I’ts exacerbated because of how APHE currently works in game (blame the playerbase for that).
I can’t give you any data other than the brochures, you can look around reports made by the French community for some data, but they don’t share sources.
Also ASTER 30 is not designed for terminal threats, it has 3km min range.
Aa good player can just snipe SPAAs and as you are lower BR muzzle velocity is so slow.
Huh, then what’s the reason for such long range, now I’m really confused
granted you said it’s held back to a 100kms because of the radar
Brochures will be just fine ye
then you also have stuff like the AMRAAM ER which has loads of valid sorces saying it should be capable of mach 4+ speeds
while in game its limited to less than mach 3
along with likely having at least 25% more maximum range IRL than in game
It doesn’t have loads of valid sources, the sources usually talk about the ESSM and you need sources that talk about the AMRAAM ER specifically
It’s a MRAD missile, it’s designed to destroy things before they get anywhere close.
Also I removed the sea skimming part, I wrote it automatically incorrectly, it is designed to destroy them.
1 Like
That’s a good point.
My issue arises that if there’s multiple sources stating something consistent about a Russian weapon (the 6m) in this case, it’s all questioned to death, or I guess not valid.
Ahhh gotcha, gotcha.
1 Like
no you dont
there a loads of sources that show the Mk 134 Mod 0 rocket motor can accelerate a 280 kg missile to over mach 4
and yet in game the same Mk 134 Mod 0 can not even accelerate a 280 kg missile (that is actually slightly more aerodynamic) to mach 3
That’s what I figured
You do need specific sources for the AMRAAM ER
Gaijin’s report rules are just like that
you normally dont
except for some reason they decided that you would in this one specific case
Gotta wonder what the rule on sources are gonna be the more modern we go, Because the Pl-12A and Aim-120D are still classified, and the IRIST to some degree of it’s exact preformance. So things are going to get a lot more complicated.
and if people are gonna say Gaijin can’t go off brochures (in Russias case) the same would or is supposed to apply to everything else.
But that means somebodys gonna get mad ethier way you see it through
1 Like
The whole “I think that’s a marketing lie” bug report manager thing is pretty damning.
It is flat out illegal to claim via marketing or otherwise that your equipment does something that it can’t in multiple countries.
How they reconcile that going forward in the future will make or break this game. The past is the past and improving is the only way to win.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s actually pretty sad that marketing lie even is something that they could possibly state as a reason for rejecting a source
Like, for real, the brochures will always UNDERSTATE the performance of systems to some degree, why would the manufacturers lie to make the weapons seem better than it is when
a) their customers WILL test the equipment before committing to order it, meaning their reputation would take a huge hit after a claim gets revealed to be a lie
and
b) such lies probably are illegal in the manufacturers location (like you said)
7 Likes
Here’s some stats I’ve collected on the new Pantsir and other SPAA to compare.
K/D to CAS
Cut off: 300| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| Pantsir SM-SV | 4.04 | 1744 |
| FSAF SAMP/T | 3.05 | 328 |
| HQ11 | 2.30 | 588 |
| IRIS-T SLM | 1.96 | 1245 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 1.61 | 2456 |
| “BUK-M3” | 1.52 | 858 |
| NASAMS 3 | 1.51 | 559 |
| CLAWS | 1.48 | 323 |
| CS/SA5 | 1.15 | 698 |
| FlaRakRad | 1.11 | 1119 |
| ADATS | 0.99 | 936 |
K/D planes only
Cut off: 200| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| FSAF SAMP/T | 4.42 | 206 |
| Pantsir SM-SV | 3.82 | 1056 |
| HQ11 | 3.46 | 379 |
| IRIS-T SLM | 2.46 | 840 |
| “BUK-M3” | 1.72 | 610 |
| NASAMS 3 | 1.71 | 361 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 1.49 | 1621 |
| CS/SA5 | 1.36 | 418 |
| FlaRakRad | 0.96 | 630 |
| ADATS | 0.83 | 482 |
K/D to helicopters only
Cut off: 200| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| Pantsir SM-SV | 4.42 | 688 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 1.88 | 835 |
| FlaRakRad | 1.34 | 489 |
| IRIS-T SLM | 1.29 | 405 |
| HQ11 | 1.25 | 209 |
| ADATS | 1.18 | 454 |
| “BUK-M3” | 1.14 | 248 |
| CS/SA5 | 0.89 | 280 |
Weapons destroyed to CAS deaths
Cut off: 200| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| Pantsir SM-SV | 6.33 | 2537 |
| FSAF SAMP/T | 4.83 | 472 |
| FSAF SAMP/T (Mamba) | 4.57 | 351 |
| HQ11 | 3.44 | 790 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 2.54 | 3336 |
| NASAMS 3 | 2.02 | 674 |
| “BUK-M3” | 1.86 | 973 |
| ItO 90M | 1.55 | 242 |
| CLAWS | 1.45 | 319 |
| CS/SA5 | 1.27 | 738 |
| Tan-SAM Kai | 1.12 | 275 |
| IRIS-T SLM | 0.81 | 759 |
| FlaRakRad | 0.76 | 932 |
| ADATS | 0.63 | 767 |
Just for clarity, here is the overall K/D. Which should be more inline with statstark when they release their stats.
K/D
Cut off: 500| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| Pantsir SM-SV | 1.26 | 3322 |
| IRIS-T SLM | 1.1 | 1583 |
| HQ11 | 1.08 | 788 |
| OTOMATIC | 0.87 | 566 |
| NASAMS 3 | 0.8 | 758 |
| “BUK-M3” | 0.79 | 1189 |
| ADATS | 0.58 | 3130 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 0.56 | 5407 |
| CS/SA5 | 0.51 | 1661 |
| FlaRakRad | 0.5 | 2070 |
| 2S6 | 0.46 | 764 |
This thing is more like ADATS on steroids the way it’s being played.
Ground kills to ground deaths
Cut off: 500| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| ADATS | 0.45 | 2194 |
| Pantsir SM-SV | 0.4 | 1578 |
| 2S6 | 0.34 | 594 |
| CS/SA5 | 0.25 | 963 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 0.17 | 2951 |
| FlaRakRad | 0.11 | 951 |
Percentage of deaths caused by CAS
Cut off: 500| Vehicle | Ratio | Data points |
|---|---|---|
| IRIS-T SLM | 55.70% | 754 |
| “BUK-M3” | 51.13% | 665 |
| FlaRakRad | 38.32% | 1383 |
| CS/SA5 | 29.60% | 1098 |
| Pantsir-S1 | 27.15% | 3470 |
| ADATS | 23.72% | 1986 |
| Pantsir SM-SV | 23.51% | 1472 |
| 2S6 | 15.13% | 522 |
8 Likes
Quite funny how immensely the K/D is skewed between vs aircraft and overall because people try to drive pantsirs around and use them like tank destroyers.