well the YAK-41 seems to be safe then
1 Like
Kikka, Swift F7, XP-50, M247, T92, XM975, Begleitpanzer 57, Ho-229, Arado 234 C-3, Vickers Mk7, FV4202, ST-A1 and ST-A2 [HEATFS wasn’t tested from those tanks], J7W1, VB.10-02, SO8000 Narval, Mirage 4000… none of them should be removed just because they weren’t functional in the manner they’re depicted in-game.
War Thunder is great for having those vehicles playable in a realistic setting.
1 Like
That is the biggest irony, his desire will impact mostly non-Soviet vehicles cause the Soviet tech tree has among the least amount of unfinished prototypes.
I wasn’t talking specifically about 141 sorry it’s a little out of context
Those shouldn’t be removed but they should be put more in line with their IRL counterpart and have their br adjusted appropriately
Their IRL counterparts were mostly entirely unarmed.
Realism matters more than copying exactly what happened in real life.
Contradiction
1 Like
That’s not what contradiction means.
A contradiction would be a Yak-141 being able to fire AIM-9X, that would be unrealistic because the computer system cannot identify and fire said missile, and it’s not physically compatible with the rail for AIM-9.
Realism and history are two entirely separate concepts with no connection to each other.
Red herring
The only thing that’s unrealistic about 141 is it having a radar equiped and some people claim the flight model but I can’t really verify that Even though I know a radar was intended that had IRST and HMD
What you are calling “realism” is just very slightly anachronistic which in and of itself isn’t terrible I understand why these things are in the game for balance sake and to give trees flavor
1 Like
Vickers MBT Mk 7 was completely functional. What are you on about?
Also, funny how you mention ammo. Are we going to remove time travelling German HEAT rounds? Time travelling Swedish and German HVAP?
1 Like
The round it fires wasn’t there during testing.
Not sure why you’d want to remove L26 from Vickers Mk7 and rounds from other tanks.
Cool, just remove it then, provided Germany and Sweden lose all their time travelling rounds too, that’s fine with me. Lets knock its BR down a bit to compensate.
While we’re at it, lets finally give all these vehicles their missing service rounds too. Where’s the Chieftain Mk 10’s L23A1? Chieftain Mk 3 & 5’s L15A5?
Yeah, there’s no reason the Yak-41 could not be 13.0 with R-73’s and R-77’s when you compare it to the AV-8B+ or JF-17.
1 Like
Especially compared to Kfir C.10.
This is the argument I’ve been making in favor of expanding the armament and moving it up. Not that USSR air needs a 13.0/13.3 ARH VTOL fighter, but it would make it stand out a little more in the air tree compared to being a MiG-29 configured in a slightly different way.
1 Like
We can just get a navalized mig 29 instead, yak 141 at 13.0/13.3 would not go well with its defensive suite and limited hard points
Id rather the Yak get moved up than get a copy paste Fulcrum. The Su-33 is basically the same as the Su-27
29K is not a copypaste. It has completely different airframe (derivative of cancelled MiG-29M), avionics close or superior to SMT, 8 missiles and uprated engines (wont matter because it is almost 2 tons heavier than 9-12).
1 Like
It depends on which version of 29k you’re talking about, first mig 29m was derived from mig-29k 9.31, and then the second mig 29k 9.41 was then derived again from the mig-29m 9.15.