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

[DocUSMC]

@Ion_Protogen

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

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.

@Ion_Protogen

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.

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”.

@Ion_Protogen

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.

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.

[llSolitairell-psn]

well this was a fun thread before US mains arrived

[Ion_Protogen]

@DocUSMC

Win rates are a measure of aircraft performance.

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

[AlvisWisla]

@DocUSMC

Win rates are a measure of aircraft performance.

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

[马兰花]

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

[ZendikarHaven]

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

[tensilaspider]

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.

[DocUSMC]

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

[Danzig_A11]

@Phazer

Also, your completly fine with stuff like the F15 F16 F14 dominating everything else. Just remember when the F14A was first added. It would be like that but much worse

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.

[Danzig_A11]

@Ion_Protogen

Introduction date means nothing in WT

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.

[Danzig_A11]

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 💀

[VF21_Freelancers]

@Danzig_A11

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

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.

[Danzig_A11]

@DocUSMC

Can you name other nations littered with failed prototypes?

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)

@DocUSMC

Russian Win Rate Top BR Ground RB = 68%
USA Win Rate Top BR Ground RB = 34%

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.

@DocUSMC

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.

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.

[TEZACK27]

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.

[warthogboy09]

@Danzig_A11

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!)

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.

[Danzig_A11]

@warthogboy09

And they were using 80s armaments while flying around not some arbitrary limit imposed by gaijin.

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…

@warthogboy09

Whats your point?

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

@warthogboy09

F-4E with AIM-7Fs, AIM-9L/Ms and functioning TISEO against any SARH slinger.

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.

[AlvisWisla]

F-14A Early cannot have its Early removed, cause it’s an entirely different F-14 airframe to the standard F-14As we’re use to. On top of that, it’d be the same BR as F-14B.
A different F-4F variant can come with AIM-9Ls for 12.3.

Your idea of two 13.7 F-16As is interesting… silly to me.
12.7 F-4E is funny.
13.3 Yak-141…
F-4C will never be an F-4D.

[warthogboy09]

@AlvisWisla

Your idea of two 13.7 F-16As is interesting… silly to me.

Neither of which are in the US tree, and China and Italy could use aim-120 F-16s

@AlvisWisla

12.7 F-4E is funny.
13.3 Yak-141…

Both of which would compete just as well as a F-4F ICE or J-8F if corrected. F-4E with its proper TISEO would be superior to a MiG-29 without R-27ERs.

@AlvisWisla

F-4C will never be an F-4D.

Probably won’t ever be changed, all the more reason to add F-4D with the armament the F-4E currently has so the F-4E can get its proper armament and they can stuff the BS “we need it to fill its current BR!?!?!” excuse.

[AlvisWisla]

Italy already has a Gripen, and China has other options after J-11A.

[warthogboy09]

@AlvisWisla

Italy already has a Gripen

And? Want a fucking cookie?

@AlvisWisla

China has other options after J-11A.

Which aren’t ingame currently.

Both aircraft are ahistorically being limited to armament they can’t even use because gaijin can’t be bothered to ctl+c and ctl+v a correct version of both into the trees at minimum.