He probably means the kugelblitz. But there are pictures of the turret and shipping forms for it iirc. So not fake aswell just not good documented because germany got fucked from all sides (many german projects in 1944 and 1945 have that problem).
Or he means the ostwind 2, but the problem with the ostwind 2 is that gaijin modeled the dual flak 37 wrong with are not horizontal but vertical. So more or less a bug than a false vehicle
Desperate
The vehicle we have ingame existed aswell but not under the name zerstörer. The möbelwagen was a testbed in general for flak mounts including the quad 30mm
That’s just moving the goalpost 'cus you’re unable to prove 38MTs existence and discarding provided evidence on the basis of grasping at straws at how the variant of the aircraft isn’t entirely correct (again, pylons are the exact same between them).
Fun fact: Tornado GR.1 and GR.4 have the exact same pylons (one is an upgrade of the other)… so yes, the backwards compatibility exists, you’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that GR.4 cannot carry PGMs. Good luck.
So what I’ve got of you so far is “I can’t prove nothing, but I’ll argue anyways because I can’t have my favorite nation possibly nerfed”. Truly desperate.
Everybody mad af when the missiles are not going to be removed anyway.
I’m not holding my breath on gaijin removing the missile. I think its the right thing to do, but I have doubts gaijin will do it.
I’m more interested in them either providing new evidence the thing actually exists, or not doing so and admitting the missile is likely fake but they dont feel like removing it.
Would be pretty funny to me if an angry Rafale fangirl trying to prove “French supremacy” in military technology player eventually lead to the discovery that a russian air to ground missile was not in fact real. I’d hope they mentioned that fact on the wiki article lol
You guys already got an answer on this line of discussion, Idk why you’re bringing it up again
Fun fact: one pylon is not enough to use a missile. GR.4 is upgrade of GR.1 which (except for one experimental aircraft) could not use PGM. What kind of backward compatibility are we talking about? I have not heard of Tornado GR 1 being modified to use PGM.
The Kh-38ML and Kh-38MT are identical missiles with different seekers. You’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that Su-30 cannot carry Kh-38MT.
You’d have to prove the MT even exists before you can prove the Su-30 can carry it, and instead you’re here arguing off-topic subjects non-stop and wasting everyones time.
Can we please stay on topic, the topic is not about other weapons or other vehicles its just about KH-38MT. Whataboutism is not only dumb, its off topic.
What is this line of thought even? All the pylons are the same, as they all have the exact same wiring - if one can use it, so can the others. Do you know how this even works? You’re just wasting people’s time here by arguing off-topics instead of trying to prove 38MT exists.
The Kh-38ML and Kh-38MT are identical missiles with different seekers.
ML exists, MT doesn’t, simple difference.
You’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that Su-30 cannot carry Kh-38MT.
Non-existence is the default state until proven otherwise. Now get looking for proof that MT exists ))
Proof has to be “can it carry it or has it carried it” and not “prove to me it cannot carry it”
You cant prove a negative, you have to prove that XYZ has A) the capacity to carry and B) has carried ZYX before. This line of thinking is just pointless otherwise.
Prove it.
You can’t, proving non-existence is quite literally impossible, it is up to everyone to prove that it does exist as that is the only thing that is possible to do of the two.
Then prove that a tornado gr4 can use PGM…
even if we prove it KH-38MT is not existing then what can happen I wonder?
remove from the game?
I find that it unlikely to happen.
The main way to prove its existence is to show a fully completed example mounted on an aircraft supposedly capable of carrying it, or just a fully functional example at all would be nice given the fact this is going nowhere
That isn’t possible. If a claim is that X doesn’t exist, the course of action is to try and find proof that it exists - there is no evidence that Kh-38MT exists, so the correct thing to say is that it simply doesn’t. Three people have explained this to you already, you should have been able to comprehend that simply asking us to “prove that it doesn’t exist” isn’t going to change anything, it’s you not wanting to admit to Kh-38MT not existing as that’d removed a massive advantage that Russia currently has over other nations.
The burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion.
So provide a proof that KH38MT does not exist.
If you can’t - case closed.
Whataboutism isn’t necessary nor appropriate. It’s also off topic.
