Something, something, Starstreak Dart being the same thing, but smaller, while not acting in the same way, something, something
1 Like
I understand that. But most people that do mention it assume that making it lower would make the missile “worse” in some metrics. Which it wouldn’t, so overtuned or not overtuned there’s really nothing concrete to prove or disprove the count that would meaningfully make the missile worse. Not saying I want it to be worse, but I understand that is the motive behind the fragmentation regardless
It would definitely make it worse, but it would depend on the reduction amount how much worse.
Damage wise, definetely not. Standard air to air missles that carry only hundreds of fragments still reliably take out planes in normal AIr RB matches. Damage model in this game is also questionably weak for a lot of aircraft. It fundamentally wouldn’t change anything
yes because it would
given that it is command detonated instead of a proximity fuse it will always detonate when it reaches the range the aircraft is at, even if the missile was not on target
with the current overpreforming kill radius this makes it much harder to kinetically dodge than it should be
I said earlier that reducing the fragmentation cound would NOT reduce the cone or radius of shrapnel.
yes and that is part of the problem
because the cone and radius are also overpreforming
this warhead has barely more explosives than a stinger, which in game is known to be semi unreliable at killing aircraft even with an only 1m proxy fuse
1 Like
Not the case. If you use LOS mode and a target manuevers in a way that would require the missile to use lead and is unable to reach the target, it will simply not detonate.
The stinger doesn’t use the directed fragmentation principle this missile does, so the comparison wouldn’t matter. And comparing missile sizes is unreliable as fragmentation count can vary between many similar sized weapons or munitions.
Partially this is an aircraft damage model issue in the case of stinger; IRL examples of stinger during tests would embed themselves into QF-106 drone targets and destroy them without an explosive warhead.
Missiles are both too weak and too strong at the same time.
1 Like
so I guess what you are saying is that 770g of TNT in russia is more powerful than 10-20kg of TNT in other countries
because the explosive mass is very relevant to the quantity and energy of fragments produced
and there is no evidence that the missile even does direct fragments laterally like you are trying to imply
Energy focused in one direction versus being spread out makes a huge difference. And given this missile was also claimed to be aple to intercept hypersonic munitions, the format of detonation of makes sense for the task. Granted you have weapons that use pure kinetic energy and reliance on directly hitting the target, which is a much harder feat.
I already explained above and showed a picture regarding the translation and testing of the warhead type.
and none of those indicate that the fragments are dispersed in a non uniform radial pattern like you are implying
and if you look at the testing of nearly any missile the fragments will be dispersed in a similar pattern
Reducing the number of shrapnell would have an impact tho.
If anyone played with missiles long enough, you can confirm that you had an get good moment, where the missile that should have obliterated a plane, does only minor damage, even if the same detonation 2 games earlier grinded the target to a fine powder.
The less shrapnell, the greater chance of Gaijin moment.
Current implementation of Ya6M effectively removes the chance of Gaijin moment.
The picture I referenced very well implies that as it’s showing fragmentation being dispersed in 1 direction. Just becacuse the testing of similar missles use a different method does NOT mean that’s how every one will operate or MUST operate because other principles don’t “make sense.”
That doesn’t happen very often, and if the goal is going for a “gaijin moment” where it doesn’t do anything, that’s already silly on it’s own because now the implication is hoping game mechanics don’t work properly.
yes in one direction, forward
in a radially uniform pattern
they are not being dispersed in a single radial direction
That happens more time to me than I wished it would.
Im not saying that is a goal, what I’m saying is that making a blueprint of the plane mid flight effectively negates that scenario
3 Likes
Depending on how far away the missile detonates, a blueprint would still happen regardless, ethier way you see it, just less fragments to look at. the plane would still ultimately be crippled since energy is being focused 1 way rather than spread out the way I see it.
Okay let me keep it simple. It’s using the same principle AHEAD rounds do. Just on a missile.
So when I say in “1 direction forwward” I mean it’s not sending fragments 360 degrees around the missile like on annular blast fragmentation warhead, or using the principle of a continous rod warhead.
And even IF, it doesn’t use the AHEAD principle and uses traditional principles, it wouldn’t change the fact that it will NOT detonate until the radar tells it too and it’s within range, so it’s still going to send fragments out like on a normal air to air missile which kill pretty reliably.