makes the statement that I quote “name dropped the PARS” when I did none of the sort
proceeds to make a deal out of such while evidence to the contrary exists within view along with stating that I made the statement to begin with
claims I changed the goalposts when my argument has not changed on the matter beyond responding to retorts
claims I made personal attacks as a argument when I stated a fact, you came in here and attempted to make the discussion about the AGM-65 into one about the PARS
I dunno if you are just trying to gaslight me at this point but it would need work if so.
Months later and nothing has happened.
Gaijin seems to be very interested in fixing bugs.
Namely not at all!
Likewise, the new generation Spike ATGM has a range of 10 km and not something like 6 km like in the game.
But Gaijin is still asleep, while in conflicts this type of ATGM is successfully used against tanks.
The lr2 have a 5.5 km range from ground vehicles, the 10 km value likely from rotatory or fixed wing aircrafts.
On the brochure that it is liked, on the same page that you used, states that the range is “up to 5.5 km”
Here in it states that they have a 10 km range when it is lunched from the air https://www.paptecnos.com/spikelr2/
And ? No amount of penetration changes the fact that Spike (an other) goes horizontally through thickest tank armor instead of going through vertically through thin roof armor.
Nah I don’t think so, I don’t see anything in those stat which would affect impact angle, but feel free to elaborate…
Because when it comes to impact angle, all those missiles acts like beam riders. Impact angle angle is determined by mutual position of launch vehicle (or launch position) and target, not the missile vector.
Lofting is sadly in term of impact angle just optical gimmick.
so I think my post in the Puma KF41 thread was right after testing (not representative) with 50 missiles
my findings:
missile flightpath seems very flat at first, but then picks up altitude (seems less altitude than before tho close targets still get overshot)
impact angles are way shallower even at close to mid ranges
out of 50 missiles 42 hit the T-90a out of these 42 a staggering 19 did not penetrate or hit any significant parts ( no penetration into the crew compartment) out of 23 penetrations 16 resulted in a kill ( NOTE: some of these only killed the tank because ERA on the test server seems to be bypassed (not exploded or hit in any way) by the SPIKE atm)
u are really dense quite frankly and without any intention to insult, but to put it in short this means the missile will take much less of an initial angle and instead of doing this
basically a more sharp turn towards the target instead of going down towards the target halfway through the traject, altough not so exaggerated since the change its just a bit, but hopefully this means we might see a better angle
Because when it comes to impact angle, all those missiles acts like beam riders. Impact angle angle is determined by mutual position of launch vehicle (or launch position) and target, not the missile vector.
If you refuse to believe so your problem… but as I said anyone can replicate in test drive.