yes and it gets slightly better G pull because of that, but there is nothing that indicates it uses a different guidance system
It doesn’t exist because the reasoning used in the MANPADS article is flawed and should not apply to the Stinger, as shown.
As, the Stinger uses variable incidence actuators, instead of Bang-Bang type as on the Igla.
And can preempt the roll rate and rate of change of roll due to the sensor unlike the Igla.
1 Like
Still they are not the same missile so simply claiming that they use the same 70-80s soviet guidance is a bit of a simplification.
it is an upgraded version of that missile, it very much makes sense that it uses the same guidance principals unless it is specified otherwise
and it is a much more reasonable assumption than that a US missile would use 70s soviet guidance principals
The verba is still not an upgrade and the use completely different electronics, it isnt like nowadays the russian only know how to program bang bang actuators…
it is still designed in the same form factor, and uses the same control surfaces of the igla, so it is very much a related design, so makes much more sense than saying stinger uses igla guidance
they dont…
really? from the images I found it looks like it has the same control layout of the igla s, which is still an igla
Yes i know, this is the only plane used by VKS which is using R-77 double racks
No, the space between engines on the Su-27SM, Su-30SM are the same as on Su-35S if i remember correctly. Gaijin just added racks from other flanker model to older ones as “balance change”.
on the case of the verba they are also larger, and still the difference in the guidance between the the original iglas and the stingers is not on the physical layout but on the electronics, actuators and the control, and defaulting to the 80s performace as there is a lack of information on these missiles newer missiles is just wrong as in the case of the stingers.
I have used the T-10M, pre decompression and post. Reload gets me every time. That’s why it’s mid at best
Uh huh. Didn’t a bunch of other weapons gets leaked as fake in wt that were nato weapons.
Weird. I thought nato nations in game didn’t need fake weapons.
KH-38 exists… KH-38MT seeker exists… photos in a certain war have shown them being used.
? what are you even talking about
there is no evidence that 38mt seeker exists in a functional capacity, and there is no images of non mockup 38mt at all much less in use
5 Likes
I’d be careful talking with a few people in this thread like this as they will likely flag your posts.
It’s bad if you specifically look at rough BR’s with weak lineups, mostly it’s average to decent with some really good areas
1 Like
I just want to say for all those people that complain about Russian tanks eating spall or not blowing up when they should, I just want you to know The same is for Western tanks. Tell me, have you ever died mid-reload? I’ll tell you right now, no, you haven’t, because ballistic door isn’t modeled. So if you complain about the Russian tanks having some features missing, complain about yours as well, because otherwise you’re just a huge hypocrite.
That’s the ML, which is the widely used model;
Whereas the MT is an export proposition (MTE) which hasn’t been shown in russian arsenals yet, and has yet to be ordered by an international customer, so until then (or we see clear, varied images on russian aircraft), then it doesn’t exist, in the same capacity that the LFK NG for germany, and others like it were mocked up at airshows and defense cons for years but never made it past that stage.
The KH-38ML is the only credible variant we should see in game, cherry on top is that it’s the most balanced one too, what a surprise…
2 Likes
I’m not against it being modelled, but it won’t really change a lot
western tanks ammo rack isn’t situated center mass but on the turret neck, not a place easy to hit.
It would also only affect a tank during reload, while russian mbts eat spall all the time