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.
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.
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”
“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”
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.
i dont think theirs much of a gap in AA missiles between NATO and Russia until you get to the 1 standout that is the pantisir just being stupidly powerful compared to anything any other nation gets. like the stinger is already better than the igla in game anyway. and the 2s6 was on par with the adats but they kept increasing the adats br since it was all the us had and kept putting the 2s6 down since the russians had the pantsir
Their range is not the same.
You also forgot about speed, G load, trigger radius and amount of HE filler they have.
It’s obvious which missile is superior.
What it shows on the statcard is equally valuable as what official documents show, which is not at all as it’s open to Gaijin’s interpretation, you don’t get to lock onto anything at the ranges listed, and only one of those missiles is able to be used to defend close range.
I was focusing on that article people were quoting that didn’t explicitly said if the load was average or peak.
That’s a shame, at least BRs of vehicles in question are properly adjusted to balance out the differences.
That’s a good amount of buffs which would definitely increase the BR of Stinger slingers. The problem is, some platforms (like LAV-AD for example) might go up in BR too much, now facing much stronger foes on average, thus making their “threat level” stay the same.
That should not be the case. It is not the case for other missiles, so should not be for it. Im saying that, as i had Igla pull like 70 degree before going after the target.
