The edit makes it mean a different thing.
The Vickers Mk.7 and FV4202 were fully complete trial vehicles, they existed in the exact state they are added to the game in. They are reflections of real vehicles.
Neither of them are unfinished prototypes, they were fully functional prototypes.
The Kikka never once had a gun fitted to it, but has it ingame, therefore it is NOT a reflection of a real life vehicle. The Kikka actually is an unfinished prototype.
Which I do believe should be removed. as its original intended purpose was to try bomb ships, not intecept, that was a secondry throught added
ah ok thats interesting, well if they were added on the prototypes then I guess it makes more sense.
Personally I do not have an issue with vehicles that are unfinished being added. I however do understand people such as yourself who only want true to life vehicles in the game. I think if gaijin takes too much liberty, the game will lose immersion.
I was simply stating the Vickers Mk.7 and FV.4202 are not comparable to stuff like the Kikka
This is slightly inaccurate, it was originally intended as a kamikaze aircraft, hence receiving an actual name instead of a designation. However, performance was better than expected so it was quickly changed into an attacker and even fighter.
Besides:
Personally I think the Tog II didn’t need the sponson mod, it makes the vehicle way worse and isnt historical.
Nobody really uses it anyway though, why would you, the more realistic version is much better.
My post wasn’t about the TOG II.
Its not just prototypes , it was 12 trial vehicles to genuinely consider them going into service, the original 2 were the protypes, testing engines etc to make sure it actually flew, teh issue is the BEA archive page seems to be shitting itself
It depends on the implementation, if it had maybe the one gun id cut it some slack, but it had two guns fitted we dont even know if they woudl function within it.
As well as that , id prefer them to model and make stuff correctly than arbitrarily ramming sht in, like the F16AJ, never even made it to japan. Or the Shir 2 getting the imaginary L23 round, which by all standard is L23A1.
100 percent agreed mate-
Yeah, but we have no idea how it would of functioned as an interceptor, the guns were only used on sufficiently slower planes.
We also have no idea how effective it was at all, most the records are scrap.
Yeah the intended purpose, so why are the short 90s for the US worse than they were IRL, why is the APHE working as if it was a frag grenade shot into tanks.
why does shir 2’s get L15A5 which is a direct copy of L15A3 which was factually wrong.
they do not play by their own rules is the main issue.
There is a bit of debate about this.
Some people have claimed that there are two rounds designated as L23A1 in real life, an “early” and “late” version. The early version represented ingame as L23 and late as L23A1.
Is this true? I’m not sure, but knowing British naming it could be. It may have just been gaijin’s descision for balancing on the other hand.
Even if you go and look at the L23 from the imperial war museums, it states L23A1 on the side.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30021556
The L23 round, was first introduced on teh CR1 and Chieftain mk10 kits, which were long, after the Shir 2 was cancelled. hell it went into production in 1983 the same year as the challanger 1 there was no early L23 model as far as I’ve seen, adn ive been through about as many declasified sources as possible xD
It fire L15A5 as its AP round which featured an enhanced (apparently) tungsten alloy or DU, the chieftain, as per the tank museums tank chat on it, was capable in the 1970s of putting a round through the UFP of a T64 at about 2000 meters, however the T64 could do the same at over 2400 meters.
Hence the need for a new tank.
So L15A5 would and was the round that could go through an UFP of a T64. in game L15A5 is identical to the L15A3 which was from the 60s
EDIT: spelling error
Well, the Kikka only flew once and although it was going to enter service eventually, the war obviously ended and put a stop to it. We don’t know how well it would have worked as an interceptor (we don’t even have much data on how well it flew, only the test pilot’s subjective remarks) but putting two cannons on a plane isn’t particularly difficult - I am waiting on a book from japan that looks promising in terms of information on the Kikka’s armament; there were ~25 aircraft in various stages of completion so it’s not impossible that guns were fitted to one.
However unlike the Kh-38MT, there is no doubt the Kikka existed and flew, and the guns were readily available and were at least intended to be mounted on an interceptor variant.
This is completely different, that’s a game mechanics issue.
I agree, however this is a game and creative liberty is taken. That’s just how it is.
we have no idea how it flew, other than as you said one mans subjective remarks on the plane.
and while the armerment may have worked on slower propeller planes, it oculd have caused issues within the kikka, we just do not know and that is the issue.
Hell they couldn’t even fold the landing gear up mate, as it states in the first picture.
the issue is, the Kh38 does exist, we have laser guided variations of it.
we also know IR seekers exist and are used by the russians, evidence in the KH29T.
So whats to say its not plausible that they’ve done it?
we knew the kikka flew, but weve no idea how well, it had no armerment fitted and was for all intents and purposes not functional as it is implemented at all.
A game mechanics issue? in what regard? the Tiger 1’s 88 performs exactly as it should.
its been proven in numerous reports even with the half of the formula they use to calculate the penetration that the actual shell velocity is off on the guns.
yet its been accepted for years and left.
Alright then, Kh38MT is creative liberty then, nout wrong with it being in the game xD
it is still possible to get an idea of how it would fly because of how similar the airframe is to the Me-262
KH-29T is TV guided and not IR
the LMUR is a russian AGM with IR guidance
No that is garbage, an idea of how it would fly? if we have no physical data on how it flew then why is it even in the game, like going, ah right we kinda know how the T95E1 gun was positioned but well base it off the patton.
Not how it works, its a seperate entity entirely man.
Aye I mean TV guided MB mate. gets muddled up every now n then
BTW i am for the KH38MT to be removed, as long as we all acknowledge the plethora of other crap that needs to go with it?
Yes because of aerodynamics, if you build the same aircraft twice but change out the engines and armament would the flight performance drastically change?
Yeah, no.
We’ve had massive, massive holes and still have them in certain trees but I didn’t see the game burn down because of that, so hiding half a dozen vehicles across multiple nations and BR won’t have an effect you’re thinking it would.
When it comes to ammo/weapon removals, it’s pretty easy to ballpark vehicle’s new BR based on other parameters and new ammo/weapons they’re getting. This whole process is literally done whenever an unique vehicle gets added to the game.
I bet they also knew they wouldn’t remove fiction added in 2017 by the time 2026 hits.
It’s not the same though, as is proven even with teh model in WT, they made changes to it.
Hell kikka was shorter, smaller wing span, worse engines, and apparently heavier too.
not really they basically have the same flight model, the difference is the engine performance, which causes the Kikka to have worse STR and ITR
you can see that all the lines are parallel to each other
In game, im talking in real life.
Also even the devs on the russian side said that stat shark is absolutely useless for the stats of things, hell believe that was mentioned in here.
Im talking about in real life we have no idea how the KIKKA actually flew
That’s simply the reality of dealing with prototype aircraft, and it’s far from the only one. Even well-known, production aircraft see plenty of disagreements on their performance, even between real pilots that flew them at the same time.
For example, you can find two german pilots, who fought in the battle of britain, one claiming they could outturn spitfires in their 109s and the saying they could not. Both pilots have several air victories to their name.
Who do you believe?
The Type 5 cannons had already been fitted to aircraft capable of reaching the Kikka’s typical speeds (in a dive) and worked fine. I doubt they’d face insurmountable problems with them.
It’s not that they “couldn’t”, they never intended to retract the gear in the very first flight at all. If you read the whole sentence it claims exactly this.
“…the landing gear was not to be retracted for the initial flights”
This is VERY common when testing new aircraft.
And we don’t know if the 38MT was even built at all, much less to a state where it could be launched from an aircraft.
Huge difference.
Again, completely different topic since we know the US 90mm guns actually existed.
This would only be comparable to the Kikka if there was evidence the 38MT was launched from an aircraft and guided itself at a target, and we simply didn’t know what its performance was.
They aren’t similar at all. For one, the 262 is much heavier and has swept wings; Kikka has straight wings and is almost half the weight empty.
You’d be surprised at how little data we have for most production aircraft in the game.
Unlike the 38MT, the T95E1 actually existed too.
Which is none because the 38MT is the fakest of them all.
