For the British its really not that balanced, especially the FGR.2 that sits at BR 11.3. The Skyflashes are inferior to the 7F Sparrow on its US counterpart (F-4J), and the Tornado F.3 sits at the same BR with four L Sidewinders, a superior radar, and upgraded Skyflash TEMP. I can at least understand the FG.1 being capped at G Sidewinders if it remains at 11.0 (I forgot it’s also 11.3). This is without touching on the fact that the British Phantoms, while being the quickest, are also the heaviest, and rely on the gunpod if you want a gun.
4 Likes
??? it’s 11.3
oh my bad for that
It’s 11.0 in AAB however if you were meaning that, but the majority of top tier matches are rb if my brain is braining
no I was discussing air RB, it was just a memory skill issue
2 Likes
Not on the British hunters, and SRAAM’s were tested on the Hunters which is they got them.
It’s already been stated multiple times by Smin it would require their BR’s to be increased it they were given 9L’s.
Quite surprised there was nothing on the missing frontal amour plates of the Leopard PSO. I’d bet its one of the most asked questions…
4 Likes
11.7 would be fine for them with 9L
I’d really appreciate it if the developers or community managers could give a statement on the PSO’s add-on hull armor and if that is expected to ever make an appearance in the upcoming update? This is literally the defining factor of whether I continue to play and support War Thunder or don’t, sadly.
6 Likes
the only better IR missile that the Barak II have access is the Python-4 the first 4 gen missile with IRCCM from israel, it needs to come man.
Can you explain why japanese suggestions sub-forum exists?
Type81 and type11 had problems that are already solved by players, you just need to read it once. They don’t even require anything special to develop.
Why for ground vehicles instead of(suggestions for each exists for a long time):
MMPM - type93 chasis with tandem ATGM launcher, missiles which could be aimed manually or like spikes, can shoot down helis. Everything exists you just need to assemble it.
RCV/ICV - new jsdf IFV with unmanned/manned turret on type96 chasis(similar to type16) with bushmaster 30mm canon, fun ammo and possibly can track air targets.
Type 99 155 sph - similar to new VIDAR premium.
Komatsu LAV - fast car with ATGMs, would be similar to wiesel 1A2 gameplay wise.
we second major patch in a row get only a fuck off level poor copy paste tank that makes absolutely no sense?
Will japan get another nerfed to ground and barely working SAM in december major patch or even less and it will be third fuck off vehicle in a row instead of anything original?
10 Likes
Everything requires development.
Nerfed SAM? LOL Type 93 has only been improved, and will continue to be improved.
can every nation have 9m/r73 counterparts?
1 Like
Do you plan to add more IFV for Great Britain and Japan? like the type 98 and the Warrior CSP
2 Likes
the israeli homemade counterpart is the Python-4 lets see if gaijin change the 9M on the Barak II which is totally innacurate and give the Python-4, i dont know from where they get the info that israel used the 9M when it never bought to USA 9Ms for the only reason that israel was already developing the Python-4 at that time to compete with those missiles, the 9M it never was carried by any of his jets in service.
2 Likes
KF41’s BR is too high and it is useless at 10.7. It should be lowered to 10.0.
Israel should not use the AIM-9M, it was never aquired or used by the IDF/AF. Instead, I hope Gaijin implements the Python 4 they’ve been working on.
And, I hope the piece of crap good for nothing GBU-15(V)2/B will be replaced by the SPICE 2000. Better and domestic.
1 Like
AGM-65 and Kh-29 are not at all the same class of missile. AGM-65 is a dedicaded anti-tank guided ATGM, Kh-29 is a general purpose demolition air-to-ground missile.
America mains are at it again ladies and gentelmen.
SPIKEs, 3rd gen gunner and commander thermals, 30mm autocannon with APFSDS, hardkill APS, seems fine to me. I wonder tho why it did not get IR tracking, i’d think such a feature would be implemented on this vehicle for sure.
1 Like
Do i need to explain how the 300lb HE-F warhead performs differently to the 125lb HEAT one? They are optimized for different sets of targets(the HE-F warhead would not be arbitrarily limited to 30mm of overpressure penetration, like the HEAT warhead variants ), but it’s very different to say something like the AGM-84E (490lb warhead), even though they would be the same in terms of Seeker(both the AGM-65G and -84E use the seeker of the -65D). we’re still missing aircraft that could carry it for now (F-16C-50 could carry the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER), though we aren’t far off.
Is it somehow wrong to ask for armament that performs slightly better and might fix some issues when it wouldn’t even be best in class or push performance boundaries in any metric. I’ve seen what happened to the US F-4E / A-4E and so efforts should be put in place to avoid having it occur again.
It’s not like I’m asking for an IIR Walleye II for the A-4E, or CBU-100 or some other advanced ordnance.
4 Likes