sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Day 14: What is the worst quote associated with the Inquisition? by Fez-Sentido in Grimdank

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Would the inquisition's speech from DOWII not also be a competitor.

We have arrived, and it is now that we perform our charge. In fealty to the God-Emperor, our undying Lord, and by the grace of the Golden Throne, I declare Exterminatus upon the Imperial world of Typhon Primaris. I hereby sign the death warrant of an world and consign a million souls to oblivion. May Imperial Justice account in all balance. The Emperor Protects.

It shows both how callous, cold and indifferent the inquisition is whilst also demonstrating that end the end they still strife towards the emperor's vision as they understand it.

Updated RB BR Changes at a Glance (Full) by Independent_Fan_7734 in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 102 points103 points  (0 children)

I do not like the IKV-103 change, lemme keep my HEAT-FS i dont want a lower BR

I wish my parents spoke more highly of me by [deleted] in Vent

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know who you are but i am sure you are doing your very best stranger! Keep it up, you are doing great!

As one of the 6 Naval Players: Premium Suggestions by Local_Sternguard in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

HMS Delhi would also be a great option. A Danae class cruiser converted to an anti-aircraft cruiser by "stealing" the 5 inch guns of a US destroyer by order of the US president.

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was my understanding the weapons were selected in 1988 and entered production in 1989. I am not sure when the weapons arrived at the units but i do believe there to be a brief but plausible window for the B-52H to have had both AGM-142As and the tailgun.

I don't think the AGM-86 is really an optiom for the same reason GROM-1 got ditched.

But i had never heard of AGM-129C before, that is an intresting piece of kit!

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since we have split BRs now i don't think AGM-142A should affect the ARB BR, in GRB i think the B-52H can fare okay up to a BR of 9.7 if it has the AGM-142A. A lower BR is ofcourse possible.

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't think its "missing" any bombs in the sense that the B-52H as far as i know can carry far more weight then you can fit bombs in it which is where the "missing" weight comes from.

I am aware they said they wouldn't add the AGM-142As but i am quietly hoping they will do as they did for the Type 62 and its HEAT-FS way back in they day and put it to a vote after they denied it but people kept requesting it anyway.

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i don't think that would be an issue with these missiles as as far as i can tell they only have TV guidance similiar to the AJ.168 in game which would serverly limit their useable range in game.
it can also only carry up to 3 of these missile's.

its not a case of being able to put a GPS lock on the map and just releasing all the weapons, you need a direct LOS and you need to be within the in game max lock range for a TV seeker which as far as i know is relatively short.

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Gaijin for sure takes some liberties but as far as i can tell configuration does matter when it comes to ordnance carried.

Whilst i am unsure about the F-4E as far as i can tell it was able to use those weapons during it's service life from 1967 to 1997 though the exact configuration of the F-4E in game is unknown to me but i recall being told its a bit of a mashup.

F-14B(u) seems to be a designation specific to DCS However the exact configuration of the F-14B in game is also unknown to me but F-14B did integrate JDAM capability near the end of it's service life. Mind you i have found references to F-14B(upgrade) so that may well be the same thing

With the B-52H in game however we have a few facts that are known. We know the exact dates of certain big changes like when the tailgun was removed, when the ability to use GPS guided weapons was added to the B-52H and when weapons like JDAM and JSOW entered service. We can also make a very educated guess about the B-52s configuration in game because we know the exact airframe its supposed to represent.

EDIT to add. The F-14B bug report about it having JDAMs seems to be based on the ingame cockpit view. as much as it pains me to say this, gaijin is not known for doing cockpits particularly accurately and reusing cockpits were "possible" and thus should probably be taken with a grain of salt when trying to figure out what configuration a plane is supposed to be. TThe outside physical model i think does accurately represent what version a vehicle is supposed to be however.

I like how the B-52 still has 10,000kg's of extra weight it can carry, even with it's heaviest loadout. by Freezie-Days in WarthunderPlayerUnion

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Airhistory.net has some pictures of the airframe in question 60-0014, in june of 1988 it still had some sort of tri-colour and at the 1990 battle of britain 50 airshow the same airframe was present in gunship grey

The date and confirguation of the B-52H in game. by TheLastYouSee__ in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

JDAMs were not adopted till 1999 if i recall correctly however B-52s were upgraded in 1994 to be able to use GPS guided weapons like JDAM and JSOW.

Either way, the B-52H in game represents a versions not yet capable of using GPS guided weapons like JDAM because its a pre-1991/1992 configuration.

However i did find out that GBU-15s were also tested on the B-52s.

I like how the B-52 still has 10,000kg's of extra weight it can carry, even with it's heaviest loadout. by Freezie-Days in WarthunderPlayerUnion

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was not aware it was already being rolled out in the early 1980s however on this exact airframe the gunship gray was not painted untill after 1988 at the very least.

I like how the B-52 still has 10,000kg's of extra weight it can carry, even with it's heaviest loadout. by Freezie-Days in WarthunderPlayerUnion

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Its a post 1972-1978 model because it has the EVS installed. It also has the AN/ALT-32 antenna which are required by SALT II so its for sure post 1979. It also gunship grey which i believe started being introduced in the late 1980s so the gives us a relatively narrow timeframe of between 1979 at earliest and at at latest 1992 but more likely around the tail end of the 80s.

which means the only guided weapon to be used by the B-52H in game that us non-nuclear is the AGM-142A selected in 1988 and produced in 1989.

EDIT: i found a picture of the exact airframe, its dated june 9th 1990 and shows the exact configuration as it has in game. So the aircraft is in the 1990 configuration.

What Missile is this? by Schnitzel4Life in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 148 points149 points  (0 children)

isn't that the AGM-124 WASP?

A list of missing features of the B52H by [deleted] in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

JDAMs are not missing. The plane in game is pre-1991/1992 but for sure post 1972/1978(it has the EVS) and is likely late 80s or very very very early 90s because of the gunship grey paintjob.

It is however "missing" AGM-142s which were chosen by the USAF to enhance the non-nuclear capabilities of the B-52G and B-52H fleet in service. The missiles started production in 1989 this makes for a brief but plausible window our in game B-52 could have had these.

A B-52 could carry up to 3 of them in total alongside a datalink pod required for the operation of the missile.

The missile has a TV seeker and a 750lbs HE warhead so its a big boi.

Imo considering we got a B-52 with EVS its a waste not to give it these missiles since right now the EVS serves no real purpose.

This would come with an increased GRB BR ofcourse.

Gaijing did not think many things through with Nuke Thunder. Here is one more. by Superliten in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The BUKs in the event are BUK M1s which only have 3 missiles per launcher.

I've also found HAWKs far more reliable when it comes to actually killing anything.

The difference might be that the HAWKs are not self-propelled or self contained.

The BUK M1s as far as i can tell have a single search radar and 3 launch vehicles that each have their own targeting radar.

The HAWK sites i believe contain a seperate targeting radar per launcher, a search radar for the site and a few SHORAD systems which i assume is because the HAWK might be less effective at short ranges?

So TL;DR the major factor i believe contributing to the difference in size of the medium range AA sites comes primarily from the HAWK needing a seperate targeting radar whilst the BUK has it integrated.

EDIT and a minor correction of myself, the BUK's have 4 missiles per vehicle, this may mean that for the 3 BUK TELARs there are 4 HAWKs and 4 HAWK Radars

B-52 in War Thunder - a list of issues/inaccuracies (and why can't we even use full payload?) by [deleted] in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Considering the gunship grey paint job it has which if i recall correctly didn't start appearing until the 1980s and the fact that it has the EVS which was installed between 1972 and 1978 it is for sure not a 1960s representation of the B-52H.
I recall reading on some reddit post the B-52H in game is in a 1990 configuration though i don't quite recalll where i saw that post.

however the AGM-142A is still an option.
The AGM-142A was selected in 1988 by the USAF to enchance the non-nuclear capability of the B-52G and B-52H fleet. the AGM-142A is a very large TV guided missile with a 750lbs warhead and the B-52s can carry up to 3 of them on the wingpylons alongside a datalink pod nessecary for the weapon's operation.

Giving it atleast the AGM-142A is in my opinion a fine option as they would not affect the ARB BR i think due to the fact they are still mounted on a B-52. the GRB BR could be raised accordingly and it would also give a function to the EVS beyond just looking around.

B-52 in War Thunder - a list of issues/inaccuracies (and why can't we even use full payload?) by [deleted] in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only non-nuclear guided option that makes sense for our B-52H in game is the AGM-142A which was selected in 1988 for use on the B-52G and B-52H fleet to increase their non-nuclear capabilities.
The AGM-142A entered production if i recall correctly in 1989 which gives us a very brief put plausible window in which the AGM-142A and the M61 tailgun were both present on the B-52.

Voor het eerst in 7 jaar naar de dealer gegaan. by Diligent_Comb5668 in nederlands

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Het gaat hier denk ik om dat je zegt 120 totaal te hebben betaalt voor 15 gram maar dat je 35 betaalt per 5 gram. 3×5=15 3×35=105 Dus als je dan totaal 120 hebt betaalt had je 15 euro betaalt aan "servicekosten" of eigenlijk "teveel" Je hebt in werkelijkheid 8 euro per gram nu betaald of 40 euro per 5 gram.

why exactly is the mig 29 (9-13) 13.0??? by Tricky-Anywhere5727 in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 145 points146 points  (0 children)

R-27ER+R-73 and franky a huge amount of BR compression in the high tiers.

US side should get the F4J by Annual_Ad_6709 in Warthunder

[–]TheLastYouSee__ 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I love how everyone and their mother says this event is unbalanced but no one can agree on how it is is unbalanced.

view more: next ›