said the ragebaiter itself.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I would love to see someone get a kill with a Boeing 747-400
1 Like
If you want to believe like that, in your reality, go on.
Comparing the Strike jet, which has two Snecma engines, with a late-war piston fighter that has a Bristol Centaurus engine and historically had speed as an advantage…
You were the one who was playing the 'it is worse than early Mustang ’ trope, no?
If you really think it is worse than early Mustangs such as A-36, P-51, P-51C, then it is your skill issue. :/
Literally nobody thinks the sea fury is good, and if you want some further fact, you can talk to Ilcr0ssil the best sea fury player in game, who which I beat in 1v1 with the P51C and my own sea fury. If you get killed by it, (which you barely played either) as shown below, you will also die to zeroes and to f-5s for bein’ bad.
Anecdotal fallacy, and off topic. Blowing your own horn about War Thunder skill does not help with your 'lack of logical capability '.
Anecdotal fallacy is still more relevant than antiskill fallacy, you’re telling me i’m bad while our stats literally prove the opposite, and lack of logical capability might be YOUR issue as once again I told you to learn how to dogfight in the Harrier as it has been shown that viffing on it is not just a gimmick but the win button against literally anything else that dares to engage. I viff on the yak41 to take on eurofighters, and I viff on the AV8B Plus to take on Gripens. If I can win on su25 against f-5s why are you unable to win with harriers (more versatile, better thrust weight ratio) against idk, other stuff? you also carry aim9g’s and aim9l’s that VASTLY outdo R60M’s.
Another brick of wall, which is nothing but self-praise. Seriously.
Since when is stating what YOU can do but refuse to because you follow tropes “self praise”? I’m literally pointing out what everyone can do but YOU refuse to do despite still calling me bad, YOU are the brick of wall stockholm, i’ve been telling you FOR YEARS to put a remedy to your issues caused by YOUR stagnative personality: Play fighters, learn how to viff, focus on missiles, play passive idk. DO SOMETHING instead of just complaining. I complain after DOING EVERYTHING. Learn the difference.
AV-8B Harrier 2 is also a Harrier but not ‘those harriers’ which cannot dogfight well even with VIFF.
AV-8B has a bigger wing, which gives a better turn ratio. Think about why SHAR FRS.1/AV-8S Late are 11.0BR while AV-8B(NA) hits 11.3BR.
You only flew with AV-8B and rationalise your bollocks against Harrier I.
I flew the AV8B enough to spade it and 1v1 in Africa custom battles because how good most attackers actually are at dogfighting. AV8B sits at a BR where most people use missiles and would refuse to engage. Funny thing that most of my kills have been with the gun, as i’ve literally maxed out the performance mods and took the aim120s only before the africa 1v1 server managed to ban the use of missiles in the CB. Literally 90 percent of my kills on av8b are gun kills.
This is why I also fly out the Su25 mostly when playing Russia.
It is like claiming P-47 is a great turnfighter because A-10 turns well and both are Thunderbolts. Ffs.
Never claimed so, the P47 literally outturned anything below the Yak9UT before the flap restriction nerf. FeetPics, Ilcr0ssil, Cork, Defyn and Nuka showed this very well, even beating 109 K4s in the vertical.
You were the one who told me that “Fly a fighter instead, it is your fault who unlocked Su-17 instead of MiG-21”. So I am telling you, mirroring your older take, that
“If you don’t like Yak-130 and Alpha Jet. Then it is your fault that you didn’t unlock a fighter. Does MiG-15bis beat both? Then you should’ve unlocked MiG-15bis instead of those attackers.”
I’m not mirroring my older take, because i’ve never had issues with attackers when dogfighting on them. My only isues are with Yak130 and Alpha Jet on being overtiered and overrated trashe.
I tried years before in yak38m and disliked it, moved on and never came back for it. I coped, seethed and took the MiG line instead.
You were the one who mentioned that
Alpha Jet A is 7.7 at best.
It was stupidly overBRd back then when it was only 8.7.
It was your take. Not mine.
Whether I said it or not still I asked the Alpha Jet to go back to 8.7, same as how I said that the sea fury performed like a bad 4.0 yet asked for it to go back to 5.0 after getting bumped from 5.3 to 5.7 because you know why? because the four people who played it actively actually do good in it. Call it self praise, but such event happened when I mained it.
They need to hand the trophy over to you.
Ofc LLMs are always making words, hallucinating about things.
Just as you do, and at least LLMs run a Google search before doing some shite to check their take.
TLDR; Both you and LLMs are strawmantrons but you are the worst one compared to others
See, this is a real double narrative, you swingle your way into what suits you most because you are unable to grip onto an idea and defend it, so instead you throw ad hominems and gaslight people making their adaptability seem like double standards.
Because their IRL role isn’t a supersonic fighter, which is designed to fight against enemy main air force jets.
We both know that Gaijin’s classifications are bollocks
But somehow you cherry-pick whichever you like.
You are the one who cherry picks man. YOU are the one telling me “i shall now cope with attack aircraft and their bad FMS” and when I point out that attack aircraft are actually pretty darn good you then say I am self praising myself.
Look up; I already explained why it is bollocks up there.
AV-8B ≠ AV-8A/C/S, SHAR.
Except a teeny lil detail
The Av8B is overtiered due to armament
The AV8 Earlies are undertiered due to large playerbase amassing bad stats.
Projection and another strawmanning. You cannot make words without an ad hominem card, no?
Reminder that you were the one calling me a shitter by first of your comments on my posts.
Of course I won’t. AND I know you will yap to me if someone else flags it, then frame me as petty. Even if you don’t have evidence that I flagged it or not.
You are already dropping tons of strawmanning, so adding one another wouldn’t hurt much.
You’ve been flagging my posts for ages, until I actually challenged you not to flag my post. YOU are the one throwing strawmans saying that all attackers are bad or all f5s are op . If according to you I have a skill issue, then how on earth am I so good on the planes I cry about? Why do I do so good on planes that according to you have no place in air RB as air superiority platforms? cause I literally have better stats on attackers than on dedicated fighters.
Also, I see no reason why I shouldn’t use my best option: ‘flagging the rule-violating post and letting mods handle it, for saving our time and a better community’, and need to waste my time. Unless I want to make you silent. :/ But fine. I won’t flag it.
With this you’re showing you actually flag my posts because someone countering your points with valid arguments is enough to make your blood boil in anger. There is no rule violating, just making you mad cause you’re an unadaptable human being.
You remind me of the time where I was mad at zeroes cause my yaks couldn’t turn fight them, then someone called Dead9876 now Dead__Inside taught me that yaks are actually faster and climb a lot better. It took me years and I made him mad out of desperation due to my stubbornness.
Eventually I got to play the zero, see it sucked and learn to apply what enemies did to me to win against me. I still didn’t like yaks so i played Lavochkins. Now I like both and I deal with zeroes.
I fly the Alpha Jet and other attackers, the Alpha Jet sucks. You fly the Harrier, it may suck, idk, but reminder it all started when you called me bad for thinking the f-5c sucked and you expected to win against it on a Harrier, (which you can).
You should learn to do the same.
I think Sea Fury isn’t THAT BAD.
I mean, it is not great compared to more famous planes such as Bf-109K-4, Tempest Mk. V, Spitfire LF Mk.IX (was), or Yak-3U. Counterparts which were on 5.7BR.
But mate, is it 'worse than early Mustang '?
Hell no. Are you telling us that Whitewalls are filled with dorks who love to spend taxpayer’s taxes into rubbish bin?
If we consider that ‘Sea Fury’ was really worse than Early mustangs such as P-51(Alison with 20mm) or P-51C, just for arguing’s sake(3.7~4.0BR), do we really need to replace Seafires with those?
I would’ve agreed with you if you compared it with P-51H-5. But with Early mustangs??
Is English not your first language?
Mate, your cope about Sea Fury sounds like an American demagogue against Hawker Siddely, to destroy reputation.
Haha, no, your anecdotal fallacy cannot prove that Sea Fury is worse than P-51C, no matter pilot’s skill is.
If I call my niece and let her play Eurofighter Typhoon and I play Harrier GR.3 and I shoot her down, does that mean EFT are worse than Harrier GR.3 so it needs to hit lower than 9.7BR? No.
Also, historically, Sea Fury controlled by Lieutenant Peter “Hoagy” Carmichael fragged a MiG-15 during the Korean War in August 1952, Four Sea Fury vs 8 MiG-15, and scored a MiG-15 kill. Does that mean Sea Fury is a better plane than MiG-15? no.
Is there any proper footage of I dies to zeros and f-5s which can be considered as evidence?
‘I barely played Sea Fury’ does not mean ‘I turnfight against Zero and F-5.’
You are strawmanning again.
Well, if you are dropping wild takes like that, how can I assume that you have better stats than me?
And second parts sound like projections of yours. All you are doing here against me is strawmanning and ad hominem.
It is quite funny that you are trying to teach me how to dogfight in a Harrier. When you don’t know shit about Earlier Harrier variants, and different betwen those. It is not [Nah I’d win button] on Harrier 1.
It really is helpful when you need to fight against F-16 while flying with GR.7, but it is completely not helpful when you need to fight against F-5E or F-4S when you are flying with SHAR FRS.1
You are overestimating the Harrier 1’s fuselage because you never flew with those. Those became a little bit better than before after FM buff thanks to a guy named Matrix, but it still has lots of weak points compared to other counterparts. Best served for missile slinger.
Hearing a ‘brick of wall’ take from a guy who necroposts things up and complains about Alpha jet approx two years(if we consider your former post about BK-27, which was held in 2024), feels unique.
You flew with AV-8B+, which has AIM-120, and are stuck at 13.0BR, and you have literally no experience with the earlier variant, but you want to tell that every Harrier can easily beat up a dogfight by VIFF.
Mate, this isn’t a Falkland simulator, and VIFF of non-Harrier-2 harriers are gimmicky. Better than never when you are dying trying, but you cannot expect the great performance which you experienced from Harrier 2.
Yeah, you seriously have a reading capability problem.
Claiming Harrier 1’s capability by Harrier 2 experience is in the same bulshitness of Claiming P-47 is a dogfighter by A-10 experience.
“But they are also harriers” = “But they are also thunderbolts.”
Yes, you are not mirroring your older take; I am the one who is using your older take to expose your double standards.
Back last year when we were arguing about F-5C, you coped that it need to be buffed, and I said no because some attacker jets which I plays in UK TT cannot stand against F-5C, and you just said ‘play fighter instead, it is your fault that who didn’t unlocked fighter.’
Jaguar GR.1/1A, Harrier GR.3, Buccaneer S.2/2B, SHAR FRS.1/(Early), all of which are classified as strike aircraft in game, while SHAR IRL were fighter jets.
So, I decided to play the ‘it is an attacker trope’ which was your card, which you played before.
Really, you believe that I am not able to grip onto an idea and defend it?
Nah, I am gripping it tight. “According to Boeing747Cultist last year, Boeing747Cultist shouldn’t complain about his Alpha Jet and Yak-130.” Pretty simple.
‘Tiny little detail’
Which BAC and McDonnell both worked on, and BAE eventually made an MOU with McDonnell for the AV-8B.
And no.
Some AV-8Bs exist and are not overtiered Compared to older sisters. AV-8B(NA) and Harrier T.11 on 11.3BR. I heard they are not great in Air RB, but they are having only +0.3BR difference compared to Sea Harrier FRS.1/AV-8S Matador, which uses same four AIM-9L but has drastically worse FM by smaller wing, remaining 11.0BR.
Do you have specific proof that I flagged your post for ages? Such as ‘leaked info from forum mods’
Without those, your claim about that is just ad hominem with no proof, and strawmanning.
Mate, listen, you are literally vomiting ad hominem and passive-aggressive cards in almost every comment which you write.
And well, is it true that it is an easier option to deal with trolls, no?
“Just flag them if they violated the rule, and let mod sorts them out.” Just like “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
But I am here because I want to see you become silenced, personally.
And well, see, I said that
And you are doing it rn.
I probably should’ve just flagged your every comment as you wanted. /j
“If someone hates you with no reason, then give him a reason.” right?
No no no no. You are remembering it differently.
IIRC, When you were discussing “Why F-5C needs buff”, I said no because I believe no jets in downtier survive against F-5C if it gets buff, especially those Harriers. Then a guy named Pangolin showed up and aided you and claimed that 'F-5C is a bad dogfighter and it got beaten in almost everything except A-7," and he did an anecdotal fallacy just like how you did; his claim came from “he fragged a bad F-5C player when he was playing with AV-8C.”
Then I asked you, “Are you having that level of bad takes? Do you really believe F-5C is a worse dogfighter than Harrier just like he does?” and you dropped that line: "Stop bringing attacker on fighter topic.
I didn’t expect to win against F-5C on a Harrier unless we are discussing historical practice flights.
9.7~11.0BR Harrier I variants literally have no chance against F-5C/E.
And back to the original topic, I won’t mind about buffing Alpha Jet themselves if those really are underperforming like zeros. I am disagreeing with you because of your double standard from ‘past you.’
I think Sea Fury isn’t THAT BAD.
I mean, it is not great compared to more famous planes such as Bf-109K-4, Tempest Mk. V, Spitfire LF Mk.IX (was), or Yak-3U. Counterparts which were on 5.7BR.
The sea fury would be more popular if it wasn’t such an abhorrent aircraft. It can’t accelerate, it isn’t even much faster than the competition, and it can’t dogfight. But the most important thing: it’s maneuvering energy retention is horrible.
Just because you ran around third partying people or dogging on furballs doesn’t mean the sea fury is good. Don’t worry, that’s literally how I padded the stats on my sea fury cause the thing can’t do anything other than that. The moment someone knows you’re there you’re shafted.
But mate, is it 'worse than early Mustang '?
Yes it is. Same speed, worse accel, worse MER, worse damage tolerance, worse flaps.
I would’ve agreed with you if you compared it with P-51H-5. But with Early mustangs??
Is English not your first language?
What does english not being my first language have to do with what planes should I compare the sea fury with? I compare the sea fury with whatever flies closer to it. Wanna know another aircraft that flies like the sea fury? the fw190 A1. Oh wait, IT’S ANOTHER 3.7.
Even the P47D28 RAW DOGS that thing in every single metric. EVEN IN DOGFIGHTS.
Mate, your cope about Sea Fury sounds like an American demagogue against Hawker Siddely, to destroy reputation.
You’re sounding mental right now.
Haha, no, your anecdotal fallacy cannot prove that Sea Fury is worse than P-51C, no matter pilot’s skill is.
If I call my niece and let her play Eurofighter Typhoon and I play Harrier GR.3 and I shoot her down, does that mean EFT are worse than Harrier GR.3 so it needs to hit lower than 9.7BR? No.
It’s not an annecdotal fallacy, i literally have videos of that. YOU and a few other people who just love to digress, are the only ones saying that the sea fury is not that bad. Nobody likes it, and they play it mostly because it’s a high dopamine rush whenever you manage to get a kill on something that bad. I’ve never died to a sea fury, i even faced VVC members on it and never ever let them get close to me, I’ve won dogfights against it while on 109s, and I lost dogfights against 109s while being on sea fury.
Also, historically, Sea Fury controlled by Lieutenant Peter “Hoagy” Carmichael fragged a MiG-15 during the Korean War in August 1952, Four Sea Fury vs 8 MiG-15, and scored a MiG-15 kill. Does that mean Sea Fury is a better plane than MiG-15? no.
Except the sea fury in real life had 3700 horsepower and a turbocompressor while the sea fury we have in game is at “peace settings” plus added BS.
Did you know that the J7W1 Shinden in real life was a climbing monster with eurofighter-like maneuverability? Why is it in the game so similar to an inbetween of the D9 and the A5 190s?
But it is me the one having double standards on whether the game is accurate or not.
Is there any proper footage of I dies to zeros and f-5s which can be considered as evidence?
‘I barely played Sea Fury’ does not mean ‘I turnfight against Zero and F-5.’
You are strawmanning again.
You didn’t see any footage of me being bad in the F-5C yet you claimed happily I was a shitter for saying that the F-5C is bad.
//strawmans
mate of the “it’s an attacker and all attackers can’t deal with fighters” trope tells me I’m straw manning.
The supposed fallacy I’m making is called a priori, “you say this then you also do this”. A strawman is a bold generalization without any feasible proof.
Well, if you are dropping wild takes like that, how can I assume that you have better stats than me?
And second parts sound like projections of yours. All you are doing here against me is strawmanning and ad hominem.
What assumptions dawg? the player cards don’t lie.
//Ad hominem
Who’s the one who sounds like an LLM? Also, YOUUUU are the one calling me bad for saying the f-5c is bad.
It is quite funny that you are trying to teach me how to dogfight in a Harrier. When you don’t know shit about Earlier Harrier variants, and different betwen those. It is not [Nah I’d win button] on Harrier 1.
What does knowing about the harrier history have to do with basic fighter maneuvers, positioning, lag pursuit, pure pursuit and lead pursuit? Not saying I know when to perform each, but saying I know my instincts good enough to do what players that use their brains do. Your plane can’t go fast but has ridiculous low speed maneuverability and thrust, and you’re going to face a plane that is known for being very good when fast but takes it’s time to get there and sucks at slow speed? Bait it into low speed verticals. Example: Su25 and F-5C.
You dying to F-4s on a sea harrier has more to do with the fact you are a 9.7 airframe with 10.7 armament on 11.7 lobbies.
Same as how the F-5C is a 9.7 airframe with 9.3 armament fighting at 10.7 where the rest of people are around 300kmh faster than you while carrying 4 plus 30g missiles or have pegasunicorn flight models that don’t care about physics
You are overestimating the Harrier 1’s fuselage because you never flew with those. Those became a little bit better than before after FM buff thanks to a guy named Matrix, but it still has lots of weak points compared to other counterparts. Best served for missile slinger.
We can say you are also overestimating the F-5 nor Alpha jet’s airframes because you didn’t fly with these either. What of a missile slinger can the f-5C be at a BR where most people are missile slingers? Borderline same for the Alpha Jet.
Hearing a ‘brick of wall’ take from a guy who necroposts things up and complains about Alpha jet approx two years(if we consider your former post about BK-27, which was held in 2024), feels unique.
See this is a real ad hominem. If you don’t bump relevant topics up the game masters won’t do anything. The Mauser was ass in 2024, it’s still ass in 2026, it has been ass throughout the period, therefore I bump* (necroing is when it’s no longer relevant).
You flew with AV-8B+, which has AIM-120, and are stuck at 13.0BR, and you have literally no experience with the earlier variant, but you want to tell that every Harrier can easily beat up a dogfight by VIFF.
If an AV8B plus can win a Gripen by viffing why wouldnt an Av8A airframe win against a plane that gets mogged by anything in the BR the moment it gets below mach 1? You know that the f-5c is a dogfighter and it needs to DOGFIGHT and if you’re slow it will need to get slow unless of course it wants to spend a whole minute two circling the target while spamming W to avoid becoming a sitting duck.
Yeah, you seriously have a reading capability problem.
Claiming Harrier 1’s capability by Harrier 2 experience is in the same bulshitness of Claiming P-47 is a dogfighter by A-10 experience.
“But they are also harriers” = “But they are also thunderbolts.”
Yet another strawman from the ragebait master. I claim harrier 1’s capabilities in concordance to the performance of the aircraft in the BR it sits at the same way I claim that the AV8B can do similarly against the dogfights of top tier planes. Except a lil detail, the av8 at 11.0 climbs as good as a Su25 while the AV8B is a hairdryer compared to something like just a F-16.
Yes, you are not mirroring your older take; I am the one who is using your older take to expose your double standards.
Back last year when we were arguing about F-5C, you coped that it need to be buffed, and I said no because some attacker jets which I plays in UK TT cannot stand against F-5C, and you just said ‘play fighter instead, it is your fault that who didn’t unlocked fighter.’
You didn’t say “some attackers”, you actually said “all attackers are expected to lose against fighters”
which is a strawman and why i’m mentioning it once and again.
Really, you believe that I am not able to grip onto an idea and defend it?
Nah, I am gripping it tight. “According to Boeing747Cultist last year, Boeing747Cultist shouldn’t complain about his Alpha Jet and Yak-130.” Pretty simple.
According to YOU i shouldn’t have complained about the f-5c.
You COULD have said “it’s a good plane but situational, as it requires isolated 1v1s or people to engage with it”, you COULD have said “well it’s probably not your style judging by your stats where you barely play other turn fighters” but you instead committed the ableist fallacy EVEN if i had relatively good stats on the f-5c.
I give up on continuing, i’m having so little time to deal with armchair debaters who lift their pinky fingers when speaking about their favowite pwenz in a game, i literally told you that the harrier can win the f-5c cause even someone like me never died to an f-5c then you will do fine against them.
WIll you get killed if you start dogfighting an f-5c in a harrier? Yes, but so will the f-5c, in fact that’s literally the best way to kill them and why they’re so antimeta.
Okay, thanks for wasting my time by acting like a wall, and admiting lose.
Mate, think about that.
What if Sea Fury were really worse than Fw190A or P-51C… How in the world would Whitewall decide to waste glorious tax on Hawker Siddeley?
No matter how you want to believe
It is a well-known fact that Sea Fury is obviously better than those mid-war fighters.
If those were as awful as you claim, then we all were mental to waste our money replacing good Sea Fire with malfunctioning junk which is worse than P-51C.
-
Do you have any kind of confirmed source that mass-produced Sea Furies are equipped with a 3700 hp version of Bristol Centaurus?
From the National Archive, ex-Hawker personnel, or BAE Systems? -
If you have any like those, why don’t you bugreport it personally to make a better,* historically accurate* Sea Fury?
Every British main would be happy if you made us have a 3700hp Sea Fury. /s.
You are acting exact same as Pangolin when he is talking about F-104
Claiming current status is ahistorical
But with no proof to prove it or bugreport it.
Just coping hard with alt-reality.
You are the one who claimed that Sea Fury has a 3700 hp engine, when the whole internet says no about it. Then you have the burden of proof to prove it.
When someone is constantly dropping wildest hot takes, how in the world that expecting that they have better stats than other players? Especially when their claim sounds like a lack of general understanding of the game.
Because you know nothing about the flight characteristic differences between Harrier I and Harrier II.
Harrier I aren’t as bad as those infamous Yak-38; still, as a subsonic missile slinger, Harrier I can’t compete against fighter jets such as F-4, F-5, F-8, or MiG-21.
The thrust ratio of Harrier I itself is not that bad, but it bleeds way too much energy compared to Harrier II(AV-8B or GR.7), while they aren’t as fast as Lightning/Starfighter to BnZ against enemy supersonic jets.
Harrier I airframe is a lot worse than your expectations.
False… I’d rather fight in GR.7 against F-16 than fight in FRS.1 against MiG-21bis/J-7D.
You only flew with Harrier II, and I spaded both.
Nah, it is more like a catch-22.
-
You can complain about F-5C and dismiss any idea that underperforming jets such as Jaguar or Harrier might be punished as “it is an attacker, you should’ve unlocked a fighter instead”
Then you cannot complain about Alpha Jet or Yak-130. Because “You should’ve unlocked a fighter instead” -
Or you can complain that Yak-130 or Alpha Jet cannot compete against other fighter jets as much as you want
Then you need to admit that F-5C cannot get buffed because some attacker jets such as Su-17M2, Su-7B, or Harrier GR.3/Jaguar GR.1 cannot compete against F-5C and those act like a physical barricade.