I wonder if gaijin would just BS HARMs into the Scandinavian TT on F/A-18C MLU-II or if they’d try going the extra step to put it on 16AM despite not being compatible… No clue on 39C/E but iirc they aren’t compatible either…
Theyd need to extend maps for HARMS to actually be effective and not just be a glorified bomb
They could at least receive the Shrike & ST-ARM
1 Like
I mean… not really depending on how the motor works imo, if the motor takes time to get up to full power and it’s not within a negligible span of time then there’d be some issues I suppose.
What they’re going to do is give it to everyone but the jets that have HARMs will be fighting AA with radars it doesn’t have tracking for.
Like the pantsir and not appearing on people’s RWR.
For one thing, ST-ARM on an F-16… Ew…
And two, iirc Shrikes were a Blk.30 (?) thing, no clue about AGM-78 but it’s likely similar.
It would complicate things, but there is a video floating around of a Pantsir that intercepted over 12 missles from a HIMARS with ruthless effeciency. And thosee munitions can fly over mach 3 mind you. So I dont think it would complicate things as much as one would think.
Since youd think that system wouldve gotten oversaturated
The MMW seeker would make all the difference if the target doesnt move much, unless thats active the entire flight
Notice the Black radome; that’s a FSD F-16. So Pre-Block 1, LRIP airframe.
Gladly! Allow me to share my opinions on this:
Let me start with this, War Thunder isn’t real life as we all know. Doctrines for types of vehicles were adopted to suit the needs of a nation and what they observed to be the most suitable and capable. This is where the disparity between multi vehicle SAMs in some nations comes into play against single based systems commonly found in Russia. As you said, they each have their own focus. However Russia also has a multi vehicle focus, that something gaijin should take note of, and ignoring it is where the problem seems to have begun.
In my opinion, if vehicles like the Pantsirs exist, and there aren’t any viable counterparts for other nations to this system, then it shouldn’t be added to the game.
Giving one nation a do it all SPAA when other nations don’t have such options present creates issues in balance. There are other systems that should/could have been chosen, choosing the new Pantsir was a poor choice by gaijin.
Well sure we can. Not only does Russia still bring similar systems to the table, but gaijin decided to add these systems that are without counterparts. That’s the whole issue. If they don’t have counterparts and harm game balance through their addition, then they simply shouldn’t be added. Russia has vehicles/systems that can act as counterparts to western ones however, and their addition the sole priority.
Where is the argument of years of creation and service coming from? Don’t think I’ve seen anyone tossing that around, unless I missed it, and if they are making those arguments I find them stupid as well. Ian’s if you want my 2 cents, then I don’t really find it relevant personally, as all I care about are the capabilities of a vehicle.
Depends on the variant, like it REALLY depends on the variant of the Patriot and its missiles we’re talking about… (oh and again, year reeeally doesn’t matter, vehicle capabilities do, anyone you saw making those points are stupid I agree lmao)
1 Like
But can it actually use those missiles or are they fitted two it for the sake of demonstration…
Because we already know Blk.1s through 10s can’t from documentation so, personally I’m gonna believe it’s likely the latter.
It flew, and was tested for assisting with the Wild Weasel Follow-on Study for replacing the F-4G.
Date of entry is irrelevant if the system is added missing its true performance.
I did want to focus on this particularly, its a good point, but in a game like WarThunder where its very inevetable certain vehicles are going to be added so they can be represented. It brings me back to the case of DCS.
DCS has way, way more options to CAS, but the current iteration of its Pantsirs is still ruthless regardless and obviously DCS players arent going to tell the devolopers to not add it because it nullifies their CAS experience. Now obviously DCS doesnt run off “game balancing” for that reason and thats what it allows it to be so diverse and everything can be represented and its playerbase is generally fine with that.
Now in WarThunders terms, we may not have everything modeled yet, but I still feel like itd be quite damning to remove the Pantsirs altogether because of this factor. Especially since it is a unique vehicle to Russia and part of its Air Defence capabilities.
But obviously CAS cant keep progressing realistically and then yoy dont expect the Pantsir to show up. It feels like Im saying war is not fair (because it isnt) and that its gotten to a point for me that people are coping that “x can do this and we cant”.
If the U.S gets to a point where there CAS game outmatches Russia or cant be matched, and then that renders the Pantsir to be added, that also means a lot of other nations are already in trouble (because of game design)
Like I said, this issue would solve itself if we had laege sized maps.
Basically in DCS they tell you “to learn and adapt or ask for help”
But in WarThunder its half adapting and half saying its broken because its doing what its designed too do.
If you get my drift
(I do appreciate the feedback btw)
1 Like
Ok… but like… we’re already well aware of the fact that it was only till Blk.30/32 that F-16s were intergrated with AGM-45…
Spoiler
Norway doesn’t use anything above Blk.10s excluding two Blk.15s, so there’s no technical compatibility unless gaijin wants to get real creative.
More hidden favoritism for Russian weapons.
What a surprise./s
Could of also been a mistake… when this hapoens to other nations I dont hear the “playing favs” argument being tossed…
1 Like
Not particularly in this forum but it gets said quite a lot…
That’s a lot of convenient pro-Russian mistakes to just be a coincidence.
-
LMUR receiving proper top attack flight path day 1 while JAGM added same patch has a broken flight path and Hellfire still not receiving it for years, despite being bug reported is also a mistake?
-
Gaijin taking the time to code an entire frontal DIRCM area to the Mi-28NM even though no emitter exists there is also a mistake?
-
KH-38MT not only existing in-game but using Gen 3 thermal instead of blurry low zoom Gen 1(Info from the same marketing brochure they used). Must also be a mistake, I guess.
-
BMPT having a turret basket that protects against spall, while NATO turret baskets are specifically coded to generate spall?(even though they shouldn’t) BMPT ammo properly blowing up during first dev then having internal ammo detonation removed? Both mistakes.
Must I go on? Or do we start being honest here and see a pattern? They’re not even hiding it by now.
11 Likes
Okay hold on, hold on, hold on. I wanna hit up on this.
If we got any Gunner Heat PC players in here, they know the Abrams basket (which is modeled in that game btw) is a spall generator because of how its orientated lol… the round goes into the open basket, gonna generate spall…
They most likely removed that because 30mm ammo that doesnt even produce that much explosive force, feeding in a straight line, wont chain react like its some Michael Bay movie. Its why they also applied it to a one off italian vehicle during that update
Yes, HE.
I do die by chance if someone strikes the HE belt. But let me ask you, in APDS belts, do you really think youd get that same effect? I mean, its why you specifically mention HE right? Even theough everyone carries AP…