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.
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.
Cool you can oneshot IFVs with PARS, I regret to inform you that such is not possible with AGM-65s and quite often SPIKES in the same situation, the former much more than the latter as of now on live.
And you once again miss the point of my statement, this is a thread about the SPIKE-LR and other Spike missiles, yet you see fit to make it fully about the PARS and whine about how Germany’s aircraft launched missiles suffer.
I take it as well that you have not played on dev as of late, AGM-65s or any 130mm + HEAT missile got it’s prior “spall buff” reverted and they flat out dont generate spall at all outside of the HEAT cone, however, said HEAT cone now seems to have functionally infinite penetration, being able to go through multiple tanks without stopping.
I would wager that gaijin did not like these missiles being more bomb like on dev and chose to walk back said changes, I should note as well that HESH had a similar change on dev, going from being tactical nukes for a short while and now they are back to being sad.
There is even times where normal HE ATGMs and HEAT ATGMs are failing to deal any damage whatsoever to targets beyond external damage, like tracks and optics which further leads me to believe that gaijin is trying to fit in some more radical changes overall to the system.
man you seem to be taking this a bit too personal tbh chill out he is trying to explain to you that PARS are still pretty unconsistant stuff and has the same issues as the spikes just with some added stuff missing like target path prediction
How am I missing anything there? If calling you out on doing nothing more than making fun of German mains and the complaints they have about the PARS 3 missile and how they “hijack” threads to talk about its suffering, is “missing the context” (where the context was you making fun out of the legitimate gripes they have with the missile), then I must say I very much nailed it, dead centre even and struck a nerve on top of that.
And I have not disagreed with the notion that it is inconsistent in relation to guidance, as are the SPIKES which operate in a similar manner and are largely inferior in my experience, especially the LR which sports 300mm less penetration than the PARS-3 and similar jank flight systems. If we are leaning into the concept of target prediction however the AGM-65 A and B are not readily comparable as well given their guidance is electro optical and not IR like the D,G and the PARS / SPIKE, their guidance operation is fundamentally different as well as their performance.
However, warhead performance wise, it is already well known that the SPIKES, the LR in particular suffer greatly to their peers and the AGM-65 HEAT warhead is legendarily poor in it’s application of it’s massive explosive mass, meanwhile the PARS-3 has proven to deal damage equivalent to the likes of the TOW-2A pressure wise with the HEAT jet penetration of the AGM-114B, something the SPIKE-LR cannot ever hope to accomplish and the ER attempts to attain but without the similar pressure damage, while the 65 HEAT warhead remains largely a slot machine.
Because if you go back to the original statement that necroed this thread you would realize that it does not specify anything about the PARS at all, rather its a statement about the AGM-65 to a statement that x other missiles did not get a buff to you coming out of the woodwork attempting to move the discussion to the PARS.
rather its a statement about the AGM-65 to a statement that x other missiles did not get a buff to you coming out of the woodwork attempting to move the discussion to the PARS.
I don’t see why the original statement should be relevant to this argument when I was answering you, and not that person. You namedropped PARS and claimed it’s “superior”, I came to contest your claims. You have only yourself to blame here.
Makes you wonder why bring it up even then (cause it was you who did). Oh wait, you were trying to change the goalpost righttt.
Ye, a waste of time on my part (especially given you went full on defensive for simply being called out, and proceeded to completely change the topic away from your actions to what the person before you said via a tu quoque fallacy… you also forgot that it was you claiming that PARS is allegedly better than Mavs and that I came here to fact-check that, now you’re just acting like you haven’t talked about it at all, lol).
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/
