Out of those, only A-10A is an example.
F-14 and F-16 were not intentional design decisions. They were implemented with what Gaijin thought was correct information. Later turning out to be incorrect.
Only A-10A was implemented knowing their implementation was incorrect.
@Alpharius11348
Photographs have been provided multiple times.
And unless proven otherwise, photographs are a source.
Stop applying double standards and choose consistent rules for evidence instead.
Either oppose all photographs or accept all photographs, stop cherry picking.
Conjecture is not evidence.
No one has supplied an Mi-28NM manual because doing so is a rule violation.
Photographs are evidence, official documentation is evidence.
After all, the primary reason why F-111C and F-111F have access to 6x AIM-9Ls in-game is not because they’re listed in the manual, but because there are photographs of those missiles on the relevant store positions.
So yeah, if photographic evidence isn’t valid to you as a rule, just say so.
That way I don’t have to point out hypocrisy in posts and instead just dismiss the posts that claim photographic evidence isn’t a valid source material.
Or concede that photographic evidence is a valid source material.
Cause y’all aren’t attacking Mi-28NM. Mi-28NM going to 4 LMURs will only drop its BR [not my opinion].
Y’all are attacking F-15C GE’s MRMLs, BOL pods on various aircraft, PGMs on some aircraft, etc. Aircraft that have weapon systems primarily because photographic evidence exists.
Stop loving photographic evidence when it fits your biases, and love it as a concept in general.
