Smin1080p

This is a German owned and operated F-4F, piloted by a German pilot. Its wearing USAF markings because its attached to a training squadron:

Never?

Because its not in any way the same.

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

Server stability has nothing to do with how many game modes we have.

There is no reason to retire modes that people play and enjoy and have been apart of the game from nearly the very beginning with no gain to be had other than loosing players by removing the mode they play. Given the popularity of RB, this is a very illogical idea you suggest.

Who owned the missile is irrelevant.

The aircraft could fire it, did fire it and is also supported in the aircrafts pilots manual and weapons manual, so the developers concluded it was reason to add it.

It's the F-4F (early) German Phantom.

Probably in the ocean at a guess? That tends to be where you find ships.

The fact the last two May updates have had large Naval content like a new tree is more coincidence than a yearly cycle.

Go back to 2018 and it was the Xbox launch along with a lot of new top tier tanks, which also happened to be the start of Fleet CBT and in 2017, Regia Aeronautica, the Italian air tree launch.

We did mention it in a Q and A and as the developers have said, as we have also said, its too soon to talk about it right now. We cant give details on something there is not details to give.

Nobody ever said any timeframe at all for the French Navy.

I have no idea where you got that from, but it wasn't us.

All we have said so far is its too soon to even talk about a French Navy.

Far too early.

I mean reporting using the data sheet as a reference is fine.

If the report is only using game code, then yes. If it has enough substance of other material then its fine.

Providing they can actually physically use it and its also supported by some form or source material, then its always been open for consideration for the devs.

Maus, E-100, IS-7, Object 279, Object 120, Etna, Bi, La-174, Su-11, Su-9, HSTV-L, STB-1, ST-A1 / 2 / 3, ITP M1, Ho-229, G.91YS, Tempest Vickers P, XA-38 are just a few vehicles that themselves never even made it

The datasheet is fine.

This has never been a requirement or factor in weaponry in game. I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

50% of the content in game was not available to pilots / tankers / captains "on duty". You are making up requirements that have never existed to the game and then trying to claim everyone that points out this to you are the ones taking some strange form of gymnastics.

Its very clear you dont agree with the F-4F getting these missiles, thats entirely fine. You have made you point. But the standards you are cre

Before this weekend: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6675-special-award-for-record-breakers-en#:~:text=Together we can do more,new%2C cosmic heights by mankind.

121,784

This weekend I saw it go as high as 130,490 something, but didn't see the final value. We will find out soon

Thats due to massively different tree sizes and things to research. You cant really compare air and ground trees to Naval.

Only ones based on data mines which are not accepted by the devs. We have not had any since.

Its not even an argument.

Its not that the Soviet PFM didn't fit the R-13M, it physically could not. The sources we have show it simply did not have the capability to mount the missile as a Soviet PFM.

The F-4F not only could fire AIM-9J as confirmed by its manual and weapons manual, but actually did use it in the USA.

No sources have been presented to us that a Soviet PFM manual supports R-13M, or a weapons manual or anything other than an

We do listen as far as possible, but this topic is not the whole playerbase and even this topic has many people that disagree.

To claim we do not listen because we did something we said from before the event we would do because you personally disagreed is a little over dramatized view of the actual situation.

Ok, if you want to call it something else, thats fine too. But it still does not belong here

If you want to Wishlist / predict / fortune take / tarot card / guess / draw things out of a hat or do literally anything that is not based on an actual rumour, datamine or proper lead (no, self made rumours do not count), then please take it to the correct thread:

You know the rules perfectly fine by now. Please dont pretend you dont.

This is the same standard for ordinance vehicles have had since the start of the game. Its never been about geological politics or real world transpiring situations. Half the vehicles in game never entered service, never fired a round, never shot X shell, never flew more than 5 times. The F-4F does not break any existing rule and has not created a new one.

Should we also start limiting the amount of Me 262s that can enter a battle because Germany also had fuel shortages? Or take away all the Maus ammo that it never fired?

Soviet PFM + R-13M = Not actually ph

Lets keep the wishlisting in the wishlisting topic please.

Giving it AIM-9E would not solve anything. Since fundamentally its still lacking AIM-7 and several other payload options.