-
I stop reading
-
I come back 1000 messages later
still talking about trees and inexistent rules to what will be added and what wont
5 Likes
India can start at Tier IV actually it’s just most of vehicles in that Tier at least for Air will be copy n paste (Various Spitfires, Tempest Mk.II, various B-24’s, Some P-47’s), the only “unique” vehicle will be the Breguet Alize but it’s only unique because France does not have that Aircraft in it’s tree, you only get unique Indian Aircraft from Tier V onwards.
For research requirements, I think Tier IV USSR, UK & France is reasonable but i think we can add some other nations in there as well (more specifically Japan, Sweden and Yugoslavia when a Yugoslav TT is added)
Idk if you just can’t read or what but I quite literally said Britain doesn’t need MBTs
Where is that coming from? I would like to see a source on that.
Yeah but they aren’t their own separate subtree they just fill gaps and as I have said before Britain don’t need any more MBTs, which means I don’t think the C2A1 or any Canadian MBT should be in the British tree
(it’s still about subtrees ans KF41)
We already have that with Israel.
3 Likes
But the AIM in game though is specifically the australian one. Which therefore makes it the export one.
Spoiler
“In July 1973 German Federal Minister of Defence Georg Leber and his US counterpart James R. Schlesinger agreed upon a higher degree of standardization in main battle tanks being favourable to NATO. By integrating components already fully developed by German companies for the Leopard 2, the costs of the XM1 Abrams should be reduced. A German commission was sent to the US to evaluate the harmonisation of components between the XM1 and Leopard 2.[14] However, by American law it was not possible for a public bidder to interfere in a procurement tender after a contract with intention of profits and deadline was awarded to companies of the private industry.[14]
As a result, the modification of the Leopard 2 prototypes in order to meet the US Army requirements was investigated. Following a number of further talks, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed on 11 December 1974 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the USA, which declared that a modified version of the Leopard 2 should be trialled by the USA against their XM1 prototypes,[15] after the Americans had bought and investigated prototype PT07 in 1973.[16] The MOU obligated the Federal Republic of Germany to send a complete prototype, a hull, a vehicle for ballistic tests and a number of special ballistic parts to the USA, where they would be put through US testing procedures for no additional costs.[17]
The Leopard 2AV (austere version) was based on the experiences of the previous Leopard 2 development. It was created in order to meet the US requirements and the latest protection requirements of the German MoD. The turret T14 mod was used as base for the Leopard 2AV’s turret, but meeting the required level of protection for the hull required several attempts until the final ballistic trials on 23 to 26 June 1976.[18] Following the US’ preference of laser rangefinders, the turret of prototype PT19 was fitted with a laser rangefinder developed together with the American company Hughes.[19] In comparison with the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes, the fire control system was simplified by replacing the EMES-12 optical rangefinder and removing the crosswind sensor, the air-pressure and temperature sensors, the powder temperature sensor, the PERI R12 commander sight with IR searchlight, the short-range grenade launcher for use against infantry, the retractable search-light, the spotlight, the retractable passive night vision sight, the APU and the mechanical loading assistant.[17]“
I see it now, 2AV not 2A7V. Big difference.
Yes I know you said Britain doesnt need MBTs, hence why I said for Canadian stuff, itd be better to add things that arent an MBT. I know what you said and i did read it lol, im just branching off of what you said.
Im not trynna start anything, just expanding what you said, so my bad if it came off that way
smin do you know if the azur kit on the leclerc will be release as era or nera as irl its nera, imagine having era for urban combat with soldier arrount, so yeah it should be nera
Nobody expected the AJ either, and that was arguably received far worse that an armament limited XF-2B would have.
Thing is, it did. Not only did it mount Sparrows on all pylons, including the outer two, but also had pylons mounted on the gear doors and even had firing tests from them.
Spoiler
While replacing it with a subtree is an option now, that is exactly what you think Gaijin wouldn’t do. They are limiting a vehicle to change it later. Meanwhile you’re saying limiting armament is impossible for an XF-2B.
And stop repeating this all the time, AESA is not in the game, the XF-2B could easily be introduced with current PD mechanics until that changes. This would be exactly the same as british Phantoms not having their PD radar until that was added to the game a few updates later, or even the first F-4s lacking sparrows completely leaving the hardpoints completely empty, until SARH missiles were added.
So why add a vehicle to replace later with just as much, if not more limits compared to the actual design than an XF-2B would have had, just to never change these and completely replace it later? Your points simply don’t add up.
6 Likes
4x AIM-9Ls with no other missiles, 12.0, incorrectly functioning radar, and a new precedent set for adding vehicles.
Nah, that’d be worse. Especially since it wouldn’t get sparrows until after F-15J’s BR if ever.
Replacing it with a sub tree has been an option since last year; and as stated previously no other jet in WT has missing armament from pylons.
Intentionally wanting an incorrect radar, thus an incorrect vehicle, is insulting to the F-2.
The British Phantoms are 2019, not 2023.
You can’t beg for 2019 standards to return and expect that to go well.
1 Like
This is such an awful take, with PD radar it would get at least 2 Sparrows, if not all 4. The radar would also not stay incorrect, just for as long as AESA isn’t implemented in the game. There is no new precedent either, as this exact thing was done before.
What about it would only have ot Sparrows so late when the radar performs as PD? The fact that it has 4? There are already F-16s woth sparrows, this wouldn’t be any different. If anything the XF-2 is a slower, more agile plane, a faster F-16 could make better use of Sparrows unless it had AESA, which once again isn’t in game.
Armament is missing all the time, I literally provided proof for the YF-16, which is not only the plane the F-16AJ was based on, but also had certain armament, such as TV vuided bombs and two additional sparrows advertised in the brochure. No matter why it is not in game, it isn’t, showing Gaijin does sometimes not add full armament.
Another example is AIM-120 for the F-16C. They’re not in game yet, but neither is AESA. And the EJ Kai also used exclusively F and M model Sparrows, yet it has no Ms and ahistorical Es. This is likely to have more of a grind, but regardless is an example for differing armament between game and reality.
Is it really insulting to have this beautiful aircraft with all of the capabilities that are already in game, knowing it will receive everything it is missing as soon as it’s added and balanced? Would you rather be at risk of having it added as late as the F-1, way after its time would have been?
There are no standards. Gaijin makes decisions, that’s it. They removed the Panther II in 2019 because it’s an ahistorical mix of multiple projects, then recently added the F-16AJ as an ahistorical mix of multiple proposals in 2023. Not because that’s the rule now, but because they said so.
8 Likes
The precedent is well known to be fill all pylons and make the radar as accurate as possible on release.
Why do you think the only inaccurate radar in the last year was Sea Harrier? Even then it was only missing IFF, not an entire mode.
AIM-120s on F-16C share the same pylons as AIM-9s, no missing armament from pylons.
There’s no threat of F-2 being added as late as F-1, and F-1 was still fine on release.
And no, they removed the Panther 2 cause the 88 in that turret never existed.
F-16AJ, or YF-16 Japan Demonstrator, is not a mix of multiple proposals, and it’s better than having nothing until F-15J.
So when’re we expecting the update? Tuesday?
Apologies, I read it as an argument, that’s on me. I agree that the last thing Britain needs is more MBTs, IFVs and other light fighting vehicles are a much more pressing matter.
2 Likes
Well, tornado f3 dropped with the F14 radar and then was given the useless Stage W radar before getting the usable Stage 2G last major update and the FRS1 had actually quite a bit wrong with the radar itself was a lot more than just no IFF