eah this doesnt matter, you’re splitting hairs on this fuel argument.
Wrong, you just don’t identify all the variables that go with an air RB encounter.
yeah if you practice the exact same throttle management on both. I don’t. In a higher consumption plane I will just fly on a lower afterburner setting and use the same fuel consumption as your MF or close to it.
You can’t just go say this without addressing that the mig21 bis burns almost double the fuel of the SMT when both use full afterburner and that both have similar top speeds.
you do realize the 21bis rips in like 45 seconds or something if it just sits on 110% throttle at sea level, yes? Like, you literally just get to your 1360 top speed then sit at something like 103-5% to maintain it.
It maintains it, but what about the engagements? are you going to waste your engine power?
I have a lot better stats than you and many more games so I don’t think so.
1: I played it when the su25k was already a problem
2: A-5C is not even close to a full fuel mig19PT.
3: MiG19PT is not even close to MiG19S, it gets one circled by the f-5e which has a ginormous turn radius.
No idea what you’re talking about. Both china and france have far superior top tier atm
True, but the low BR gripens are still there. It’s like facing mig23 ml’s except you cannot kill them head on with stock caged seekers.
Still we are derailing topics. J7D is abusive, because of PL5 and pl7 (four of them vs 2 on mirages). It’s UNACCEPTABLE that an already undertiered flight model is carrying superior missiles that many of the 11.3 aircraft in this game.
No I’m quite right in saying this fuel argument is miniscule in scope and rarely will come into play, especially because as I said the 21bis can just practice good fuel management himself.
I can tho, because the 21bis at 103-105% throttle is going to be going the same speed as the SMT going 110% (21bis might even end up faster) and the SMT FM is not as good to begin with.
I’m going to kill you in about 30 seconds, it isn’t going to take 10 minutes.
I was talking global stats.
incorrect, I play both. 19PT is just as good, only trading some agility for missiles. It’s still massively agile.
pl-5b has no reason to be nerfed, its performing historically afaik, missiles don’t get artificial nerfs with the exception of top tier ARH. this isnt world of tanks where you just can change anything at anytime for any reason
They used Janes as a source, which had the PL-5B/C having the same rocket motor power as a Sparrow and the PL-10 (Aspide) having the motor of a Sidewinder.
many things in this game got their historical performance nerfed. While sounding good, this argument is stale on it’s own because of the logic of this game.
idk, f7f? sea fury missing 400 horsepower? yak3 having low VNE? i16 barely exceeding 450kmh in a straight line? MiG17F_LATE missing afterburner? (it’s the name of the MiG17 we have in russian tree, it should equal the shenyang F5 premium, because it is technically a MiG17 Late. I’ll go on. F2G having m2 50 cal instead of m3? J7W1 climbing less than a bomber despite it was known to be used as last minute b29 interceptor? do335 same thing? there’s many things here. Me163 could take off vertically (alas it also would blow up most of the times) while in game it just makes for a very weird jet.
second of all it is the mig-17pf that gets the afterburner and the one in the russian tech tree is the normal Mig-17
but surely you have a source for that claim
anyway, besides the fact none of these are missiles, the issue you’re not getting is that the things you’re mentioning are not deliberate artificial nerfs but rather are inaccuracies.
Though:
The MiG-17 in the soviet tree is the MiG-17… just the MiG-17. The first variant produced. The MiG-17F is the Lim-5P in the german tree but without a radar. Or, if you’d rather, it’s the Shenyang F-5 but without missiles.
he limited it to missiles, well yes there are also non toptier missiles that get nerfed, like aim9j, r13m-1 and similar. @Normandy_Corsair i said “the game nerfs stuff from historical values” and you limited it to missiles. Some others named you missiles, i’m not versed in missiles but first of all you’re the one who talks about missiles into the argument of nerfing historical things in general. The “first” is not the “late”, it’d be the “early”, and the mig17pf has a radar (since P stands for Interceptor, Perekhvatchik.
The Aim-54 in general has lower G-load than it should (to my knowledge the 54 uses bank-to-turn which should effectively enable 2-plane maneuvering all the time).
The C in specific is missing its smoke-less motor and seeker improvements, in game it is simply a heavier and worse A with a smaller warhead.
As for top tier IR:
• The Aim-9M is missing several IRCCM features and has extremely limited lock range compared to IRL.
• The R-73 appears to have worse IRCCM performance than real life and as with other TVC missiles its autopilot is still extremely bad and prone to spinning out.
• The AAM-3’s seeker is just completely made up (it should be IR+UV) and lacks maneuverability.
• The Magic-2 also has an underperforming seeker.
• I am also aware that the Chinese missiles likely have issues, however I am not well versed in their technology and it is also extremely hard to find reliable sources for them.
• As for Israel, they are flat out missing their Python 4 missiles on their respective top tier aircraft, instead only being granted Python 3s and AIM-9Ms.
