Never heard of it until now
2 Likes
I rather keep the Roland but keep it in the Marder configuration then the Man 8x8.
Nether is good but the Marder at least has the mobility and low profile.
You can only do anti air with them and you are at the mercy of everything. Unlike the grass is greener on the other side, Tunguska, Pantsir, ADATS. They can fight back. At least have a chance at staying alive. The BUK would be even worse then Roland as you loose the semi “passive” future of tracking.
Other complain that there anti air is bad but look at japan or Germany and you really see how dark it gets. Dont get me startet with england. They dont exist.
no, zis-5 also has similar armor of kv-1b/e, though not all same, some place not covered with extra armor, but basiclly, it’s same as kv-1 zis5
Guess well have to see. Regardless only russia will have a lineup for it
USSR have lineup for anything. ┐(´д`)┌
Ask again Next week
2 Likes
Still a pretty big kick to the balls for finnish players wanting a decent KV-1
1 Like
This guidance principle allows for a higher probability of hitting a maneuvering target. While I was playing with planes, I launched a 30G missile, and it looks like a more maneuverable missile than a 32G missile from a Pantsir with its guidance principle, because the autopilot of a missile with a guidance principle like the BUK works better than the autopilot of a missile with manual guidance. (I’m not saying that Pantsir is weak) But the BUK can actually intercept missiles, don’t forget that the most modern BUK has ARH missiles that can fly up to 70 km
1 Like
The launch speed also differs. Air-launch means higher speed (usually 0.8-1.1 mach for top tier), guaranteeing the missile a higher energy to maneuver comparing to ground launch.
And by comparing different types of missiles, we could see that the allocation of thrust stage also matters.
Pantsir’s missile ended its thrust stage very soon, giving it a low profile as well as a disadvantage when tracking distant target since the speed keeps decreasing.
Thor on the other hand, has a long thrust stage, which means its manoeuvrability stays stable in most of its combat range, but the bulky missile body limits its speed and the long thrust stage brings high profile as well.
This also holds true for Air-to-Air, take the event F-14A and TT one for example, Fakour-90 has a lower manoeuvrability limit than Aim-54A, but it gets a much stronger thrust. And when target is far enough, the Aim-54A will not have enough speed to reach its G limit but the Fakour-90 still can.
1 Like
It’s the guidence code’s problem, if you compared 9M37m or type 81’s missile to Roland missile, youwill find Roland missile should be better, but 9M37M and type 81 are auto piloted so they can be more efficient in routing
gaijin added something though, the auto pursuit mode, but, you know, it works badly.
3 Likes
True, the guidance code did nerf once on purpose, half for simulating reality, half for limiting the missile’s efficiency.
Pantsir before the nerf is just a nightmare for planes XD
My point is that, instead of limiting the maneuverability, the new pursuit logic changes how missile react to adjust the attitude, as you said, not that efficient in routing, waste more energy and at last leads to the difference.
1 Like
that new guidence code too, though I was meaning the path routing part.
dont forget about separate ground and air BR tho
arh missile will also rise it’s br on grb
I doubt honestly
look at the Shar FA2 or the AV8B both are 12.3 the AV8B was only 11.7 before the ARH missiles were added
That’s also because it got the AGM-65G
1 Like
CN 11.7 ground is quite fun and not that often to be in a full up-tier.
So I just don’t want to take the risk, since with ARH its battle efficiency might overtake the AV8B and therefore lead to a BR rise
Leaked F-18
Spoiler
Totally real
1 Like
isnt that the old F-18 “leak”
2 Likes