This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
Abrams isn’t Russian.
Neither is P51H5NA.
BMPT is currently BR’d the same way M4A2E3 is.
Yak-9s are okay, but other aircraft exist that are better CAS and/or fighters.
USA has the most amount of under-BR’d vehicles for any tech tree.
They can’t stop something they’ve never done to begin with.
3 Likes
The fact that the BMPT was moved up in BR doesn’t really prove it’s balanced. Plenty of vehicles have remained extremely effective after BR increases because their overall package is still too strong for the environment they fight in.
The BMPT has excellent optics, thermals, two high-rate autocannons, proximity-fused ammunition for aircraft, ATGMs, and enough survivability to shrug off damage that would disable many other light vehicles. In urban maps and against helicopters or lightly armored targets, it can dominate matches while requiring far less precision than many vehicles it faces.
As for the Yak-9T, the issue isn’t that it’s unbeatable. The issue is that it combines fighter performance with a 37 mm cannon capable of deleting tanks and aircraft in a single hit. Vehicles don’t have to be invincible to be undertiered or overperforming.
You also mention the Abrams and P-51H as examples of non-Russian vehicles that are strong, but that doesn’t actually address my point. Every nation has strong vehicles. The difference is the consistency of Soviet lineups. At many BRs, the USSR isn’t relying on one standout vehicle; it has multiple competitive vehicles covering different roles in the same lineup.
That’s why players keep bringing up Soviet balance. It’s not because every Soviet vehicle is overpowered. It’s because the nation repeatedly ends up with some of the strongest lineups and some of the most controversial vehicles at a wide range of BRs.
9 Likes
There is already a thread for this:
1 Like
Russian favoritism has always been a thing in War Thunder—it’s just become much more noticeable over time.
I also don’t understand why you’re bringing up the Abrams. The Abrams itself is heavily nerfed, and many players have pointed out that its armor isn’t accurately modeled compared to the available information.
And this isn’t just an issue with American vehicles. The same complaints apply to many NATO tanks, which are often considered to be underperforming because of inaccurate armor or damage modeling.
1 Like
@CoyDK
No, not every nation has OP vehicles.
USSR for example has zero OP MBTs, while USA has over 10 OP MBTs.
USA is the only tech tree in War Thunder that has stronger lineups than all other tech trees for 7 years running.
USSR never has, USSR has only ever been on-par at best.
@Jakobus2011-psn
Oh, you’re following in the footsteps of TIGER TANK with Devil’s Advocate arguments.
Abrams is not nerfed, it’s being buffed even more.
Inaccuracies aren’t nerfs/buffs, they’re just inaccuracies which all vehicles have.
It does not.
That’s why it’s not classed as a light tank (be glad it isn’t one, having scout drone + souting ability would be stupidly busted)
Still best MBT, and getting better next update
They probably mean the time fuse anti air shells.
1 Like
Which only the BMPT (not T-72) has and aren’t proximity fuze.
I’m just trying to avoid some misinformation/misunderstanding being spread
They only mentioned the BMPT and not the -72. Yeah, they aren’t proxy. From the context it’s pretty clear which shells they ment but i generally agree with the correction.
2 Likes
BMPTs aren’t one of those.