Smin1080p

The R-55 report remains open.

As I said, based on the current info and scope. Japan has more upwards potential for expansion. Italy is far more restricted in terms of top tier developments as they were in reality. Like making the jump from AIM-9B to L with nothing in-between.

We are not going to list and detail every possible/potential vehicle for both nations if that's what your asking.

Several variants, trainers and fighters are potentially possible. In general it's more than can really be said for the Italian top tier based on current info. The ASA has to last Italy a long while just like it did in reality as there isn't much else compared to the same period for other nations.

But it's just off topic at this stage.

Please check my previous responses. As I have already explained, we have source material provided by DMM and other means that show the EJ Kai directly was capable of AIM-9J and the missile was in Japanese inventory. Meanwhere there is no such source material for the F-104S or the ASA to show it had AIM-9J.

We do not use the commonality of pylons that you are referring too, as by the same logic, everything from the German Sea Hawk 100 to the British Scimitar would therefore be legible for AIM-9J because "the rail is common".

F-104S never had that missile. Only

The F-4F has primary documentation linking spesifically the F-4F to the AIM-9J. We have no source material linking the French F-100 to the AIM-9E.

This is the German flight manual. Primary documentation.

The criteria is as have said source material directly linking a weapons system to the spesific aircraft in question.

In this case we have 3 primary sources linking the German F-4F to AIM-9J.

General commonalty with launchers is not what's used. Please see the F-4F example again. It's a primary source for the aircraft showing t

Your welcome to your own personal opinion, however the actual reason is because it meets the same criteria for all aircraft weaponry we have in game, which is to have a sufficient source link between the aircraft in question and weapon for it to be considered.

In the case of the F-4F, there are 3 primary sources.

We have never had a criteria of something being required to be "in service" to be added. So that is irrelevant here.

Unfortunately we cant go on guesswork. Proper source links will be needed.

If we only added things that were "put into service", over 50% of all vehicles and weaponry would have to be removed from the game.

Training missile aside, its in 2 primary source manuals. The same cant be said for the F-104S.

As far as our current information stands. F-4EJ Kai was cleared to use AIM-9J/P too and Japan still had them in their inventory.

Thats what I just said above. Its a training version of the AIM-9J. In effect the exact same systems and launch. There are multiple sources and images showing it. Again as I said backed up by multiple primary documents that it was cleared and capable of AIM-9J.

Sadly there is nothing connecting the AIM-9J or P to the F-104S.

Im not really sure why this age old already closed subject is coming up again.

Nation having directly used it in combat / on operation is not required for it to be considered. Whats needed is valid proof it was fitted / could be fitted / was planned / trailed in a solid way.

Since you mentioned the F-4F, lets take that example again. We have 3 primary sources that link the AIM-9J, directly to the German F-4F early.

1) The F-4F pilots manual

2) The F-4F Weapons manual

3) Clear use of the AIM-9J practice round (identical in every way to the combat

This camo is generally more connected with the modernized F-8P. The camo we have in game for the moment is accurate for the French F-8E (FN). There is nothing incorrect about it.

Right now at least, its unlikely it will get a new camo. No doubt some of the creators on WT Live will make some additional camos which can sometimes find their way in game via the camo boxes.

You are watching The Shooting Range – a weekly show for all tankers, airmen and Captains in War Thunder.

In this episode:

Pages of History: The Most Produced British Tank


Round Study: HE, HE, and... HE?


... and Metal Beasts: The RB Flying Desk

The War Thunder Team

You can read all of the explanations on the changes here: https://wiki.warthunder.com/Dynamics_of_War_Thunder_missiles

As I have said twice now, if you still think something is wrong. Feel free to submit your evidence in a Historical report. This is not a discussion topic about it.

Feel free to submit a historical report with your evidence if you think its wrong and you have evidence.

Thats the total mass of the warhead. Not the actual explosive mass.

If you have legitimate historical sources that clearly prove somethings incorrect, then feel free to post a bug report and the developers can check it over. However at the moment, you are claiming multiple primary Italian and German documents that all agree are wrong and posting nothing to solidify your claim.

This is not the place to have a opinionated debate. The G.91 is now correct as per the most authorative source materials.

Nope. The pods fit neatly under the wing root, so it does not disturb any store locations:

Please read what I actually said. They are in-development blogs. Everything on them is not 100% final and guaranteed not to change. If that was the case, the Viggen would never have got flares as we said "no countermesures".

VVVVV

Dev Blogs are introductory articles to the details of the vehicle as it comes in. They are not final and not without change. Mike was using the details provided from the dev blog.

Both are not final confirmations. Plenty of things have changed in the past from dev blogs to release. Such as the JA 37 flares. Unless your suggesting we should also take those away?