The abacus begs to differ, with videos of a grand majority of the shootdowns being from MANPADS, with even a few being claimed as being the far older 9K38 Iglas as well.
I’m surprised that you are not aware of the previous work Oryx has done tracking the rotary wing and fixed wing losses of Russia, Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine - Oryx, you can view each and every shootdown yourself, I am not manually going through all 195 aircraft losses for you, but here is a few shootdowns with MANPADS to sate your thirst.
This argument is great and all but provides zero insight or helpfulness towards the thread… lets avoid this going on a few hundred comments. (I’m guilty of this, too)… and I think we can all agree we want the MANPADS buffed.
Oddly enough that roll frequency sensor system was also able to negate the need of super elevation in the Block I version of the stinger as well, per the FY2003 congressional budget report on missile procurement.
Does anyone have engineering documents or complete dimensions for missiles in question? At least 1 of them? If I have the dimensions of it, the overall mass, payload mass, and the velocity data (so how long it burns and how fast it goes) it should be possible to just compute the G overload it can handle. That should clear up any questions its performance. I will be honest, I am a bit skeptical of the 20+ G overload considering just how tiny the fins are and that they are non-thrust vectoring. But I would be willing (assuming I have the needed data) to toss this into MathCAD and run the equations to check if it is even capable of the numbers claimed.
when a developer says “we believe” all of that realism nonsense goes out the window. They compare 2 manpad systems to a Russian manpad and claim they are the same, based off nothing more than “we believe” not putting in the fact that maybe just maybe the other nations put more effort into their equipment and not lie about it because russia never does that right.
A bit up has the sectional length of the XFIM-92A, but here is the specifications for the initial design of the XFIM-92A per the same document.
While the remaining component info is not present, it does have a full table of the FIM-43’s metrics, running a calc on the FIM-43 should provide a tangible metric of the preceding system which should be inferior in most if not all aspects.
I should note that in the case of the FIM-43, redstone has already done the CAD test for you for it’s target 6G overload.
To that same end you would also need to properly model the RAM style of guidance as direct dual plane maneuvering will not properly showcase the missile’s performance.
They are Russian, this is often how they speak when they are saying “this is our understanding of this”. From there it is up to us to show them they are right / wrong. That is what this thread is for. They listen to logic, they fix things when better points are brought up.
More about the topic, if they do add the increased G limit and the uv based seeking capability, I wonder if they will raise the battle rating of systems using the stinger… The stinger would be quite effective even at top tier. Logic says increased strength of a weapon system = higher battle rating, but it would displace a large amount of spaa from their current battle ratings
Yes, the issue is not as exaggerated with other planes… I killed some prop plane earlier and then 30 seconds after he just flied to me and shot me with his guns lol
Maybe most interesting part of this whole drama for me is how the gaijin will admit being wrong with their math, they were so adamant with it while denying lesser sources that eventually were actually correct. Or if they will address it at all…
Theres a 2850 pages e-book
"Stinger Missile Publications Combined: Manportable Air Defense (MANPAD) Technical And Doctrinal History From 1980 To 2018 "
It costs ~20$.
Might be a good place to check if anyone is interested.
Im not, mostly due to the fact that it has 2850 pages lol
Dunno if someone used it before as a source, maybe it has some extra docs that were missed?
(keep in mind it might not have any valuable info)
Some stuff from the book:
Many of the pages are about training and how to do this/that/rules of engagement and so on, even talking about jungles and extreme climates, so it is not all technical data.
It is a good book and i would recommend reading it, if interested. I couldn’t check the book for any g limits though.
Clearly these sources mention UV mode. Last time it was mentioned by war thunder, they did not mention stinger getting it at all.
''Within War Thunder, the photocontrast channel will be present on missiles that are a successor to the Strela-1 system. Namely the 9M37M missiles of the Strela-10M2 SAM, as well as on the Japanese Type 93 SAM. ‘’
It likely means that the motor has both a launch phase and a sustainer phase. The launch phase of the motor accelerates the stinger to it’s top speed very quickly (then stops) while the sustainer motor keeps firing for a longer period of time as to keep the missile at it’s flight speed despite maneuvering and gravity, which would drain the speed quickly. There is no thrust vectoring on the stinger.
Here is the section from A-4 Skyhawk manual about how to evade AIM-9L. It suggests to turn and fly away from the missile. It is assumed that 9G turn may help to over-maneuver the missile as well.
The section about Stinger from the Jaguar manual doesn’t suggest to fly away from the missile and doesn’t suggest to over-maneuver it. Can we conclude that Stinger has much greater energy (and launch range) and higher maneuverability than AIM-9L?
This reference claims 20G for Stinger and 14G for SA-16 (Igla-1, which is Igla missile with seeker from Strela-3), while the soviet reference claims only 10.4G. We have interpreted this difference in the way you can see in the dev blog. And yes, we have interpreted lateral acceleration from that source given in different format for spinning single-control-fin missiles and for missiles with dual control-fins.
When launched from same conditions, e.g., sidewinder being launched from ground into air, it is less effective than stinger. You can compare this by engaging targets with ATAS/FIM-92K, then engaging them with AIM-9L using the AH-64A. I can make a short video about this.
Some time ago we received report about 23G lateral acceleration for AIM-9D/G/H from some British sources. We rejected that report because we have launch doc with envelope for AIM-9D and it appears that the in-game missile with 23G will have much better (smaller) minimal launch range against target with TCA=90deg that the range in the launch envelope. Now minimal range more or less matches this.
References like launch envelope answer all the questions. Doesn’t matter how lateral acceleration from the reference is interpreted , ability to hit maneuvering targets, off-boresight targets and targets with great TCA is what is really important for the player and what, which should match the reference.
Maximal lateral acceleration is not the only parameter.
Autopilot may be configured to artificially reduce lateral acceleration of the missile due its internal logic: distance to target, missile flight time e.t.c.
The same maximal acceleration of 30G for example may be achieved by the missile at 1.5 Mach and at 1.8 Mach - such small difference in Mach this is huge difference for the missile combat capabilities.
