What are some vehicles you guy's believe should/could get their historical weapon's at this point in time?

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
128

Other nations have got prototypes that fit the same standard the Yak-141 has.Yak-141 was not given special treatment - #6 by i_ivanof
The R2Y2s also never existed in their current state.

Introduction date means nothing in WT, because they balance off of player statistics. If it was, the 8.0 AMX-30 would be facing T-72s, and not early T-54s/55s.

Is that large section exclusively top tier ground?

Winrates are a measure of team skill, and lineup strength. They shouldn’t be used for balancing, and we don’t have access to the true winrates.

2 Likes
129

You can’t be serious right? The Chinese test reports on that missile show it was complete garbage, and none of the claims lined up. In game it has two engines and is modeled to get twice the boost it should have, launch angles the flight manual says it can’t be used at, and other problems.

Known, we have relatively decent info on this.

F4s are capable of carrying and launching Aim-120s, I provided photographic proof. And simply saying “it needs updated” isn’t hard to do. Software updates are something we do all the time. The rest of that is nonsense.

I see this quoted alllll the time… but its funny how it only seems to benefit russian tech trees. Why not let them fall behind and push the Uk and Sweden up?

No

The numbers line up with complaints that we see. So we know the numbers are close enough.

What happens when they run out of room to give the russian tech tree a 20 - 30 year advantage? Do they just stop adding things at that point? “Oh sorry guys we can’t balance the F18 because we ran out of fictional performance for the USSR tree, so we wont be adding it”.

So what is next the F18 (1978) gets introduced with the SU-47(1997) the Mig 35 (2016) along side the J20 (2017)? and the F22 is still “too good”?

Lets reverse roles. Let them introduce the F22A (1997) and the SU-30 (1989) and see how it feels.

1 Like
130

IRL Phoenix missiles are trash against modernish jets, but they’re fragging Tornado IDS’s in War Thunder when they’d fail 100% of the time in real life due to the countermeasure set.

Win rate data, AKA team skill data, is not known.

1 Like
131

I literally just said how it benefits France, are you dense? The AMX-13 also faces Tiger IIs (and the FL11 version is 4.3), when in reality it is from the '50s.

How is it bad that newer Russian equipment is as good as older non-Russian equipment? Should the game be deliberately imbalanced because you are personally biased against Russia?

Where else is it?

You ignored me saying “Winrates are a measure of team skill, and lineup strength.”

Either that or they buff Russian stuff, but NATO players would whine so much if they did that. The most likely scenario is that stuff just stops being added to Russia, while other natiosn keep getting higher BR vehicles.

132

Win rates are a measure of aircraft performance. This is very evident in real world data like when the Pakistan Air Force F16As obliterated the Indian Air Force Mig 29s with no losses. Mig 29 has the worst combat rating of any 4th gen fighter with a 1 - 3 negative KDR.

I am sure they will pull out some secret document prototype that never made it out a wind tunnel and add it. “we saw this in a 1990s comic once and thought USSR tech tree needed it”.

Unironically this makes sense. France kept an active unit of post war German tanks in service. They had 48 I think? Finland kept the Panzer IV and so did France in service into the 60s. So they were active during the Korean War. This is historical.

1 Like
133

well this was a fun thread before US mains arrived

3 Likes
134

And team skill. If a BR is full of premiums, those will have bad winrates, despite being good aircraft otherwise.

135

Prove that War Thunder matches are all one vehicle on one team.

136

F16 MLU’s AIM9M，AIM120 and basic everything F16AM has.
The main difference between them that I know are head tracking and engine only.

137

The J35XS’s RB27s/28s so it can have some SARH missiles.

3 Likes
138

ima be honest, this kinda makes me laugh when we’ve had full team’s of f14’s, su25’s, harrier’s, and a few other’s when they came out. Just putting my 2 cent’s for this time lol.

139

It does exist at Top Tier. I commonly see games like this:

image
image1455×695 180 KB

1 Like
140

I mean if you really want to be pendatic with it and give another reason why historical match maker isnt a good idea there are more than a few western planes that wont fair much better in historical match makers

For example there were still a good number of F-4Es,F-104s,Mirage III/F-1s flying around in europe for pretty much all of the 80s (italy retired their 104s in 2004!) They may have not been frontline aircraft sure but they were still a massive chunk of airforces in europe right until the end of the cold war,especially phantoms

So like… have fun being the Mirage III or F-104G/S or a non PF F-4E fighting MiG-23MLA/MLD, MiG-29 29s and depending on which half of the 80s, Su-27s

Going away from fighters and attackers on both sides are going to suffer even more than they already do in air. A-6/7/10, Su-25, MiG-27 ect are all going to be in the same boat as things like the 104S, Mirage or MiG-21.

Overall historical match makers are not a fun situation for either side and should never be remotely considered.

141

When people bring up dates of introduction for things especially when trying to claim “le gaijin is le biased toward x”

I like to point out that the F-15J(M) in the japanese tree is a circa 2010 aircraft since it has JHMCS. And things like the F-15C and F-16C in the US tree are also post 2000 airframes due to having HMD.

So the whole “Su-27SM is from 2003 is le russian bias” means absolutely nothing.

6 Likes
142

Aircraft that In my opinion should recieve more of their historical armament are as follows

F-16ADF (Italy) : AIM-120 and AIM-9Li

F-16MLU (China): AIM-120 and AIM-9M+ its
missing air to ground ordinance

F-4E US: should receive its additional air to air and air to ground ordinance such as lgbs and tgp.(people need to stop asking for another variant, The whole late and early thing that gajin is doing is honestly dumb and needs to go)

F-14A: again They should remove the (early) bs from the game and just make it an F-14A and give it AIM-9L,54C,and AIM-7M

YaK-141: should receive its R-77 and R-73.

F-4F: AIM-9L

F-4C: this one might be slightly controversial but Remake the F-4C into the F-4D so it can have CMs and AIM-9J/AIM-7E

MiG-21S/SMT and MF : give them back their R-13M missile. (I dont see why they removed it anyways)

AMX attacker: AGM-65 mavericks and AS-30L(i could slightly be wrong on this one so if somebody knows more please correct me)

Of course all of these should come with br adjustments and there are a few more suggestions i could probably make but cant think of anything offhand and also typing on mobile is 💀

2 Likes
143

TBH, late model of F-14A is just frankenstein model of F-14A and F-14B so, I would like to see the 1986 model F-14A that actually appeared in the Top Gun movie from 1986 and 2022.

It doesn’t have huge difference from F-14A Early(1977). Only different thing is TCS on nose section.

144

How do you define failed exactly? Because there are multiple vehicles that failed for multiple different reasons. Such as

R2Ys: the actual R2Y would have been a prop plane, the jet powered abominations we have in game are less real than the YaK-141 is.

F-20: Failed heavily as an export vehicle to the F-16

Mirage 4000: Also a failed export vehicle

F-16AJ: was only a proposal that never went anywhere else. Its not even correctly implemented in game afaik.

T29,T30,T34,T92, MBT/KPZ-70, XM803, XM800T, 120S, Ru251,TURMIII,HSTVL, all of these “failed” because they didnt meet the proper requirements, went overbudget, a war ended, or some other reason. (I could list several more none russian things but this post is getting long enough as is)

Dont be disingenuous and misleading last i checked both Germany and Sweden are sitting comfortably at 60-70% wr or higher at top tier ground if not higher.

That is straight up false, you dont just “do a software update” youd need a whole new radar, wiring and even pylons depending on the plane.

According to your hair brained logic if all we need to do is “software updates”, every single vehicle capable of using AIM-7s should get AIM-120.

Are you fine with the F-3 Demon getting AIM-120? I mean clearly it should since all it needs is a simple “software update”

I could keep going on with this but its pretty clear that for somebody that “knows what they are talking about” you are really good at spewing a bunch of nonsensical BS so its best i dont bother.

4 Likes
145

PUMA. It’s time for it to finally get spikes. I’m sick of seeing other vehicles get it and the puma is just forgotten.

2 Likes
146

Yes… And they were using 80s armaments while flying around not some arbitrary limit imposed by gaijin. Whats your point? I’d still take an F-4E with AIM-7Fs, AIM-9L/Ms and functioning TISEO against any SARH slinger.

2 Likes
147

Yes because IRL NATO totally had an infinite stockpile of only the most modern weapons and things like AIM-9L/M and AIM-7M would never get prioritized for newer aircraft far before anything else.

They totally didnt still have large stockpiles of older weapons laying around that totally wouldn’t get issued to older/second line aircraft.

Noooo they would never do that…

My point was historical matchmaking is extremely stupid and anybody that wants it should heavily reconsider what they are asking for. we finally just got some fairly decent decompression a few weeks ago people need to stop trying to ask for something even worse than what we had

All that being said the F-4E should get access to these weapons. It should also get access to its missing air to ground ordinance such as D mavericks, LGPs and such.

I have said both here and multiple other places that gainins “arbitrary limits” as you put them are bad and do nothing but hold aircraft back.