Why Gaijin is wrong about the Stinger (it should be 20g in game)

easy to avoid in a super etendard, which doesn’t even have outstanding maneuverability

Yeah, Ive seen too many things evade a stinger or mistraal with a single flare and a slight turn

I’m saying that the turn radius comparison is completely disconnected from overall missile in-game performance.These are manipulative numbers that don’t allow any conclusions to be drawn. And that mistral is not the worst performing manpad.

What did you start saying?

Although I didn’t say anything about what the correct overload should be for stinger/other manpads.

Worse IRCCM should be worth to look into…
basically the issue is we lack launch parameters of manpads for Stingers and Mistral.

Calculations of lift forces on a rotating missile is inherently complex.

Current model in game is as always, an estimation of missile capabilities, which may or may not be close to real life missile.(in fact we have a lot of missile reports open)

Reports with substantive data and information are always welcomed.

If we have a model bridging the gap between 20g in the documents and current 12G implementation it would be most ideal.

1 Like

Still no dev response to this thread lol. They really are just hoping their double-standards aren’t called out and people forget?


Its Gaijin’s modus operadi these days, its blatantly obvious that they despise non-PACT equipment.

It took sustained backlash to get the strela put to a BR where it is not comically overpowered and did not invalidate all western MANPADS, but gaijin is now banking on people forgetting that the strela was only half the issue present.

One day gaijin may actually model western MANPADS to their historical standards, but I’d wager I’ll be dead by then. There are already massive amounts of irrefutable proof in this thread and elsewhere that the current implementation is flawed, yet, its not enough.


We got a response earlier in the thread, also there is remotely no double standards.

The Strela literally went up the first BR patch after it was buffed. Furthermore no one has proven or added anything new. Only done so far is their own interpretation of the available information.

1 Like

I added a write up of where a few points of clarification could be useful using a number of articles that are relevant to a separate topic but it got removed ( removed December 10th ) by an overcautious mod, and I’m still waiting for it to be restored.

Here’s a link to at least one of them anyway.

The relevance of said article is that;

Viewing collectively the results obtained, it is concluded that the
effect of directing steering control out of the angle-of-attack plane can be
approximated, for the conditions tested, by directing the control-force increments and control-moment increments obtained when 0 = 0’ to the new steering
direction, then resolving these increments back to the nonrolling axes system
used herein. The accuracy of this procedure (exact at zero angle of attack) deteriorate somewhat as angle of attack increases.


The normal force and pitching moment data provide smooth definitions
of the configuration’s longitudinal stability and control characteristics.
These forces and moments are not sensitive to the values of spin parameters
Small side forces and associated yawing moments, induced out of the plane
of maneuver, show dependence on Mach number, angle of attack, steering-control
amplitude and direction, and spin parameter.

Contradicts the claim in the dev blog;

The way the resulting force in the missile maneuver plane changes can be represented in a simplified form as a half-wave of a sine wave. The average resulting force in the maneuver plane over a half-period of rotation is equal to the integral of the change of the resultant force in the maneuver plane. Dividing it by the integral of the resulting force in the plane of the maneuver of a non-rolling airframe missile over the same time period, we obtain the ratio of maximum overload to the average overload over the rotation period.

Is reductive in the extreme and doesn’t take a number of relevant factors into account. There are others sources (I’ll see if I can find them again) that also reference the impact of the interaction of the tail with vortices generating additional loading.


That would be you.

Unless you definitely proved a document is declassified and not still export restricted, there’s good chance it’s going be removed.

Yeah, I don’t see it.





Tech mods are not devs.

Giving the Igla the advertised “average” g load, but assuming the advertised g load for western manpads is “peak instantaneous” is a double standard. Plain. And. Simple.

There is zero basis for the peak instantaneous g assumption. You, and GJN, can’t find any evidence of that usage anywhere, and this thread contains plenty of examples demonstrating why it should be average g load.

They wanted to move it to only 9.7 and had to move it to 10.0 after massive backlash. It’s still undertiered.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending evidence doesn’t exist, like GJN is doing, doesn’t mean the evidence is wrong.

It literally says approved for public release. Are you having trouble reading English? Translation software not working?
It was probably removed for making GJN look bad, because it completely contradicts the fairytale they posted as a dev blog.


I have a question, the ty90 also looks very similar to the stinger and igla. Is there a reason why that has 20g’s of pull?

Among other things, the fins pull a lot more AoA. Design wise they’re actually closer to “proper” AAMs (like the Sidewinders for example) than MANPADS, which the Stinger and Igla are.

The biggest difference is that TY-90 uses standard skid to turn control (Sidewinder and AIM-7) while SA-14 and FIM-92 use rolling airframe turn control (I’m not good at explaining how it works, I think Wikipedia has a better idea).

Gaijin claims rolling airframe missiles cannot perform at the same level as skid to turn missiles, but we have confirmed evidence that this is untrue.


The TY-90 is larger in almost all respects, including control surfaces.

Its pretty much the ground launched strela but mounted to a heli.

Even if there was, the ingame stat is “Max” g-load. The fact theyre using what they believe to be the “average” g-load as the max is immediately silly, particularly when weve seen them set fin aoa’s to adjust at what kinds of speeds the missile can actually reach those peak G loads…


It’s difficult to confirm the effective control surface area between the two missiles, but there are vastly higher performance weapons of similar size and mass with rolling airframe control type. Mistral, for one, is in the same weight class but turns much harder.