Morning Smin!
Can you please look at this report?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZVO2ySNFFdJm
Long post to save space
Respectfully, I disagree.
Just because the F-15C GE doesn’t share every strength of the aircraft you mentioned doesn’t mean it isn’t on par with them in the current TDM-centric environment. Alongside the JAS39E, it’s one of the most survivable aircraft at top tier. It doesn’t need a rearward-looking radar or HOBS missiles to be a strong platform. Likewise, willingly forcing a merge against either a thrust-vectoring aircraft or a Eurofighter in almost anything else is a questionable decision, so I don’t think dogfighting is a particularly meaningful or useful metric to judge the F-15C GE by.
Using your own logic, the F-15C GE can also spend much of the match remaining defensive while the Su-30SM2 or Eurofighter continue expending missiles to little effect. The ability to guide missiles from the notch is only an advantage if those missiles translate into kills or force meaningful mistakes. Otherwise, you’re simply trading missile inventory while the F-15C retains its own.
Likewise, the Eurofighter’s superior flight performance doesn’t automatically make the AIM-120C-5 more effective than the AIM-120D. The D’s lack of IOG drift is a significant advantage, and even a C-5 launched with roughly 20% higher initial velocity doesn’t compensate for that.
The F-15EX is/would be a great blend of the Eagles we already have. It’s faster, carries more missiles, and will almost certainly receive the AIM-120D. However, I don’t think it suddenly guarantees parity with either the Su-30SM2 or the Eurofighter. Realistically, its biggest improvement is that the AIM-120D starts its flight with more energy, giving it a stronger opening engagement rather than fundamentally changing the balance.
“Parity” doesn’t require identical strengths; it requires remaining competitively effective in the same environment. The F-15C GE reaches that through a different combination of advantages than the Su-30SM2 or Eurofighter, not because it mirrors their capabilities.
just give me all the 100+ Greek vehicles and i will never ask for anything ever again and will be pleased forever
1 Like
Hello. No news currently to share. Though this sort of thing (graphical improvements) would generally be kept for a dev blog or CM update anyway.
2 Likes
Hi. I will pass this to my Russian speaking colleagues to review. Since it will be better if they do rather than me ))
Thanks!
do we know which nations turn it is for a bp vehicle?
lets hope they wont add the most produced variant of a popular vehicle again (cough cough A-1H)
Day 1225 of waiting for Polish tech tree
3 Likes
* grabs red string and cork board *
A cool one you say?
Perhaps a cold weather vehicle? From a cold country?
Spoiler
/j
Definitely not Israel because they just got one the same with China and France, i bet it will be a British thing, we have a long time getting one
Might start betting that it’s the Arjun
we never had so high rewards for BP but i hope the top reward being a tank and not a plane
ground naval or air?
no idea, the top reward is almost never naval, and we just had an Air BP so for ME the possibilities are 60% ground 40% air
ground is usually boring
nahh, the last Chinese one was very interesting and the France ELC 901 was also interesting (until it was moved up in the br)
I just hope that whatever the vehicles are that the returning vehicles box isn’t just all naval again for what will be the third time in a row.
@Smin1080p_WT
I suppose this is a rather unusual question but i figured that you may be able to answer it or ask the devs about it;
What material properties make armour be considered as RHA ingame? At which values is it considered as HHA or modern HHA?
For example, what Type (RHA/HHA/etc.) would a Cr-Ni-Mo armour-plate,with a tensile strength of 110-130kg/mm² be considered as?
What type would a armour plate with a Hardness of R = 160kg/mm² be considered as?
And, since this is quite related, are we allowed to make reports on insufficient angle-performance of certain shell types based on manufacturer standard-targets (i.e. minimum the shell has to penetrate), that have the composition of the target array, the type of shell (w/ data ofc), the distance that the shell is fired at from, aswell as the material properties of the test-plate listed?
For example, 20mm Oerlikon KAD (former HS830) AP-T, “HLA 225” (ingame: HVAP-T) has significantly underperforming angle-penetration when compared to the minimum penetration requirements of the shell set out via Oerlikon’s standard-targets (In this example, among others, both 90° and 45° impact-angle targets are presented).
Would I be allowed to report this by using the shells irl minimum penetration-requirements, additional penetration-charts featuring data on the material properties (tensile-strength e.g.) of the target-plate?
Note: I am aware that the game uses de marre for penetration calculation of APCR, however at the same time, the normalization, auto-bounce angles and thus angle-performance are dependent on additional modifiers the game uses, which are applied on the basis of the de marre flat penetration and as such can be adjusted.
Lets say a shell has 100% of penetration at 0° and only 50% at 30°, while primary sources show that at 30° AoA, the penetration is actually roughly 70° of what it is at 0°. ← Could I then report that the penetration at 30° is too low or is that not something that can be reported?
4 Likes