Yeah, and to that I say screw it. Let’s just balance the gameplay at this point.
E.g. Soviet/Ru CAS is in it’s absolute golden era right now, and is frankly unbalanced. But if giving every other nation the equivalent (or near) and SPAA is what it takes to keep the gameplay balanced, I’m all for it.
Doctrine for flavor, not as the sole component.
Not necessarily.
During the Falklands the Argentine forces on the island had a fuel/ammo dump that was dispersed to mitigate the damage from regular bombs. A flight of GR3s attacked it with CBUs, the first one destroyed most of it. The “bases” look an aweful lot like an ammo dump or foward supply base and so would in theory be quite vulnerable to CBUs
Buc S2 and Sea Vixen 100% had it listed in the manuals (and was reported 3 years ago) but Britain reserved the right to use it. Jag, harrier, Phantom, Hunter and maybe even Tornado, probably could have used it at any time, but was replaced by CBUs
What does the effect of napalm on a base have to do with doctrine? I am fine with more equivalent SPAA of course but I don’t see what that has to do with damage of weapon type
Anyways, it would be cool to see CBU in next April fools
Time for “Some” to read the rules when posting documents on our Forum… we rarely see anyone providing proof of declassification…
3. User’s obligations regarding Restricted Information. If the User publishes the documentation which may be reasonably deemed as Restricted Information according to this Military Restrictions Section or has been earlier regarded as such, the User shall provide sufficient evidence that the information no longer falls within the scope of Restricted Information as defined above (e.g., a valid source from the list specified in paragraph 2(ii)(d) above, a statement on declassification, etc.), or otherwise prove the legality of their publication.
ATTENTION! If there are reasonable grounds to believe that you failed to comply with the rules of this Military Restrictions Section, or your post otherwise contains Restricted Information or other content prohibited to distribution, the Administration, at its sole discretion, may remove your post, and in some cases - suspend your Gaijin account up to permanent ban (e.g., if repeated or severe violation(-s) have occurred)**.
Any chance you mean this doc, in this post?
In which case, its one Gunjob shared on the forums previously, which is where I got it from. No idea the source though
Yeah, but we’re still doing a lot of inference here. It’s the gameplay that counts, hence why I don’t really care what approximation arrives at justifying that CBU’s or Napalm can kill a base. In that aspect of the game, it’s trivial.
Regarding doctrine, I’m talking about the UK’s limited doctrine on Napalm shouldn’t preclude it from being able to carry it on their planes.
Regarding SPAA and CAS, I’m speaking to GRB. We have to keep in mind, one weapon added in one game type, thus far, means a weapon added for all game types, and CBU’s in GRB would be way too much for GRB, right now.
ive seen many documents posted over the years, but even more so recently… so not just one case
When something has been posted by Staff, it would be cleared…
“No idea the source though”
That is part of the problem with many people posting documents, if something has been posted by Staff, then at least it should be stated that it has been posted Staff, but if some have no idea where something came from then it should not be posted until they can find out
They certainly need to come up with a good way of doing gamemode specific weapons.
Would fix a LOT of issues.
Okaydokie, I shall make sure to include that in the future.
Thank you!
If they didn’t carry it or couldn’t carry it then they shouldn’t carry it in game. There is a fair case for the phantom II, for obvious reasons, but tornado is a stretch
So, again not really aimed at you… but we had an incident yesterday and that user is gone now… so, yeah…
Tornado probably not, but Harrier Gr3 (Especially as the Harrier Gr1 is one of two aircraft with Napalm currently), Jaguar Gr1 (and maybe GR1A), Hunter FGA9 and Phantom FGR2 are all definetly ones that need to be considered for it
Harrier yeah, idk about Hunter and jag, phantom yeah
Ah, fair enough. Was the only “restricted” looking document I’ve seen recently. So I wondered.
Hunter, there is apparently a video clip of one dropping napalm or something. The fiddly bit comes from the fact we have the Rhodesian Hunter FGA9 and the Hunter FGA9 in that clip being from a different nation or something.
Jag and Phantom would fall under the right to use it, and may have very well trained to have used it, but proving that either actually dropped one is another matter. Though Phantom could get it just on the virtue of being a Phantom.
This is partly why I don’t argue about top tier stuff the other half is I don’t know enough to argue about lol
Though saying that Pacifica where would you like to see the Australian Hornet the UK tree or the US ?
Nice. Did UK use same napalm bombs as US? Phantom being a phantom is what I had in mind as well, but if they aren’t the same type of napalm bombs that could affect it
