I might have a idea as to how two piece weapon systems could be implemented.
This looks promising. I would support this completely. Now if only we could add the M42 Duster upgrade from Breda!
It’s clear that Warthunder isn’t a 100% historical game, and the developers obviously don’t really care if the vehicle is historical, otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing ho-ri, r2y2, f16aj, AC IV, m6a2e1, object211, yak141, and many other history reports that have not been implemented
They literally just removed the Chinese PT-76 for being ahistorical… And recently removed the CV90 TML… And removed the Flakpanzer 341, Tiger 105, and Panther 2 for being paper tanks, so this is simply not true. The Centauro ADATS is a paper tank; Gaijin will not add it, nor should it be added.
First, the Chinese PT76 is not a fictional paper tank, it is more realistic than most of the vehicles mentioned above, and China has acquired a batch of PT76 tanks, simply because Gaijin is reluctant to add a PT76 with stabilizers to China. And object211 was also added as an alternative to the 5.0 light tank (although its data is also outrageously wrong)
Secondly, the reason why the CV90105TML was deleted is indeed “not historical”, but that is because historically it did not install stabilizers and commander thermal imaging, if you choose to restore history then of course you can do it, but GAIJIN is unlikely to provide all players who cost $60 with a Rank 6 package vehicle without a stabilizer, so GAIJIN chose to replace it with a more suitable 90105XM8
Third, according to Gaijin’s logic, Japan lacks CAS, so they added R2Y2 and F16AJ. That, too, Italy lacks top-level air defense, so Italian ADATS should be added
8 Likes
I honestly don’t know how to feel about that Iveco Lince that you put in there. Italy has nothing to do with the vehicle other than the chassi being Italian. Also calling it the “Iveco Lince” isn’t correct either, as that is just the name of the chassi, not the whole vehicle. That’s the the 2017 version of Saab’s MSHORAD platform which was developed without any input of Italy.
You’re missing the point. If Gaijin is going out of their way to correct inaccuracies like China having the incorrect PT76 model, or the TML being ahistorical, what makes you think they are going to introduce an entirely fictional vehicle?
Gaijin have already stated that the fictional vehicles in the Japanese tech tree will be removed once suitable replacements are added, and while it’s true that Japan never purchased the F-16, they were evaluated, and what we have in-game is simply a F-16 block 10 which very much existed, unlike the Centauro ADATS.
You are right, according to your logic
Once a suitable replacement is found and added, then the Italian ADATS will also be removed.
And “Japanese F16aj” is just an intention that has not been officially implemented. It is clear that the partially built Italian ADATS is more realistic in comparison.
2 Likes
What are you on about, the whole vehicle is Italian, not just the chassis. The Iveco Lince is made by the Italian Iveco Defence Vehicles. Sweden doesn’t operate the LMV, Italy assisted SAAB by providing the platform and assisting them when installing the armament. Italy has the right to have it in the tech tree, in theory so does Sweden but the system was installed on other platforms so they don’t need the LMV variant.
3 Likes
The entire vehicle is not Italian. The chassis is Italian, nothing else. By the same logic, the SIDAM is an American vehicle rather than an Italian one because it has an M113 chassis. The vehicle is a project by Saab, not Italy. That they chose an Italian chassis doesn’t make the vehicle Italian, it just means a part of the vehicle is. Would it be a German vehicle if they decided to bolt the RWS to the roof of a BMW?
You talk about this vehicle as if it was a domestic Italian project. It was not. The MSHORAD is a Swedish vehicle, and the one presented at DSEI 2017 (which you call the Iveco Lince, even though that is the name of the chassis rather than the vehicle as a whole) is no different. That is a Swedish vehicle, but one of the non-important parts which can be changed at the discretion of the customer, the chassis, is Italian. If there is evidence to suggest that Iveco had any major input in the 2017 version of the MSHORAD (such as something along the lines of “Saab in direct collaboration with Iveco”) then I would be fine with adding it to Italy as it would mean they had something to do with the vehicle as a whole, rather than just lending a chassis to Saab, but all I’ve seen from official sources is that the one presented at DSEI 2017 just happened to be mounted on an Iveco Lince as an example of the interchangeability of the MSHORAD concept.
And I agree about Sweden not needing it, the RBS 70 NG RWS of the MSHORAD has also been mounted on the roof of a Patgb 360 and MARS which can be added to Sweden, but if this post is trying to find domestic Italian SPAA’s, then the MSHORAD is not one of those unless Italy was a major contributor to the project rather than just lending a chassis.
So Your point to consider this veichle “”“swedish”“” is because it has a swedish missiles? what logic is this? (Mshorad is a missile sistem not a veichle LOL)
1 Like
It is a Swedish vehicle because it came from a Swedish project made by a Swedish company with no input from other nations. Using tech from other nations as a base doesn’t mean that that other nation gets to hold the title of the one responsible for that system, the nation which puts it together does. If Italy, for example, was to make their new MBT be an Ariete turret on an Abrams chassis, then that would be an Italian vehicle, not because the vehicle is 100% made of Italian parts and tech, but because Italians are the ones responsible for creating that vehicle. That is why the SIDAM for example is an Italian vehicle even though it is based on the American M113, it’s because Italians designed the SIDAM, even though they used foreign tech as a base for it. A Swedish company designed the MSHORAD with no input from Italy other than borrowing an Iveco Lince to display a possible variant of their MFU at the 2017 DSEI arms expo.
And no, MSHORAD is not a missile system, you are thinking about RBS 70 NG, which is the missile system that the MSHORAD MFU uses. The MSHORAD is more of a system complex, consisting of a Mobile Radar Unit (MRU) and a Mobile Firing Unit (MFU), similar to how Patriot or IRIS-T SLM consists of multiple independent vehicles which together become Patriot / IRIS-T SLM as they are a systems complex. You don’t have Patriot or IRIS-T SLM if you only have the missiles, you need the rest of the vehicles too. The same is true for the MSHORAD, it is a system complex consisting of an MRU and MFU which are both independent vehicles, with the MFU being the vehicle shown here. This vehicle is the 2017 version of the MSHORAD MFU with an Iveco Lince Chassis. The correct name of this vehicle would be something along the lines of “MSHORAD MFU (2017) Iveco Lince”.
I consider this vehicle Swedish because it is designed by a Swedish company with no input from other countries, whilst you consider it “”“Italian”“”" because it has an Italian chassis that Saab borrowed to show the interchangeability of their system. If you want to keep using that logic, please say goodbye to your SIDAMs and M113A1(TOW) and hand them over to the American tree as they are all based on an American chassis.
You compare this vehicle to M113 and SIDAM-25 which were in service of the Italian Army… Maybe you should compare it to AMX-30 Super or T-72AV Turms-T, why aren’t they in the German and Italian TTs respectively then?
2 Likes
Gaijin isn’t going to add a vehicle with the intention of removing it later. Vehicles like the Ho-Ri, R2Y2, Tiger 105, etc. were added during a time when Gaijin’s standards for what vehicles could be added were different.
Back then, paper vehicles were allowed but this has since changed so now they have been gradually removed. Italy will not get a special pass to have paper vehicles.
As for the F-16AJ, as I have already said it is simply an F-16A Block 10, there is nothing paper about it.
You said so much, but “F-16A Block 10” is an American aircraft after all, and never a “F-16aj” has ever come out of paper
1 Like
Now Gaijin probably doesn’t particularly care about the country of origin of the vehicle subject to the country in which it is assigned, For example, Swiss Hunter, Canadian ADATS, M41D, ItPs V90
1 Like
The name is irrelevant, I’m telling you what it is.
The name is not very important, but the meaning of the name is crucial, otherwise it should only be added to the US Air Force TT, not to the Japanese TT it has never been to by calling the name F16aj
And, is the F16aj really the F-16A Block 10 and not some other YF16 or something?
All your explanations of the F16AJ are not convincing that it is a historical vehicle, not to mention that Gaijin has other ways to solve the problem of the lack of CAS at the top of Japan, but they chose to create the Japanese F16AJ based on a small manual
1 Like
There is a big difference between a nation being given a vehicle that they trialled and a paper vehicle, you are equating one with the other. Personally, I’m not sure I agree that nations should even get vehicles they trialled but Gaijin makes the rules so it is what it is. The F-16AJ is nothing more than an F-16A Block 10, with none of the special modifications that were proposed to Japan like the Sparrow bays on the landing gear covers.
No, no and no. You are wrong again and again. The F16 AJ in game is classificated as a block 5 but it is a mix between a F16 MLU and an ADF. Japan tested only the prototype, the YF 16, that is another world compared to the AJ in game. The one in game is pure fantasy and it’s fake under every aspect, You can’t justify it hystorically, because it doesn’t exist. But as I said in a comment before, You are fine with fake veichle for other country but for some reason You don’t like Italy and it’s not fine for You have a mid paper veichle in Italy.
2 Likes