So where is the Tor M1 for Russia? (2.0)

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

Pretty simple post.
Didn’t gaijin say they would add the tor m1 to russia as well? So where is it?
Like yeah I get the fact the pantsir is better and all that but the tor is just cooler imo and it wouldn’t even break the balance that much since basically no one takes 2 spaa’s, and most people would just play the pantsir anyways.

So how about they follow up with that promise and finally add it to the ussr too?
China already has it so they don’t even need to make a new model or anything. It’s kinda dumb that a nation doesn’t get one of it’s own creations when it has been in the game for 2 years-ish by now.

12 Likes
2

That is how it feels with the American Sabre Dogs (F-86D/Ks) or how it felt with the F-5A (which we EVENTUALLY got) or the M8 as a non-event vehicle for the US or the AV-8B or the J39C Gripen or etc. etc. etc.

But yes, Russia should have received the Tor M1 and not the Pantsir. It would have been, IMO, a much better addition for Russia. Also, I do believe it has a few slight changes, but it would still have been practically the same. So.

15 Likes
3

You’re not missing out on much
USAF didn’t use 86K that had guns, only 86D and 86L which were armed with just 24 FFARs and maybe two Sidewinders

5 Likes
4

Ok, same could be said about the Tor-M1. Russia has the Pantsir, why would you want a worse SPAAG system at the same BR?

My point is more it happens. And it is unfortunate, and honestly at times shouldn’t happen. But it happens.

But I want the Sabre Dogs because I want the FFARs and Sidewinders. I think that would be a fun challenge.

5 Likes
5

because its cool, and because more vehicles are always welcome

1 Like
6

I agree. I think, as I have stated, it should have (and still should) gone to Russia as well, but a nation not getting their own design is not an unheard of concept essentially.
That is all.

2 Likes
7

as long as a nation used a vehicle i think they should jsut get them. especially when its already in the game.
kinda reminds me of the skyflash and how only sweden got it at first lmao. at least they fixed that one

1 Like
8

Again, I agree! No need to tell me twice.

1 Like
9

Listen, I like the Sabre Dog a lot but the F-86D is gonna be ass to play even if they add the proxy fused FFARs to it. It just has a retractable bay with 24 of them.

Agreed on everything else except the gripen, sweden will get it but most likely when AMRAAMs come.

2 Likes
10

I don’t care. Having the option would be nice, especially if it went TT. I don’t want to have to spend 100 dollars just to have the chance to play (F-89s should have been TT too but can’t win them all)

1 Like
11

We still have the F-89 H and J to add, hope is not lost

1 Like
12

Pantsir isn’t better than the TOR-M1, that’s the problem.
It would be variety.

13

Pantsir-S1 is on paper better than TOR-M1 in these ways:
Missile has a 60% increase in range, 53% faster velocity and 12% larger trigger radius.
Pantsir-S1 has 50% more missiles in storage, 19% faster turret rotation (with aced crew) and MASSIVELY faster reload/fire rate of missiles.
Pantsir-S1 can self defence with guns for fast low flying jets, light tanks and SPAA (and some medium tanks with luck).
Pantsir-S1 has thermals.

Tor-M1 is better in these ways:
Missile can pull 31% more G’s.
Has TWS
that’s it.

5 Likes
14

You’re underselling the Tor M1, one of the best top tier SPAA with features such as:

  • Massive unmissable smoke trail
  • IRST track that doesn’t give ranging information
  • No Thermals for mk 1 eyeball scanning
  • 3-6km deadzone around the launcher, it depends on which direction the missiles feel like going shortly after launching, if it’s not optimal for the target you’re tracking: unlucky
  • auto-lead compensation can be a help or a hinderance, great for straight flying targets, requires god-tier prediction and input for evasive targets

Almost as good as Stormer HVM and Type 93, with SPAA this good it’s like you don’t even need those rubbish Su-27 J-11 R-27ERs and TY-90 Helis.

The reason Russia got the Pantsir instead was stated by the devs: the Tor M1 was statistically performing almost as bad as the Tunguska despite players not having access to twin double barrel 30mm cannons and driving around the frontline as a makeshift IFV.

8 Likes
15

Give China a Pantsir equivalent whilst we are at it, how on Gods green blue navy yellow earth can you ask for the Tor-M1 whilst you got the Pantsir?

as long as a nation used a vehicle i think they should jsut get them

I’d have to disagree, if something provides a unfair advantage which other tech trees cant replicate then it has no place in War Thunder.

1 Like
16

This is more of the case of representation. Not gameplay value. There is several different distinct aspects than just gameplay.

17

ive made a pantsir equivelent suggestion, aka the closest thing china has that resembles a pantsir, however i dont think it will be added for some while

1 Like
18

Fair point.

1 Like
19

Realistically the Tunguska didn’t need to be replaced by anything. The SAM nerfs still affect plenty of top tier AA, with the exception of the ADATS variants (it’s not a SAM! It’s a ATGM that pulls Gs). It got replaced because God forbid people use it as an AA instead of an AT gun.

But that is just my opinion. I know plenty of people won’t agree, for a variety of reasons. So

4 Likes
20

Don’t know why you are underselling this point. It frontally kills MBTs with ease