how is it irrelevant? the tan sam outperforms in every measure, so they shouldn’t be at the same br
Because this thread is once again, about the Strela and not the TAN-SAM?
We have the M1A1 AIM and 2PL sitting at the same BR, AIM outperforms the 2PL in every category but it wasn’t moved up. Your entire logic just now fell flat on its face.
1 Like
yeah and im talking about the br of the strela…
except they are quite comparable, even more now that the pl got 3gen thermals.
Sure. So talk about the Strela, and why, after its massive improvement, it shouldn’t be at a higher BR than Imp. Chap or Ozelot or Type 93, when its better than all 3 in terms of missile performance, with Ozelot being the only out of the 4 of them to have a search device (and it paid the price by being 9.7).
except they are quite comparable, even more now that the pl got 3gen thermals.
Strela and TAN-SAM are also quite comparable if we’re going with this logic. Both have missiles that are nearly undodgeable, and contrary to popular belief, Strela’s AAMs are quite resistant to flares so even without IRCCM they can catch people.
In case you haven’t noticed, the change from 2nd to 3rd gens is nearly unnoticeable - and you’re still ignoring how AIM’s firepower, armour and survivability are far superior… oh wait, you got neither.
2 Likes
yeah and the gap in performance between the tan sam and the strela is even larger, the difference between the strela and the type 93’s missile is 10g, 8g compared to the mistrals, while difference betwen the strela and the tam sam is 15gs, but it’s missile is also faster, longer range, have a better overall dual seeker and also have thermals
nowhere even close to the irccm of all the other manpads
btw i do think that the strela needs to go up, but it should’t be anywhere close to the tan sam.
Except there is a problem dm63 in my Country isnt used alot its mostly older shells Yes i am polish
That’s just statcard performance which is irrelevant. The devil is in the details; Strela’s AAMs have much better deflection, and start off slower than Stinger/Mistrals - meaning they have better manouverability right off the bat, their track rate is higher etc.
Is it inferior to the TAN-SAM? Yup, but on the other hand, it is, as of now, so much superior to Imp. Chap, or Type 93 or Santal - none of them get a contrast seeker, all 3 still suffer against helicopters, and their missiles are basically incapable of taking out anything that isn’t afk.
nowhere even close to the irccm of all the other manpads
Even IRCCM missiles can be spoofed, point is that at 9.3 there aren’t that many jets with CM’s, even less so in downtiers, there Santals or Type 93s IRCCM is a useless “advantage” for them.
1 Like
You are forgetting about one thing, Type-93 imp etc. are using man pads while strela is using full-fledged surface-to-air missile
You’re joking, right? Poland has no older APFSDS left (they were running on reserves with DM33A1 back in 2015 already), and specifically ordered DM63/A1 for the Leopard 2A5 and 2PL to replace those. Now then, look at what is the top shell for the 2PL in the game (DM43 - never used by Poland…).
However the munition availability is an IRRELEVANT argument, because if we follow it to a T, BMP-2M will lose its APFSDS totally.
The type 93 have photocontrast, the strela have now around the same the a looking range agaisnt figters as the santal, but also photocontrast is much easier to dodge, and you dont even need to use countermeasure, just going down will make the missile fail, the only advantage that photocontrast offers over the santal and the chaparral is a better locking range agaisnt helicopters.
except it isnt, you can still face jets with flares at 9.3, you also play agaisnt 10.3…
You’re free to prove that Santal and Strela are now “comparable” (last I was told that Santal is a piece of garbage, but hey, it’s your burden of proof).
Better locking range against helicopters is a HUGE advantage, that was and still is (for many) the main downfall of IR based SAMs.
except it isnt, you can still face jets with chaffs at 9.3, you also play agaisnt 10.3…
Chaff spoofing IR/PC seekers…
1 Like
the santal have much better detection suit, more missiles and the mistrals pull less but they also have a better range
i meant flares
it is still quite situational, most of the time you wont be able to use photocontrast on a heli as they fly low, and there the ir seeker of the strela isnt able to pick them over a km or even less
The Type 93 and 81 are imaging infared not photocontrast, their seekers are superior in every way to the strelas, but in game they are identical which should not be the case.
Photocontrast in game is immune to countermeasures, that is a giant boon over other comparable IR missiles currently.
The strela should be 10.0 as of now, it’s performance at it’s BR is comically better than it’s contemporaries at that bracket, its not even a contest anymore.
4 Likes
Strela is 9.7 BR max. The rockets have a range of only 5km which is somehow not much.
Type 81 is at 10.0, and should be at least at 11.0.
This is currently F&F’s best SPAA. Rockets 10km range, lock range targets practically from very far away.
But this is not a topic for such chitchat.
Here it’s about adding passive detection for Strela-10M2
No, it was changed cause one of the tech mod’s found document’s that supported it had gen three thermals.
Can any other of the other vehicles in game use passive detection.
If they modeled IRST for Ozelot then why not for strela-10?
They could introduce something like this for Strela-10 without the spinning marker
1 Like
What? That it had 3rd generation was known for years. First reported in March of 2021 by Yedidya from Justin’s squadron. This had nothing to do with a tech mod finding anything, when they were hand fed all the information ages ago.
Here you go, a couple of them in fact by many people, all included primary sources that the camera is of 3rd generation, but “not a bug”;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9V25FzwYqvd6
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/seoXUq7kbCS6
One of the reports was closed down on the basis of “wikipedia is not a source”, while the document presented was the manufacturer’s datasheet for the camera, lmfao.