If the A-10C also has a MAW, that just hurts your argument more. If you can’t positively identify your target, that’s on you. aim-9m is supposed to be a short range missile.
So, I dont believe the source so its wrong logic. Great. THen show me proof R-60Ms shoudlnt also be 1 tapped flared by anything?
I dont need to. I defeat Aim-9Ms all the time in the Sea Harrier FA2. One of the hardest aircraft in game to defeat any incoming missiles in.
Literally the original post
1 Like
If you want to bring up the difference in speed then we also need to bring in the greater agility and easier defensive flying of the A10, allowing it to utilise the missiles it carries significantly more effectively than the Su 24. The loadout is only irrelevant if you look at it only accounting for half the factors present.
If we compare directly to Tornadoes, the missiles are lacking and the armament is closer to the latter Tornadoes. Which you will note is the BR I propose moving it to if it were changed to the later standard of 24. However, unless by some act of god this has changed, the performance of Su 24 is significantly behind Tornado in agility which also screws the ability to use the ordnance it carries.
Oh, I was the first responder.
Yeah, topic got a bit different in five hours.
It’s also as slow as a prop. If you want to kill it, gun it or use a radar missile.
what…?
The Abrams does in-fact spall lol.
Speed is a massive importance in fights. The gun pod on the Su-24 is also extremely dangerous.
2 Likes
bro you are actually tweaking what kind of logic is if they get 4 we get 6 ahh logic + a10c is slow so aim9m want get planes that 2km/2.5km way its not like you are f16 or 15 going 1400km to give aim9 some speed get your shit together
1 Like
Why not just give the Su-39 R-77 right? It had them IRL, among many other far more powerful weapons
1 Like
If the “later” Su-24M is more CMs, MAWS and R-73s. Then it should be higher than the Current 11.7 Tornados that lack both MAWS and IRCCM missiles.
Even if the Tornado IDSs at 11.7 get AIm-9M/Aim-9Li respectively and remain at 11.7. If the SU-24 got any more than 2x R-73s it should be a higher BR than the Tornado IDS.
Its impossible to compare at the moment which turns better, the Su-24 or the Tornado as both are “new”
Why? Tornado can utilise the missiles effectively, Su 24 would struggle. I usually respect your positions but on this you seem to be letting dislike for the kit bleed into your assessment of it. 73s are notably less competent ordnance.
1 Like
Sure, then it can move to 13.0 alongside the Sea Harrier FA2. Which is just a Sea harrier FRS1 (11.0) at 13.0
Cause those that actually enjoy these vehicles at lower BRs don’t want to be stuck using them at higher BRs.
Same reason why Su-24 should never get R-73s.
Just cause something can use a missile doesn’t mean it should when other historically accurate options exist.
You can chaff a radar missile at 11.3 with ease…
The USA mains all broke the forums over you not getting spall liners in abrams tanks.
I took a video just today of the abrams LFP not spalling :) would you like it?
I see the USA main agenda is “gun pod is dangerous unga bunga” well, a gun pod that goes up and down isn’t nearly as effective as an Aim-9m.
3 Likes
I agree, due to your planes speed, you’re not boosting max missile speed.
Who said anything about more than 2 R-73s? I only ever said 2, and 2 r60s
What changes? It’s A-10.
Tornado IDS with 2x Aim-9L is 11.3 quite comfortably. Its neither underpowered or overpowered at that BR. its just right imo
Su-24 with 4x R60M looks about equal in terms of overall performance at 11.3.
It is hard for now to compare these aircraft in terms of airframe performance as they are both “new” (tornados new FM and all)
Su-24 with 2x R-73 could probably bump it to 11.7 quite easily
Tornado IDS with Aim-9Li (just to remove the complication of smokeless motor) is probably 11.7 worthy at the moment.
Su–24 with 4x R-73 could probably also bump it up further, likely 12.0. Especially if it came with major defensive buffs like MAWS and more CMs
If Su-24M has historical inaccuracies that are reasonable for the BR. Then I have no issue with their introduction. But I get the feeling that this specific Su-24M does not have all that many bells and whistles that the later one should get (much like the Tornados in that regard)
A-10C might need to be higher, it might even be under-powered. Its been 1 day and we’ll have to wait and see. Im of the opinion its a bit like the Harrier Gr7. Over BRed airframe carried by a missile that people fear more than is actually necessary.
Chaffing a Radar missile doesn’t just work… You have to notch 90 percent of the time.
Because they felt that it was unfair, which is fine. Breaking a forum is not hacking someone lol
Oh, you mean a single bug when the update just dropped today? I’ve seen the water turn black and had trap shots go over 120 degrees. Your single experience is not representative of the game’s intentional function.
Brother. You cannot be serious. No normal person is complaining about any of these vehicles. They’ve been out for less than 24 hours. I get it, you play Russia, but this is getting old. Your Su-25SM3 is still better by leagues. It has 40KM standoff range. The A-10 not only doesn’t have that range, but it also fights Pantsirs. The Su-25 doesn’t. Get a grip.
4 Likes
That is not how pylons and Gaijin work…
Outside the premium A-10A, no aircraft has intentionally missing AAMs from store positions.
And that should never be precedent.
Remind me, which harrier sat uncontested at 11.7 for awhile with tons of Cms and. 4 aim 9m? Because hey, that’s fair.
Will you actually enjoy that though? If an F-4 doesn’t get you, or an F-104 for that matter, an a-10 will more than likely fly below you, click a button, and you get hit.
I think getting the 2 r-73s it has in the files will be completely fine, you don’t have the maneuvering power to engage enemies easily if at all.
The A-10C should still become at the very least, an 12.0 for Sim.