[Suggestion] Increase the damage of the AS.34 Kormoran

As the title says the current damage of the Kormoran AS.34 missiles is quite low, sometimes not being able to destroy even early ww2 destroyers in simulator, custom or test flight maps.

I asked the BAAINBw how powerful they were and I got an official reply from the press and information service (publicly available to anyone ) that each kormoran AS.34 has the power to break through 12 modern warship bulkheads due to a 2x9 (18) charges configuration. Currently in-game it’s modelled with way too little damage, sometimes needing two Kormorans for a single ship, and according to the Wiki, with just 16 charges.

Additionally… please add ship maps to ARB 11.X since we got anti-ship missiles.


It’s not alone in that, sure there are likely some quirks in the interaction with Ship Damage models. But in general explosives tend to be undervalued, especially novel / unique designs that simply aren’t modeled.

Take for example the AGM-62 Walleye, which uses a Linear Shaped Charge design. but in game, it is as effective as any other General Purpose High Explosive design instead of being of similar destructive power to bombs twice its weight class.

Or the AGM-65’s High Explosives Anti-Tank warhead which even though being almost twice the diameter of the AGM-114B and containing almost 6x the explosives mass has only 2/3rds the flat penetration even though it should be somewhere between 1300 and 1500mm. Let alone the fact that it is completely missing overpressure (due to there being no sperate category for Large caliber HEAT, even though it has 57kg of TNTe) effects and pyrophoricity due to its use of aluminum as the liner material.

I’m sure there are a number of others examples that exist but these are the ones I’m aware of.


It’s cool that they replied. I wonder if they would be able to clarify when, if any, land attack capability the Kormoran had.

its probably similar to that of the AIM-7, it technically exists but probably wouldn’t do too well outside of hitting a general area. As the characteristic noise of a Sea scene is very different to that of Terrain let alone the that fact that Ships are much larger and don’t travel anywhere near as fast as ground vehicles can.

Would still be nice to finally settle the debate that was going on for months on the old forum.

they mentioned that the luftwaffe only used it for naval targets, that’s it.
my question included if it was meant to be used more multi-role ish like an AGM or just for ships.

Pretty peaved that my overpressure report for the AGM-65 was sent to the devs MONTHS ago and still hasnt been fix. That stupid missile is such a diceroll of a weapon, 80% of hits don’t kill ffs

Honestly, literally anything would help atm. As previously discussed, the AS.34 was used by both German and Italian Tornado IDS’, both of which are missing reliable range/standoff capabilities which most other strike aircrafts have at top tier. The fact they HAVE this capability, but that its unclear to which degree has led gaijin to the strange decision to limit them to target sizes just slightly bigger the Pantsir (what a strange coincidence!), making them completely useless for any sort of ground strike in WT, while the warhead and flight profile makes them virtually worthless vs ship targets in WT (not that there are any in anything but some sim maps…)

It wasn’t much of a debate tbh. Gaijin has made an arbitrary decision that negatively impacts Germany and Italy. That’s all there is to it.

The convo was more trying to identify information to force gaijins hand rather than a debate as to what degree the ground strike ability of the Kormoran was

It wouldn’t be so bad had they actually left Contrast Seekers as they were originally and refined point track (Correlation seeking), automatic waterline / superstructure targeting would have be nice to have as well, but I wouldn’t expect a further revision for some time.

F&F ordnance( Visual spectrum Electro Optical seekers) would actually be pretty balanced if lock on ranges were realistic(2~4km with no ground tracking), since they are significantly overperforming (3~4 times what they should be capable of) against tactical targets(T-62) with the current Hard cutoff limits that they have currently and it shouldn’t take much effort to refine the algorithm as everything they would theoretically need is in game already since Targeting pods / helicopter gunner view has a bounding box to represent an offset track, which could be repurposed easily to acquire the needed metrics about the target.

Especially considering that SPAA engagement capabilities have expanded / proliferated significantly since they were added in Ixwa Strike (March 2021), twelve updates ago its about time they were revised.

Of course the issue with radar guided ordnance is likely the same sidestep in reasoning that they are using to avoid the Hellfire Longbow as it is likely apparent that the Russians never developed the concept of multispectral smoke grenades that included chaff for some reason, and so cannot be dodged like their SALH / IR counterparts and would supposedly require cover, not concealment to break line of sight.

They probably wouldn’t even need to turn up with their Lock on After Launch capabilities, like the Spike and yet they would be too good for some reason, at least there is another chance with the AGM -176, Brimstone and AGM-179 on the AH-64E whenever it turns up.

Honestly, I think the reason contrast seekers are currently buffed has more to do with gaijin wanting to avoid proliferation of thermal seekers on long range ground attack ordinance, likely also because afaik Russia hasn’t really developed them too heavily. Most aircrafts currently equipped with 65B’s should actually be equipped with 65D’s, but gaijin staunchly refuses adding 65D’s for the vast majority of aircrafts which had them.

And yet will deliberately swap out the HE variants (which are slightly worse counterparts to the KH-29T) for the AGM-65D for some unknown balancing reason even though they would be worse overall. As they are heavier, are designed to penetrate ships / bunkers (which isn’t yet modeled, the HE warhead has a HE ratio of ~25% [80/300]) and can’t be loaded on the LAU-88(Triple launch adapter), only the LAU-117 (single launch rail) which is a massive drawback since stations are limited and capabilities massively important.

It really doesn’t make any sense, maybe they though that they weight of the warhead was actually the explosive mass, which would make it much closer to a IIR equipt Kh-29T, which it really isn’t and even then there are the -29TE (extended range) and -29D (extended range with IIR seeker) variants which are their Russian counterpart variants though the Kh-58 is a closer fit, though the Electro optical seekers are a much later development.

Yeah idk, gaijins “balancing” decisions of western ground attack munitions never seems to leave me confused…

I’m still beyond impressed gaijin has managed to avoid expanding US ground attack options such as LGB’s and TGP’s for such a long time despite the US developping the capabilities and MANY US aircrafts, chief of which being the F-4E having the capabilities to carry all those munitions and TGP’s.

Makes a bit more sense when you consider the recently passed to devs F-4E which is just an EXACT copy of our current F-4E, but with the missing ordinance thats been requested for literal YEARS…

You are just assuming that this line in the file means it cannot track targets smaller than 15 m:

"targetRadiusMin": 15.0

However if that is the case then would you care to explain why it can track this MiG-15, which measures roughly 10 m x 10 m x 3.7 m:

As I tried to explain to you on the old forum the limiting factor in game is not the AS.34’s seeker, it’s the fat that it requires a radar lock to fire in game. And as the Tornado’s radar cannot track ground targets in game it is therefore impossible to fire it against a ground target.

Well they have to pad the run to the F-111F/ F-16C-40 / F-15E / F-16XL / FB-22, etc. Somehow.

I wouldn’t be totally opposed to a Late Block F-4E or F-4G (I kind of like CAS / Strike aircraft) being added, alongside sufficient A2A ordnance to keep it relevant at 11.3~12.3 or so, as the AIM-7F &-AIM-9M wouldn’t be horrible to use. especially considering that it also provides yet another potential lead-in airframe for HARM’s / Anti-Radiation Missiles too since they didn’t go with the A-4, F-105, or A-7E for the Shrike (or HARM).

The entire point of that year long endeavor was to create demand which was met with the A-6E TRAM pack for $70 USD, which was the odd one out with the tranche of Tier 7 packs released with Apex Predators

and subsequently followed a Patch later with the F-4S to double dip on pack sales (which was obviously slated to appear in with the rest considering their general theme and BR placement). and its fairly blatant once you think about it for a bit. it honesty only made me even more concerned about the appearance of the F-14B and what it could mean for future additions since there seems to be some sort of long term plan, and that it can be supplanted if need be to make money.

1 Like

@Smin1080p would you take this information in consideration with the dev team, given it’s official and all?

I think imo the biggest issue is where the missile hits the ship in WT. To one shot a ship in this game you need to hit the ammo racks. The missile targets usually the mid section of the ship just destroying the funnel and anything else there. The naval player can easily repair that including AI. It makes it worse that the next missile will hit the same spot or outright miss. IRL a missile hit like that would be devastating but not here. But I can be wrong ofc.