Am I to assume only Russia knows what gyroscopes are?
2 Likes
No, it’s that it has a powerful enough all axis gyro, and never computers to do its job more effectively and turn its seeker head towards its target after launche.
1 Like
Gaijin was so kind as to give M4 a Igla version that has a Thrust Vectoring system. It puts missile in a position where it can lead to hit the target, even if it is not uncaged. TBH im not sure if that feature is real or not, no bias agains russia here, i just have not seen any proof it does happen.
As for Streal, out of all of them, it is a one that is not a Rolling Airframe, so it has better pull. All NATO RA missiles are underperforming, as Gaijin models them incorrectly (after the Igla).
5 Likes
If you’re interested in the true performance of MANPAD, then check out comments from user @tripod2008 in this thread. Very insightful
4 Likes
Once again an artificial buff for Russia.
Like back then when the ammunition was buggy, from the Russian tanks BVM T80U where the ammunition didn’t explode hahahahah as always Gajjin hahaha
2 Likes
I mean it surely makes a better argument to the performance of the missile than Gaijin saying… well Russia couldn’t do it so we think, we believe that the West could not either.
Who ever asked what they think or believe or what their interpretation is of the design of a missile, when was that ever grounds to buff or nerf a weapon because of their personal view of something, load of nonsense.
-We believe that
-Therefore, we assume
We hope that we were able to explain the principles of calculating the overload parameters for MANPADS
Calculating, as in they looked at the design and decided it couldn’t be better because it looked the same.
I think it’s pretty likely the Stinger is artificially nerfed, but none of it goes to explain why the Russian ones are vastly outperforming them, especially when these are FIM-92E’s from 1990 and beyond and the Strela is using a missile from the late 60s?
1 Like
I know you’re taking the piss, but there are some areas where the Soviets/Russians are more advanced in missile technology. Especially when it comes to ICBM. Not saying that Western SPAA isn’t under-performing in-game, but if there is one thing Soviets/Russians can do - it is missile tech (especially SPAA). Makes sense when you’ve got the US being held back by wars against insurgents and nations that pose no threat in the last 30 years, and political pressure to not upgrade missile tech in other areas (such as ICBM).
Well, if the documents didn’t explicitly say that 20G load is the average, you’re also only thinking and believing it is.
I’m all for SPAA buffs, but you’re giving Gaijin a hard time because their assumptions, all the while your arguments are also assumptions.
At no point is it mentioned that 20g is peak, and logically one would deduce that it makes the most sense that it’s not peak either considering the nature and intention of the document, and other missiles are also listed as average and not peak.
Assuming 20g is peak seems like a disingenuous interpretation of the documents.
Regardless, even if we go along with their narrative, which means Gaijin’s assumptions and believes outweigh official documentation and logic, which appears to be the norm, the Stinger underperforming so Russia can look better in comparison doesn’t begin to explain my original post where nothing is able to hit the close range air target in the test drive as it reacts too late, but the Russian missiles react so fast, it actually needs to counter act the initial reaction.
2 Likes
Is it mentioned that 20g is average, that’s my whole point ?
If it’s not, you’re just fighting assumptions with more assumptions, just thinking that yours are more true.
Maybe the Russian missiles are better at closer ranges ?
I don’t have an issue with Strela having the best IR missiles (except that Japanese thing), it’s like one or two steps higher in BR than Stinger slingers.
They are, as they were almost purposefully built for dealing with CAS and helicopters.
1 Like
Is it mentioned that 20g is average, that’s my whole point ?
At no point is peak mentioned, so it’s a lot more logical to assume that average is implied as that also makes sense within the context, peak does not.
I don’t have an issue with Strela having the best IR missiles (except that Japanese thing)
Strela firing missiles 20+ years older than that Japanese thing’ and still outperforms the Type 81 as it also cannot hit close targets in test drive whilst also sitting at a full BR lower than it for some reason.
It’s apparently a real thing, the gas generator that spools up the gyroscope and imparts initial rotation to the missile has additional exhaust ports to act as very weak vernier thrusters. The thing is, the effects in game are likely exaggerated for gameplay.
NATO just trains their gunners to lead the missile with an uncaged seeker.
2 Likes
As I said, fighting assumptions with assumptions is never a good idea.
If you think Type 81C missile should be able to do that, write a bug report. That’s literally the only thing I can say to you without assuming stuff.
Just because 81C can’t hit targets that are ridiculously close doesn’t mean the overall missile’s performance is worse than 9M37M’s.
As I said, fighting assumptions with assumptions is never a good idea.
My assumptions are at least based on a logical intepretation and ultimately without consequence, Gaijin’s assumptions are taking priority over facts, evidence and documentation and they are proven to have manipulated vehicle/shell performance in the past and their assumptions should not be held in high regard by anyone.
Just because 81C can’t hit targets that are ridiculously close doesn’t mean the overall missile’s performance is worse than 9M37M’s.
It’s highly questionable however that Russia, who usually reverse engineers Western technology is somehow able to make a missile that vastly outperforms missiles that came decades later, they are also able to do it at a lower cost somehow, whilst generally Russia is shown to be decades behind.
2 Likes
They aren’t assumptions, as stated in The maneuverability report i wrote, that details the patent directly relating to the FIM-92.
“the method described by “US3010677A” is in good agreement with the explanations given by “The Article”. As such there is no issue with underlying modeling of “G Averaging” in and of itself, or that the 9M39 and similar(early) missiles are being erroneously modeled as being impacted, only that it has been applied in error to the FIM-92”
From the MANPADS article.
From a video detailing the Redeye (FIM-43)
and the Redeye’s patent.
All three seem to be talking about the same thing, and are in good agreement, yes?
So therefore;
Directlly from the relevant patent itself
“Prior to the invention set forth in the hereinafter cited copending application, control of a rolling missile was effected by utilizing fixed incidence, variable area canards or wings which were extended into the missile air stream at a certain point in the revolution of the missile, as described and claimed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,010,677. The present invention constitutes another means for accomplishing the control of a rolling missile and is an improvement over the system described and claimed in the copending application”
obviously improves performance somehow, right?
From US4054254A
So it’s obviously a little more than just assumptions.
6 Likes
I mean in the case of Japan their equipment is generally more costly to produce due to their MIC’s complete lack of export presence. The Soviets were all about giving as many troops in their satellite states weapons, and big orders slash prices per weapon.
Because this particular Shilka modification have system, that predicts target flight path and guide missile at that exact path (AFAIK). But the major drawback is caged seeker, which does not allow you too shoot behind cover. Any other missiles allow you to do that, the manual guidance is much better than what Shilka have. Without this system, it will be as much useful as Chaparral (completely useless).
This is more a balance situation. If Stinger types and Mistrals were ‘realistic’ then every SPAA’s with them will be sitting at 10.0 minimum (go ahead and dodge 20G IRCCM missile on a plane without flares and mediocre flight performance).
This literally goes into My assumptions are better than your assumptions category.
From my POV no one is in the right, neither you nor Gaijin.
As I said above, if you have tangible evidence that something is wrong, write a bug report and I’ll gladly support it. Until then, basically everything you say is nothing more than a hearsay. Just trust me bro.
The reason 81C is at 11.3 and Strela is at 10.3 is surely because most aircraft at those BRs don’t just circle the battlefield at 1km range, just waiting to be shot.
The Strela has the same range as the Type 81 and considering overload is less important than Gaijin assumption there is no clear difference in performance at range.