Why is Israel getting a better Chaparral?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

3 Likes

I think they talked about that on the english dev stream. Basically why the israli chaparral is better than the american one is bc america has more AA systems than israel at the given BR which far outclass it, you know the LAV having FIM92Ks and a gun, etc. The kind of missiles the americans can receive is still up to debate, after all its the devserver but dont hope for a whole new vehicle.

4 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

3 Likes

The US could use something between the M247 and LAV-AD.
Plus, you’re really asking for a radar-less SPAA at 10.3, with IR missiles instead of SACLOS which makes them flareable?
At that BR you’ll be mostly fighting Su-25s which may be blind but they still tend to deploy flares all the time when strafing.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

The point was to add a ~9.3 SAM to the US tree.

Give it 72G’s and its no longer 9.3.

5 Likes

And that issue could have been solved with an Avenger or Linebacker. The Type 93 is basically a copy of the Avenger, there’s no reason that the Avenger still isn’t in-game.

And that way, the US wouldn’t have been cucked out of their own equipment that they created and used extensively.

Israel didn’t even use MIM-72G, and only had around 50 of those units. Why the hell do they get the 72G, while the US doesn’t, when the 72G was retrofitted to all 500+ US Chaparrals after seeing how good it was. The argument of filling a gap is BS because they intentionally made that gap and gave the US a worse version of their own vehicle while giving Israel a variant they never used. Absolute BS.

And presumably we will see those AA’s in the future as well. At which point they can add the 72G’s.

But for the time being, its fine at the moment, it fills a bigger niche without them.

1 Like

I do hope that is the intention.

Unfortunately, I don’t think they will ever give it MIM-72G, as the F-4E still doesn’t have any kind of realistic loadout it should have. There’s a ton of US vehicles which are early models which haven’t been touched in years to update them with better stuff (for example, M50A1 Ontos, M46A1 Patton, M55A1 TTS, M163 PIVADS, etc)

Purely speculative.

The F-4E is a specific block.

And you can point to anything and say why isn’t it in the game, its a meaningless exercise. They’ve been adding a lot of vehicles to the tree, there’s always going to be something they haven’t added.

Can’t please everyone.

US dont need a 5th Anti Air vehicle… you have the M247/LAV/XM975/ADATS

Its up for debate if Israel used the G variant or not, im trying to find sources on if they did use it but regardless Israel needed something better than the Machbet and giving it a chaparral with literally A/B/C MIM-72s makes its functionally no different to the Machbet and sit at the same BR so sorry but this is one of those occasions that I’m glad gaijin skirted history for the sake of balance and practicality for Israel who have been in dire need of a usable Anti Air other than the Machbet.

Oh i’m all for it, remove it from the Israeli tree. But then replace it with the ADAMS… Yes please give me my CIWS and Barak I Missiles. * Sarcasm *

But seriously i wouldn’t start complaining, as it stands IR SAM’s are a mess atm, so unless they fix the Stinger seekers all aspect lock (should be 6km but is barely 2km) . I wouldn’t get too upset.

Its stock grind is going to be such a nightmare. AIM-9D seeker stock, so rear aspect only and can’t lock helis or props at all

Can’t the new AA use Aim9X I believe it was a prototype

We have been hearing for years now that the US will get its SPAA gaps filled. We were told the US didn’t need the Skink because there are other options. Well, those other options only count if they get added. The gap between the M42 and the M163 is too big. It should have been filled years ago.

I didn’t mean that it should be removed from the Israeli tree (they used the M48 Chap), but since they get the MIM-72G, the US should most certainly as well.

So the American one can be 9.3, a better BR for it.
USA getting 72G would make it 10.3 thus worse than LAV-AD.

What are your sources? Where did you get the idea that we didn’t use 72G. Do at least a little bit of research before making hilarious arguments like this.

So true…

1 Like

Since you’re looking for sources:

Some info

Только не бросай меня в терновый куст ! - Пещера злобного Буквоеда — LiveJournal

Israel would’ve received the missiles pretty close to when US was abandoning the Chaparral, so it makes sense for the IDF example to have them while the other does not.