Sweden literally never used 9M, it won’t get 9M. Its stuck with 9L or IRIS-T, unless gaijin makes it a czech variant or something
That rule only works if theres evidence for exception (F-4F 9J, 16A, F-16C with AIM-7 which gaijin also said was going to be replaced with AIM-120).
Like how Germany literally never used the 27ER? But still gets it on two of their mig29s?
Germany never used AIM-9J, R-27T, R-27ER, R-27ET but it game they have them for balancing reasons. So swedish gripen can get them the same way.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what Sweden used IRL, this isn’t milsim. We’re not doing historical battles.
The rule is: “Can it fit it for the BR we want to fill? Yes? It gets it.”
That’s the rule, there is no exception.
People need to stop acting like GJN operates with hard-set rules. As far as I’ve been able to tell, they are just making things up as they go along, when it comes to these kinds of decisions.
3 Likes
And non of them have capabilitis to use them
1 Like
If it was realistic SAAF gripen would be way off with python 4 level missiles
1 Like
The Barak II also never used its weapons load (9M and 7M) and has them pending Python 4 is introduced. It doesn’t really matter if Sweden didn’t use it.
War Thunder is neither of those.
DCS isn’t milsim either. Arma certainly isn’t.
It’s obvious you’re just trying to state the opposite of reality to derail the topic.
1 Like
You don’t seem to know what a milsim is if you think DCS isn’t one.
2 Likes
Woah no need to be accusing people of trying to start a flame war
2 Likes
I play DCS, it’s not a milsim.
Otherwise I wouldn’t play it, I avoid milsims cause they’re exclusively ran by people who only use US doctrine.
1 Like
Then you don’t know what a milsim is. DCS works to simulate vehicular combat, therefore it is a milsim.
Blame milsimmers for defining milsim as “Following military doctrine” then.
They’re in control of the definition, not us outsiders.
A milsim is a simulation of military. That is exactly what DCS is.
3 Likes
I’m interpreting their response in the shooting range as a denial, at least as far as this update is concerned, which, no surprise there.
It leaves the XF-2A (with APG-68 PD) and F-15J as the only two options and if we go by the leaks, F-15J first.
That being said, at the very least it does tell us that the only reason they haven’t added the F-2 yet is the radar. Meaning that if they find information to confirm and/or decide to go with the PD radar for the aforementioned XF-2, then we should see that pretty much any update. Of course, we don’t know if they decide to use the PD radar, till we see the devblog one day.
We will for sure get to part 3 if it will continue like this.
Acrade Millsim is exactly what War Thunder is and I’m 90% sure I’ve seen Gaijin call it something like that before.
Heck you want to know what the main ad for War Thunder is?
“Historically accurate plane and tanks.” Gaijin themself pride themselves on being historically accurate.
It’s why the SA Grippin is iffy because it would need an ahistorical load-out of things they didn’t use historically.
Is it me or were there two identical posts? lol
If you want a part 3 you must activate the alexseñal
Which is funny when you consider that after years we still have all tracked vehicles turning like WW2 tractors. I’m pretty sure if you tried to turn a modern MBT by just locking one of the tracks it would detrack the tank.