Personally, I’m a “why not both” kind of guy.
Put the Western/Thai jets in for more conventional capabilities.
Put the weird domestic prototypes in because they’re cool and weird.
Both have a place in War Thunder.
3 Likes
Me too, but please get them right.
With the recent Thai planes especially, there’s some painfully easy to avoid mistakes made just because Gaijin wanted to cheaply copy some existing aircraft. Alpha Jets having wrong engines (and still wrong thrust after the “fix”) just because they wanted to copy the German tree aircraft, F-5A having AIM-9E instead of the 9P it actually used just because they copied the US one and AV-8S was initially just an AV-8A without any changes until Gaijin read the many bug reports on it.
Then there’s the weird way they handled aircraft that weren’t just copies, like how their Thai F-16A Block 15 OCU seems like they googled “Thai F-16”, looked at at most 10 images of different variants, threw them in a blender and then put that in the game, or how the F-5T SCU somehow lost capabilities compared to the FCU for absolutely no reason.
It’s like they didn’t really care about Thai planes at all, just wanted to throw out content with little effort…
1 Like
Both is fine when Japan is near complete, tough they have not even nearly completed the Japanese one yet… Should they not do that first?
It’s kind of useless to argue/complain about that now though. It’s over, Gaijin chose. Better to use the effort to correct mistakes on the existing aircraft and advocate for the new ones you want added.
2 Likes
The T-1B is definitely not RB 9.0 material.
Take the F40 Sabre, an actual 9.0 plane. It not only has a ~200-290km/h advantage, it can also carry both sidewinders with 3x as much firepower.
The T-1B most closely matches the German Sea Hawk at 8.0 in terms of flight performance and suspended armament.
Heck, even the F9F8 at 8.3 is faster and carries more guns + the same missiles as the T-1 series.
Way too high. Remember, the T-1s only had one internal .50cal and the T-33 only two. Gunpods were available for the T-1s, bringing it to a max of 3.
3x .50cals is just too light when the flight performance is not that great.
The T-33 itself is an F-80C, with a lengthened fuselage for the second seat (heavier) and one third of the firepower. Two .50cals and a minor BR reduction is just not enough and it’d be terrible. Usually even minor firepower differences are just one BR step, halving the firepower is roughly 2 steps. This would have to be 7.0 at most, more likely 6.7 where the 262 A-2a is.
T-1s are in a tough spot as they only have 2 hardpoints and ONE internal .50cal. If you bring two missiles, that’s it. If you want to have any more firepower, you can’t have missiles. It’s also not that fast, being barely faster than a He 162. So again, I’d just forego the missiles and put it at 6.0-6.3.
1 Like
T-33 should probably be BRed as a lower end P-80 since it traded firepower for a bit more performance?
Yes, and the two P-80s are 7.0 and 7.7.
I’m all for lower BRs, 6.7-7.0 would be good for the T-33.
But the T-1 without missiles but with gunpods would be an upgrade over the Kikka, which is already at 7.0.
The T-1 is also an improvement over the T-33, so imo should go 7.0-7.3 at minimum, but ideally at 7.7.
So we have:
T-33 for 7.0
T-1B (because weaker engine then T-1A, I think it is better here ) - 7.3
Vampire - 7.7/8.0 (this aircraft is trainer so maybe it has less performance, if yes it could be at 7.7)
T-1A (better engine than T-1B + AIM-9B) - 8.0.
Sounds like ideal way for closing gaps at Japanese tree from 7.0 (Kikka) to 8.3 (F-86F) and even Thailand it not really needed here (it is more needed for 10.0+, there I don’t know any variants)
Kikka is faster and can onetap enemies.
Is it actually faster?
And while people can one tap with the 30mm, the trade off is the low ammo count. Not everyone has that trigger discipline.
The 3x 50. cals with more ammo allows you to stay in the fight longer, even though each gun will do less damage than a 30mm.
A little. T-1C tops out at 873kph or 850kph (depends on source, see suggestion), Kikka does 880kph.
I dunno, killing with 30s is just a few hits at most. .50cals are gonna take much more.
The angle is so off, but I fw it.
Ah, you were only considering the T-1B/C, while I was thinking of the T-1A.
The engine choice will dictate where it’ll go, but it’ll irk me to see a post-war jet time traveling back to fight WWII props/the rare He-162.
The lowest I’d consider the T-1B/C would be 6.7-7.0 without missiles. The T-1A without missiles at 7.3-7.7, and at 7.7-8.0 with them.
The choice in armament is something we will just have to disagree on.
That’s all.
1 Like
Still would prefer the Ki-201 over the T-33 since it is actually a Japanese vehicle one of them could be a premium tough?
I would prefer to get existed vehicle first
T-1A is slower, but even the T-1C isn’t that fast.
Too late, we got Strikemaster and Yak-15s there.
I simply don’t see it even at 6.7. It is maybe even more poorly armed than the Strikemaster, with undoubtedly worse turn performance and while it is faster, the Strikemaster is still faster than almost anything it meets.
Partly completed means it existed. c:
Well it can hopped that gaijin will add 8% plane for Japan
But I doubt it and more think that T-33 is the plane what they really can add without problems