For a 6km target
TOR-M1:8.78s
HQ-17:8.70s
VT1:6.54s
ADTAS:7.5s
Panstir：5.78s
Are you sure?
Yes, the performance of the HQ-17 is not worth 41W at all, and it should be made into a modified accessory for the tor-m1, like the Soviet 2S6, or folded with the tor-m1, like the German puma.
let me give you a tutorial on how to kill the TOR.
-Spawn CAS.
-Drop altitude immidiately (it cant kill you now)
-Strafe the TOR
-Good job you have now killed the second best AA in the game.
i would much rather have the ITO than the TOR
I mean, if you wan’t to cherry pick stats, make the same list but with max range.
1 Like
Here’s where the video comes from.
O.o
Idk Rick…
more than half of the vehicles in the game are or have configurations that were never used by the armed forces of the nations they represent.
without going further, Thai AJ (cough cough)
I never said it was some god tier, no fly zone enforcing monster. I said it was the second best SPAA behind Pantsir.
Everyone’s SPAA is in a horrible state right now (China included), but it’s second least worst of the bunch lol.
This is a comparison of the same target in the training ground, and I don’t understand what “selection data” means.
I would say the ITO is better than the TOR because it can actually defend itself against aircraft that arent 7km in the air
Germany only operated brimstones on the next trance. Not sure if Italy have ordered any.
As I said twice above, I do agree that it should be in a folder beneath Tor. They’re similar enough for that to make sense.
But equally, HQ17 can defend itself against, say, a Su-34 - which ITO can not.
Why not a modification like the one Tunguska has? Its literally the same type of upgrade. Thermals, slightly better range and slightly better speed.
I used a factual comparison to illustrate that the HQ-17 was terrible. The speed of the missile slows down with distance, and the HQ-6 is almost the slowest in the acceleration section of 17 km, I can’t imagine why you think the HQ-17 is good.
I don’t see the point of HQ-17’s addition if it’s not going to get the other missiles. And aren’t the current missiles meant to be a lot faster??
I mean fits the theme of the update so far. For air it’s “storm warning”, for ground it’s “sidegrade warning”.
1 Like
Dev was updated
The need for HQ-17 to speed up the missile is not an unfounded judgment, but a statement based on comparative facts.
Really？
4 Likes
IPA7 aka test aircraft
1 Like