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
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
There is zero evidence of a Kh-38 with IR seeker being used they have all been the ML version.
That is not to say the missile doesn’t exist which players largely don’t have a problem with.
What is the problem is how effective the missile is how it can track high speed moving targets (when even the manufacturer of said missile states IR mode is not to be used for that)
They recommend mmW or SAL modes. People get frustrated that Russian kit get’s every advantage it possibly could to remain competitive in game.
Relikt ERA working at all angles…No that’s not how ERA works it loses efficacy depending on the angle of impact.
LMUR - No proof of 8 being carried by an MI-28 including export brochures, static displays and combat operations. Also is surprise surprise the best Heli missile in game…Yet Gaijin refuse to add the 15km SPIKE to Israel. Or model the correct top attack profile for Hellfires (Only been about 5 years)
Brimstone - “nerfed for balance”
BUK M3 - No proof the missile existed, no proof it was tested and zero proof the missile and seeker were ever combined. Is still offered as SARHM system. BUK M3 currently the only sam that doesnt need the Radar unit. These sams are hard enough to kill without them having 3 lives.
Same proven fucntionality denied to Skysabre and SAMP-T
Gaijin’s refusal to model drag from wing pylons and external loads. Yes that would effect China and the USA but jets that carry 12 missiles should have to deal with the massive increase in drag.
This and many reasons is why players get peed off with Gaijins view of Russian equipment
3 Likes
I’d need proof of 64E carrying 16 JAGMs.
Not really.
How does this affect RU only ?
1 Like
You do get that no one actually wants the JAGM, let alone the -MR. The AGM-114L would have been more than enough. But Gaijin refuses for no reason.
Best I can do is prove it’s planned, Quad JAGMs would also be possible, but I’ve not seen anything for the -MR’s that aren’t obviously renders.
4 Likes
Wow an actual US army source and we know dimensions and the launch rails are designed to be able to use Hellfires and JAGM
People wanting something or not doesn’t matter.
If it’s in the game it should exist in real life ?
There’s also a picture of a pylon that carries two LMURs.
1 Like
We have images, multiple images of 16 Hellfires, considering JAGM is designed to be compatible with those rails. And we have US military documents backing up the 16 payload for JAGM
BUK M3 if you destroy the Radar the other launchers can still be used, IRIS-T Radar dies system dies.
Skysabre and SAMP-T should have this fucntionality and it was denied.
Well NATO tend to recess missiles (Gaijin also do not model ejector pylons) to reduce drag
Russia only have on most airframes 2 missiles recessed between the engines but the pylons themselves are not recessed adding to increased drag, The majority are mounted on wing stations.
There should be some negatives from carrying 14 missiles.
2 Likes
There is but not mounted on the 4 stations.
documents also suggest that LMUR at least on MI-28 are designed to carry 4 as a maximum.
Give me an image of 16 JAGMs on a helicopter, brochure doesn’t interest me.
So same as 64E, good to know.
Someone has already shared sources and in far more detail of any of the rebuttal to the LMUR question.
LMUR is a new missile it does not use existing rails. if it had been a new version that shares the Vikhrs launch tubes then sure.
Again same missile size same launch rail, same carrying capacity.
Although with how good JAGM is you probably wont carry 16 of them when 8 will do.
1 Like
I already said I don’t care about your brochures, give me pictures or I’ll just assume you’re wrong.
Vikhrs are irrelevant here.
Double missile pylon has been shown and weight of the entire system isn’t problematic either.
1 Like