Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 2)

Game Discussion General Discussion
4893

I meant besides Israel and Desert Storm. It’s easy to count kills when we’re allies with the people fighting. When it’s between Iran/Iraq though, we can’t tell.

*Minimum of 130 kills (Iran reports 160) plus 3 and 2-3 losses while having no AWACS support, no airframe support, and no NCTR. I know you love the F-15, but it was very coddled in terms of getting it’s kills. AWACS and Tankers were favoring Airforce jets and the Navy wasn’t allowed to deploy far into combat zones. I’m not saying the F-15 didn’t earn those kills. The F-15 having NCTR was the reason it could do so well in the strict ROE. It was technologically more advanced to the F-14A.

4894

This is why I think the Sea Harrier’s 23 - 0 record from the Falklands was so impressive. They were without a doubt the underdog in most respects (logistics, support, etc) and did so when outnumbered 10 - 1. Heck, most of the pilots were exhausted running multiple sorties per day.

2 Likes
4895

What about all the Israeli kills then? And didnt Iranians use F-14 as sort of AWACS due to its very powerful radar? Not to mention that Navy had its own AWACS and aerial refuelers

4896

Didn’t the Argentines only give enough fuel to go there and back?

4897

Hey, US designers snorted their fair share of fat lines also.

My favorite being the Tillman Battleships aka “Maximum Battleships” that were designed in the mid to late 1910s, of which one variant was drawn up with 4 sextuple mount 16” turrets and another had 5 triple mount 18” turrets.

4898

Oh ik, i am very very familiar with the tillmans and i actually managed to redesign one to actually make it plausible by accident

1 Like
4899

They were forced to operate from the mainland because the FAA kept Port Stanely rather thorough surpressed which did limit their range, but too keep the Carriers as safe as possible, the Harriers were also operating at the edge of their endurance and couldnt remain on CAP for all that long either.

So in that respect, both nations had a similar handicap.

That being said, the Argentine air force did have a limited A2A refueling capability that they used to great effect with the Super Etendards and they attacked from unexpected directions more than once.

The biggest deciding factor was a reluctance of the Argentine commanders to allow engagements between the 2 airfroces, more than 400 sorties were aborted because a SHar CAP was in the way and a big part of that was a conception that the SHars were much better than they were, especially when they saw Aim-9Ls attached to the SHars long before the taskforce arrived

4900

Israel had AWACS during that time. E-2s and the Arava 201.

Yes, however a dedicated AWAC is much better and streamlined. In my opinion, it just shows the capability of the F-14 even more.

Yes they did, but the Air force has many more and are generally prioritized more. Especially in combat.

4901

Even then, Brits probably had much better shot at getting close to carrier and being rescued if they ran out of gas than Argentines, it was basically guaranteed death stranded in the Atlantic for them if they stuck around to fight.

SHar lining up shots with AIM-9L or even earlier ones on A-4’s and Super Etendard that immediately had to turn and run, slowing them down and giving Sidewinder a nice rear aspect shots is still good work by the pilots, but wasn’t as risky for Brits to do CAP than Argentines to stick around

4902

One Argentine A-4 pilot was shot down and made it to one of the many islands in that area and survived the war. Suffice to say it wasnt necessarily that big of an issue given most of the combat happened over or around the islands rather than in the middle of the occean. Especially as many of the A-4 and Dagger runs used the Main islands to mask their approach

4903

I don’t mean shot down. I mean if they did stay for extended time to fight the harriers, even if they won, they would still most likely run out of fuel over the ocean on the way back

4904

I’ve fully researched Japan’s tech tree for both ground and air forces. Aviation is fine; it’s fairly straightforward. However, with ground vehicles, I didn’t pay much attention to wins or losses until I got penetrated by what felt like a sea breeze—because calling it armor is a stretch. That’s when I understood the issue. I hadn’t played realistic tank battles for about two months, as I was busy grinding aviation. Recently, I decided to grind Germany’s tech tree from Leopard 2A6 to 2A7. It was hell! I noticed my win rate with Germany is only 36%. I’m not a pro player, but no matter how many kills you get, if you’re playing Germany, you’re likely to lose. Pay-to-win exists in this game, and it’s called the USSR!

Look at how much premium equipment the USSR has compared to other nations. It’s not just the quantity but their purpose. Normally, grinding helicopters takes forever, but the USSR has premium ones with top-tier missiles, three top-tier MBTs, IFVs, and more. What else can you call this? Soviet tanks at top tier are the fastest, their armor is better, and their additional protection often stops top-tier NATO rounds, even though it’s meant to counter HEAT shells.

What about aviation? It’s great, isn’t it, facing an enemy with two top-tier attack aircraft (Su-30 and Su-34) that spawn without penalty and carry missiles you can spam without skill. What does Germany get? Oh right, Brimstone missiles that, for some reason, only lock on via laser (because this is such a “realistic” game). Thanks for not nerfing the Rafale into oblivion with your love for everything Russian! Is it easy to strike with those missiles? Sure, if you’re highly skilled, but Soviet jets don’t need skill. And air defense? It’s nonexistent. I’m surprised you haven’t added the Pantsir S1 as a premium yet—could make another $60.

For New Year’s, I bought a few premium packs, including the T-80U-E1. Playing it made me realize skill isn’t the issue. It’s absurd that with the Leopard, I get 2 wins out of 10 battles, but with the T-80U-E1, I get 8 wins out of 10. In the first minute, USSR players spawn their overpowered aircraft that keep burning random targets. I’m starting to understand why the game’s online population is dropping. At top tier, a 7v7 match is considered crowded—very crowded even. Yet, there are always 100 players in the queue waiting for a battle. Why? Simple—half, if not more, are playing USSR. Fun, right?

It’s baffling how this gets ignored. I don’t understand why they don’t give the EF-2000, say, six missiles instead of 24 Brimstones, but with proper guidance to counter the Su-30 and Su-34. I thought this was just a Germany issue, but no—Britain’s the same, Japan’s the same. France is still holding up, but I bet they’ll nerf it soon too. Just not the USSR.

Please, don’t lecture me about skill! I’m not a pro, and I don’t play tournaments, but the facts remain. Everything they “nerf” for the USSR is just dust, while Germany and Britain are clearly not for casual enjoyment anymore. I’m not even mentioning that German Leopards are the worst in the game. I know USSR tech fans will jump in, claiming they’re the worst nation to play and that they’ve been constantly “nerfed” just to keep their favorite toys intact. But let’s face the truth… In the next update, even with the addition of new air defense systems, nothing will change…

4905

9L vs flareless jets

4906

0 4th gens 😢 (at least f15 had around 8 mig29 kills (albeit worst most downgraded export variants possible without r73 or working radars))

4 Likes
4907

All of them were the same variant?

4908

In fairness, most of the Shars had no CMs either and not a single 9L shot taken couldnt have been achieved with the 9G in the end

3 Likes
4909

serbia: 9.12A
iraq: 9.12B

Screenshot_2025-05-25-00-35-38-98_173823495e561b2cdc2de22ac640109c
Screenshot_2025-05-25-00-35-38-98_173823495e561b2cdc2de22ac640109c1080×1149 363 KB

1 Like
4910

It was less suicidal to face the entire surface fleet at San Carlos than to engage in an A2A fight without countermeasures and with limited fuel against the shar/limas.

Besides, the surface fleet had a blind spot in its defenses that could be exploited. Against the Sea Harriers, the cost-benefit of engagement simply wasn’t worth it. I mean, on top of that, we also have to add that the British pilots did a great job too.

3 Likes
4911

And yet T80BVM is only 7th in 12.0 win rates at 55.1%. The top 3 being the French 2A6 at 59.8% (because Rafale), Leo 2A7V at 58.4% and Strv 122B at 57%.

4912

I suggest you log in now, take the Leopard 2A7, and see it for yourself. I’m writing here out of disappointment and, frankly, frustration. This has been going on for a week. I don’t know where or who provides these statistics, but the reality is a bit different.