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?
If it’s fake how come I can see videos and pictures of it functioning and exploding in non-descript locations in a various region of the globe?
It’s not magic. As much as I don’t like it, it’s the intentional design of the relikt blocks to stop KE rounds. The numbers they use may be inflated, but they are so the numbers the manufacturer gives. When the US stops being secret about its stuff, we can use those numbers too. But unfortunately a lot of stuff is being pushed into the “classified” zone, where we either don’t know or can’t publish what we do know. Russia is not very good at keeping things Classified. The US is. Simple as.
I struggle way more with Leos than T-series. Unfortunately for the Leo crew spacing and placement are very advantageous unlike in the T-series tanks. Unless you are talking about the Leo 1s in which case, why.
Yes they are too tanky. However thanks to the twin rotor design technically they don’t need a tail to fly straight.
I cannot argue with this. But I think overall on WT Data Project the 11.7 Ruskis perform worse than 11.7 Germans.
Again, I’m not saying Russia isn’t strong. It is, and much stronger than the US I would argue. But what you are saying is blatantly false or uneducated, which leads to problems overall.
kamov twin rotor design doesnt allow it to be fully operational irl like it does in WT
not to mention the electronics in tail snap point that would make it basically unuseable and at best allow pilot to land safely, not to continue fighting and doing 360 rolls
leopard a7 has almost no crew spacing? they are very tight in the turret and even if you dont one shot it it wont be able to retaliate and you have time to reload and kill it
I would love to hear your opinion on crew spacing in the BVM then.
But it does allow it to keep flying and steady. Which is all you need in WT to get kills. Because none of the stuff is modelled, on ANY Heli (not exclusive to the Kas, you know).
Assuming you both A. Aren’t side on B. Penetrate and C. Knock out both gunner and commander. You’d be surprised how much that doesn’t happen. Plus, taking an extra shot is an extra shot. I’d rather have the one-shot kill of the T-90 from pretty much anywhere then need to take 2-3 shots to kill the 2A7.
it wouldnt fly steady if it was modelled correctly
and you most likely wont one shot a t90 because your shot will somehow end up on its era or get blocked by putinium driver/fuel tank or just pass through ammo without detonating it
No helicopter is modelled correctly. You can have this if every other Heli gets remodelled, which is an inherent nerf to all of them.
I haven’t had this happen to me in a while. Especially at top tier. Unless you are aiming at an already wild angle or hit something like a fuel tank (which also absorbs shots on every other tank) then it doesn’t happen often enough for it to be any less consistent then any other tank at the BR.
If you have proof of these, submit them to Gaijin as a bug report. And don’t pretend like Russia has no more rounds to add. I can think of 3BM42-2, 3BM48 and 3BM59 are three examples of rounds more powerful than 3BM60 that aren’t in the game yet.
But even if NATO had vastly superior ammunition to Russia IRL (which, admittedly is probably true), under what justification should it be added to War Thunder? (IE, what tanks should get it, and why?)
The Leopard 2s (and 122s) are already the best tanks at top tier by far.
The Abrams has the best firepower in the game, because it has the 2nd best round in game, as well as a 5 second reload.
The Challenger 3 and Ariete, while weak, don’t underperform because of their firepower.
In fact, the only countries that struggle with firepower at top tier are the Russians and Chinese (longest reloads and worst rounds).
Are you saying the best tanks in game should be further buffed? I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot, if that happened, you’d be crying “rUSsIAn BIaS”.
i dont have any legal documents, and I’m not going to cry about russian bias, I’m just annoyed that tanks arent getting their available ammunition types because another doesn’t have anything to rival it other than the OBJ 292 which is really damn fun to play
I find that it is perpetrated more by high tier NATO players because they want to have the best vehicles. Or they are making excuses for poor performance.
be careful everyone, there are German mains in the chat that argue the M1 Abrams doesn’t need any improvements. they go around to every forum about the m1 Abrams and hound everyone in chat with mediocre positives that suggest its overpowered. they even go as far as making everyone feel stupid and unimportant in the most polite manner.
meanwhile, they go back to posts about the leopards being heavily underpowered and they need critical buffs to be almost competitive. but when you look at their service records in their profiles, you’ll find they have considerably more time played in germany than they have in american. in addition, if they have played american, they’ll have more time played in any other american vehicle aside from the M1 Abrams.
i won’t name names, but they are here in the forum. including other forums that argue the same thing.
careful not to be influenced by their biased propaganda and stay true to the idea that the M1 Abrams needs better ammo.
Considering the anemic damage of M774, M833 probably would have saved me at least one probably two in the engagement at ~3:00 with the T-80U in the following replay, the only reason I got so far is because the first T-90M almost completely whiffed with BM-60, and said T-80U had a GLATGM loaded for whatever reason (seriously, why take a 28x GLATGM, 12x HE & 3 APFSDS loadout? ) and aimed for the very edge of the turret cheek instead of the UFP, mantlet or doghouse.
Considering the rest were shot in the side / rear M833 wouldn’t have made that much of a difference.
I also wish the T-72 get better ammunition to offsets its terrible reverse speed, I’ve lost count on how many times I died due to reverse speed, I think the 9.3 T-72 needs 3BM42 bro it will compensate for the poor reverse speed, and the 10.3s ones need 3BM46 because I don’t know how to play it at 10.3, I always die bro sometimes no kill, must be the tank suck.
I went looking at other tech trees And I was surprised by how prevalent DM-33 / 3BM42 & equivalents actually are at 10.7 & 10.3 which completely invalidate the turret armor, let alone the rest of the schema of the basic M1, well past 2km.
An additionally contributing factor is that there is a fairly small quantity of vehicles and lineups in the 9.7~10.3 range, so getting even partial downtiers are fairly rare, which makes things worse since facing opponents that might actually struggle to deal with your armor is near non existent, and even then they still have HE-FS (e.g. 3OF26) & GLATGMs (9M112) that still reliably one shot via the doghouse.
Honestly having looked at what other nations have available to them in the 10.x ~ 11.7 bracket I’m not even sure that M900 would be enough.
Which is nice, as M1 or 2A4 were never really armor focused vehicles.
Vehicles that have armor as their focal point, such as T-tanks and copies are actually more affected by the fact you can see high powered rounds at that BR, as it’s nullifying one of their biggest pros.
I’m not against M1 with M900, I’m only against M1 with M900 at 10.7.
