Lmao
CAS platforms, especially at top tier, typically get access to the same set of ordinance across platforms and it’s really only dependent on airframe and how much those aircraft can carry. There’s a lot more nuance with SPAA systems, and not every system will perform the same. Take the LAV-AD for example. The stingers are not very reliable most of the time, and depending on the map and weather conditions, that capability is further diminished. Plus, since it’s a SHORAD system with a mediocre gun and missiles, it had a hard cap on what it can engage and from how far. Helicopters from under 2 miles, planes from under 3-4 miles, Drones (Predator not the scout ones) under 2 miles. The skill factor comes in when trying to account for those limitations, but you can’t beat those limitations. Using the Hydra rockets to try and achieve locks on Helicopters and Drones is possible, but unreliable. In essence, CAS gets a lot more flexibility and favorability at most tiers.
1 Like
It works against against biplanes and stuka.
Maybe - but not very often according to the stats.
That example did not support the argument of spaa being on relatively equal grounds with CAS.
CAS is so op at top tier if u see the enemy with jets/helis up (top top tier) just quit the match on death or else u are 50% chance of lmurs/kh38/29 etc.
1 Like
Free SPAA should be limited to AAA only
Of course not and I’m just saying that spaa is crap and works against crappy planes still lose against fast planes like ME-109 with bomb and lose entirely against ground units.
Your entire argument is built on a false premise: that CAS aircraft are fundamentally unable to threaten SPAA because of some supposed “1 km death bubble.” That simply is not how the game actually works.
First, gun armament between SPAA and CAS aircraft at the same BR is often comparable. Many CAS aircraft carry firepower equal to similairly BRed SPAA, and unlike tanks, most SPAA vehicles are either open-top or extremely lightly armored. Outside of exceptions like the Skink, they are incredibly vulnerable to strafing fire. Not to mention things like rockets and/or bombs.
More importantly, aircraft and SPAA can usually threaten each other at roughly the same range. In practice, aircraft arguably even have the advantage in a gunfight because of how targeting geometry works.
An SPAA player trying to hit an aircraft at 1 km has to track a target moving in full 3D space at 200+ km/h, constantly changing altitude, direction, and speed. A ground vehicle, from the aircraft’s perspective, effectively moves mostly on two axes. Tanks and SPAA do not suddenly climb 60 meters into the air within three seconds unless their ammo rack detonates.
There is also a massive speed difference involved. Aircraft generally cannot even stay airborne below ~200 km/h without risking loss of lift, while SPAA usually moves at maybe 40–60 km/h. If both vehicles are firing 20 mm cannons at each other, it is simply easier to predict where a 60 km/h vehicle will be one second from now than where a fighter aircraft traveling several times faster will be.
And that one-second prediction matters because muzzle velocity is not magic. Unless the cannon exceeds ~1000 m/s muzzle velocity, a shell fired at 1 km can easily take more than a second to arrive. During that time, the aircraft can maneuver aggressively, changing vector far more dramatically than any ground vehicle possibly can.
Ballistics also favor the aircraft to some extent. Shooting downward from altitude is generally easier than shooting upward from the ground, especially against a fast-moving target. Combined with the fact that the SPAA target effectively moves on fewer axes, CAS pilots often have an easier aiming solution than the SPAA does.
On top of that, your argument ignores that most SPAA below roughly BR 8.7 do not have proxy fuze ammo outside of exceptions like the WZ305 (or whatever is that chinese copy called). They need near pixel-perfect accuracy to reliably hit aircraft. Meanwhile, the aircraft can fire an entire rocket salvo or drop bombs and still kill the SPAA through splash damage even without a direct hit.
So no, the relationship is not “SPAA effortlessly deletes aircraft while aircraft cannot retaliate.” If anything, your argument ignores the enormous aiming burden placed on the SPAA player compared to the CAS player.
At that point the question becomes whether this misunderstanding of the CAS/SPAA power dynamic is intentional, or simply comes from not fully understanding how the engagement geometry in WT actually works.
Either way, your argument leaves out several extremely important factors.
2 Likes
Hello! Controversial topic here, I just wanted to present my views on this to everyone and see what you guys think about it. I’ll leave an explanation for each point after the point.
So, the top 3 reasons why CAS shouldn’t be in Ground Realistic:
(Made by Japanese Bias)
- CAS is just unfair.
—> I believe CAS is just an unfair addition to Ground Realistic. Why? Well, because how come it’s fair that somebody ~3000m in the air can launch an ATGM at you and you don’t even know about it? Sure, you can say:
Hide Behind a Building!!!
But no, you really can’t. My friend and I did a test where I used the Challenger 2 OES (one of the most armoured MBTs in WT), and I hid behind 2 buildings perfectly while simulating a corner battle with someone, and guess what! His guided bomb slammed straight into me despite my being in cover and being hyper aware he was there!
- CAS is just not needed in Ground Realistic.
—> No, seriously, it isn’t. In Ground Realistic, if you kill a tank with a plane, you get plane RP - not tank RP. So the only use of CAS is to just get kills, and that’s it. I mean, if you need plane RP… just play Air Realistic instead! You get way more rewards!
Oh, but it’s realistic!
So are grounded Patriot AA systems? You can’t use the “But It’s Realistic!” argument in WarThunder… there are many not-so-realistic things WT has in the game. CAS is a realistic aspect in real-life combat, yes, but there are systems in place to intercept them when they are out; it’s the reason why Russia is too scared to use its good planes in Ukraine.
Just Play AA/AAA
Seriously? Like seriously? Genuinely just don’t. You play Ground Realistic for the TANKS, not the AA systems. I don’t want to have to sit at my spawn launching missiles at people (which they can dodge if they are aware) just so my team doesn’t have to suffer with the KA-50 launching a bajillion ATGMS at them from their airfield, then retreating.
- CAS takes no skill to use.
Come on, admit it. It really takes no skill. How come it’s fair that some SU-30 can sit back at the airfield, fly up a couple of meters, fire a few ATGMS, then retreat? Or an Helicopter can just hover above the airfield, launch all ATGMS, then re-arm. Or how any CAS just fly to about 6000 metres and just fire all their ATGMS?
Oh, but AA takes no skill, too!
Really? AA takes more skill than CAS. If it’s an AA with just guns, you still have to aim pretty well to hit the shot - even with a radar lock on them! Furthermore, missile AA systems that are guided require your full attention, and fire-and-forget AA’s still require the lock, and the plane can still dodge the missiles! An ATGM is impossible if you aren’t hyper-aware of its existence.
Anyways, thank you for taking the time to read this! I look forward to reading all of y’all’s replies!
Edit:
Just wanted to say I also find it unfair how people who play WT for the ground HAVE to grind AIR to enjoy the game even when we just want the tonks.
4 Likes
Solution ?
Make sp cost for each weapon instead of a whole loadout.
1 kh38 should not cost the same as 6 of them.
Also dumb bomb should be free.
Exactly - CAS is just so stupidly OP in ground these days
1 Like
ALSO, just want to point out - I copied and pasted this from smth I made on notes AGES ago so it uses my old username
depends on br, because for up to 9.3 CAS is a need with how dogshit some of the maps are especially if let’s say a Type 16 FPS is capping a corner on B on breslau with the only way to kill him is by sacrificing tickets or to drop a 500 kilo on his forehead.
much higher then yeah it’s overkill if you are Russia or japan
1 Like
See what i propose is basically. CAS can be in ground, realistic for anything under 8.7 but above Gaijin makes a gamemode called “Combined Arms” where you get like 1.2 more RP and 1.2 more SL or smth like that but have to fight against Helicopters and Planes
1 Like
Playing fair is playing to lose.
No, it’s technically not needed, but it sure is nice having a legitimate counter to campers.
That’s just objectively false.
considering how low tier maps and high tier maps are often prone to needing CAS to dislodge someone, Karelia , Ash river and 38th are good example of this, if we get better maps then sure but most of the time the maps themselves feature a need for CAS
1 Like
The only CAS that TO SOME EXTEND needs skill are divebombers in lowtier, but planes like the YAK just ruin everyones experience and are rather annoying then actually appreciated in lowtier aswell.
I agree CAS can be annoying, deserves to be removed since it so far only ruined my experience but I can also say it can sometimes be usefull to have a Team mate who can do Air-Recon
In my opinion IF we’d keep CAS (wich I hope we wont) force them to:
A: Reserve it for Divebombers who are the only ones who NEED to go into CLOSE range (CLOSE Air Support once again)
B: Adjust what weaponary can be used by those playing as “Close” Air Support, f.e. limit it to short range Air-to-Surface missiles and with short range I mean SHORT range, maybe 300-400m at most so AA (skill less people anyways) have an actual chance of intercepting the CAS people
C: Limit the ammount of restocks they can get | Limit the time they can use their Vehicles (It happens more than once that players just stay in their Plance/Heli wtv the whole match without sometimes even contributing to the match besides being annoying background noise)
1 Like
Okay how many kills do you have on CAS - cough the stats up
The issue is that CAS then goes on to ruin the experience for everone else
which goes back to horrid map design