I agree with you that India can have it’s own TT but india shouldn’t get Bangladesh as sub tree, as Bangladesh doesn’t use any Indian origin vehicles. Most of the vehicles used by Bangladesh are from China.
I dont think finland has any sweden origin vehicle ingame, but it is still a subtree. The point of a subtree is usually for gaps in a tree that can’t be filled by native vehicles (at least in theory).
Im just saying bangladesh for india because it could in theory provide some more unique or semi-unique vehicles to India. Its not needed but would be nice to have
well yes because Radical redesigns that would allow for a meaningful ammount of additional missiles in this case internally are expensive and unnecessary
all prototypes of this stage take weapons into consideration, even stuff like the EAP which had no functioning electronic hardpoints as it was just a Geometry test still has hardpoints build in, yk in case it had been successful those could’ve simply been wired up and the vehicle wouldn’t need to be redesigned and retested to fit them
I think a combined Bangladesh and Pakistan would be great as Chinese sub trees
2 Likes
There are some legacy system issues that must be resolved
The reasons are as follows:
In the next version, all new air defense systems will be modern active radar homing air defense systems (using only specialized surface-to-air missiles, rather than directly adapting active radar homing air-to-air missiles as in this version, though they will still be equipped with infrared missiles for low-altitude blind spots and helicopter engagements).
Known content: In the next version, the Buk-M3, Sky Sword air defense, and SAMP/T systems will all exclusively use specialized surface-to-air missiles with active radar homing.
So what issues would arise under the current mechanics?
You’ll be left helpless against targets below 60m and hovering helicopters—they will become completely invincible to you.
Is this reasonable? Absolutely not.
You must understand that as a next-generation air defense system, the Buk-M3 is inherently designed to engage low-altitude threats like terrain-hugging cruise missiles (e.g., Tomahawks).
As for CAMM and Aster 15—being modern land/naval-based short-range air defense missiles—their design objectives undoubtedly include intercepting sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.
So how much should the ground clutter interference threshold be adjusted? Here we can first examine the typical flight altitudes of cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles:
Cruise missiles (e.g., Tomahawk):
Terrain-hugging mode: 20-100 meters over land
Sea-skimming mode: 5-20 meters over water
Anti-ship missiles:
Most modern models fly at 3-10 meters during terminal phase
Some (like BrahMos) can dip to 3-5 meters
Suggested adjustment:
The ground clutter filtering should be optimized for reliable detection down to 5-10 meters for naval systems, and 15-20 meters for land-based systems to maintain terrain-following capability while minimizing false positives.
However, we must account for War Thunder’s long-standing “historical baggage” – trees that might as well be a primordial forest in terms of their exaggerated height…
Therefore, I suggest adjusting the ground clutter interference threshold for these modern active-homing SAMs to 25m–30m in-game.
(This achieves a balance between preventing planess from being neutered by exaggerated terrain/vegetation while maintaining basic realism against ultra-low-altitude threats – after all, real-world active radar seekers with modern filtering algorithms should have superior clutter rejection capabilities.)
And let’s not even get started on helicopters—the massive Doppler signals generated by their rotor blades have never been accurately modeled in-game
Note: IRL millimeter-wave radar/pulse-Doppler systems can easily identify helicopters via rotor RPM signatures, but this critical physics-based mechanic has been consistently ignored in-game, granting hovering helicopters unrealistic “electronic stealth”.)
Moreover, War Thunder has another glaring issue:
All active radar homing missiles in the game share identical seeker parameters—from the AIM-54A Phoenix to the C-5 model, they all function with nearly identical performance.
Note: IRL active missiles of different generations/models vary significantly in ECM resistance, off-boresight capability, multi-target processing, and datalink support—yet the game oversimplifies these complex systems, resulting in severely distorted missile performance.)
To summarize my proposal:
1.Add new Doppler signal code for helicopters to accurately simulate rotor blade signatures.
2.Adjust ground clutter interference height for dedicated SAMs to 25-30m in the next update.
3.Completely rework active radar seeker data for all missiles, introducing performance differentiation—for example:
Nerf the AIM-54 Phoenix’s seeker (historically prone to losing lock)
Buff the C-5’s seeker (modernized with better tracking and ECCM)
Taking the CAMM missile as an example, with reference from MBDA
@Smin1080p_WT
Do you guys have plans to solve the issues above?
thanks
6 Likes
I think the idea is that for adequate air defense, a team should use both a Samp-T, Buk, CLAWS, Sky Sword… AND a lav, stormer ad, gepard, or related. Obviously, IRL both operate in tandem, so it makes sense for both realism and balance.
you mean use total 4 AA (Three of them are in a split system.)at the same time?
a nice idea,but i don’t think gaijin will do like this
I would say that’s the typical meta on teams without the IRIS-T right now, although not coordinated, usually someone plays a gun spaa and someone plays a TADS system.
it was already monday for me by the time i messaged that.
But you know, a team mate is always your most luxurious item in the game.
Only issue is none of the R2Y2s in-game match any single historical design.
The V2 and V3 are designs meant to compensate for shortcomings of the Ne-30 engine, while getting the superior Ne-330 that made them obsolete in the first place. Then all of them get cannon aramament that wasn’t part of the R2Y2 either.
If you want an R2Y2 the way it technically might fit suggestion rules, think V1 without guns and with an option to mount a torpedo.
3 Likes
Quick correction, ingame the SAMP/T would have to use Aster 30 B0 or Aster 30 B1.
Sky sabre would probably also need CAMM ER because I just know that gaijin will completely disrespect the ASRAAM missile just as they did for SRAAM
Otherwise I agree with your points fully.
1 Like
ARH sams shouldn’t have to deal with 1950s level multipath. Pretty sure IRL the Aster 30 is good until about 4 meters, so 25-30 is pretty reasonable. You can still fly that low on most maps, and anyway most CAS players don’t fly low anyway so lowering the crazy 60m multipath for modern SAMs shouldn’t be that bad.
I do think they should keep 60m multipath in ARB for now though, at least until ECM is added.
Plus for a nation like Italy we don’t really have a good IR option except for Strzała-10M and Sidam Hussein
2 Likes
Hey. In the next major update, new systems are being introduced on the same basis as those nations who got them last update. Currently there is not a drastic revision of how these missiles operate, as the groundwork remains the same.
2 Likes
Anything exciting for today blog?
1 Like
… what can i say?
So if the new air defense system only has active missiles, it will have no way to kill hover helicopters, right?After all, under the existing mechanism, it can not lock on Hovering helicopter at all
Any chance at some performance improvements to the EldE 98 next patch? Particularly the introduction of LDIRCCM and an increase to the max G load to 60.
Seems like it might actually be getting outperformed by the ItO 90M.
So, what are we waiting for today?
I highly doubt that snail will show Thai subtree before teaser, so…
B-66B Destroyer?
1 Like
either B-66B or MAYBE a commonwealth hornet
3 Likes