripen uses AIM-9s is unhistorical, or that F-15’s manufacturer making statements about full AIM-120 compatibility is wrong. Cause that’s the claims in your post when the claim is “AIM-120A is unhistorical.” unless the fins get in the way, all AIM-120s are compatible with the weapon system. And AIM-9L/Ms are always compatible with the Gripens because that’s how the weapon computer works.
The content of your posts is not the content of your character, and I expect to be treated with that same respect reciprocated.
Just as I should always avoid possessive words in the forum, cause I ALWAYS mean the posts not the person.
We cannot claim 9Bs on F-4 is unhistorical when they in-fact are historical.
@Stockholm_Blend
It is better to take the time and form better reasoning for the positions illustrated in your posts than to have a weak foundation to begin with easily toppled over.
I’m not your enemy, and I’m not dismissing your positions to convince you to take my position.
I’m destroying the weak foundations in your posts so your future posts have better foundations, just as I hope if my posts have a position with a weak foundation someone destroys it so I have to build a better foundation.
For example, not an argument you made or will make, but a well-reasoned position I heard from someone else where both of us agreed to disagree:
“While AIM-9Ls and AIM-9Ms are 100% historical loadouts for all Gripens, I’d much prefer they go to 14.0 with IRIS-Ts and a hole be left behind at the BR they once were.”
A good foundation acknowledges the facts, and forms a positions based on those facts. Also a take made when top-BR was 12.7 or 13.0.
It’s all about Money my friend
Ok why not just put it as a new skin for the F-14A? And will this just like a “Upgraded Version” of the F-14A with a higher BR?
Despite that, I am not convinced by your recent reply yet thanks to lots of M61 APCBC with no-explosive-filler in British ground tree (if we don’t play as their forces there is no need to keep that ammo with no filler because there are some vehicles armed with M61 with fillers in British ground too.)
But, At this rate, our conversation will go endlessly flatline as we did earlier.
Let’s just say you’re right for a few paragraphs. to make things forward (seems we derailed with the main topic badly)
According to SAAB’s advertising flyers for JAS39, she can use R-Darter despite that SAAF never used them IRL because they think it isn’t cost-effective. but Gaijin added R-Darter as ARH of JAS39C SAAF. feels tight roping between Semi-Historical and Un-Historical to me though.
Still, is there a point in not giving Swedish JAS39A(it has really unhistorical placeholder RB71 Skyflash. It was never planned to be installed since both Swedish and British gave up on their planning of the ARH version of Skyflash) and South-African JAS39C an AIM-120?
as long as Domestic British Phantoms share the same BR with almost the same specs (having slight tiny differences which are even can be embarrassing to call it as ‘side-grading’)
I think it will be fine that JAS39A also gets AIM-120A.
and, we have an example of F-15J(M) which was mentioned earlier and has both AAM-4 and AIM-120A. I think it will be fine with SAAF JAS39C also can access both AIM-120 and R-Darter.
Also, when the time has come with IRIS-T later, I prefer having 6x IRIS-T loadout than R-Darter or AIM-120 on SAAF JAS39C
because… you know what I am saying right?
We need to awaits till August 8th which events starts for confirming BR of F-14A IRIAF.
More War Thunder posts should contain this type of message.
When I say I prefer AIM-9J on F-4F rather than it receiving 9Ls; The only time I justify that preference is I like the F-4F’s BR. That’s it, a straight forward sincere statement that doesn’t try to claim AIM-9B on its stock grind is unhistorical, or some other bad foundation.
I can respect that, I can support you and your position even if I want the SAAF JAS39C to remain 13.7 with 9Ms and R-DARTER cause Typhoon will ultimately be the BR of a JAS39C with IRIS-T.
We can agree to disagree, and it’s okay that we have different preferences.
And I won’t object to SAAF JAS39C getting both AIM-120 and R-DARTER, both are objectively correct weapons for the platform, and they’re effectively analogues of each other. Won’t impact the BR.
This is a unique variant for a few reasons. In comparison to the F-14A already ingame, it will:
• Have Aim-9J/Ps instead of Aim-9G/Hs (less range)
• Have the Aim-7-E2 or Aim-7-E4 sparrows only, so no
Aim-7F
• Access to the Fakour 90 ARH missile (Aim-54 on
steroids, with R-27ER levels of acceleration and range)
• Access to the Sedjil missile (a Mim-23 strapped to the
outer pylons)
• Access to the funny rocket bomb
• And if gaijin goes through with it, I guess the R-27R as
well.
Also internally, it features a few difference. One off the top of my head being the refueling probe that Iran had to add themselves as their F-14As didn’t come with them.
This is the most incredible bullshit I’ve ever seen in August. Thank you for making me laugh
@이승만
Proof of fuel consumption to gain a time slot:
With a TSFC of ~2.72, F-14A’s equivalent fuel load is 49 minutes.
F-14A with equivalent 7 minutes of fuel: 15.1 degrees per second.
0.45 x 49 minutes = 22 minutes = 4 minutes of AB time.
F-14A with
Mig-23MLD:
17.8 degrees per second with 7 minutes of afterburner fuel.
Just to check minimum fuel of Mig-23MLD for you 9 minutes / 20 minutes = 0.45. ~4 minutes of afterburn time.
19.7 degrees per second.
F-14 with 4 minutes of afterburner, aka 22 minutes of dry fuel:
17.3 degrees per second.
MLD is closer to the F-14B than it is the F-14A, and it’s above both when fuel is limited.
I have evidence to back up my claims, here I’ll do you one better and use the Mig-23ML which dogfights worse, just so it can carry 2x R-24s as well since I don’t have them unlocked for MLD. Certainly it will dogfight worse than F-14A right? Worse than 17.3 degrees per second?
18.3 sustained. 17.3 at lower speeds gaining speed.
Yeah, worse dogfighter than the MLD, retains energy better than the F-14A, will lose a 1v1… MLD won’t.
Nah, Alvis is a Gaijin Spy, he cannot make deals with capitalist western companies.
The basis of your argument has been interpreted at will, and now, as stockholm_blend said, you are nothing but a trolling idiot to everyone in the forum. Your autism can never be defended or sympathetic to the stupid comments you make
