1- This is about Abrams.
2- Stingers are currently better than Igla by far.
2a- You proved no Russian bias by bringing up an American missile that’s better than Soviet equivalent.
The claim about Russian Bias was never siloed to some specific set of examples, and the claim of not existing is very broad and so easily disprovable statement, due to that fact.
If you needed one though compare how much they have resisted implementing any sort of improvement to the hull NERA array, and compare that to the planned IRST & HMD on the Yak-141, or various limited run / prototype Thermals being present on Whatever T-80 configuration that is relevant.
Ok? That doesn’t make them properly implemented.
So can you explain the following erroneous performance? Stingers don’t seem to be doing all to well.
Let alone the already linked explanation of the oversights made in the MANPADS Article? or their use of Soviets sources and flawed assumptions that with all of 10 minutes of looking were dispelled.
2 Likes
Obligatory Igla Moment
1 Like
You brought up Yak-141 thus your entire post is null and void.
“Yak-141 was introduced with the same exact rules as Kikka and Ho-229.” doesn’t prove anything other than Gaijin has been consistent with those rules for 12 years.
Again, Stinger isn’t Russian, so it can’t be used as proof.
Glad you agree with me that Stinger is currently incorrect though.
HESH and HEAT are receiving their own overpressure mechanics next patch.
You’ll be able to overpressure T-80BVM’s by hitting their turret fronts as well.
Also, personally I wouldn’t be so open about complaining about T-80BVM’s whilst using the (shared) best tank in the entire game, it’s a bit embarrassing.
Feel free to try that with me.
1 Like
You’re going to explain how right?
Established precedent would dictate that things don’t get planned features if they existed, I don’t know if you know this by the Yak-141 did actually take flight and was tested so isn’t covered under paper designs, its closer to a prototype like the M247.
I know, so why is its performance in game based of Russian sources as per the Devblog, then. Not actual documents
Source: “Техническая подготовка командира взвода ПЗРК 9К38 “Игла””, И. Акулов, В. Байдаков, А. Васильев, 2011.
Its about the seeming arbitrary double standard, that is quite easily observed in a few explicit instances.
3 Likes
Read entire posts before responding.
Cause you would know that 1: Yak-141 was not introduced in 2012 as you imply [it’d have to be added before Kikka and Ho-229 to “start” the precedent that Kikka and Ho-229 actually started.]
And 2: Kikka and Ho-229 introduced these rules, not Yak-141.
So you’re either posting lies, or genuinely believe Yak-141 was introduced to the game in 2012.
Neither makes you look good.
you have only 7 battles with t80bvm and 86% wr
you only played leopard 2a6 and judging by your stats in vehicles you played it before t80bvm was added.
Which is irrelevant.
it isnt, leo2a6 was good before it was dominated by t80bvm thats why some people can have inflated WR with it
T-80BVM never dominated Leopard 2A6.
T-80BVM is a sidegrade to T-80U: Far less armor for a better round and T-72B3’s turret traverse.
Which T-72B3 has the most armor of the three, 3BM60, and the turret traverse being easily as good as T-80BVM.
So as I said, your point is irrelevant.
t80bvm has superior armor to t80u with its fake era
Not at all, just like a lot of my high tier vehicles, I play them quite consistently across every patch.
If I had to estimate, around 90% of my matches in the Leopard 2A6 are played during the period where the T-80BVM was added.
So AlvisWisla having a 60% winrate in his T-80BVM proves Russian Bias.
But me having 60%+ winrates in the M1A1, Leopard 2A5, Leopard 2A6 and IPM1 suddenly doesn’t count?
find me a person with 100 battles and small WR in t80bvm
LOL!
T-80BVM does not have superior armor, its turret armor is seen at 10.3 on T-80B.
And the fact you think NATO are liars about its ERA…
More lol.
relikt era gives it superior armor and NATO always overestimates russian technology, and russians always underestimate western
And you would not bring these specific examples up unless you somehow though that it was still relevant? It be like saying that the fact that M18s are impacted by Hullbreak was a bad thing, even though it has been preceded by Overpressure in its entirety.
Have any sources to back that up, at all? or relevant technical documentation that I’ve somehow managed to overlook. Even with the lie above that doesn’t actually address the issue presented.
I’d much rather have things be accurately implemented where documentation exists, and has been presented. Than have some compulsion to look good for strangers on the internet.
3 Likes
Sure.
Just a few months ago the entirety of Russian top-tier was at a negative winrate, that means thousands of people were running a winrate below 50%.
I could also ask you the same thing regarding the Strv 122, that series of vehicles have consistently maintained higher winrates and for longer periods of time than the T-80BVM has.
Furthermore, you said:
You claimed Russian Bias exists, yet here you imply that Russia was getting stomped prior to the T-80BVM being implemented.
So Russian Bias exists, but only during specific periods of time and at very specific Battle Rating ranges?
1 Like
I’m not interested in conversation with you, fake relikt stats ka50/ka52/su25sm3 and pantsir are enough to prove russian bias
‘‘I have no valid counterarguments to what you just said.’’ is what I’m reading here.
1 Like