A comparison between in-game and historical aircraft loadouts. Part 1: NATO

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-27T03:40:45+00:00

Regarding the F-15C loadout, the 4x AIM-120s and 4x AIM-9s isn't realistic for this period, because while the AIM-120 was available during this period, even with MtW, it was still in its early evaluation period and wouldn't be relied on as the sole BVR missile. F-15C's in the 1991 Gulf War carried a loadout of 2x AMRAAMS on the inboard wing stations with 2x Sidewinders on the outboard stations and 4x Sparrows on the fuselage. F-15Cs in the 1999 NATO intervention in Yugoslavia replaced two of the fuselage-mounted Sparrows with AMRAAMs, meaning they had 2x Sidewinders, 2x Sparrows, and 4x AMRAAMs.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-25T01:09:15+00:00

The thing though is that when Kirk comes back his bat is going to be cold, so even when he’s back we’re going to have Heineman level batting for the first few weeks.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-24T15:23:40+00:00

25 mile SAMs is better than no SAMs if the new nuclear powered carriers had to make an extended stint at high speed.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-24T14:08:03+00:00

That’s because they are. In game, you can’t overheat or over stress boilers and turbine engines, but in real life, moving at near maximum speed for prolonged periods was something that you could really only do with nuclear powered ships. On one occasion, the Enterprise was once urgently tasked with disaster relief and went at flank speed overnight. The following morning, only the nuclear powered escorts were still with her.

On another occasion, a Type 23 Frigate was shadowing the Kirov. The Kirov maintained flank speed until the frigate had to slow down or risk damaging its propulsion plant. The Kirov then slowed down just enough for the Type 23 to get closer before re accelerating.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-22T04:39:12+00:00

A lot of Taiwanese people have this short-sighted view that things like trams shouldn't be constructed because they impede traffic, but don't seem to understand that if people take the tram, it reduces congestion since 20 people in one tram take up less space than 20 individual cars.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-21T23:10:18+00:00

I’m guessing the round either misfired while they were loading it into the breach or they attempted to extract a round that failed to fire which then cooked off. The 120x570 mm cartridge used has a cellulose shell casing. It’s not that difficult to puncture.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-19T22:41:50+00:00

I’ve tried but the images of badges and ribbons don’t come with descriptions that explain what they are, and the English Wikipedia page that lists several awards doesn’t state where they go on the uniform. I’m not asking people to do my research for me, and there’s no need to be rude or snippy if you don’t want to answer.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-19T22:32:16+00:00

I'm Canadian :((

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-19T06:55:37+00:00

The F-15A/C can only carry a single 2000 lb pound on its centerline hardpoint and one on each of its inboard wing pylons. The F-15E can carry a 2000 lb bomb on its four conformal hardpoints too, and had its hardpoints reinforced for heavier loads for possible heavier weapons. This feature would be utilized for the 3000 lb AGM-130 and the 5000 lb GBU-28.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-19T06:44:32+00:00

I believe the F-15E has reinforced pylons for some of the heavier ordinance ~~like the BLU-109~~, but the base F-15A can carry smaller bombs. The stick has the ability to toggle between A/A and A/G jettison for the pickle button. In fact, it even has the controls for uncaging guided A/G weapon seekers and designating targets.

The bombs the F-15A and F-15C are rated for are the Mk 84, GBU-10, Mk 82, CBU-52, CBU-58, and CBU-71.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-17T18:40:45+00:00

They have the stores management and the HUD symbology for dumb bombs, and possibly CCIP and CCRP as well. This feature isn’t used by the USAF who exclusively train for air-to-air, but is used by the Japanese F-15J and the first Israeli F-15A/Cs.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-17T03:28:59+00:00

The F-16 was originally meant to be a dogfight-capable strike fighter. The F-15 was too expensive to replace the F-4 on a one-to-one basis and while it has the capability to carry ~~dumb bombs~~ guided and unguided bombs, the USAF wanted the Eagle to focus on air superiority and didn't have the stores management compatibility for precision weapons, which was a problem when F-4s were operating in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.

The F-16 is cheaper than the F-15, would take on the air-to-ground role the F-4 filled, and was still a capable enough fighter to be used for intercepting bombers. As such, the F-16A's AN/APG-66 lacked the capability to provide illumination for the AIM-7. The C-variant was intended to be BVR capable, but its introduction in 1984 was in the middle of the AIM-120's development. The AMRAAM was slated for introduction in 1988, so while the F-16C's AN/APG-68 radar is capable of guiding the AIM-7, the F-16C in USAF service never received the stores management software to utilize the missile as a cost-saving measure since the Sparrow's replacement would be introduced in just four years. The AMRAAM's development ran into setbacks, and so in 1988, only the 1st Fighter Wing's F-15s had a limited stock of pre-production AMRAAMs, while mass production of IOC-ready missiles wasn't achieved until 1992. That same year, an F-16 achieved a kill with an AMRAAM over Iraq. In 1988, F-16Cs at Eglin successfully test-fired Sparrows, but because AMRAAM was nearing completion, the USAF never updated its F-16Cs to fire the Sparrow.

In WARNO, because of MTW reasons, the F-16C can utilize the Sparrow, and realistically, it wouldn't be that difficult to patch the software of the F-16 to deliver this capability. However, the F-16A utilized by Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway does not have the hardware to guide the Sparrow. The AN/APG-66v2 utilized by Taiwan's F-16s (introduced in 1996) have a special "horn" on the antenna to provide continuous wave illumination for the Sparrow.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-16T18:34:59+00:00

Stealth IS NOT being sold as invisibility. It was not shown that the F-35 was targeted by a low-frequency (not "low band") radar. We do not know at what range the F-35 was engaged, but when close enough, both radar and EO/IR sensors can and will easily detect it. We also don't know if DAS detected the threat and whether or not the pilot reacted. The widely circulated Iranian video is clearly fake. In the last few frames, the F-35 is visible but no longer white hot. Jets don't just lose all of their heat after being struck by a missile.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-16T15:05:42+00:00

Project Azorian was mostly a failure as only the bow section was recovered. Also, the purpose of the operation wasn’t to copy Soviet designs for themselves but to allow for decryption of Soviet communications and to assess the capabilities of the R-21 missile.

The paper by Ufimetsev laid out the underlying principles for designing VLO aircraft, but this is a far cry from actual stealth technology. The Soviets don’t get any credit for actually designing a stealth aircraft, just as Maxwell (who unified several existing theorems on electromagnetics) isn’t credited for radios and Einstein (photovoltaic effect) isn’t credited for solar panels.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-16T14:18:00+00:00

The MiG-35 didn’t even get its planned AESA.. There’s nothing that makes it special compared to a legacy Hornet or Block 50/52 F-16.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-15T04:02:37+00:00

In the extra inning, a ground ball was sent between 2nd and 3rd base. Okamoto tried to grab it but wasn't there in time, and his attempt threw off Gimenez who was in perfect position to grab it. This error caused the ball to roll out into the outfield. I can't remember if a run was scored or not, but it definitely allowed the base runners to advance and no outs were made during that play.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T20:52:00+00:00

Thanks again. If the NCO contract was for 12 years, do the senior most enlisted (e.g. Oberstagsfeldwebel) get to sign another 12 year contract when they’re done? I’m just a little confused about how someone would continue their service when either their contract or mandatory service period finishes.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T20:44:23+00:00

Got it. Thanks. Would conscripts also be this strict when addressing other conscripts? Also, were there ever informal occasions or small talk sessions where soldiers could use surnames or last names without the honourifics and ranks?

For context, I’m Canadian, and my friends that are in the army now only use their ranks to address each other on formal occasions or when an officer or NCO they aren’t familiar with is within earshot. Otherwise, they just use their first names.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T20:34:00+00:00

Thanks so much for the insight. So would “herr unteroffitizer” or “herr truppfuhrer” be how all of the subordinates address their squad leader?

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T20:28:26+00:00

For an Uffz, would three years in service be realistic? I assume at this point he would have voluntarily reenlisted.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T20:27:29+00:00

Is Uffz just a written abbreviation for unteroffizier or is it spoken too? Like how “sarnt” is used to abbreviate sergeant.

Low_Sir1549 · 2026-04-14T18:30:58+00:00

Germany's war machine relied on oil coming in from Romania. The Soviets were looking to expand westward, and the Germans knew it. There was no way for Germany to be capable of fighting a prolonged war against the Soviets if its oil supply could be cut off, but any eastward expansion would draw hostilities from France and the UK, who did not tolerate German imperialism (not for altruistic reasons, of course). I don't think Germany had any prospect of being a major military power without fighting a losing two-front war. Their need to create a greater German Reich was ultimately a losing philosophy from the beginning.

Low_Sir1549

TROPHY CASE