i am TIRED of people saying “RUSSIAN BIAS” is a “REAL” phenomenon while the Russians have quite literally nothing going for them anymore except for their planes and their SPAA.
breakin it down somewhat
Pre SM2 era (waow), the Rafale RAN the game for a year, being the BEST plane at top tier SUSM2 is the best plane in the game, but it only took a YEAR of the Ralph bein the goat for this to occur
Prior to SMSV, the IRISTjunge was the GOAT in the ground gamemode
Thats literally it man, the Russians have quite literally nothing except for SMSV and SU30SM2
The US (for comparison) IN GROUND has
ARGUABLY better CAS (GBU53 vs KH38MT debate RAGHH, + LMUR nerf LMAO)
(m1a1HC after bein hit by 2x LMUR)
WAY better tanks (its not even CLOSE between BVM and M1A2 LMAO)
and AA that is albeit worse than SMSV intercepting 1 trillion msls but ARGUABLY isnt bad at all (CLAWS)
In air yeah its NOT close for the US but other nations (i.e. France, Japan) have their own equivalents to the SUSM2 and better planes for new players to set absurd KD in (see: Ralph)
i think people need to STOP pretending RUSSIAN BIAS is a REAL THING and not actually just MASS HYSTERIA over an update where the US gets buffed 20 trillion times (abrooms armour + a3 + brand new point and click mobiles to play bloons TD in against BVMs) and russia receives literally 1 buff (RELIKT lmao) and a tril nerfs (see: bmpt dispersion + LMUR)
2 Likes
I appreciate your take on it, and I wouldn’t refer to it as bias but more favoritism. I also have to strongly disagree. I’m top tier with a hand full of nations and the easiest of them to play is Russia hands down. When I’m playing the T-90M or the BVM I don’t ADS unless it’s a long shot (500+ meters). NATO tanks have such extremely large weak spots that as long as I pen them it’s gonna take the horizontal at the very least. And when I play the BMPT I almost always nuke. I swing corners with Russian tanks knowing 8/10 times I’m gonna tank their shot and I’ll take comparatively minor damage. The photo you posted of the Abram’s is an outlier, more likely than not the bomb hit a turret cheek or some weird volumetric spot. I can not describe to you the amount of times I have been killed in an Abram’s by CAS or helis. I do agree that some people definitely over exaggerate, but i survive more shots in Russian tanks that would destroy any other tank in the game.
6 Likes
Most NATO tanks r pretty weak in terms of armour irl and in game (see: leclerc, see Chally, see Ariete) but also SOME nato tanks have the best armour in the game (see, strv122, leo2a7v, m1a1 and all following abrams), yes their weakspots are larger at range, but what NATO tanks lack in “having small weakspots” they make up for in curbstomping russian tanks in reload, mobility, gun handling, reload, etc. 99% of issues you’ve described with swinging corners and surviving is just a playerbase issue, imho.
re: the image of m1a1hc survivng lmur, its a nerf, both hit the roof directly, lol.
is there russian bias? yes
is it overexaggerated when some of them have a skill issue? yes
although it exists, its overexaggerated sometimes. for example, i see people complaining and saying the king tiger is overpowered, even though they didnt shoot the weakspots
I’d like some clear examples of russian bias with non anecdotal evidence please :D
I have the definitive prove of Bussian Rias!!! Look how this T80 massacred these poor abrams
7 Likes
I have very little knowledge when it comes to most IRL NATO tanks however, I do have pretty extensive knowledge about the Abrams. The M1A2 family are some of the most, if not the most, heavily armored tanks on the planet. The problem lies in the fact that the composite inserts for the hull and turret are highly classified. There’s plenty of documentation about potential protection values but I’d rather not get into that whole discussion here. The crux of the issue is while modeling, gajin usually gives upper limit values to Russian equipment, while NATO tanks usually get the lower end. And that’s true across the board from missles to planes and tanks etc. the reload rate and reverse gear are worse yes, but that is the exception
3 Likes
lack of depleted uranium armor on the abrams
Can you prove that the DU was installed? The devs explained very clearly that they dont believe DU was installed in the LFP of the SepV3
The term “NATO receives the lower limit and RU receieves the upper” is flawed when you look at Eurofighter, Rafale and SU-27SM flight performance. Eurobomber and Rafale have been overperforming since the dawn of time, while the SUSM is significantly lacking lift
Steven Zaloga (if you don’t know who he is, he’s one of the foremost tank experts on the planet) Has a couple books regarding the Abram’s armor, in which he describes the DU/ceramic inserts that were used on the v3
Did he work on the project?
That’s a great question I’m not sure if he had a hand in the development, though he does do contract and consulting work for the DOD regarding armored vehicles
I mean if he didn’t directly work on the project/have access to the project during the supposed DU retrofit then what authority does he have besides guesses, no matter how educated a guess is still a guess
Yeah you got me there, however I imagine his analysis is drawn from more than just guess work.
I think yes, but no more so than westerners have for western tanks. Which makes it seem worse than it is to them, because for once the favoritism is on the Russian side rather than NATO.
Of course there are some blatant issues such as the BMPTs ridiculous survivability or the Abrams turret neck.
But I think in general both sides expect more from their vehicles than they would provide IRL.
There is also the fact that Soviet doctrine accepts that loses in war are unavoidable (NATO doctrine against the USSR was to instantly hit the forward armour brigades with tactical nuclear weapons) so their designs make sacrifices on capability to allow for the manufacturing to keep up with losses and for them to be easily operable by less trained replacement crews. It’s hard to balance around a countries military industrial capacity in a game.
To be fair there is plenty of toxic stuff used in weapons and armour production, even nano particles of non-toxic materials can be extremely harmful.
That said Gaijin could stand to be a little more generous on the armour even if just for balance reasons, the better thermals on the 12.7s dont really justify the 2 step BR jump (especially given the AIM has those thermals at 12.0 at the trade off of the KE-W).
1 Like
You mention prior to SMSV IRST was the goat, but fail to mention that the S1 was undisputed for a whole 2 years before the IRST. It had the advantage in speed, target tracking and stealth (since nothing could detect k band). It took a plane that could pull 14G’s instantaneously to dethrone the S1.
The IRST was top dawg for like 3 months before LDIRCM got added and put it in the grave.
Kh29TE at 10.7, Vhikr , Kh38, Lmur, and now Kh31’s.
This post smells like ragebait
3 Likes
yeah, the soviets focused on massed armored attack on open flat european terrain during the cold war, they were planning an exercise on whether or not they could push tanks through the fulda gap. they wanted a cheap massed produced tank so they cheaped out on the reverse gear. but NATO wants less losses so they add more armor and make the tanks bigger, make the tanks more sophisticated, and its more expensive. NATO tanks had the benefit of firing from a position, and then reversing under the shoot and scoot tactic. the soviet doctrine had them with the cheapest stuff they could get to mass produce. soviet tanks lacked reverse gear so they struggled at that, so they could just charge the open european terrain in massed attacks, combined arms. and the soviets also relied more on ERA because it was lighter.
2 Likes