you cant be real lmao, the soviets have been playing with meta aircraft for more than a year whilst the us has been dealing with trash, yet soviet mains are better? get a load of this guy
no
1 Like
when it was released, F-15E was way better than it’s russian counterpart (Su-27SM), and…oh, what’s this?
yeah i feel this kinda proves that.
the F-15E was a beast when it was released cuz AIM-120 didn’t have the nerfs Gaijin gave it after that time, and yet Su-27SM is somehow better even with worse missiles, RWR and less countermesures?
1 Like
oh yeah, F-15E is now 14.0, so here u have the 13.7 F-15, performing same/worse
Then give me some reasons why instead of just saying it lmao.
I gave you an entire essay and you’re too stuck up and lazy to even quote anything I said and give a counterargument.
Let me correct myself, you quoted 1 thing out of all of that, based on what I’m currently seeing.
1 Like
So let me get this straight.
You’re implying that we can take everything the U.S presents at face value and anything Russia gets added to the game not at all, or downplay what they and they only present.
If I were to give a more fair evaluation, sice apparently the Patriot can’t miss but has been seen missing, along with the Pantsir system. All SAMs in game should have a probability to miss it’s target.
Brings me back to the whole argument with the 2a42 30mm cannon on the BMPs/Terminator. Yes it shouldn’t be lazer accurate high rpm at range, but that’s every autocannon irl, as in-game every weapon is pixel perfect on the dot.
So why should only the Russian version have recoil applications applied and everything else remain immune?
The F-15E is also played in GRB, statshark data is unable to discriminate macro stats from different gamemodes. Not to mention planes death ratio in GRB are significantly higher due to SPAAs.
Do your test, try looking out for the F-15E’s GRB “stats” in statshark.
I yet have to see a Russian player dumb enough to bring an Su-27SM to GRB for CAP purposes. You only bring a 27SM to spade it if you’re lucky enough to find targets.
btw, I still have to remember this was your first point when I seriously disagreed with you on something.
4 Likes
i mean, Su-27SM is good for GRB, 4 Kh-29TDs are obviously better than 6 subsonic Mavericks.
the stats say how many ground kills did each plane do.
u can see how the F-15E did around 15M kills while the Su-27SM barely did 1.5M.
couldn’t that be enough to determinate which one is better in that case?
1 Like
For the GRB BR the 27SM gets (12.7), you literally don’t pick the Su-27SM if you have any Su-30 by missile count, even you can take the Su-25SM3 with 4x X-38s which are genuinely better.
Again, anyone who prefers the SM over the Su-30SM/SM2/Su-25SM3 is objectively wasting a slot and there’s no point to deny it.
You realize ground kills (and even air) in statshark include AI targets? God, you’re arguing like if you were a level 70.
3 Likes
Barely. It’s still behind everyone else while sitting at high br
for anyone who doesn’t have Su-30SM yet, it’s a good and probably the only option.
one entire month of f15e dominance !?!?!?!?!? WOW that mustve SUCKED
edit: i forgot to mention that during this time i was hard farming russia and playing su27sm alot, so yeah, i would take playing the su27sm against the f15e any day over whatever the hell is the current situation at top brs
1 Like
At everyone’s request, reposting it here.
the total mass of the prefabricated fragments of the new missile (105kg) has far exceeded the total mass of the warhead (32.5kg), and it is obvious that Russia does not need to comply with the law of conservation of mass…
The extra AHEAD pre-fragmented section of the 95ya6m directly provides 3,500 fragments, with a fragment range of 200 metres, single fragment penetration of 25, damage 20, and single-shot fragment damage of 70,000. The fragment quantity coefficient is directly set to 1 (Figure 1).
What level is 20 points of kinetic damage? According to the in-game kinetic-damage conversion table (Figure 2), 20 points of damage corresponds to 45 kJ of kinetic energy, which is already at the level of a 20mm gun. Assuming all pre-fragments fully inherit the missile’s maximum speed of 1,700 mps, in order to produce 45 kJ of kinetic energy, the mass of a single fragment would need to be around 30 grams. 30 grams, 3,500 fragments—this is already very inconsistent.
Comparing with a normal high-explosive fragment warhead: the theoretical fragment count of the 95ya6 is 2,560, fragment theoretical penetration 8mm, damage 14.2, radius 45.9 m. Since the total quantity coefficient for the generic air-defence missile fragment template is only 0.505, even using parameters from the sector with maximum side energy (1.5 times radius, 1.5 times damage) to estimate the total damage of all fragments, it only reaches 27,600 damage, radius 69 m, penetration 12mm.
In terms of fragment damage projection, one 95ya6m round is much stronger than two older rounds, and even Buk (total fragment damage 56,812) is far from its match.
Theoretically, remote detonation at 50 metres is not ideal for maximising fragment power, but because the fragment range reaches 200 metres, fragments can still retain most of their damage and penetration when reaching the aircraft, meaning the values are very sufficient.
Additionally, with 50 metres plus a maximum fragment cone angle of 20 degrees, when the fragment cloud reaches the aircraft, it effectively achieves an 18-metre damage radius (50×tan20°). Even if manually fired inaccurately, it is sufficient most of the time to shred a fixed-wing aircraft.
21 Likes
I would say I’m surprised to hear about this, but I’m not…
3 Likes
Just wanted to post this video here
I understand it’s from DCS, but the modeling of the IRIST and Pantsir S1 relatively remain the same besides some AI spoofs, but what’s more important here is the tactics and the acknolwedgment of what both systems bring to the table, especially since he utilize HARM missles in this video.
I also do want to throw out there with this video that the IRIST-SLM entered service in roughly around 2020
The Pantsir S-1 entered service in around 2010, that’s an decade older. But people will sware up and down that the Pantsir system as a whole and for what it does is too broken and everything needs to be traditional SAMS. I tend to hear a lot of arguments about Russia getting "all this new modern equipment from XXXX year, so when a nation like Germany got the IRIST-SLM, I sure didn’t hear the same arguments formulating, since they got a very, very recent piece of equipment.
Now in DCS’s case, they added the IRIST-SLM and the Pantsir S-1 at the same time, unlike WarThunder which added them years apart. One could argue that they both have equal potency in different situations.
The Patriot entered service in 1982, much older than the Pantsir S-1, but would be considered way too strong for the games current environment, despite it being a much older system. Now it doesn’t change the fact that the newer IRIST-SLM and the much older Patriot system (with upgrades overtime) are first and foremost SAM systems meant to take down aircraft and have a completely different mission from the Pantsir system that started from the 2s6.
The only similarly proposed concept of an all in one system was the concept of the Abrams AGDS which didn’t get off the drawing board.
To wrap all this up, when you look at it all from a bigger picture, the U.S attempted for a Pantsir equivalent but it didn’t happen becaue of their focus. For Russia it did happen because of their focus. From and overall standpoint, it wouldn’t matter if HARMS, or electronic warfare was presented, because it won’t stop the Pantsir systems from doing what they were designed too do, which leads to players coping and wanting to downplay it’s abilities (just because it’s Russia) and there is no 1 to 1 from anyone else. Which ironically is very bad reasoning from a gameplay standpoint or “balancing” standpoint if you must. If 2 decades pass by and the NATO doesn’t care to come up with it’s own Pantsir, is it still going to be “broken” because everyone else can’t do the same thing? This is just food for thought
I also do want to mention that adding ECM won’t change anything about the base Pantsirs capibiltiies as it can effectively fight jamming by using it’s electro-optical system. If they’re forced to turn off radars because of Anti-Radiation missles or because of targeted jamming, they can just use their long wave thermal imager (it’s alternate IR search mode) that people say they use to not alert the target they’ve been locked, whil still being able to track multiple threats.
It’s like I said before, everyone brings something different to the table, and that’s something players can’t keep getting mad over. The sam system from 2026 isn’t gonna be a Pantsir. You got the newest system and you’re still going to throw a fit because it can do something yours can’t?
Hey @BasherBenDawg8 I’d be more than happy if you took a read over this and give me some constructive feedback, you too @Flanker_Thunder & @tripod2008
1 Like
The US doesn’t have direct pantsir equivalents but it has systems that work together to be one with the C-RAM, SLAMRAAM and tracking radar trucks like the AN/TPQ-53 which are lightyears superior than the ones they get in War thunder. There are other systems like the Linebacker, m-shorad and the MML.
As to the tactics they aren’t quite relevent right now due to both the lack of HARMs, the lack of ground radar to properly identify targets and the fact it’s an all new system with those hypersonic missiles.
Pantsir-S1’s and IRIS-T were somewhat managable. The Pantsir SM-SV is an all new beast where you have half the reaction time.
Bingo. Now even if they are lightyears superior, guess what they do that makes them all super effective, or any SAM site effective.
They work together and some of these systems alone are lackluster. U.S air defense doesnt rely on one but many different vehicles and systems. Which can be advantageous in the right situations and disadvantageous, because what they arent is all in one system mobile system.
That is true, but think about this.
Even if you got HARMS and all these new munitions and changed tactics. It wont change the fact that they can still be intercepted if they are within optimal range. Like with ECM, the closer you get to what youre jamming the less effective it becomes.
Or they can just lock onto the source of whats jamming it and fire on it. Then it becomes a double-edged sword.
1 Like
Well Considering the MIM-104 doesn’t use a TELAR, there is no direct Russian equivalent, since that was previously the requirement (No requirement for deployed supporting radar’s / TEL, or datalink to offboard sensors for guidance); and even then the closest Russian system that has been implemented in game to that role would be either the Tor-M1 (was slated to come in place of the Pantsir, but surprisingly did not turn up until much later) or Buk-M3 of which the M9317MA, line up pretty well with the performance early Patriot Interceptors though without having an active seeker, or GPS capability breaking Line of Sight would be effective to defeat the missile.
But if a less performant Missile was the issue there is also the MIM-23 HAWK (Self propelled TEL does exist, as the M727)
Because it’s still playing catchup to already implemented Russian systems, even though if properly modeled would significantly outstrip them but won’t because either "Marketing lie" or yet to be implemented mechanic / subsystem so is a gaming convention to maintain balance.
Also it’s not as if no complaints exist about the IRIS-T, it’s just that defecting things onto how modern a system is, not it’s capabilities is not really a road that wouldn’t expose many a tautological concession, for balance in some specific trees.
Eeh, It’d be valid under the rules Gaijin uses for Ships, since all components existed and were tested. Or are otherwise already implemented.
Yeah, because they would expect to be able to call up Aircraft to pull DCA missions over anywhere they are operating. All they would need is Stingers for pop up Anti-helicopter work, and with the move to Medium caliber Autocannons w/ HE-VT they have Anti-swarm tactics mostly covered.
Everything else is at a Theater / Strategic level that would be statically emplaced and positioned to cover FARPS and to some degree the FEBA to some depth.
It would most definitely complicate it, since they are so fast(Mach 3~ 4.5+), and later variants that are contemporary have both GPS and support MMW guidance in the terminal phase.
Because there is no material need from anyone else since they solve the issue in different ways that are not currently modeled in WT, and if they were it would be much less an issue.
Do I need to point out that the F-14A is the contemporary of the MiG-21 / MiG-23? let alone the YF-12A. There are significant disparities in performance in many other areas if we assess things on a chronological basis that Can’t be taken advantage of due to the BR system.
4 Likes
yes it does, that’s why this thread exists as well as many others regarding that particular nation’s vehicles.
I think these forums are the only place where i can read someone writing with a straight face that a M2.5 AGM is not more problematic than subsonic ones or glide bombs.
2 Likes
Yes they work together just like the CLAWS/NASMS
They could integrate a better radar truck like the AN/TPQ-53 or add in a C-RAM to all the multi vehicle AA emplacements instead of a second truck as an option.
The AN/TPQ-53 alone instead of the ancient AN/MPQ-64 (from 1991) would make the systems far more deadly with it’s tracking mode.
Sort of. The difference is unlike ANY of the munitions the US has and many other nations have, the HARM can be launched at supersonic speeds. Just like the Kh-38MT’s.
Limiting yourself to mach 0.9 versus full afterburner on the deck is a big gamechanger in survivability versus AA.
1 Like