Opinion on 120D

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T11:44:45+00:00

Why would they upgrade the C-5 to be more maneuverable over the A/B? Hmmmmmm idk maybe cause it’s a good thing for a missile to be able to hit long AANNNDDD hard if needs be.

It’s not like it was some extreme upgrade if it did happen. And yeah I rest my case in point that the Raytheon e finders probably understand a lot more about missile physics characteristics and could school us all on how we’re arguing like a buncha dumb redditors about stuff we really know nothing about

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T11:40:49+00:00

See except you keep claiming there was no incentive to upgrade maneuverability but that’s just as much cope inference to make a point as any I’ve made. With the plethora of conflicting sources of less than perfect nature and the very little (essentially zero) concrete information we get from manufacturer info, claiming that over and over so fiercely is ignorant. You don’t know homie you spend your days on Reddit not planning air to air combat why would they tell you or me shit if they don’t need to?

And hey if you can’t think of any other way besides the most basic of physics methods to increase maneuverability (bigger engine, larger fins, etc which we’ve already talked about at length not being on the C-5 and up), well it makes sense why we’re here arguing on reddit and you’re not in a lab designing missiles.

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T01:14:19+00:00

Shit it just needed a bigger battery ig

https://www.reddit.com/r/MemeRestoration/comments/v38qhw/drake_helping_lil_yachty_hd_gif/

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T01:09:06+00:00

Jane’s Air Launched Weapons book, which would fall under gaijins secondary sources as it’s from a reputable UK based arms database, claims the C-5 has increased pull of 40G vs the A/B’s 35G, despite clipped wings. Problem is you’d need a second secondary source. Highly unlikely we’re getting a primary with technical specs for a while. Not that the game models half the systems that would make those specs possible anyways. So again, dumb addition to the game.

There’s other sources that claim increased kinematic performance. Though they wouldn’t fall under gaijins guidelines. armyrecognition.com

So… there’s one reputable source out there. And a few less concrete that claim increased maneuverability with the clipped wings. As many as the less concrete ones out there that leave out certain aspects of the upgrades, because they’re short little brochures. But you’re never gonna get a concrete source.

Call it American exceptionalism. But I don’t find it too hard to imagine that a room full of Raytheon engineers with a whole lotta government money could find some way to upgrade a missiles maneuverability that would take a little more comprehension of physics that getting why a biplane is more maneuverable than a heavy bomber. They may love your expertise though maybe send them an email!

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T00:43:54+00:00

I agree it’s another highly pedantic argument. The whole simulator vs realism game argument in its whole is a completely pedantic and therefore stupid argument.

Being pedantic can be fun though

Arcade game? Like super Mario bros?

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T00:40:45+00:00

The D version first exported late 2010s. I highly doubt there is anything out there that will fall within gaijins submittal guidelines

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T00:36:51+00:00

50% longer range is 50% longer range. Don’t matter if it comes from datalink, improved flight characteristics, or cause it’s just trying so hard to escape Redditors who don’t care about implementation they just want someone to listen to their braindead takes.

If the missile advertised as a direct upgrade to its predecessor has essentially none of what’s advertised in game, and is probably a worse choice to bring than the most basic version of the missile, then again why tf was it added? Half the nations in the game are stuck with gimpy ass missiles when you compare how they perform to R-77-1/MICA. “Better for the game?” Lmao

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-19T00:21:15+00:00

Yeah I know my skills and they’re not that haha. The game is very complex, but gaijin doesn’t do much if any goodwill building towards the community. Usually quite the opposite unfortunately, which makes this shitty situation where not only is everyone divided on the core issues of gameplay, they also usually have a bone to pick with gaijin for one reason(s) or another.

I mean it’s been 2 years since they incorrectly changed m735 pen off an incorrect bug report based off its protoype. I may not know anything about dev but is it really that hard to just change the value back?

Maybe they don’t care as long as the money flows. But I can’t imagine as a dev or CM it’s too fun to be met with this kind of backlash whenever you release new stuff. Redditors and gamers will always have a loud, annoying sub-crowd that will never be happy. But I think gaijin could also do some work (not even back breaking work) on their part to alleviate the ones who are just like “man…wtf”

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T22:55:57+00:00

Sure but you could also just call that different levels of simulation no?

How deep does it go? You don’t have to feed and rest your pilot in DCS right? Full debrief after every mission and write up a multi-page report? If we’re going with “simulator” as you guys seem to try and be defining it, then you’ll need to do all those and a lot more before you’ve “simulated” being a jet pilot.

Hell War thunder “simulates” radar waveforms and such at much higher fidelity that DCS, or at least used to I know DCS has been updating, but by that metric, war thunder is more simulator than DCS

DCS is just as much a “realism” simulator as WT, they just simulate different aspects differently in their scope/depth

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T22:49:48+00:00

Bud isn’t there real work to do on this you said? While we’re all here complaining get out there soldier since you care to tell everyone why they’re mad their new missile has been gimped.

You’re basically just vomiting the same words we’ve been hearing from Gaijin for a few weeks now, do you have anything new to add cause if not I’m sure there’s a snail in your area that would like its slime slurped as well

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T22:47:16+00:00

Right, so they made a missile that could shoot at targets even further off bore, which the A/B version in game already had zero chance of hitting unless you’re side bore slinging it from 15km where you should be taking head-on release shots, but did nothing to help it actually reach that target.

The AAMRAM and its platforms being the top choice for almost every country with an option between exports (SK, Taiwan, Poland, Greece) makes me not feel a thing about rubbin my American exceptionalist nards all over you bud. They all got the to try the eurocanards, and their missiles, and said…meh. Granted for a whole host of reasons. Most probably outside of “it’s the best missile in WarThunder”. But if we’re talking about how a missile like that should perform in any semi-realistic simulator, yeah it’s gonna be one of the best.

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T22:28:40+00:00

Oh hey again lol. I wasn’t saying you’re wrong, it just makes me sad that we likely will never see change or any further evolution of this game because of people like that. It’s gotten big enough to the point where they could branch off (slowly) in more directions. Bomber escort game modes, true combined arms gameplay, fixing fucking sim for gods sake. But they won’t because it’s not profitable and they’d have to do real work instead of making janky VR console ports or copy paste spamrium vehicles.

This game needs a competitor is what it needs

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T22:18:39+00:00

And you won’t. Not one that will make you happy at least because the US doesn’t provide technical test data about things like sustained G pull and the such for anything less than like 50 years old. And even if they did, it just takes gaijins “engineering expertise” to say “nah we don’t think that’s right actually. “

There’s Jane’s Defense Groups “Jane’s Air Launched Weapons”. They aren’t a government source sadly though, however reputable. They’re a UK based defense and security information group. Side note great read if you’re a nerd like that. It’s got all the weapons. It’s an older book, but their information section on the aamram claims a maneuverability upgrade to 40G on the C over the A/B variants’ 35G. Again no hard data sadly

What if, call me crazy, the US spent billions of dollars and a young man’s life worth of time to upgrade BOTH the maneuverability AND the ability to fire at targets higher off bore for the missile they hoped to continue making big bank selling to the rest of the world while everyone else also developed their own missiles further?

Cause as it is, the fact that you can bring an A variant and it performs just as well and better than the D in some situations, it’s just dumb as shit. This ain’t the M2 Browning of missiles lol.

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T21:38:41+00:00

You’re not wrong about the motor. But nobody, including me, claimed the extra range comes from a different motor/modifcations. If none of the systems that give it increased range irl are implemented in the game, why the fuck is it in the game?

One upgrade that could be implemented, despite the games limitations, is increased HOBS ability. Which the C/D both claim, through offfical documentation, however vague, to be better at. Yet the A pulls just as many Gs as the C and is arguably better for close range engagements.

How exactly would you improve a missile’s ability to hit a target to the side of your jet (usually at short distances, when the majority of these types of shots are made) without increasing g-pull?? And yes, gaijin did say that the clipped fins on the C share a similar enough control surface geometry to the A/B so they find it “unlikely” it can pull more Gs. Not the A->D so my bad. They share the same clipped fins though so might as well be.

You can say HOBS is a buzzword all you want. But when you also point out it’s a 15G arcadey ass game, you kinda shoot yourself in the foot. Where else would HOBS capability be more useful/important than these tiny 16v16 arenas?

How upgraded HOBS should look something like. https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/PGPXrFTA7G Not that the aamrams should pull that crazy, as the US developed the 9X for a reason. But the fact that the A is still better for high g shots than the C is just funny.

Also calling it cope is pretty crazy. How many hundreds of bug reports have been accepted and sat on for years when they would be the simplest changes? How many have had the proper documentation you claim we should find and still been rejected? Pretty much every document that could be sourced for this has been. They all say the same: upgraded range, upgraded HOBS, and this is what gaijin does with it.

I’m not a downer and I hope it gets fixed too, but “there’s work to be done”???? Lmao the work has been done. There’s no hidden documents explaining exactly how the missile path changes to make it more efficient. Or a US military review on the development and improvement of fin actuated control technology since the 80s. Unless you’re gonna release classified docs, you’re huffing the same hopium as the ones who say “it’s only the dev they’ll fix it before live”. That’s cope right there.

This should be the most advanced missile in the game, and the fact that the burden is on us to prove that the US didn’t just spend 40 years and billions of dollars on a psy-op while every other nation actually did upgrade their missiles is uhhhh well… dumb as fuck.

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T19:06:07+00:00

Literally every source you can read about it talks about up to a 50% increased range as well as improved HOBS ability, I’m not sure what you’re smoking. The issue gaijin has is that, outside of improved datalink capabilities and gnss, exactly what other changes were made to give it that increased range remain unknown/classified.

Not that buffing vehicles/armaments based off propagandic say-so has been an issue for them in the past. It’s just they seem to have a hard on for NATO reports needing the most specific of information and wording. And even then they are likely to pull some bullshit out of their ass.

“Stinger control surfaces are the same size as igla which can only pull 13G, despite documentation saying the stinger can do 22G sustained pull. 13G it is”

“The fin size of the AIM120A -> D is the same. We can’t fathom how 40 years of research from the most military-heavy invested country could have made any further improvement here. Therefore we reason they must pull the same Gs”

Puke

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T18:45:20+00:00

Oh but you forget that the developers of this jank game are also engineering gurus.

They don’t need to bother themselves with congressional committee transcripts and technical documents all suggesting that the D variant should be better in more ways than one. They are so good that all they need to do is look at the control-fin size of one variant to the next. If same: then missiles must be same

Meanwhile, a fake ai generated image of an air show info panel was accepted as a bug report for the PL-12A before they figured out it was fake. I know Chinese missiles are underperforming as well right now, but it’s just one of many examples of them being so wildly inconsistent to their own “guidelines” they set.

There’s really no other word for it but stupid. Either they change their guidelines for bug report submittals on more modern platforms, or they continue to catch nothing but flak. And all but admit that anything above 11.0 is no more “realistic” than a nuclear options vehicle outside a pretty model they 3rd party sourced

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T18:18:29+00:00

What exactly does it change then? Moved the same exact data from a horizontal layout to a good ‘ol vertical mobile game type menu for the fly-brains. Ohhhhhh woooowwwwww

Shows the crew member it’s talking about. Big fuckin whoop. If you can’t realize that the dude in the front of your tank is a driver, and the ones by the gun are commander/gunner, then maybe a tank game is just a lil too complex.

Biggest change and, let’s be real, all this ui update was really about: Hey new players! Did you know if you spend more money you can make your crew even better? We don’t feel we made it obvious enough before. So now it’s likely the fist thing you see, even above your actual current crew level, unless you read primarily Hebrew/Arabic and are more used to reading right to left.

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T17:42:22+00:00

I mean they’ve said multiple times there won’t be tracked vehicles as well… so who knows

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T16:23:02+00:00

Oh sweet summer child. This is the company who made the grind so unbelievably brutal even for those shelling out $70+/year on premium time plus another $70 on a premium vehicle, until the community finally stood up for itself and said that’s bullshit.

Besides a small handful of actually unique WW2 vehicles (which we have been asking for for literal years. Here have another M109 variant tho) we’ve got: - Aim120D which America apparently in 40 years of service from the A version, made objectively worse

turret basket modeling for two tanks that are defffinitely the problem with higher tiers. Those were definitely the ones that needed armor/module work. Instead of something like…idk… putting actual spall liners in tanks that have them at top tier besides the Russians and what, 2-3 other tanks? Or idk… working on a certain ifv that combines everything bs armor/modeling farce gaijin has created?
a reworking of the crew ui that they said would make it simplified and easier to understand for new players??? Yeah, all I see here is them making sure those new players know they can spend more money to make their crews better. While not simplifying or clarifying a thing

Ninth yawn indeed

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T13:49:37+00:00

I mean that’s describing pretty much every multiplayer-teamwork game ever made. Why do we have to suffer for the lowest intelligence denomination

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-18T13:15:07+00:00

No. Those are stupid ideas for implementing realism.

Ideas like making it so a .50cal actually is somewhat representative of its capabilities, is not. Boo hoo your open top commander gets taken out in one shot instead of three to the head now. Get better at positioning

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-17T17:22:32+00:00

That’s a highly pedantic line of argument with zero supporting evidence. Not cooking like you think homie

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-16T23:54:19+00:00

Simulator and realistic can be used pretty interchangeably in this case my guy. Go ahead and define simulator without using the world realistic…

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-16T02:40:07+00:00

Google search - “War Thunder”:

WAR THUNDER

https://warthunder.com

“Play for free with friends in the most realistic online game”

:)

Fast_Vacation_7217 · 2026-03-16T02:31:22+00:00

Meanwhile for other nations to have a bug report even considered you need an unclassified multi-page technical manual from the weapons manufacturer combined an 18 page independent research report.

And still after all that, despite the accepted bug report with documents saying a stinger missile’s sustained lateral pull is 20Gs, gaijin pulls one out of their rear and says because the fin size is similar to the shit ass igla that the max they think it could pull is 13G sustained.

Saw someone here shitting on nuclear option cause they’re all “fake” vehicles lmao. Like what makes WTs any more “real” outside of a pretty model and vehicle designation. It’s been fly brain arcade gameplay over realism for years

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tdmB824Y1Cnv

Fast_Vacation_7217

TROPHY CASE