I guess because UK don’t have insane ground line-up on top tier better by a significant margin above anybody else.
Where HEAT for Sweden? They should get it. Would be a great stock round for strv 121.
Where gbu for Japan?
Where PGM2000 for German Tornado?
It’s all the same cases.
Where Heat for britain? Oh wait thats right because in service vehicles dont use heat for either nations, but whats this? Finland has to use heat? Weird its almost like they use it. If you can find evidence on sweden using HEAT for their 2a4 then by all means please do post it. That way a single tank can use heat. Also do the current aircraft on japan have the capacity to hold GBU’s? Every Gripen C is compatible with any Nato munition, that is why they made the exception for the swedish and SAAF gripen, and when the Thailand Gripen comes if it doesnt have GBU’s it will get them because it can mount them.
They get G with argument “they integrated with grippen so we don’t care that Sweded didn’t use them and didn’t buy them”. Why they can’t get HEAT with same reason? Same case.
In another universe where it exist for their rifled L30 gun. When you find it in our universe, write me right away.
F-15
F-4
So its the same argument but you only care as long as britain doesnt get held to the same standard right.
Is there proof that those specific models can hold them? Mounting rails may not be able to hold them, look at the F4F KWS which absolutely should have 3 mount for AGM’s but can’t.
Don’t buy = don’t exist
Yeah, same argument)
Well as long as Britain gets to not have heat because they dont use it, why is it any different for sweden? You seem so upset over the fact that its the same reason for both not having it but when its sweden you just cant seem to accept the fact that they both have the same excuse.
Your whole argument is just very silly.
Isn’t the RB75 the same as the AGM-65B? or is it AGM-65A? either way the only difference would be the ability to zoom the camera.
because the Swedish AGM-65G wasn’t planned to begin with.
People argued that it should be implemented given Sweden’s lack of top BR FaF.
RB75 is AGM 65A. AGM65B has a slightly better seeker but has the same short range problem. The only reason they gave them AGM 65B despite not using it was because its the C model and it is more advanced. Both A and C’s rails can mount the AGM 65A or B.
UK don’t get HEAT because it’s just wasn’t made for their rifled L30 gun. There nothing to give them. It’s just don’t exist on this planet.
At the same time there exist DM12A1. It’s fully integrated with L/44 gun and all strv121/122 could use it at any moment as they get it. And Sweden don’t get them in game because they didn’t buy it. Right like they didn’t buy agm-65g. But they have agm-65g and don’t have HEAT. And that is double standard and I don’t like that.
Then remove DM 53 from every tank that doesnt use it, so chally, ariete, ect ect… they could use them but they dont. Gaijin balances in strange ways, the yak 141 never had what is has currently but it was planned if the vehicle had actually been adopted. The gripen mounting agm 65 is the same as these. Well the same as the ammo but the yak 141 is entirely fictional with its current loadout and IRST.
actually the gripen are the only planes of the swedens with a “decent” cas loadout abouth 9.0
Thats irrelevant, here id argue thats reason enough but i also belive every nation should have viable CAS. I dont decide when and what a nation gets i just play all the nations and see what comes.
See the problem is people dont like the idea of sweden having any CAS because they have an OP ground lineup. Also why did gaijin wait to add RB75T to only the gripen when both AJ models use it.
i play sweden, thier lineups are not that op, at least what i can judge, the leos are a bit stronger on the turret but the chassis stays the same as every other leo, the cv90 chasis is easy to pen with .50 or russian mg, also any main shell ( with a minimal amout of aim) will kill any cv90 base vehile, the strf9040 bill got a massiv nerf with his missle dropping a meter at launch instead of beeing launched with a 3° upaim as irl, additionally we can not buy a full 10.3 lineup * russia*
The wiki list the Rb75 as an AGM-65B. I don’t know how accurate the wiki is though.
https://wiki.warthunder.com/AJ37#:~:text=RB75%20(AGM-65B%20Maverick)
as far as i know the main seeker is the same, its just able to zoom so that the pilot can lock smaller targets. (IRL at least)
the A can mount AGM-65A/B, the C version can mount all AGM-65 variants.
this is an EXTREAMLY valid question. I hope someone can answer this.
The Swedish leos have better frontal hull armor as well. and some top BR leos have added mine protection on the belly as well.
Generally Sweden has a ridiculously strong top tier lineup. i have so far only played Sweden and USA at top tier so i cant really judge super well but so far the Swedish top tier ground seems the strongest.
The only actual lack they have at top BR is a light vehicle.
I still prefer japan just for the mbt hydralic suspension, reload, and mobility. They fit my playstyle better than the leos. I think sweden is strong bit from my own playstyle i think japan is the strongest, they just lack more mbts and light tanks.
Its a little more than that, some electronics & symbology (as well as loft angle) changes occurred that improved the pilots workflow or assist with determining if the shot would be valid.
Also the seeker was adjusted which improved the lock on range for a similar target, by about 3x at the expense of worse display resolution. though it is significantly overperforming in game against tactical targets (e.g. a T-62).
This depends it should have two separate variants of the rails, with the earlier LAU-117/A (single rail launcher) and LAU-88/A (Triple rail launcher), not being digitized and so are effectively limited to the -65A, -65B ( and -65C) variants, with the later -117A/A & -88A/A being digitized and so can take full advantage of features conferred by the later digital variants (-65D and later).
Not that they can’t be loaded or fired from the earlier rails, but they can’t use features like universal bore-sighting (automatically align all missiles aboard to the one point, instead of needing to do so manually) or automatically correct for the rail’s offset from the centerline / TGP (needs to be done manually) when slewed.
So it isn’t done in practice, though for doctrinal reasons more so than anything else.
