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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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)
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.
