Yeah usually it’s just the engine that gets crippled then I die.
No, the C-5s are a sidegrade at best, they need to go up because they have 8 AMRAAMs, a ton of CMs, good radar, and more than thrust than the Saturn V. The Eurofighter and the Strike Eagle aren’t very different in game, except the F-15 gets 2 more AMRAAMs.
1 Like
I completely agree, there is no reason for the “Challenger 3” to be a downgrade compared to the other Challengers
1 Like
the extra armor was common practice among tankers in ww2, what we have in WT compared to historical photos is on the lower end of effectiveness as well as amount, commonly they used a crap load of tracks, or they would do, as shown in photos, cannibalize Sherman hulls and weld them onto theres, this method is what Eisenhower supported for additional armor due to the other methods being a bit heavy with not much protection against tanks/AT emplacement’s
And they need to go up to help with decompressing 13.0, instead of 13.7 for some reason.
T-80U, UM2, UD, UE-1, UD-1, and BVM
All stay their current Brs, but reloads buffed to 6.0 secs to be historically accurate.
Reason: every tank at top tier loads at 5.0 secs or faster now, meaning the T-80U’s are a bit underwhelming.
The Cyclogram data, and video evidence support that these loaders can load even faster without issue, but are set to 6.0 secs to be always reliable.
Video of the loader in question:
@aDSD anything I missed, that you can add to?
Is the Eurofighter and company not faster, more maneuverable, able to super cruise better (or at all), pull harder, and doesn’t the Rafale have an AESA radar? I dont have any of them but the F-15E and Rafale so this is from a genuine curiosity. My understanding is that the F-15E is more simply a missile bus. It throws missiles and then runs. Whereas the EF and Co are more thoroughbred dogfighters. Which to me, makes sense they would go up because they get the same missiles as the F-15E while also being far more maneuverable.
I have no foot in your lil debate going on, but just want to say that the Ayit will still be great at 9.7. Love that thing.
Yeah, I hope they implement these asap. It’s clear the discussions in this topic are leading to nothing. They’ve made their mind up.
Thats a historical change and this is the wrong place to post that here, please find an appropriate thread.
it was anounced in this post, therefore it is the right place, this is the appropiate thread
No, your post lacks any relevance to BR, rather your post is asking for a a-historical change which invalidates any credibility you have, i suggest posting documents if you believe otherwise Gaijin.net // Issues
This would be the correct place to post any information if you believe gaijin has it wrong.
I know lol.
It’s gonna be on par or superior to the harriers still, which I’d call the benchmark 9.7
The guy I was having the debate with was wanting the dutch hunter moved back to 9.0, of which it dominated not too long ago.
1 Like
Will easily outperform a few aircraft already at 9.7
1 Like
I was thinking more the Hunters. A well played Harrier would probably still win against an A-4 and most also have CMs, but something like the Hunter F6 has weaker missiles, no CMs and not even necessarily a better dogfighting performance
ahistorical like the f5cs flares and missiles? or ahistorical like us f5E weapons/flares (exept 9E) or the working ahistorical r27 on the f14 or the ahistorical boats, or the ahistorical tanks, or the ahistorical whatever you can really go forever with this
I personally don’t think the F.6 or GR.1 should sit at 9.7
I was comparing the ayit with the GR.3 or AV8A/Cs fitted with the 9Gs and countermeasures.
the F.6 is pretty much a straight downgrade from the Ayit.
SRAAM fixes aren’t looking likely as it only affects britain and the bugreports are getting very old…
The HF-24 should go down in br. At 9.0 it is quite outclassed and they are never seen in game now only a few months after the event.
Again use the correct site to adress the concern if its wrong, this isn’t the area for that.
Side note yes id be fine with a historical F-5C but that wasn’t the topic vehicle, it was the NF-5A. Again if you believe its wrong please use the correct forums