Every noob is playing Russia? Well no, cause Russia’s not a tech tree.
And 2, so your win rate as the Soviets is bad?
SPAA is no where close to powerful yet alone OP. It can’t even frag CAS.
And USA has had OP CAS for 2 years longer.
1 Like
Again if youd read the other comments if left in retrospectively going back and trying to bring my kd up of tanks from br 8.3 up to top tier.
So ive got 5 nations to work through.
Also again russian bug reports get binned all the damn time as well, just no one brings it up cause it goes against a narritive that spawned literally from a meme.
Like ive stated gaijins response to bug reports on cr2 and chieftain mk5 are absolutely disgraceful.
And yes two 2b is still more reliable than A mate far easier to bop folks top down with it…
And again challanger 2F armour pack can stop vikrs, doesnt mean the tank doesn’t take damage but it doesnt just explode.
Now rafher than sit here and insult me, try have a mature discussion.
You go on about stats, your stats show youve done nothing but play warthunder for a decade, which at the end of the day mate, its a game, not a life.
Edit also my challanger 2 has 165 games, 2F has 126, BN 76. 2E has 31, tes 36
thats over 400 games in the things. i think thats a fair enough amount of games to have a leg to stand on.
First of all, everyone saw his real combat effectiveness when he was covering the Antonovsky Bridge, where literally everything fired at it got through. Moreover, when HIMARS missiles were flying over my head toward the nearby fuel depot, that Pantsir didn’t even turn on for some reason.
I mean even by that metric, the SPAA added most recently was 0.3 BR higher than the M247 and basically didn’t fix any problems (lack of mid tier SPAA, lack of high fire rate SPAA from like ~2.7-7.3)
But that bridge was being targeted by himars, us precision guided shells, drones, surveillance equipment, lots of factors depend on intercepting missiles. I have never seen an aa missile system with a 100% record. Most advanced fall at best fall within 70%. success rate, especially against missiles like himars, artillery shells cruise missiles and drones.
Bridge is a stationary target and operating within a certain radius of it will make anything vulnerable all the time. Not sure about everything flying by though. I was referring to it being capable of intercepting drones and cruise missiles, which it did. Again I speaking from the perspective of what it can do.
Just wonna make sure that I am not here to get into the 1side vs another (deal), cause you reffered to the Antonovsky bridge. I am far away from it. My response is geared towards what pantsir has done and what has been written about from various sources not particularly linked to sides.
I’m not really up to date on what different sources say about the effectiveness of the Pantsir, but if you have a video where a couple of HIMARS volleys hit the target despite interception attempts, the conclusion is obvious. It’s even worse with Storm Shadow missiles — they were delivered in very limited numbers, ruling out their mass use. Yet, they still regularly reached their targets.
In general, any air defense system has a concept known as the probability of hitting a typical target. In the game, Pantsir has a 100% hit probability when firing at Mavericks and similar targets, which is completely unrealistic and unbalanced.
Can it intercept every Maverick in game, I have a hard time noticing them I usually go for the plane and at times get hit. But if it has 100% probability hit in game its of course unrealistic. I will never argue that it is realistic. At the end of the day its a game. I have always claimed its much better than adats, and that at the moment US is behind in that regard.
Aren’t HIMARs like 7x faster than a maverick in their terminal phase?
But the thing I like best, super realistic 100% possible, I have intercepted 4 adats missiles with number 52 using my own missiles. That was a funny moment, I laughed and got the adats system as well
They might be not sure.
They’re 2.5M max for the HIMARs (from what we know) vs 0.9M, but mavericks lose significant speed over their trajectory where a HIMARs/MLRS M30 doesn’t really.
RCS should also be way lower for the MLRS missiles.
Yes HIMARS is definitely bigger, but more powerful engine, if maverick lose significant speed over trajectory and they have been detected on radar then, it is easier to calculate possible interception point and hit them.
1 Like
That depends on the firing range, as far as I understand. The farther the range, the lower the speed in the terminal phase. It could even be subsonic.
The game play has become less than enjoyable to play!! Teams are a joke, CAS is overpowered and to easy to get into, AA cant kill the helis the are shooting from the far side of the moon, BUGS BUGS BUGS, smaller and smaller maps, no imagination for the 1 or 2 maps in the past year or so, built in russian BIAS, etc etc etc…
I mean, this is the same game where the M247 can actually lock its targets, and ADATS works in all-weather conditions.
War Thunder allows systems to function at 100% efficiency (despite reality saying otherwise) because random chances for stuff to fail is a nightmare, both in terms of actually balancing it as well as choosing what to implement. What should the Pantsir’s actual interception rate be? What munitions should it perform better or worse against? How often should a MiG-27 break its cockpit firing the gun? How often should missiles just go dead off the rail? How much of this should be up to random chance vs user error?
Hundreds of vehicles and weapons perform much better than they did in real life, because War Thunder isn’t real life. I don’t disagree the Pantsir is bad for balance, but this isn’t the way to balance it.
4 Likes
There is no russian bias with the recent buffs and ariete and merkeva reload t-80s and t-90s are very mediocre now
I don’t think buffing some of the absolute worst top tiers makes USSR mediocre
1 Like
Oh no, the Ariete and Merkava get a 5 second reload, it’s not like they’re the least-armored tanks in the game.
1 Like
You know, when the Bradley has to rotate its launcher after every stop, it looks like a nightmare and is completely unnecessary in the game. But it’s there. Just like the completely useless pod on the Buccaneer, which you have to carry instead of an extra missile. Or the single warhead on the TOW-2B with an explosively formed penetrator that, on top of that, gets neutralized by Soviet ERA, which is completely unrealistic. And there are countless examples like this, but only for one side. That’s exactly what constitutes the Russian bias being discussed in this thread.
1 Like