Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 2)

ZBD-04 was in the china guys leak list, so I’m certain it’s coming either way

1 Like

How many of us here think that it could be likely to see the hornet in the summer patch, given we got the F-14A one summer, and F-14B the next. Seems just like a logical trend for top gun lovers to me ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

(there’s also the 14D tho, but I mean ehhh, gaijin might wanna ride the hype train they still on if they adding AMRAAMs…)

Sidenote; although it’s denied for this patch, I can’t quite tell how “denied” it would be for the next patch?? Might need to go re-read the posts from I think it was smin maybe? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Hopefully we get sidearms at some point. Would make the U.S. helis finally better than the russian ones lol.

AH-64 and AH-1W can use mavericks.
A suggestion was pass about this.
AGM-65 Maverick for US AH-64s - Suggestions - Devs / Passed - War Thunder — official forum

A good choice when AGM-114L is too op to be in game.



I’d wonder though, i’m not really someone that uses mavericks a lot but my main issue with them is that i can only let off one or max two on one run because of the aircraft’s speed. Having a hovering launch platform that can fire and forget all of them in rapid succession.

Might thay be better than Hellfires? Or is there something like a range difference I am missing (do tell, because i have only limited playing epxerience with borh weapon types)

Would definitely help make it unique too, although we’ll see if Gajjin even gives it to them

Sure better, but not all better, 830mm pen means you can only do limited damage to MBTs. But it’s good at overpressure SPAAs.
Range is not a problem, as you can’t escape SPAA’s range, fire and hide, no need to keep guiding, that’s what AGM-65 can do.

1 Like

Better to do so, after all, this won’t make it stronger than UHT, so why not.

god I hope they add the J-10


A promotional brochure with a mock-up image. Apache can’t do mavericks.

UHT is great to take out light vehicles. UHT is not really good vs MBTs, often you need several ATGMs to kill a Chally or comparable modern tanks, due to the nerfed state of the warhead. UHT is almost helpless vs fixed wings. This is the other truth. A fully capable attack chopper with CCIPed gun etc. might be totally different, balance wise.

Yes, so can the AH-64 (see the center of bottom row of airframe examples), It’s non specific as to which variants.
Though considering launch ranges are only listed for the HEAT warhead, its likely the HE design was too heavy. Though that should theoretically not preclude the AGM-65C which uses the SALH seeker, in addition to either Electro-Optical variant.

Is it about 1000mm pen in real life? something paid to get the ability of fighting SPAAs, a fair price at that time I think, but now it should be reconsidered. CCIPed gun is a pity that can’t fix though.

Using the established performance predictor that Gaijin used to set a precedent for NATO HEAT warheads, it should be about 1300mm to 1500mm of RHA, in game its only 830mm.

AGM-65 Cutaway

AGM-65 Cutaway-anotated

AGM-65Charge diameters

Sources are:


The bigger issue is the absurd 20mm (30mm for tandem rounds) hard limit to Overpressure penetration for HEAT / HESH rounds, which means that any explosive mass over ~10kg contributes nothing, since it already reaches the cap.


I know AGM-65, but I was talking about PARS 3 LR.


All we need to run the calculations is a cutaway and the length and diameter of the missile.

This is not so, anyone who edit this is wrong, they are all decided by explosive mass, same as HE. But HEAT warhead had limited range, and placed in a more backward position. So it can’t overpressure when hit a vertical armor, but when hit with a large angle, it can.
Try hit a soviet T series tank on lower face with a missile, you will find it overpressured through the top of hull.
Not all heat is like this though, AGM-65 has a bigger range which reach the front end, and over a little, allow it to overpressure when vertically hit.
And some missiles like TOW-2A and QN-502, has a kinetic penetration, about 50mm, make them work like a APHE against light armored vehicle. they will explosive after pen the armor, and explode inside to overpressure the crew.

I’m assuming for a Taiwan AH-1W, it would be possible for them to mount the AGM-65B’s on it?

it’s working as intended.

I don’t know specifically, but Iranian Cobra’s (AH-1J international) were upgraded with the capability to do so, and did use the Electro Optical variant(s?) operationally. We have evidence that the capability was retained by US AH-1W’s so there is precedent.

So it is possible that a theoretical export AH-1W may retain it, but would depend on Gaijin putting in the effort to model Cobras properly, of which there are many missing features and ordnance items from the various variants.

This issue is wrong, you can try to it a leopard’s roof with AGM-65, it will be overpressured.