Tank deaths to aircraft are a very paltry sum below 9.0. Historically, the rough tally of tank deaths attributed to aircraft has sat at ~8-12%. Meanwhile, aircraft are 50% of the potential playable vehicles of the mode. When ~50% of a mode’s usable vehicles only account for ~10% of its kills, those vehicles aren’t problematic.
Furthermore…you cited what others claimed to ‘see’ as proof…but a different observation is not valid enough to even discuss? Seriously?
There are active defensive countermeasures to aircraft (SPAA, friendly aircraft and mounted weapons (especially MGs/small CNN). There are also passive defensive measures including camouflage, physical cover and simply moving. It’s simply wrong to speak as if enemy CAS has no counter play (they cannot even influence tickets).
Below the mess of 9.X+, the belief that deaths to CAS are inevitable is wholly unjustified…that’s just not how it is. The odds are if you die it’ll be to a tank, not to an aircraft, too. When you focus on not dying at all, you’ll improve your overall survivability as aircraft cause fewer deaths anyway.
“Fanatical CAS supporters” If you meant to refer to me, I’m a moderate…not even opposed to TO no less! It’s sad that TO advocates always insist on purity…even as that’s soured the community on much of what the TO crowd has said, tried and wanted.
Everything I said is simply respectful of the facts and realities as-is. Fanaticism is denying those things to buy into CAS hype…and to push nonsense like ‘ruination’ (which isn’t something that I said).
Being a tanker who flies, I’m just familiar with both aircraft and tanks (which is also good for getting a level-headed, unbiased perspective).
Plainly, CAS below 9.X has historically accounted for a paltry sum of kills (roughly 8-12%, depending on BR) consistently. As aircraft have no direct means of interacting with (capturing) zones, they have no real effect on gameplay except through killing…which means their contribution potential is limited.
Taken together, one could arguably describe CAS as relatively weak–especially given its far higher costs and more limited combat effectiveness (primarily due to ammunition)…most tanks certainly have more cost effectiveness based on their own costs and ammo loads. Recognizing these realities is factual, not fanatical.
As I stated previously, it’s very unfortunate that TO advocates continually hang themselves up on complaining about defeats by enemy aircraft rather than selling the concept of TO on its own merits. There is a big difference between pitching TO on its own potential as opposed to pitching TO ‘because CA is __’…and the near decade of inaction and languishing TO has seen now showcases it.
TO advocates can either keep howling about defeats by enemy aircraft being enemies…or they try to see TO realized by pressing the new idea on its own standing. The choice is theirs.
Dang, sorry if me, actually trying and doing something to counter CAS on capable vehicles i play on bothers you. I’m not showing this to show off, but to show that anyone can do this if one actually puts more effort on fighting back than letting CAS dominate or quit.
So KDA matters again somehow. Typical! Only when its convenient i guess.
I only played vehicles I like, like every other player here. Not all my SPAA will have good KDA and some I haven’t touched. Some KDA are already ruined because i played them just to play them. Once I decided to learn proper SPAA gameplay, I fixed like maybe 2 or 3 and some I managed to get really good KDA. I don’t play other nations a lot, but did it just for the SPAA’s, but at least enough to show anyone can get 3+ KDA on multiple SPAA.
3.14 K/D on M247
5.16 K/D on SANTAL
2.91 K/D on Bosvark
5.07 K/D on SIDAM 25(Mistral)
12 K/D on Ozelot (need more games, but Im not a German Main)
etc…
I read its impossible to get good KDA on SPAA. I just did this to show it is. I can easily go back and ruin the KDA and play them just to play them.
this is true when youre balancing the game with statistics. but this is a videogame, and people play it for enjoyment.
it doesnt matter what “low” percentage of ground vehicles get killed by CAS.
those vehicles get killed by something they cant do anything against, and thats it
SPAA is only effective when youre the SPAA, and some tanks dont even have MGs (or have MGs that do nothing, dont have angles, etc)
there is practically no defense against CAS unless a teammate SPAA gets a lucky hit, which wont happen, and shouldnt be required to happen
drones are overpowered when youre doing the scouting with markers thing, so they should count as air kills until (if) that gets fixed
This does make me wonder about this statistic earlier:
@warrior412 earlier claimed that CAS only accounts for “10% of tank deaths.”
How is this statistic obtained given that official gaijin statistics conflate both Air RB/SB and Ground RB/SB statistics for a given plane?
If I had taken say my Mustang Mk Ia statistics for instance, one would see that I have killed a whopping 5 ground targets with it and died 41 times.
Did I get these statistics flying GSB or ASB?
Did I get those 5 ground target kills on player tanks or A.I targets in Sim EC?
Did I die so many times to so little ground targets because of SPAA being effective or because I was an idiot and got greedy and got third party’d while dogfighting a Bf109 on the enemy side of Ruhr EC?
Same notion to my Yak-9K stats in GRB/ARB - are my 37 deaths to 29 ground kills because I died to SPAA or because I took it to ARB and died because I suck at dealing with furballs?
From whence does @warrior412 claim that only ~10% of ground vehicle deaths can be attributed to air vehicles in GRB or GSB? We don’t have any easy to scrap statistics for such.
Even scraping my per session statistics on Statshark, the only thing I see is:
Zero information if I had had flown my Mustang Mk Ia in ASB or GSB.
From all we know of this data, the 4x20mm hispanos are terrible in GSB! CAS weak.
(Truth is: I’ve never flown my Mustang in GSB and only got ground kills with it is because I couldn’t find anyone to shoot, I had a booster activated so I went on shooting PzIVs and Ostwinds on EC Tunisia to give me some score while waiting for players to join the match.)
The stats he is citing are from an old website that gathered data from users.
Same site showed that:
When it comes to ground vs air balance, ground units were destroyed by air 6219 times, while air units were destroyed by ground 3939 times, meaning that as devs confirmed in one of the news, the balance is shifted towards the air having the upper hand.
Not to mention the funny thing that according to this data ~24 % of air deaths was caused by “accident”.
And not to mention that data was gathered long before overpressure mechanic was added which again shifted the balance more toward the air.
So again, even the “historical data” showed that aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.
Tell me what can SPAA do beside shooting CAS. What else can they do if the enemy doesn’t have CAS or have actually decent CAS up.
Tell me in a situation where the game can be balanced by spawning in another tank to have a chance to win the game but there are CAS up. And you are in a SPAA , what else can you do ?
I listed every reason why SPAA are bad a lot of time , few of them were direct respond to you , you simply ignore other people and shove an entire 17 minutes of your gameplay down my throat with you killing mentally dented CAS player that can’t be bother to dodge the obvious SPAA. Or even scout the ground before going in.
You keep yapping as if I didn’t list my reason to why SPAA are bad and most of the time it is not worth spawning them in. You literally ignored the problem to yap some random stuff. I don’t care , one person actively being a knuckler dragger and decent at SPAA does not change the fact that CAS are still stronger than SPAA
Just because some dented CAS player give you easy kill and you repost it on here does not change anything.
The problem with CAS go way deeper into GRB than just “Spawn SPAA and get good bro , I can do it meaning you can”. SPAA gameplay are faulty and boring as hell. Not to mention the reward for taking down CAS.
Then address all of these Yuuki, if not next time if you see me. Just ignore me , your dented spot is caving in everytime you speak
Unsuprisingly, you’re not calculating aircraft effectiveness correctly because you’re not counting half of their deaths…which is exaggerating their results wildly.
7,351 aircraft were lost to destroy 6,219 ground units (and some fraction of the aircraft killed). Aircraft had (at best) around a 1:1 exchange ratio and perhaps not even that. If we count the 2,361 bail outs/crashes recorded, the exchange rate drops even further.
That number is not terribly surprising or wild, as most normal games’ results even today showcase.
Players crash or leave their aircraft often, because aircraft are harsher on the controls than tanks (aircraft don’t just run into buildings or obstacles and stop like tanks do), aircraft deal with compression and structural failure (tanks do not) and aircraft do not enjoy tanks’ ability to heal from any non-fatal damage anywhere with FPE and parts unlocked (aircraft must return to base). If you don’t think these things will result in a substantial reading, you don’t understand the data, game or both.
Yeah…it’s doubtful that’s had any substantial effect on the data. Aircraft are more likely to get killed by their own bomb blasts than tanks a few lengths away from them nowadays. That’s why you have to set delay fuses–aircraft face more of a threat from overpressure than ground vehicles do.
Incorrect…just as you misread the data years ago, you have again.
The biggest item that table validates is the reality that tanks have pretty much always accounted for 10x as many tank kills as aircraft do and that this has never really changed, despite all of the CAS hype.
Gaijin does balance the game by statistics (which does have its flaws)…and, generally speaking, players do have some means to counteract the enemy, be it a ground unit or aircraft.
As defeats go, few people are happy to see them happy or experience them…but that’s just how it is. When you’re about 7-12x more likely to be killed by a tank than an aircraft, that’s where the real threats are coming from. (In WT, you can often get away with flat out ignoring the skies in favor of focusing on ground threats based on this probability.)
While I’d say the ability for SPAAs, MGs and other measures to work is higher than you suggest, it really only exemplifies the importance (but not requirement) of a well-rounded team.
Beyond that, there’s always the Fighters First concept to level the playing field by providing even more defensive options.
Manual counting nowadays (@PointyPuffin did some last year at scale too) and historical data where the data filtration was decent.
Beyond that, you are correct–data filtration is lackluster.
Sorry but again, You are using wrong numbers as I’m comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.
Maybe for You, I have much different experience so if You have any data to back up what You are saying, feel free to show it!
Of course it has as anyone playing the game understand the difference when You can destroy an open-top by simply aiming the bomb/rocket near it and when You can’t.
Please tell me from where You gather data, because as I have shown:
Ground units died to the air: 6219 times
Air units died to the ground: 3939 times
In simple terms 6219 > 3939
Meaning that much more deaths was caused by air when it comes to the comparison than other way around.
If You fail to read the data shown or still try to use air to air deaths, then should we count ground to ground deaths too?
But again no one talks about how mode is made because this is why only around 10% of the deaths of all ground units historically was caused by the air.
We are comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air or ground vs ground ones. If You want to discuss how mode is made, then that is not a good place for it.
The statistics show aircraft results as 7,251 aircraft lost for 6,219 ground units killed.
In a strict reading of the results (presuming that all aircraft were intending to hit GFs as some claim–which is a reach), that’d mean aircraft have a negative exchange rate.
You must consider all causes of deaths to assess effectiveness, not just your chosen ones.
I pretty much never leave my aircraft (except, rarely, at the base) and seldom crash (unless it’s an unserious night).
As I stated…I was referring to matches as a whole considering other players’ results. You need to read the whole post before replying…you missed that part.
Open tops are relatively few compared to armored vehicles, whereas the effect of bomb blasts is pretty much universal to aircraft (their type doesn’t matter, only their position does).
All of the data I cited came from that same table and is plainly visible. If you do not comprehend what was said with the figures that were plainly provided by that table and commentated on by myself…it cannot be helped.
You failed to read the data, I dealt with it just fine. (If you need assistance with it, contact me via PM…don’t bloat the thread.)
Incorrect, particularly given how the hype portrays matters. If the hype was correct (or even reasonable), aircraft should account for a far greater percentage of tank deaths than 1/10th of what other GFs account for.
That the data historically and now manually collected and observed doesn’t reflect anything close to what the hype portends (below the mess of 9.0+) signals CAS hype has always been exaggerated. (Based on the 2017 data about 5.7 during all of
The statistics show that 3939 aircrafts were lost to ground units while 6219 ground units were lost to the air.
Meaning that overall aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.
This is what I’m saying from the beggining.
When talking about effectivness against certain type, You don’t count other types in, that is just misleading, otherwise we would need to count ground vs ground stats too.
So You should have something to back it up, still waiting!
Considering most of SPAA at lower B.R. are open-top that makes a huge difference.
The only one that failed something, is the one not being able to understand that we are talking about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.
You can’t decide if an air unit is effective agains the ground by how it deals with the air. Otherwise spitfires would be the best planes around.
Sorry but I know what I’m discussing.
If You are going to still argue that the number 3939 is bigger than 6219, or that air vs air stats are being discussed, there is no point in further replying. I hope @Forum Moderators are going to clean the topic further on if the replies are going to be just in order to bloat and destroy the topic.
Data is visible for everyone
So anyone wanting to see what historical data showed about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, can see it.
