Anti air

[Munk Chuncher]

Will any other nation have anti air capabilities that ussr has? I know in real life we do but just curious if we will ever see it in game, thanks.

[Tankoslav Tepyatdesyatpyatovich]

We aren't going to know before a teaser for some new major comes out and they show such modern missile SPAA in it. Devs don't like to promise or leak info unless the answer is obviously 'Yes!', for questions like 'Will we see more piston-engined aircrafts in the future update?' (they always add at least one) or 'Will French coastal navy be avalaible for everyone one day?'

[𝒞𝒶𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓁 Sinner]

I could be wrong as someone who isn't military, and couldn't tell the name of a system, but from my understanding (from past threads) is that NATO in modern day leans more towards long range systems. Mainly stationary systems, I believe, or complex systems that are spread out and rely on multiple "parts." Again, could be wrong, that was my understanding.

[The_Illuminati_Confirmed]

Автор сообщения: 𝒞𝒶𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓁 Sinner

I could be wrong as someone who isn't military, and couldn't tell the name of a system, but from my understanding (from past threads) is that NATO in modern day leans more towards long range systems. Mainly stationary systems, I believe, or complex systems that are spread out and rely on multiple "parts." Again, could be wrong, that was my understanding.

The soviets and by extent the Russians emphasized HEAVILY on making their air defence units as mobile and readily avaliable as possible, deploying them at not just divisional level but all the way down to individual mechanized brigades, NATO simply doesn't have comparable systems to the Pantsir, TOR and even the Osa's. NATO has equivalents to systems such as Strela and Shilka in the form of the multiple vehicles fitted with FIM-92 Stinger missiles along with the Stormer HVM and various gun-based SPAA along with systems comparable to the Tunguska with the Roland system. Systems such as the Hawk, IRIS-T and NASAMS rely on multiple vehicles and as such are not represented in WT. WT air defence systems that are playable are all exclusively self-contained units using guns, Infra-red missiles, SACLOS missiles, Radar missiles or a combination thereof.

In terms of the WT battlefield the more 'advanced' systems like Patriot, THAAD, S-200,300,400, HAWK, Kub and Buk would not be deployed into a confrontational space like that of WT ground maps, these systems are deployed kilometres behind the contact line and will often pack up and scoot before being in contact with enemy ground forces.

TLDR: All NATO systems that exist that can be added to the WT framework as playable units have already been added, they simply do not have equivalent systems to the Pantsir that can be added to the game as those systems rely on multiple vehicles.

[Munk Chuncher]

Автор сообщения: The_Illuminati_Confirmed

Автор сообщения: 𝒞𝒶𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓁 Sinner

I could be wrong as someone who isn't military, and couldn't tell the name of a system, but from my understanding (from past threads) is that NATO in modern day leans more towards long range systems. Mainly stationary systems, I believe, or complex systems that are spread out and rely on multiple "parts." Again, could be wrong, that was my understanding.

The soviets and by extent the Russians emphasized HEAVILY on making their air defence units as mobile and readily avaliable as possible, deploying them at not just divisional level but all the way down to individual mechanized brigades, NATO simply doesn't have comparable systems to the Pantsir, TOR and even the Osa's. NATO has equivalents to systems such as Strela and Shilka in the form of the multiple vehicles fitted with FIM-92 Stinger missiles along with the Stormer HVM and various gun-based SPAA along with systems comparable to the Tunguska with the Roland system. Systems such as the Hawk, IRIS-T and NASAMS rely on multiple vehicles and as such are not represented in WT. WT air defence systems that are playable are all exclusively self-contained units using guns, Infra-red missiles, SACLOS missiles, Radar missiles or a combination thereof.

In terms of the WT battlefield the more 'advanced' systems like Patriot, THAAD, S-200,300,400, HAWK, Kub and Buk would not be deployed into a confrontational space like that of WT ground maps, these systems are deployed kilometres behind the contact line and will often pack up and scoot before being in contact with enemy ground forces.

TLDR: All NATO systems that exist that can be added to the WT framework as playable units have already been added, they simply do not have equivalent systems to the Pantsir that can be added to the game as those systems rely on multiple vehicles.

Great answer, I just find it hard to believe other nations do not have the capabilities to fire past 12km including the TOR. Where as ussr can destroy air vehicles 18 km out. Maybe that is just how it is.

[Wandering Flare]

We have the Churchill Crocodile so it's not like vehicles that need attachments are out of the question. There's gotta be at least some Pantsir-equivalent NATO SPAAs that can be implemented that way.

[Zalzany]

Yeah pretty much we like are anti air behind a smokescreen of troops and armor. and Russians always wanted their AA mobile, on front lines, or hidden in the country side. Like great example of USSR is they sold some to Vietnam and move them around all over the place, and hide them to shoot at aircraft and train local crews. We want act like we 1000% owned the skys but there was decent amount of shot down air crew in that war who had to be rescued or became POWs.

[LtCOL.Ghost]

give us the linebacker at the very least.

[Wandering Flare]

Автор сообщения: LtCOL.Ghost

give us the linebacker at the very least.

Bv 410 with the RBS 98 missiles for Sweden would be good too.

[LtCOL.Ghost]

Автор сообщения: Wandering Flare

Автор сообщения: LtCOL.Ghost

give us the linebacker at the very least.

Bv 410 with the RBS 98 missiles for Sweden would be good too.

oof a nice choice