Sorry but thats just american cope. M1 Abrams is 10.7 while BMPT is 11.7 and if you want to go down this road you could look no further than US itself with 2025 M10 Booker 10.7 fighting tanks from 1985 such as T-80B, T-72B1, T-64B, etc.
edit. love how this comment got flagged for speaking the truth
that was the most obvious dev in disguise ever , it would be more honorable to talk from his dev account
Community Bug Reporting System The reporting manager is tweaking I got: ’ not enough info ’ into ‘These documents are plans. When these documents have been created when AIM-54C+ did not exist. We can’t accept reports based on the “plans” and "projects’ into ‘The are not front-aspect-only in the game.’ now they say ‘All the sources cited are about plans, about unfinished missiles. We can’t accept report based on plans.’ He was reading on vibes but finally did put something reasonable lol. I need a SINGLE primary source proving the Phoenix is either all aspect or have improved rear-quarter opening-rate capabilities post development so around 1981+ if anybody have some please :(
They do to us like this gain. Double standard as hell.
I still think the AIM-54C had broader-than-front-aspect capability, especially because of the documented beam-attack improvements, but his objections are fair. The game seems a bit oversimplified in how it displays missile aspect categories, so what looked like an easy “all-aspect” fix may actually be more of a stat-card/wording issue than a clear performance bug. To be fair in game it is displayed as a ’ Front aspect ’ but have some side capacities anyway. I’ll give up for now and maybe check on other details.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/aim54.htm
https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html
Yeah these are some of the better sources I can find on improvement and performance. I think the greater battle is that the AIM-54C does not have accurate performance stats, It should be Mach 5 and have greater range for sure. The BRM is being slightly unfair because I think they want like some signed government doc that lists the stats which is unreasonable.
I share this for 1000 time.
And they denied it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8GBurcTkCwuE
Crazy that this doesnt count in any way.
Nice Video.
Even if the bug report was better made they would hit you with the ‘This says literally nothing. You can’t compare this data with in-game performance. Do developers have to make AIM-54C worse? How worse?’ because they want measurable and quantifiable datas that is not measurable nor quantifiable, they don’t really understand approximation as they rather see black or white unless it’s russian. The game definitively have capacities to do this has missiles each have their own resistances to flare or chaff but modifying a value to an ’ approximation ’ is taking it too far for them. Probably the same reason why the Namer and the Merkava are SOMEHOW the same weight which is hilliarious.
its so bad too because even if we have literally EVERYTHING that prooves stuff they can just pull the balancing card.
The winrate argument is so outrageous.
Su-30 are great example how they bias.
Perfectly balanced as all things should be.
Ahhhhh 13.3 becuse want our player not play harder. This plane should be at 13.7.
It’s literally better than the 13.7 J-11B, but it got ‘SU’ in the name so here we are.
His arguments and sources would get rejected so hard as a bug report :(
True, the premium SU-30 is designed for Tier 13.7; you could add two more ARHs and easily move it up to Tier 13.7, but even with just six Fox 3s, I think it could handle Tier 13.7—it has a very finicky radar and an RWR range of only 30’, but as grinders, they’d still be able to hold their own at a higher BR than they currently have.
Its so funny that the IRIAF F14 gets missiles that are just so much better than the F14D thats supposed to be the best tomcat lol.
