@VF21_Freelancers
The Soviet P47 has Soviet bombs because there’s evidence it used them.
And bombs are bombs. Nothing to do with procurement.
P-39 and P-63 are different from the American manuals because there’s evidence of such.
Again, nothing to do with procurement.
The F-104G in-game is following the manual by the manufacturer.
Yet another example of no procurement.
F-15J carrying AIM-9M is further evidence of procurement not mattering following the rules of Soviet P-47s.
AAM-3 and AIM-9M aren’t like a FAB-500 and the WW2 American 1000 pound bomb.
That’s a false equivalence fallacy.
Especially since AAM-3’s seeker is now known to be incorrect and will be no where near AIM-9M’s IRCCM when Gaijin implements next gen IR missiles next year. Even without those changes there are more changes than just the IRCCM. After all, if there weren’t… people would be maining the AIM-9Ms on the F-15J as much as they do AAM-3s, yet that recommendation is never stated.
You claim that the Soviet P-47 having Soviet bombs has nothing to do with procurement because there is evidence it used them, but you are completely missing the point that evidence of usage is effectively the result of procurement and logistics. If physical compatibility were the only rule as you seem to imply for modern jets, the Soviet P-47 would have access to US bombs as well since the pylons are mechanically compatible. Yet it does not because the game enforces a restriction based on what was historically available and used in the field. By admitting that the P-47 is restricted to Soviet bombs because of evidence of usage, you are inadvertently agreeing that historical availability restricts physical compatibility in Mid-Tier.
This strict adherence to historical availability completely vanishes when we look at the F-15J. You assert that the F-15J carrying the AIM-9M proves procurement doesn’t matter, but in reality it only proves that the rules are inconsistently applied at High Tier to patch gameplay gaps. If the F-15J were treated with the same evidentiary standards as the Soviet P-47, it would be denied the AIM-9M because there is zero evidence of the JASDF ever using it.
You might be looking at a standard McDonnells manual to justify the capability, but the JASDF operates under its own Japanese Technical Orders or J.T.O. issued by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. While most J.T.O. documents are restricted, the historical reality of Japanese procurement is public knowledge. Japan transitioned from the AIM-9L directly to the AAM-3. It is logically sound to assume the specific J.T.O. reflects this reality and does not list the AIM-9M as a standard operational store. The developers ignore this lack of historical evidence for the F-15J while demanding strict evidence for older aircraft.
Regarding your claim of a false equivalence fallacy, bringing up seeker performance or IRCCM is a total red herring that distracts from the actual topic of loadout availability. I am not talking about whether the AAM-3 is better or worse than the AIM-9M or how the seekers function. I am talking about the binary state of whether a weapon is available to the aircraft. The comparison holds perfectly true because in the case of the P-47, the presence of a domestic alternative in the form of FAB bombs resulted in the removal of the foreign US option. Conversely, in the case of the F-15J, the presence of a domestic alternative in the form of the AAM-3 did not result in the removal of the foreign AIM-9M option.
The fact that the AIM-9M remains on the F-15J despite the lack of usage evidence and the existence of a domestic replacement is purely a concession to Game Balance and Progression caused by BR Compression. It is not a consistent application of the rules you cited for the P-47. It is a double standard used to stock grind or fill a capability gap that wouldn’t exist if the game were properly decompressed.
No, because that’s variety. It’s an option, but not necessary.
Do you have evidence the JASDF produced F-15s?
Cause I have evidence McDonald Douglas did and they produced manuals that show compatibility with 9Ms. This is even common knowledge… though apparently not common enough.
You’ve shown zero examples of inconsistency as of yet.
Bombs are on the Soviet P-47, and they’re equivalents to other bombs. That’s consistency.
You asked if I have evidence that the JASDF produced F-15s, and the answer is a resounding yes.
It is publicly verifiable common knowledge that the F-15J and F-15DJ were license-manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan. To be precise, only the first two single-seat airframes delivered in 1980 were manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. Almost every single subsequent aircraft in the fleet was built by Mitsubishi. Even regarding those first two US-made airframes, they were primarily operated by the Air Development and Test Wing or ADTW, which is the JASDF equivalent of US Navy VX squadrons, meaning they served as testbeds rather than standard fleet representatives.
Because the overwhelming majority of the fleet was manufactured by Mitsubishi, the aircraft are maintained and operated under Japanese doctrine using Mitsubishi-issued J.T.O. or Japanese Technical Orders, not standard McDonnell Douglas T.O.s. Since the fleet is manufactured and maintained by Mitsubishi, the McDonnell Douglas manual regarding theoretical compatibility is irrelevant if the J.T.O. issued by Mitsubishi does not authorize or support that specific weapon. Japan transitioned directly from the AIM-9L to the AAM-3. Therefore, the specific wiring changes, software updates, or logistical support required for the AIM-9M would not be present or authorized in the J.T.O. because the weapon was never procured. The fact that the original US design is compatible means nothing if the licensed manufacturer and operator did not adopt it.
You claim I have shown zero examples of inconsistency, but you are willfully ignoring the distinction between physical capability and historical availability. You argue that the Soviet P-47 has Soviet bombs because they are equivalents and call that consistency, but that is actually a restriction based on procurement. If physical compatibility were the consistent rule, the P-47 would have access to both Soviet bombs and US bombs because it can physically carry both. The removal of the US bombs is a deliberate restriction because a domestic alternative existed and was used.
This directly contradicts the F-15J situation. If the P-47 logic were applied consistently, the F-15J would be restricted to the AIM-9L and AAM-3 because those are the only missiles historically procured and used. The presence of the AIM-9M on the F-15J is a glaring inconsistency because it grants a weapon based on the physical capability of the original chassis while ignoring the strict lack of procurement history that was used to limit the P-47. You cannot call it consistent when one vehicle loses compatible weapons because a domestic alternative exists while another gains compatible weapons despite a domestic alternative existing. The only reason for this double standard is to patch the gaps caused by BR compression.
Your comparison of the R-3S to the AIM-9B is actually the perfect example of why your logic fails rather than why it works. The R-3S is a reverse-engineered copy of the AIM-9B which makes them mechanically and functionally identical. Yet in War Thunder, you cannot mount an AIM-9B on a Soviet MiG-21 nor can you mount an R-3S on an American F-104. If they are equivalents as you say and procurement has nothing to do with it, then there would be no reason to strictly segregate them by nation.
The reason they are segregated is procurement and logistics. The game enforces strict national distinctions for these equivalent weapons because historically a Soviet ground crew would not have stocks of American Sidewinders to load onto their jets. The game respects this historical reality for these aircraft and strictly forbids mixing them despite their performance similarities. It forces you to use the specific weapon your nation actually procured.
This proves that procurement absolutely matters. You are trying to argue that mass and explosive filler make bombs interchangeable, but the game design explicitly rejects this. The Soviet P-47 is restricted to FAB bombs not because the US bombs wouldn’t fit or work, but because the Soviet Union procured and supplied their own ordnance. Just like the R-3S and AIM-9B, the game separates equivalents based on who actually owned the hardware. Your claim that procurement is irrelevant is directly contradicted by the very examples you are using.
Lowkey i dont get why the F-15J even got the aim-9M in the first place. like it would make sense if the AAM-3 was realistic and a large leap in performance. But with it being basically the same there really isn’t much reason i can see for the 9M to even be there, especially with it not being used irl.
Exactly. But sadly, the F-15J is just the tip of the iceberg. This double standard is plaguing the entire game.
Look at the MiG-21 SPS-K. It gets R-60s and R-13M1s to boost its value as a Premium, despite questionable historical accuracy regarding that specific airframe’s wiring in NVA and Luftwaffe service.
Or look at the Swiss F/A-18C. Historically, the Swiss used it strictly for Air Defense and never procured the vast US ground ordnance catalog. Yet in-game, it is CAS platform purely because the airframe is theoretically compatible.
The devs are prioritizing “Theoretical Compatibility” over “Historical Procurement” across the board to band-aid the balance issues caused by BR compression or just awful game design.
Which is hilarious because they modelled our (Finland’s) arms restriction treaty with ussr preventing us from using air dropped bombs or napalm following ww2 and up until the collapse of the soviet union.
That’s the historical reason behind the mig 21 and first hornet having no A-G ordinance beyond rockets, there was never a technical limitation.
We don’t see this for the swiss hornet, who weren’t under treaty but simply never chose to order the munitions, yet they get a full range of ordinance ahistorically.
Spamcanons overperform to hell and back it sucks for real tanks. all those hispano 30mms get RARDEN APDS which they never got close to ever its so annoying