You would be right if war thunder was just an arcadey WoT clone and advertised as such but since the game and devs pride themselves on delivering a somewhat realistic experience with standards when it comes to the additions in the game youre just wrong. Its an integral part of the game and probably the main reason people play this over the competitors
Fictional things are integral part of this game considering how many we received over the years. They are sacrificing realism and immersion for balance.
Things like your tanks still rendering while “hiding” in bushes and having more complex HP bars definitely bring plenty of people.
I remember someone using that Against the “Kh-38MT” don’t exist cope. And even moderator trying to refute that. Leaving the most import part out of the topic.
The issue isn’t whether thing X or thing Y exists - it’s the level of support/evidence that Gaijin asks for some additions while not for others.
Take the Typhoon additional AMRAAM example:
Brochure/sales literature shows it is possible as a fitment.
Gaijin says - nope, a brochure isn’t good enough.
KH-38MT - shown in sales literature/brochure.
Gaijin says - yeah, go on then.
1 Like
Looks like JAGM is following this principle.
3 Likes
It’s not just a single Brochure for JAGM-MR, and there are issues with “gaming convention” and the avoidance of MMW seekers.
Also, It’s not like there wasn’t an attempt to actually make things actually meet known data for the missile.
“It is too hasty to assume that there are no other possibilities. The fact that the JAGM-MR’s NIR seeker demonstrated an acquisition range of 6 km in testing represents merely one firing scenario, rather than showcasing the seeker’s full capabilities. Therefore, it is somewhat insufficient as a basis for the argument that the seeker’s acquisition range must be reduced.”
What is supposed to happen is that the Designator uses the laser to “anoint” a target until the Seeker(s) correlate the track, then take over terminal guidance permitting the designator to be re-tasked.
Instead of IIR or SALH, all the way.
1 Like
In reality. There is not much difference in the place were the dual pylon for Su-35s its. Compare to other flanker. Search yourself pic of Su-27sm/Su-30sm and the Su-35s. You won’t notice a big difference to claim that Su-27sm and Su-30sm can’t use Dual pylon.
That pylon its rate for 1500 kg in modern flanker. So weight was also never a problem only dimension. I’m pretty sure Su-35s could carry dual pylon on engine pylon and inner wing pylon too. Because all of them are rated to 1500kg. But we will never know. ATM not even Su-35s its flying with dual pylon. Because they prioritize using R-37m and Kh31 missile in every mission it has been seen.
Same applied for Helicopter. If a Mi-28 can use a full pylon of 6 Vikhr next to a full pylon of Ataka missile. Or Ka-52 flying with 6 vikhr next to Hermes-a missile. There is 0 reason that it could use two LMUR missile next to each other. But they never are seem with these Loadout because they prioritize that the vehicle can do more than 1 type a mission.
Lmur its also not the same as Jagm-MR. That btw currently don’t exist on US arsenal. That pic posted a lot of time here. Talk that Jagm-MR its to be expected near 2030. So US main got Jagm-MR out of pity. And so you guys don’t flow the forum with New Chinese missile OP. New LMUR missile OP. Like you do every time Red team get ahead of US/nato in game.
Because current AA in game. Can intercept everything. Low count of LMUR missile its really bad. Even if the missile its self it good. The only way helicopter will be able to do something against AA system its doing what Germany was doing with Pars missile. Shot all of them to a target so one of them don’t get intercept. Rearm and repeat.
1 Like
‘Anoint’ a target - presumably being a euphemism for ‘provisional lock before it gets properly locked on by the incoming telegraph pole of death?’
Basically, yes. Though the missiles aren’t anywhere near that big.
Though there may well be other modes of operation where it for example the Designator may retain control, so as with the Brimstone precise targeting can be ensured.
It should also be able to be cued off an RWR spike to perform a sensor Sweep along the contact’s bearing for targets then automatically prep the trigger to launch as a self protection / rapid response feature (holdover from the Longbow), similar to a AGM-88s SP mode .
1 Like
i have vids + pics of them actively using dual pylons for R-77-1 in the su35 (but it is a bit rare as they are mostly using the belly pylons for r37s) . im not against the addition of lmur. tbh im kinda okay with them adding 8x lmurs to mi28 but as of now i think only 4 is confirmed to be used by the mi28. 16 jagm-mr would probably be better than 4-8x lmur305. but if they model MITL in wt then it may be a fair trade off. i also get your point about jagm-mr not being used/seen with 16 missiles. but i feel like it is a much needed addition for the apache cus it has been useless for a while. but it may be a bit to op cus it gets 16 missiles but i cant really say how effective its against tanks atm. (cus it may end up taking 1-3 jagm to destroy a single tank)
3 Likes
I think 8 LMURs vs 16 JAGM-MR is already a decent asymmetric balance. The AH-64E has the advantage in sheer amount os missiles, but the Mi-28NM has the advantage in having missiles that don’t have inconsistent damage.
MITL should absolutely not come to top tier anytime soon unless they want to straight up kill top tier GRB.
1 Like
i think even lmurs were inconsistent in the dev server , from what i heard and iirc BVVD said they are planning to add MITL after they add MBT’s with aps to every tt.
Kh-38 is real, a known real missile following the same rules as all else.
Kh-38MT follows the same rules as other variants of missiles, and Brochures aren’t the only thing that can prove its existence. Gaijin as a corporation can converse and get legal documents from other corporations far easier than we can. They can go to Lockheed, etc and get NDA’d documents we can’t get. And as long as they follow the rules of the NDA they’re fine.
Also every post-1945 statistics disparity is easily explained via pilot skill disparity at minimum, as War Thunder’s own statistics prove.
@ron_23
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/images/2019/06/20/556742/original.jpg
More on a different vehicle but same launching mechanism.
No Russian bias, no American bias.
Ever since they added the original batch of hard kill APS tanks 5 years ago they added a whole 4 new top tier vehicles with APS.
At this rate I don’t expect every TT to have an APS vehicle, let alone APS MBT, before 2035.
Me when I have less than 60 matches in the thing because i don’t have a lineup and still get yapped at :skull:
Good picture haven’t seen the dual mount on the outer pylon.
Actually I have seen it
I mean it seemed like you were implying that the M1A1 wasn’t easily one of the best 11.3 MBTs in game. That kind of deserves getting yapped at.
2 Likes
yes because it makes sense that a platform using missiles that were out of inventory before it existed despite later versions being compatible and already in game