Your argument is completely null and void. Entirely. These are excuses.
The Mig 15 has a 1:10 KDR. 10 deaths for every 1 kill. This is a fact. No amount of excuses will change this. They never had a positive kill rate, ever. They got dunked on.
The middle east excuse is just that… Pakistani Pilots in F16A’s went 10 - 0 vs USSR Soviet pilots. Not some middle eastern pilots. In fact the Middle Eastern pilots defeated the Soviet pilots more often than not.
F16’s are 76 : 1 in combat. They have never been dominated by Migs. They downed 1 single F16. And lost dozens in return. Those are the facts.
It is only representative of russian bias. Migs have never dominated anything. They all have negative kill rates in combat. No amount of excuses will change the FACTS and the data. The only reason they are good in game, is because NATO nations are held back.
The Mig 29SMT entered service only months before the F22 did. The F22 with Aim-9X and AIM-120s.
We don’t have the F15, or F18, or F22 all of which were in service when the Mig 29SMT came about. The only reason it is good in game is because they are hold the rest of NATO back.
You think the Mig 29SMT would stand to reason vs the Eurofighter Typhoon with ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Iris-T, Aim-9X etc… No it wouldn’t but here we are with Britain with a 1988 fighter vs the Mig 29 SMT at 2004 and people saying “years don’t matter for balance”… Tell that to the people trying to keep up with their 1980s Tornado and 1968 designed Viggens…
The only reason russia is good in the game, is because they hold everyone else back on some falsehood. I would love to have gotten a JAS 39 Grippen (Iris-T, Aim-9X, and Aim-120s). I have my Swedish tree just sitting and waiting for the day. But it has to sit and wait… and wait… and wait… Until what? Its DOA because they launch the SU-57 FoR BaLaNcE…
Went from 6-1 to 10-1? At least stay consistent dude (I saw you just edited the earlier post, you are fooling no one). It’s basic knowledge that the the K/D ratio between F-86 and MiG-15s flown by Soviet pilots is 1 to 1.3, and the MiG-15 definitely did not have a negative K/D ratio considering how many bombers and older fighters it shot down.
" A recent RAND report[73] made reference to “recent scholarship” of F-86 v MiG-15 combat over Korea and concluded that the actual kill:loss ratio for the F-86 was 1.8 to 1 overall, and likely closer to 1.3 to 1 against MiGs flown by Soviet pilots.[65] However, this ratio did not count the number of aircraft of other types (B-29, A-26, F-80, F-82, F-84…) that were shot down by MiG-15s." that’s straight from the English wikipedia, is not too hard to get informed on it.
Pakistani F-16s were shot down only attack aircraft (mostly Su-22s), not fighters and the Soviets could not engage them most of the time because they stayed in pakistani territory. Despite that one Pakistani F-16 (confirmed by Pakistan themselves) was lost, some say by Friendly fire, some claim it was downed by a MiG-23MLD, but either way those F-16s were pushed back by MiG-23s (and no Soviet MiG23 was lost in Afghanistan in Air to Air, let alone MiG-29s).
That’s the most bs sentence I have heard on this forum so far (maybe second to one guy 2 year ago claiming B-29s could outturn fighters, but that’s how much this sentence is crap)
East German MiG29As from 1982 with their ability to pull tight turns and the R-73s clubbed USAF F-16Cs, that’s also a fact.
Now replace the few MiG-29As Serbia had with 1982 F-16As and replace all the fighters NATO had with 1990s MiG29Ms… tell me who is going to win
When MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots they always had good results minus some exceptions, and even if they didn’t this doesn’t make the aircraft necessary bad, as other factors are very important on the way real life fights turn out (just look at Ukraine, do you think that their old MiG-29s are comparable than modern Su-35s or instead it’s the way those aircraft are employed that makes the difference). If you want to keep spreading BS on the forum no one is going to stop you, just remember you are just contributing to make war thunder’s community more toxic than it already is
Yep, my point exactly, it’s so many biases clustered up into one massive pile of shit it’s starting to become unreal lol.
Makes grinding and playing the game while expecting at least a bit of balance just get thrown out the window.
At least the economy is somewhat better now, although it still sucks compared to how it was in 2015-2016.
by your logic (since the F-16C in game is from 1991 with 2006 features) it is fine to add the MiG29M then, that has all the features the SMT has with 2 extra pylons, capability to carry 6 radar missiles (R-77 included), MUCH stronger engines, no thrust loss at low speed thanks to enlarged intakes and Is also over 500Kg lighter than the SMT.
Not sure to be honest lol, the only real advantages the Su27 has over the MiG29M are fuel capacity and 2 extra ir missiles. Extra range on the radar is almost useless as maps are not big enough and we know where targets come from (plus Zhuk is a great radar). Instead the 29M offers a lot more flight performance than the Su-27s… still Su-27 is from 1987, so according to his way of thinking it should be added as well lol
But beside jokes all nations should be equal in my eyes, i love Nato planes as much as love Russian planes so i dont like to see one side suffer because of wrong decisions.
100% agree. This update only made things worse. F-16s are clubbing everything, we have a MiG-29 that right now is carried ONLY by op missiles that WERE NOT NEEDED and that way it’s both not fun to fly and Is also not fun to fly against. Right additions were F-15A, something like a MiG21-93 or MiG23-98 for the soviets just so USSR mains won’t cry they did not get anything and then something for Sweden and Britain.
Only addition I am happy for is the Barak 2, as Israel really needed something with sparrows
Korea is 6 deaths per 1 kill the overall life of the Mig 15 is a 1:10 KDR. Make all the excuses you want, she got stomped. No excuses in the world will change the FACT that the Mig 15 has one of the worse kill to death ratios of all jet fighters ever.
You can’t change the facts. The facts are, that plane resulted in the deaths of an absolute ton of pilots with no kills.
Pushed back by. But not lost to. Again. They got beat by Middle Easterners in F16s. They didn’t manage to shoot down a single one. Not one.
I know the truth is uncomfortable for you sympathizers but it doesn’t change the facts.
Mig 21s were 0 and 4 in the Soviet Afghan War.
Mig 23s were 0 and 3.
They shot down 0 aircraft and lost 7 Migs. Again, 100% loss rate. The facts are the facts, the Migs always get stomped.
0 kills.
Mig 29 in Kosovo went 0 - 6. Again 0 kills.
I will give you this. Mig 29s did shoot down two Cessna Skymaster Humanitarian planes in Cuba. Two humanitarian planes (Brothers in Rescue). So they do have a positive kill rate vs humanitarian aid aircraft.
Not the Migs. Because they never do. Migs do not in their entire history have a positive kill rate. Never. This is the hard truth. Our F16s are 76 and 1. 76 Kills and 1 Death in our history. The Migs? lolol… They are just minnows. How well did they do in Kosovo? Lets look… 2 Mig shot down by an F16, 4 Migs shot down by F15s… How many kills again for the Mig 29? Oh thats right, they got dunked on.
Lets do it. Lets bring the Mig29M in and let us have our F22 Raptor. The Migs can’t even see them on RADAR so that should be fun. It will be like Kosovo all over again. The Migs get dunked like they always have.
Yes, the F-22 is the best fighter ever made… feel relaxed now? Great!
I’m sure (actually not so sure given your previous posts) you remember you complained about the introduction of a 2006 plane while the F-16C was from early 1990s… turns out (surprising I know) that the F-22 is from 2005… but I thought you were saying the problem here was introduction date, so feel free to elinghten me (/s).
Since you seem to know so much stuff and your K/D and “facts” have absolutely no source for them, but you seem so sure they are right, then I suggest you inform people that have written a lot of aviation books, people that made military aviation reports etc… I’m sure they all would be happy to listen to what you have to say, since it seems you have waaaay more knowledge than everyone else with your FaCtS.
BTW remember to also tell Mikoyan Gurevich engineers to hire you, they would certainly make a lot of money with your help :-D
The problem is not introduction dates, when we get 1 for 1. Mig 29 is a plane that came about in 1983. Vs 1960’s and 1970s planes. Mig29SMT and F22 came about the same time. How it should have been done:
Are you even aware that the MiG 27 and Su 24 ARE NOT FIGHTERS??
Also F-16 and MiG-23 Is way easier than that, just add the MiG23ML/MLA (1976) and F-16A (1977)… I imagine you wouldn’t complain that F-16A won’t have radar missiles while the MiG23MLA has R24Rs right? Also both F-15 and F-14 since we are in the 70s should only receive AiM7F as SARH, which in this case would be the real AiM7F (not a copy of the AiM7M) that did not have the inverse monopulse seeker and would be useless at lower altitudes.
With the way air RB works right now the F-18 would perform basically like a Yak141 that rates a bit better, they are both slow to be really equal to the MiG-29 and an F-16 with sparrows… still for introduction dates this one would work.