Stop noticing things, we cant have that.
8 Likes
I support this idea. Addition of more realism and new play style would be great to see in the game. Some of the players were accomplishing likewise scenario by locking their own Scout Drone, then dive into enemy after shooting the missile.
If this mechanic that you mentioned come up in the game, it would be really cool. Although, this had to be done when the “Drone Age” major update released.
4 Likes
Rather then a new mechanics, it s a weapon attribute which should be there form the day 1 when such weapons were introduced.
Interesting, I’ll check it out. However now it looks like that top attack does not work for any missile in the game.
3 Likes
The Mav and Hellfire both get their “top attack” shown in the images simply from being fired from above. The Maverick is of course primarily designed to be dropped from aircraft, which IRL typically fly high and fast unlike in-game where players skim the treetops to avoid getting slapped by SPAA. Hellfires are laser-guided, flying straight at the reflection of a designator without the context of range, target size, etc needed for top attack. The exception is the Longbow, not yet in-game. The SPIKEs are just incorrect though, discussed here.
1 Like
It’s so painful to see so much care, only for a specific part of War Thunder, while for the rest it isn’t even calculated.
How I wish that instead of whoever is in charge now, there were the protagonists of another game, maybe they would solve the bugs or problems like these first, instead of milking the poor players.
Coff Coff DEMOCRACY
Not at all. Hellfire loft up to 500m above the launch point.
It is all here: AGM-114 Hellfire - Badly underperforming?
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/8/f/8f779838bc7c26df5ae708cb167dcf4f80bfc0d9.png
Maverick also loft due to fact it was designed to be launched form low flying platforms like A-10 or even helicopters.
Problem is that for example this particular Maverick was fired with significant altitude advantage but it ended up hitting tank horizontally.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/e/b/eb08eb4c5a5d16110b269df762dcfc0cc4d71737.jpeg
There were two other who crashed into a terrain, which they should avoid even by flying from AC to target on direct path and even so if the Maverick would loft/hold alt a bit.
Not at all, approximate location of target is programmed into the Hellfire prior launch and missile uses IOG to navigate to that area. It is all there in the Hellfire topic.
5 Likes
Those missiles should be corrected as fast as possible since they are underperforming since the day they were added. But off course it ain’t gonna happen cuz russian will suffer from this and off course GJ doesn’t want this.
Very well made post btw.
4 Likes
Jeez AGM-65 are really long due for fixing… Just fired 6x Mav, 4 hits:
- 1st BMP-2M - zero dmg
- 2nd Obj292 side hit no pen
- 3rd TURMS new bricks on frontal plate turned black
- 4th TURMS turret hit took out the breech.
3 Likes
At least they buffed theyr spall in the dev meanwhile spike and pars didn’t get a single buff
Not like the latter needed it, the PARS are still the best F&F ATGM from rotary wing by a large margin, meanwhile the AGM-65’s HEAT damage has been worse by a significant margin since it’s introduction while having a warhead that is almost 17 times the size of the PARS, yet, the PARS reliably overpressured and damaged targets, the AGM-65 cant do the same for some reason.
The SPIKE-ER on the other hand has been stuck with a case of “not actually impacting the vehicle right and having nerfed total penetration” it should be reliably hitting the center of vehicles roofs, yet, the thing suffers from hellfire guidance syndrome and chooses to randomly smash into the front armor arrays of tanks at random. It shares a very similar damage profile to the PARS 3 which almost sits right around 3.3 ish kg of explosive mass which is fine as both missile’s post penetration damage when they hit properly is acceptable for how small the warhead is.
1 Like
Fair point I agree
Well I think that they should do more spall, but every atgm in game with Heat warhaed does a very small amount of spall (like the tows, in ukraine we are seeing them popping T90M, here You normally need 2/3 against an early T72/64). Also if a granade launched in an open spot with a smaller TNT equivalent can overpressure a tank, a 3.8 kg warhaed that pen the roof should be able to do the same.
1 Like
Have you ever used the PARS?
1 Like
Have you ever used the AGM-65s with HEAT warheads, if so, you should know that they are not dealing damage equal to their warhead having almost 17 times more explosive mass when compared to the PARS or the SPIKE-ER, reminder the SPIKE-LR, which has 700mm of penetration is only present on ground vehicles.
1 Like
Yes, F-4F Late, you’re welcome.
if so, you should know that they are not dealing damage equal to their warhead having almost 17 times more explosive mass when compared to the PARS or the SPIKE-ER, reminder the SPIKE-LR, which has 700mm of penetration is only present on ground vehicles.
Ig the answer to my question is “no” then.
PARS 3 LR btw
PARS 3 LR incorrect missile behaviour
PARS 3 LR incorrect lateral acceleration
PARS 3 LR incorrect maximum range
PARS 3 LR incorrect weight
PARS 3 LR missing proximity fuse
5 Likes
Nice so you know their performance is inferior to vastly smaller HEAT warheads when they should not be.
The anser is yes, I just recently tried them out on DEV along with the SPIKE-LR and SPIKE-ER to compare them to the supposedly buffed AGM-65, the PARS is still superior against armor when compared to the AGM-65 which it should not be, the SPIKE-LR is still pitiful and the SPIKE-ER is meh but mainly shafted by it’s flight path still.
Always funny to me that German mains will cry and whine about the PARS not obliterating everything when its been the best F&F ATGM on rotary wing vehicles since it’s introduction and is still unmatched even to this day and have to always try to make other ATGM threads about how they suffer while having the best F&F rotary wing ATGM in game.
I know that PARS aren’t better than Mavs. I’ve both and i also played my KHT a lot more (something like ~100 games w/PARS 3s?). I can one-shot IFVs yes, but at the same time I can put 3xPARS into a T-80U and watch it live to tell the tale. I’ve had my 65Bs fail to kill as well, but they’re far more consistent.
Always funny to me that German mains will cry and whine about the PARS not obliterating everything when its been the best F&F ATGM on rotary wing vehicles since it’s introduction and is still unmatched even to this day and have to always try to make other ATGM threads about how they suffer while having the best F&F rotary wing ATGM in game.
Then you’ve never read anything “German mains” had written about it really, since their biggest gripe was never about how potent the warhead is, but how easily the missile losses lock (or that it can’t distinguish between a corpse and a live target despite being capable of that in real life) and that it can’t re-lock despite the actual missile having the capability.
The anser is yes
How many matches? I’m gonna take a shot in the dark and say sub-10.
1 Like
issues i have with pars are not spall neither explosive mass, its their horrible lock on system wich aims at spots it shouldnt aim like the ammo box of the turret on a T72 i spammed 8 pars and hit that same ammo box all 8 times
Idk if we are playing two completely different games but, besides the HEAT Mavericks underperforming, I have a completely different experience.
I do play a lot of aircraft with Mavericks from AGM-65A to AGM-65G but I also have a bit of experience with PARS 3 LR.
Theyre, quite franlky, both shit. I really dont understand why you have to make the PARS the “superior” weapon, when its far from it.
Also idk what you mean with that because HEAT Mavericks now obliterate everything, and personally I’m very happy about that buff.
