Honestly I’m not sure there are even credible sources to back the idea that the V2 and V3 were real proposals or considerations. A big point of R2Y2 was specifically being able to occupy the central fuselage with a large fuel tank, as the jet engines around that time all had poor fuel efficiency. This is not possible with V2 and V3 layouts, or at least V3 particularly. I’ve personally never seen a good source that speaks of anything but the V1 configuration.
5 Likes
I mean, it was added because the F-2 wasn’t going to be added anytime soon. Think it was based off of the YF-16A that had Radar missiles, but not sure. Its on the same level of “meh” as the Swedish T 80 U and that heli.
From what I understand they were less actual designs and more just ideas for what would’ve beeded to happen if the Ne-330 engines hadn’t just fixed all the issues of the Ne-30. So more of a “We’d have to do X” thing than anything else.
But I don’t really remember where I read that, I think it was the old forum, so take it with a grain of salt. There is still a chance they’re more like J7W2 made up post war.
1 Like
I mean they lost, so I don’t think anything for the F-23 was made
Bug report, you are right that gaijin version is totally false
But M6A2E1 does exist
Its no secret that in-game M6A2E1 is fictional and has undoubtedly been reported before. It is as real as the R2Y2s.
2 Likes
If they outright deny fixing it, then it should be removed. Even then it’s still more real than the r2y2
why need to while those soviet prototypes are stated with ‘Object’, when production vehicles also has ‘Object’ number though they stated in military designation number.
It seems that Beglitepanzer didn’t test it though, its 57 mm is basically naval gun derived and Bofors 57 mm has HE-VT, so technically not impossible.
And also, if one vehicle with testing is problem, then why only cry about soviet, while M1A1HCs also have soft-kill that only tested in one vehicle?(Operational vehicles mount different soft-kill, though difference is only manufacturer and designation)
1 Like
idk :)
It seems that Beglitepanzer didn’t test it though, its 57 mm is basically naval gun derived and Bofors 57 mm has HE-VT, so technically not impossible.
On the tank itself it had a incompatible FCS making it unable to fire from the vehicle, however the naval version had 0 issues
And also, if one vehicle with testing is problem, then why only cry about soviet, while M1A1HCs also have soft-kill that only tested in one vehicle?(Operational vehicles mount different soft-kill, though difference is only manufacturer and designation)
time for america to take another L xD
T-80B and U thermals are real, the Kh-38MT is in limbo, the Maus is real.
Most T-80Us had thermals, and later production Bs had thermals.
Your post’s whataboutism only hurt your argument.
Object means prototype in Soviet documentation. No one’s given special treatment in War Thunder [I personally don’t consider sub-trees as special treatment, but use them as examples to dismiss special treatment later in this post.]
@Rowiek
Dodging AAMs in a WW2 aircraft is not unrealistic in the slightest. History is not realism, and realism is not history.
Japan has 1 very real bomber, the Kawasaki P1.
Japan has top BR SPAA options as well once Gaijin gets the multi-vehicle code working [no, the radars won’t be player controlled].
Also for USA to get special treatment they’d have to get more in-game than what they made IRL; one could argue sub-trees are that.
PercussionCap posts’ claiming that real vehicles are fake is an insult to the Kikka, even doubling down claiming real vehicles are fiction. Truly sad.
(which isn’t in the game)
As is in-game, the M6A2E1 is a fictional vehicle. Others are less obvious - the XP-55 doesn’t try to kill you anytime you go into a gentle turn, its flight model is also very fictional.
1 Like
Wouldn’t it just be a name/model change? He said it still has a soft kill APS, just a different one than ingame
1 Like
pretty much, anything nerfs/changes for america they seem to go mad about it for some reason
Well I play mostly America and I really don’t see the problem with changing the name of the APS
1 Like
aesthetically pleasing ig x)
1 Like
There you go tripling down that the Kikka/M6A2E1/etc is fiction despite you being shown evidence to the contrary.
What’s your angle? Call every real vehicle fake as a way to oppose additions for Japan?
The Kikka is very much real. I’m waiting on a book from japan which might have more information on it.
Then stop dismissing photographic and documented evidence of other vehicles.
When you say M6A2E1 is fake/fiction just because one photo didn’t have the external plates it was equipped with during a test firing [which is why it’s not in my list of incomplete prototypes], it’s an argument that’s inherently against all prototypes, and especially unfinished prototypes.
Have love for vehicles, even those you dislike.
I hate the BMP series of vehicles, they are ugly beyond measure in my eyes, and I still respect them despite that.
Our arguments, our statements have power.
It’s okay to dislike the M6A2, it’s not okay to dismiss evidence of existence.
I’d love to hear about the contents of that book you’re getting when you’re finished reading it.
1 Like
To my knowledge those were never mounted and thus it’s a fictional configuration.
You’ll probably see much of it being posted in the japan air topic(s) or even in bug reports if the info is good.