Farming likes from me, lol. Straight facts from you tho.
say that to the guy who manually zeroing distance.
this video literally shows you why it matter, or maybe you didnt read the post at all,
you shut up too
What vehicle is that?
Looks like a BMD-4 from the X-ray
But that’s exactly it, being placed in an arc they themselves correct the fall, so when you launch them in the game what they should do is go up a little and then continue in line where you are pointing, however in the game the ATGM comes out of the shuttle pointing a few degrees up, it immediately falls in an exaggerated way and then continues where you are pointing. Here the conclusion is that it should be impossible that when you launch an ATGM from behind a slope or a rock, it would be destroyed by touching the ground, since what I would have to do is a slight arc upwards and continue in a straight line where you are pointing.
Eh, I mean, the SS.11 on the Strv 81, the premium in swedens tree, has an auto-correct where it’s arc automatically aligns it.
Yes, I know that they have a time in which they cannot guide themselves, but in essence they do what they have to do, they do not fall to the ground directly, the question is why gaijin has made all the other ATGMs fall to the ground when that is completely unrealistic.
Because some missiles, when not aligned to keep from the missile sagging, will sag, because they are designed to be fired in a manner to stop it from sagging (By human interaction of the launch angle), rather than being automatic, all missiles are like this, just some are designed to Pre-compensate; like the affirmentioned Strv-81 SS.11, and Matlyuka, while others are not, like the TOW & 9M119.
The TOW is fired in a straight line and does not fall out of the launch tube. Not like in-game, where it curves down before rising.
Yeah, because that’s a TOW-2, which still sags, but on the vehicle in question here, being a Bradley; it’s missile box has a control arm that automatically changes the launch angle, specifically to keep it from sagging, which yes, in game, on this specific vehicle is incorrect. For all other vehicles that don’t have an auto-adjuster for the launch angle won’t be able fire without sagging, even if it is a little bit.
Even if it is historical, I don’t think ATGMs should drop as much as they do. It makes playing them hulldown difficult, and it messes up the aiming of them. It just doesn’t make for good gameplay.
Chill for a while, it’s Gaijin stuff, just like they messed the missiles once they’ll probably (never) fix missile by missile to have the exact same behavior as the missiles in real life.
Yeah, on the LAV or M1128 vehicle chassis?
What about it though.
Ahh, yes, the course of history (something that’s already happened) isn’t proof…
Love how this started with me trying to help you; and you spiraled it down to the level of a Reddit argument.
Btw, if you didn’t pick up on it, this was satire.
So the question is, why you cant zero out a barrel fried ATGM but you can with rack mounted atgms that are meant to lob at other tanks… there is no need to adjust for the slight dip in the atgm when its fired from a barrel as its meand to go basically straight line, but when its lobbed you need the adjustment which is what you have with the older atgms.
2 Likes
Specifically ones that don’t have a computerized FCS to compensate for the sag automatically.
For the 9m119 say, because I have experience with it, once the DeltaV > G (9.85 I believe), which is achieved in the gun barrel, it doesn’t sag, or straightens its flight pattern.
more groundless claim
A groundless claim, based on math a physics?
While the equation is stripped down of wind resistance and the mass of the missile, its right…