FMA Ia.58 "Pucara" In the German Tree (discussion)

[OsO73 491]

 

 

Its no big news that the Pucara is coming to WT, specially since it was leaked during the first Dev server, but what are we supposed to expect of this Plane? Well i can certainly give an idea about its performance and armaments....

 

A bit of a Historical background:

Spoiler

The concept we see on the Pucara is born out the asymmetric style of warfare seen on the French in Algeria or the US in Vietnam among other guerrilla engagements in the early 60s. The Pucara took a lot of inspirations from other aircraft around the globe, mainly from the American OV-10 Bronco and then the french MS.1500 and SE.117 Counter Insurgency prototypes, initially the Concept was a single engine plane (like the MS.1500) but failed as its carrying capacity was very limited. On the other hand, FAA officials also looked at the Bronco as an easy solution, but after relations with the US worsened, the Bronco was out of the question.

 

The requirements would be officially put during the mid 60s, this would be:

• STOL capable
• Max payload of 1500kg
• Internal armament composed of 20mm cannons and machine guns
• Armor protection for the crew
• Enough Ground clearance for a MER/TER

 

Time would pass until the design would be consolidated and work on a full sized glider was authorized and the construction of a single seater (by none other than Reimar Horten) wooden glider was done at FMA. The glider took to the skies in late 1967, with another joining in 1968, the same year that testing would show positive results and a powered prototype would be ordered. The construction of the powered prototype took 11 months, and said prototype would take to the skies in 1969, the aircraft was a bit different than the Pucara we all know, as its cockpit was different and its engines were Garret TurboProps instead of the French Astazous.

 

The first prototype (AX-2 and then AX-01) was first shown in 1970, at the same time FMA overhauled its last Gloster Meteor (thats a weird mix), nonetheless the Pucara would be shown various times as the other pre-series units would roll out of FMA, the pre series would be the final design of the aircraft, getting the more powerful French engines and the redesigned cockpit, the pre-series would end in 1974 with the roll out of the first Series units. Near this time the aircraft would be given its name "Pucara", meaning fortress in Quechua for the amount of armament it could carry.

 

From this point on, the Pucara would be engaged in insurgencies as soon as the machines were rolling out of FMA (some pre-series would see action), the standoff between Chile and Argentina during the Beagle crisis, the Falklands/Malvinas War and later in the 90s in the Sri Lankan civil war and in the Colombian war on drugs. The aircraft was retired from service in 2019 although a modernized unit is used for testing.

 

 

This is more of an idea about the plane's story, there is a lot more to tell in detail.

 

 

Performance in game:

According to the research i did and what the Manual of the aircraft states:

 

Speed:

The maximum speed the aircraft can support is around 750 Km/h

 

Payload:

A maximum of 1000kg in the central pylon, while having a maximum of 500Kg in the wing pylons

When it comes to the guns available in those 3 Pylons:

• LAU-60 (FFAR) Rocket pods (2+3+2)
• T-10 Rockets in special supports (1+1+1)
• General Prupose bombs (3+6+3), this bombs vary in weights of 115/125/130/250Kg (there are more, but i need to confirm)
• Guided MP-1000 missiles (similar to AGM-12)
• Other (Gunpod, naval mines, etc)

 

Clearly the place for this aircraft is Ground RB and a great option for the German 6.3 lineup (Jpz-4/5, M-41, Tiger IIP, Ferdi, Coelian)

 

Controversies & Shenanigans:

Of course its apparition its a bit controversial, as its the first argentine aircraft to appear in the game...but this aircraft lacks any ties to any of the nations available in game. The only nations that had close hand on it were France and the Uk, France provided the engines for it, while the Uk provided other parts for its construction. The Uk also captured 6 examples of this aircraft after the 1982 battle of the south Atlantic, 1 of said examples was painted in RAF colors and used for a 25Hr test against ground and aerial targets in mock exercises, the aircraft itself was always used in clean configuration and never got armament mounted or used, as most of it wasn't delivered to for the evaluation. 

 

After knowing all of this it ended up in Germany, given the presence of other Argentine vehicles like the TAM series and...the SK-105 (it had to be argentine?).

 

The other "issue" is that, some people think this vehicle is not fit for the game or it shouldn't be added, with the main argument being the year the plane was built or adopted into service or how it does perform.

My answer to this is simple, one can't judge this aircraft with the same bar the rest of the planes get, mainly because we dont have any counter insurgency aircraft in game...hell at least we got a few turboprops. Its clear that finding a spot for this aircraft in WT is not easy, but much like in ground, tanks are adjusted by performance, not by its year (thats why the Jpz-4/5 its at 6.3, or the the italian Fiats are also at similar BRs while being from the 60/70s). And the Pucara's performance falls for a 6.3/6.7 BR, knowing how many bombs or rockets it can carry..+the x2 20mm and the x4 7.62s. Its possible that after the Pucara, planes like the Bronco or other COIN aircraft would be added. But still very impressive to see Gaijin add this aircraft. 

 

Model In game:

Spoiler

As we all can see, the model isn't nearly close to its completion, so its possible that its gonna be finished by next year(?)

 

 

What do you guys think?

Edited December 12, 2021 by OsO73

[HerrSektor 3,840]

I agree, this should be in german tech tree

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,499]

As lovely as the aircraft might be, the issue is the dubious potentiality of where this would be placed. At best, it would be a premium aircraft for some nation. Given Argentinian ties to Germany, that seems like a decent possibility and the safest bet. Just to make more money in a reasonably inoffensive manner, I could easily see this being added to the UK as a captured vehicle. However, this might not be the case given the aforementioned point about the clean configuration.

[yoyolast 1,710]

I think in general it's good to see this aircraft in the game because it's a good testing bed for cases like the R3 is for ground just in air modes. Would be very interesting to see how this aircraft plays out in the game.

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,499]

On 29/12/2021 at 13:08, yoyolast said:

I think in general it's good to see this aircraft in the game because it's a good testing bed for cases like the R3 is for ground just in air modes. Would be very interesting to see how this aircraft plays out in the game.

With the way that you put it, I would figure it would be a good way for Gaijin to learn how to best implement light attack aircraft with greater performance differences relative to their payloads and armaments like the OV-10 and A-37 or even more robust attack aircraft like the A-10.

[yoyolast 1,710]

4 minutes ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

With the way that you put it, I would figure it would be a good way for Gaijin to learn how to best implement light attack aircraft with greater performance differences relative to their payloads and armaments like the OV-10 and A-37 or even more robust attack aircraft like the A-10.

I didn't even think of how the A-10 fits into this, you are right this is actually a pretty good test-bed for that implementation as well. In general there were a lot of "coin" aircraft over the years developed by many different nations that had significant importance in various conflicts and are worth exploring in War Thunder in some way. Many purists will and are saying it will "ruin the WW2 immersion" for them... I struggle to see how this is not already an invalid excuse for the existing matchmaker where planes like the Me 163 can face MiG-19s and aircraft like the A6M5 can face the P-59A.

[Ein79 5,752]

7 hours ago, yoyolast said:

 In general there were a lot of "coin" aircraft over the years developed by many different nations that had significant importance in various conflicts and are worth exploring in War Thunder in some way.

"worth exploring"...when you read the historical papers on COIN planes, have you really dreamed of testing them vs WWII props? 
 

7 hours ago, yoyolast said:

fought or potentially could fight.Many purists will and are saying it will "ruin the WW2 immersion" for them... I struggle to see how this is not already an invalid excuse for the existing matchmaker where planes like the Me 163 can face MiG-19s and aircraft like the A6M5 can face the P-59A.

It's not only time traveling Pucara from mid 70's in mainly WWII matchmaker, but also fancy idea of Argentina as a part of WWII German team...but besides the immersion controversy:

The Pucara spam at 6.3 together with 6.0 Ju-288 spam will spoil even more the state of matchmaker between 5.7 and 6.7. 

But there is a hope - repetitive annihilation done by fighter-mains teams vs such bomber-attacker combo teams might teach some that this is not a good idea in AirRB. 

 

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,499]

54 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

"worth exploring"...when you read the historical papers on COIN planes, have you really dreamed of testing them vs WWII props? 
 

It's not only time traveling Pucara from mid 70's in mainly WWII matchmaker, but also fancy idea of Argentina as a part of WWII German team...but besides the immersion controversy:

The Pucara spam at 6.3 together with 6.0 Ju-288 spam will spoil even more the state of matchmaker between 5.7 and 6.7. 

But there is a hope - repetitive annihilation done by fighter-mains teams vs such bomber-attacker combo teams might teach some that this is not a good idea in AirRB. 

 

The best solution I can come up with is splitting ARB into random battles and “‘historical’” battles with maybe a rotation of various reference historical conflicts for RB so you can’t just take any random time traveler. Granted, I’d probably keep the BR spread tight if possible for that. I suggest a regular rotation rather than constant because Gaijin doesn’t want dedicated split gamemodes for RB, AB, and SB from what I understand. They are concerned about queue times and such so I figured that it’s not an idea that will get past Gaijin’s queue time test otherwise. I’m just spitballing ideas though. I haven’t put in much thought into this really.

[Ein79 5,752]

5 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

The best solution I can come up with is splitting ARB into random battles and “‘historical’” battles with maybe a rotation of various reference historical conflicts for RB so you can’t just take any random time traveler. Granted, I’d probably keep the BR spread tight if possible for that. I suggest a regular rotation rather than constant because Gaijin doesn’t want dedicated split gamemodes for RB, AB, and SB from what I understand. They are concerned about queue times and such so I figured that it’s not an idea that will get past Gaijin’s queue time test otherwise. I’m just spitballing ideas though. I haven’t put in much thought into this really.

Yes, at least some % of the matchmaker presets could be set with semi-historical immersion in mind.

 

The various quirks of the current War Thunder matchmakers would be much more bearable to me if at least 3 of the 9 matches were semi-historical, with meaningfully selected factions, vehicles and maps.

 

 

[yoyolast 1,710]

6 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

The best solution I can come up with is splitting ARB into random battles and “‘historical’” battles with maybe a rotation of various reference historical conflicts for RB so you can’t just take any random time traveler. Granted, I’d probably keep the BR spread tight if possible for that. I suggest a regular rotation rather than constant because Gaijin doesn’t want dedicated split gamemodes for RB, AB, and SB from what I understand. They are concerned about queue times and such so I figured that it’s not an idea that will get past Gaijin’s queue time test otherwise. I’m just spitballing ideas though. I haven’t put in much thought into this really.

 

[OsO73 491]

13 hours ago, Ein79 said:

"worth exploring"...when you read the historical papers on COIN planes, have you really dreamed of testing them vs WWII props? 

Have you actually read any?

 

Counter insurgency aircraft began with WW2 aircraft, exploiting the better aspects of this aircraft to be used as ground attackers...things like Shorter take offs from unprepared airstrips, easier to teach pilots and to mantain, extremely easy to modify or adapt better armament and the fact that they were simpler and more effective than the fast jets than were currently on use. 

 

Example of this include..

The French AT-6 Texan, A-26 and F4U used in Algeria. The American A-26s used in vietnam.. just to name a few 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Time after this aircraft had already proved themselves quite effective at CAS/COIN missions, a few companies went to develop Exclusive COIN designs, and thats were aircraft like the Pucara or Bronco were born (along quite a few designs). 

 

 

Also, lets not forget one of the most well known cases...

Spoiler

The COIN mustang series

 

If we suddendly get some WW2 birds in COIN roles...would you be complaning about immersion?

[Ein79 5,752]

1 hour ago, OsO73 said:

Have you actually read any?

 

Sure, including some monograph and articles about your beloved Pucara, though the whole COIN category is not something that has ever fascinated me.

 

1 hour ago, OsO73 said:

Counter insurgency aircraft began with WW2 aircraft [...] If we suddendly get some WW2 birds in COIN roles...would you be complaning about immersion?

As I wrote in another thread, I have nothing against mixing late WWII with close post-war designs - especially if they grow out of the original WWII designs. 

And although I don't see a special need to introduce the AT-6 Texan or A-26 variants adapted to the COIN role into the game, their presence would not be particularly bizarre in AirRB 

But Bronco, Pucara or even more modern designs as Super Tucano are much more intrusive and alien to "WWII AirRB" regardless if they fit there perfomance wise.

Similar problem with super light category as Saab MFI-17 Supporter or SF.260W Warrior, which are from 60's-70's, but performance wise fit to early bi-planes of WWII at best.

 

[OsO73 491]

30 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Sure, including some monograph and articles about your beloved Pucara, though the whole COIN category is not something that has ever fascinated me.

Up to personal opinion ill say...some like it, some dont..

 

30 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

As I wrote in another thread, I have nothing against mixing late WWII with close post-war designs - especially if they grow out of the original WWII designs. 

And although I don't see a special need to introduce the AT-6 Texan or A-26 variants adapted to the COIN role into the game, their presence would not be particularly bizarre in AirRB 

But Bronco, Pucara or even more modern designs as Super Tucano are much more intrusive and alien to "WWII AirRB" regardless if they fit there perfomance wise.

Similar problem with super light category as Saab MFI-17 Supporter or SF.260W Warrior, which are from 60's-70's, but performance wise fit to early bi-planes of WWII at best.

Well, its a thing that depends on the vehicle, thats why the French corsair doesnt get its historically accurate SS.11s, or the A-26s getting their more modern bombs from the vietnam war. 

 

Its not always about flying perfomance, but also their armament...thing that actually makes them harder to balance... Some of this ,like the Bronco, MFI-17 and the Pucara Charlie, having been armed with guided ordinance (bullpups, ATGMs or AAMs). But the most common examples werent, and currently fit in game.

 

Also..WWII AirRB? where the Banshee from the Korean war faces the Horten? or where the 262s face the Skynight?  or the french post war Jets ??

If thats not bizzarre for you...

 

i can understand that you want that specific immersion, but..come on, you cant deny that the current MM is not semi-historical at all (and the discussion on the other thread has been very clear about that)

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by OsO73

[Ein79 5,752]

9 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Its not always about flying perfomance, but also their armament...thing that actually makes them harder to balance... Some of this ,like the Bronco, MFI-17 and the Pucara Charlie, having been armed with guided ordinance (bullpups, ATGMs or AAMs). But the most common examples werent, and currently fit in game.

 

Disabling certain types of weapons has never been a problem for Gaijin. So lets imagine Gaijin is going to introduce MFI-17 with simple, unguided weapon as gunpods and small rockets only. At what BR would you place it with it's speed about 250 km/h? Tier I, BR 1.0 or 1.3? To be free kill for bi-planes as I-15, Gladiator or Cr.42?

Thats why separate COIN tree, which would be analogous to the Helicopters tree, is in my opinion the optimal solution that would allow such planes to be introduced without worrying about how they fit the AirRB.

 

9 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Also..WWII AirRB? where the Banshee from the Korean war faces the Horten? or where the 262s face the Skynight?  or the french post war Jets ??

If thats not bizzarre for you...

The further you go in the jets era, the more BR compression - incomparably more than on typical prop BR's. But even there, when it comes to early jets it's it is rather a soft transition between WWII and Cold War era, more like 3-4 years post-WWII not 20-30 years time travel jumps. 

The case of Me 262 C2 and Me 163, especially Me 163 B-0 at funny BR 8.7 is actually the awful exception when it comes to such a long time travel between WWII and more modern tech era, not the norm. 
 

[OsO73 491]

22 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Disabling certain types of weapons has never been a problem for Gaijin. So lets imagine Gaijin is going to introduce MFI-17 with simple, unguided weapon as gunpods and small rockets only. At what BR would you place it with it's speed about 250 km/h? Tier I, BR 1.0 or 1.3? To be free kill for bi-planes as I-15, Gladiator or Cr.42?

Thats why separate COIN tree, which would be analogous to the Helicopters tree, is in my opinion the optimal solution that would allow such planes to be introduced without worrying about how they fit the AirRB.

The ones that have this armament issues are often the exception, since the first Broncos, almost all the Pucaras or the French ones have nor guided ordinance. They shouldnt be limited at all..

 

22 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

The further you go in the jets era, the more BR compression - incomparably more than on typical prop BR's. But even there, when it comes to early jets it's it is rather a soft transition between WWII and Cold War era, more like 3-4 years post-WWII not 20-30 years time travel jumps. 

The case of Me 262 C2 and Me 163, especially Me 163 B-0 at funny BR 8.7 is actually the awful exception when it comes to such a long time travel between WWII and more modern tech era, not the norm. 

let me see... 

 

Germany Tier V, 15 vehicles + 4 prem/event/squadron

• X7 Me-262(s)
• x2 Me-163(s)
• x2 He-162
• Ho-229
• x2 Arados
• Il-28
• The mig-15
• The F-84F
• x2 G.91

Well...from the 19 vehicles we have in tier V, 14 are from WW2 in a span of BRs between 6.3 and 8.7, a range where almost all of them face post WW2 vehicles (late 40s, 50s, 60s..etc). (and welll facing things like the Skyhawk, F11, G.91s, the banshees, the F9Fs...sure..whatever you say.

 

BTW: take a look at most nations rank V and youre gonna find almost all vehicles being post war (50s/60s etc). Germany lacked this, and you see it in the radical change between the 162 to the mig or in the 262/163 to the Sabre..

So yeah, its the last thing they had and then the cold war stuff. So...not a lot of immersion there my friend. 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by OsO73

[jd_hog77 332]

1 hour ago, OsO73 said:

Up to personal opinion ill say...some like it, some dont..

 

Well, its a thing that depends on the vehicle, thats why the French corsair doesnt get its historically accurate SS.11s, or the A-26s getting their more modern bombs from the vietnam war. 

 

Its not always about flying perfomance, but also their armament...thing that actually makes them harder to balance... Some of this ,like the Bronco, MFI-17 and the Pucara Charlie, having been armed with guided ordinance (bullpups, ATGMs or AAMs). But the most common examples werent, and currently fit in game.

 

Also..WWII AirRB? where the Banshee from the Korean war faces the Horten? or where the 262s face the Skynight?  or the french post war Jets ??

If thats not bizzarre for you...

 

i can understand that you want that specific immersion, but..come on, you cant deny that the current MM is not semi-historical at all (and the discussion on the other thread has been very clear about that)

 

 

I don’t think anyone has made a bug report French Corsair missing the SS.11’s. As the A-26, the ones that served in Vietnam are a different variant than the ones we have in game right now. 

[Ein79 5,752]

35 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

The ones that have this armament issues are often the exception, since the first Broncos, almost all the Pucaras or the French ones have nor guided ordinance. They shouldnt be limited at all..

 

Seems you didn't understand.. - regardles of guided weapon or not: where would you place in AirRB an aircraft from 60's-70's with 250 km/h top speed but with quite a decen weapon to kill ground targets?

At what BR would you place planes as MFI-17? 

 

35 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

 

let me see... 

 

Germany Tier V, 15 vehicles + 4 prem/event/squadron

• X7 Me-262(s)
• x2 Me-163(s)
• x2 He-162
• Ho-229
• x2 Arados
• Il-28
• The mig-15
• The F-84F
• x2 G.91

Well...from the 19 vehicles we have in tier V, 14 are from WW2 in a span of BRs between 6.3 and 8.7, a range where almost all of them face post WW2 vehicles (late 40s, 50s, 60s..etc). (and welll facing things like the Skyhawk, F11, G.91s, the banshees, the F9Fs...sure..whatever you say.

 

Planes see each other not because of being within Tier, they see each other if they are +-1 BR range. 

Which plane from 60's see Arado B2 or He 162 which are BR 6.3 and see 7.3 as max? Or Me 262A1/u4 or Me 262A2 which are 6.7 and see 7.7 in worst case scenario?

And the Pucara, the plane from mid 70's is going to be 6.3 like He 162. It will see 5.3 props in downtier and 7.3 jets from 40's in full uptier.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ein79

[OsO73 491]

24 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Seems you didn't understand.. - regardles of guided weapon or not: where you would place for AirRB an aircraft from 60's-70's with 250 km/h top speed but with quite a decen weapon to kill ground targets?

At what BR would you place planes as MFI-17?

Well, given that vehicles are ajusted by performance as a whole...dont you think the missiles have a big impact on the BR they would sit at?

 

24 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Planes see each other not because of being within Tier, they see each other if they are +-1 BR range. 

Which plane from 60's see Arado B2 or He 162 which are BR 6.3 and see 7.3 as max? Or Me 262A1/u4 or Me 262A2 which are 6.7 and see 7.7 in worst case scenario?

And the Pucara, the plane from mid 70's is going to be 6.3 like He 162. It will see 5.3 props in downtier and 7.3 jets from 40's in full uptier.

i Picked up tier V because thats where the Pucara will sit.

 

i Gave you this huge selection across 6.3 and 8.7 that are from WW2 and face post war aircraft. 

 

Idk what you try to prove dissmising the 7.3/7.7s or the 163s....the thing here is that there should be no issue (aside from your precious immersion) that would make the Pucara or any of the dedicated COIN aircraft difficult to balance. 

 

27 minutes ago, jd_hog77 said:

I don’t think anyone has made a bug report French Corsair missing the SS.11’s. As the A-26, the ones that served in Vietnam are a different variant than the ones we have in game right now. 

Well maybe because its not a bug?, and it would mean that the aircraft should be put at a higher BR? (and the A-26...still was a WW2 plane)

Edited January 11, 2022 by OsO73

[jd_hog77 332]

19 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Well, given that vehicles are ajusted by performance as a whole...dont you think the missiles have a big impact on the BR they would sit at?

 

i Picked up tier V because thats where the Pucara will sit.

 

i Gave you this huge selection across 6.3 and 8.7 that are from WW2 and face post war aircraft. 

 

Idk what you try to prove dissmising the 7.3/7.7s or the 163s....the thing here is that there should be no issue (aside from your precious immersion) that would make the Pucara or any of the dedicated COIN aircraft difficult to balance. 

 

Well maybe because its not a bug?, and it would mean that the aircraft should be put at a higher BR? (and the A-26...still was a WW2 plane)

Missing armament requires a historical bug report, unless there’s official word from the devs stating it wasn’t added due to balance reasons. As for the A-26, the ones that served in Vietnam, we’re modernize, which included, new more powerful engines, new wings and hard points and the wing guns where removed.  

[Ein79 5,752]

30 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Well, given that vehicles are ajusted by performance as a whole...dont you think the missiles have a big impact on the BR they would sit at?

 

Didn't you notice for all these years in WarThunder it's just up to Gaijin if Devs give all the weapon aircraft had historically or not?

Missiles are not the problem because Devs may implement given aircraft without them. So again MFI-17 or any similar, light, slow COIN plane implemented without missiles - tell me the BR for them? 1.0? 1.3? 1.7? 

 

 

30 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Idk what you try to prove dissmising the 7.3/7.7s or the 163s the thing here is that there should be no issue (aside from your precious immersion) that would make the Pucara or any of the dedicated COIN aircraft difficult to balance. 

  For the slightest moment I didn't think of Pucara as of something hard to balance. 

I'm just pointing out that Pucara moves down to 6.3 and +-1BR the anachronistic mess we have mostly from BR 7.7 upwards. And it does it in an epic fashion merging WWII with mid 70's, not with 50's as we have so far for this BR bracket. 

Bf 109K, Ta-152, He 162 in one match with COIN plane known mostly from it's Falkland War episode. That's why Pucara in AirRB pisses me off, not because I don't like Pucara or I'm afraid it will not be balanced. 

More and more areas of AirRB infected with this disease - more time travelers and much longer, 20-30 years travels.

And for what? These COIN planes are maybe somewhat needed in tank matches as CAS, while in AirRB they will just spoil the teams further.  

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ein79

[OsO73 491]

7 minutes ago, jd_hog77 said:

Missing armament requires a historical bug report, unless there’s official word from the devs stating it wasn’t added due to balance reasons.

A case like this happened, where they confirmed that the Mirage IIIC wasn't getting its earlier missiles (MATRA R.511 and 510) since they would be useless in the game. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Didn't you notice for all these years in WarThunder it's just up to Gaijin if Devs give all the weapon aircraft had historically or not?

Missiles are not the problem because Devs may implement given aircraft without them. So again MFI-17 or any similar, light, slow COIN plane implemented without missiles - tell me the BR for them? 1.0? 1.3? 1.7?

Just like you say, its up to gaijin to decide...and they kinda decided in putting the Pucara at 6.3 for the time being...

 

8 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

More and more areas of AirRB infected with this disease - more time travelers and much longer time travels

That sound more like your opinion but ok 

9 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

And for what? These COIN planes are maybe somewhat needed in tank matches as CAS, while in AirRB they will just spoil the teams further.  

Thats up to the player to decide, want to play in Air or Ground RB, its their choice. 

 

 

 

[CodyBlues 323]

I do find it strange that “time traveling” machines becomes a issue when it comes to Germany.

 

any other nation and people say “it’s not that good, get over it”

[Ein79 5,752]

7 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Just like you say, its up to gaijin to decide...and they kinda decided in putting the Pucara at 6.3 for the time being...

 

I expect it even lower if it will be spammed in AirRB and clapped hard by any fighter BR 5.3 included. Stats may make it 5.7-6.0 soon. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

That sound more like your opinion but ok 

 

Yeah, pointing out that's somewhat ridiculous to see Bf 109's and Fw 190's with stuff from mid 70's in one team..it's just an opinion.

 

 

7 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Thats up to the player to decide, want to play in Air or Ground RB, its their choice. 

Unfortunately yes, and players with tanker mains mindset in AirRB is one of the worst thing you may have in your team just next to troll-squad with biplanes in AirRB jet team.

 

[OsO73 491]

5 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

I expect it even lower if it will be spammed in AirRB and clapped hard by any fighter BR 5.3 included. Stats may make it 5.7-6.0 soon. 

Its not even released and it'll be lowered??  come on man!

 

6 minutes ago, Ein79 said:

Unfortunately yes, and players with tanker mains mindset in AirRB is one of the worst thing you may have in your team just next to troll-squad with biplanes in AirRB jet team.

Unfortunately...? 

[Ein79 5,752]

4 minutes ago, OsO73 said:

Its not even released and it'll be lowered??  come on man!

 

Yes, I expect it being lowered after introduction unless Gaijin will give it fantasy performance. It's an aircraft with 500 km/h top speed in level flight...BR 6.3 means there are late WWII top performing props, superprops and early jets around. With AirRB markers it will be just an easy target.