Am I missing something? In my experience if you use the track radar you’re basically guaranteed to miss so I’ve been hand tracking them and it’s just not effective, there’s also irst but it doesn’t work on cloudy maps. What do you do to make it effective?
Enemies know how to make the auto track miss, hand tracking is not efficient. Your best option is to use the auto-lead and adjust the missile based on your point of view. Of course, enemy aircraft can fly low and force you to miss regardless but they can do that with any missile system including the Pantsir S1.
The main thing that makes the TOR so good is that the radar keeps you situationally aware. There are times I feel the radar gives me more information than the one on my Pantsir, albeit with less angles.
Just hide, spawn in the TOR to deal with helicopters, drones, etc. If you need to deal with enemy fighters it is all too easy to spawn in any of their helicopters and start slinging TY-90’s at them. That is much more effective than any SPAA and you have the ability to destroy ground targets afterwards.
You would be surprised, rofl.
As for as Im aware Tor and HQ17 use the same set of missiles. Of course each use their own produced missiles so their names are different but their capabilities are equal.
there is large improvement in HQ-17A, HQ-17 might improved a little.
HQ-17A’s information is still classified, the 40km range is from another missile with similar size and structure, but for ship.
HQ-17 could be 15-20km from some source, HQ-17A 20+km
Would you mind sharing this information on a 40km missile for HQ17.
As the author of SPAA Mega List, I would like to keep missile specs up to date. But I stated in earlier post, I have yet to see a shread of evidence for a 40km missile for either Tor or HQ17,
Tor Missiles:
9M331 (In-Game)
- Range: 12 km
- Caliber: 239mm
- Launch Mass: 167 kg
- Max Speed: Mach 2.49 (850 m/s)
- Guidance Type: SACLOS
- Max Overload: 42 G
- Guidance Time: 21s
- TNT equivalent: 8.16
- Missile Amount: 8x
9M338
- Range: 15 km
- Caliber: 200mm
- Launch Mass: n/a
- Max Speed: Mach 3 (1,029 m/s)
- Guidance Type: SACLOS
- Max Overload: n/a
- Guidance Time: n/a
- Warhead: n/a
- Missile Amount: 16x
HQ17 Missiles:
HQ-17
- Range: 15 km
- Caliber: 230mm
- Launch Mass: 165 kg
- Max Speed: Mach 3 (1,029 m/s)
- Guidance Type: SARH
- Max Overload: n/a
- Guidance Time: n/a
- Warhead: 15 kg
- Missile Amount: 8x
1 Like
I can only provide this, FM-3000N with 45km range(40km is from my bad memory). HQ-17A improved mobility from some official report, seems uses TVC or side thrust, it can do 180° turn in extremely small radius.
FM-2000 is export version of HQ-17(HQ-17AE is export version of HQ-17A). FM-3000 is the newest version of it’s series, but the missile could be a little longer, I haven’t done a pixel count yet. PLA service version FM-3000 is HQ-11.
FM-2000 15KM
FM-3000
HQ-11
Compared to FM-3000, HQ-11 uses a larger truck so it has radar and missiles in one vehicle.
Other information is from some articles or rumors, which is not so reliable.
1 Like
Unless the FM-3000 is backwards compatible with HQ17 then why are people saying the HQ17 can reach 40km when it seems to be an entirely new vehicle with a new missile?
No information so they find a closest one? we may get a HQ-17AE display board in this year’s Zhuhai Airshow.
They do have relationship, all developed from 9M331, with almost same structure, I think it can be a reference, the main problem is if FM-3000 is larger/longer, it determines how much propellant it can carry. I can do some pixel count when I get to my computer with Photoshop.
You don’t have to go to the lengths of pixel measurements.
I was just trying to understand why people are saying Tor and HQ17 had 40km range.
I don’t want to create controversy. The most relevant question, how the Chinese War Thunder community could willingly accept the intrusion of the TOR M1 into their research tree, is a total lack of respect.
From my point of view, it is clear that they wanted to get rid of this useless Russian technology on their neighbor in order to provide them with a semblance of an anti-missile system.
It is pathetic to have come to this point.
I hope that those responsible will quickly question themselves and resolve this problem!
The Tor M1 is 100% Russian technology. It’s like installing the Abrams tank in the German research tree or the Leclerc tank in the Italian research tree. A little seriousness, thank you.
It’s in service in Chinese army though, and the only problem is that it’s not powerful enough to face the top CAS now. HQ-17 is still basically a TOR but modernized.
it’s not a good example
TOR-M1 is good its just harder to use than most AA. However, all AA’s other than pantsir is essentially useless against a competent air player. Even the pantsir will struggle against good players. AA in the game is just a joke atp.
The 40 km might be a bit exaggerated, but I think I saw something along the lines of improved range with some naval missiles. With FM3K, 30km and it was considered a ‘variant’ of HQ17 by many, not sure about compatibility.
It’s 45km as I posted, though I think it might be longer with more propellant.
We are in a democracy, I like debates.
What is the solution then? Because we can no longer continue with the Tor M1, this anti-missile system is a joke.
The Tor is still one of the best SPAA in game, regardless of how capable it is against current air threats. It just says more about how much capacity is lacking in comparison to the S1 which is far and away the best.
The managers are so undecided about it that they did not know exactly where to place the Tor M1, it is currently in BR 11.2, this is proof that it is a choice made without real conviction.
To intercept drones and missiles, i.e. objects that fly straight, the Tor M1 does its job very well, but to intercept fighter jets, you can forget about it.
Even the Antelope is more efficient.
Maybe 625E or Gaijing actually model the radar of Tor so it is sort of more’ hand free’?
I mean, one of the best, there are only 5 systems in contention, Pantsir ruled out (obviously the best), 4 left, 3 VT1s + Tor and that means it is pretty average, ADATS is just in plain, bad and I would still probably have ITOM or even FlaRakRad over Tor.
1 Like