@tensilaspider
On top of that, did you claim there was German, Swedish, and French bias when they had 12km SPAA?
If the answer is no, then you should be consistent with the USSR as well.
The answer was no for me because my standard is can the SPAA frag a CAS player playing competently using the best weapons available.
If the answer is no, then the SPAA is pointless. If the answer is yes, then the SPAA is good or in some cases over-powered.
And the answer for Pantsir was the same for ITO-90M: No. A player playing Su-34, F-15E/I, Rafale, etc competently has no risk of dying to Pantsir or ITO-90M.
The primary reason why Gaijin didn’t think SPAA was necessary was because CAS players were never threatened by top CAS to begin with and thus played recklessly.
Also Me-163 is not just 0.3 better than BI, it’s easily 1.0 higher due to altitude ceiling [tied to speed, speed, fuel, and weapons. BI is a rocket A6M5, Me-163 is a rocket P51H5NA.
@Flogger_cbs
There are at least 5 9.3 tanks superior to T-72A: Leopard L/44, Leopard 1A5, CM11, Khalid, Gal Batesh, Olifant Mk2…
Also, my posts have only ever said that X-38/Kh-38 are superior missiles in-game to AGM-65s in a direct comparison.
So I can only assess that you’re inventing fan-fiction about me instead of addressing my actual statements.
So either prove that Kh-38 and AGM-65 are equal, or agree with me that in a direct comparison Kh-38 is superior.
I used the Kh-38, I know the differences, which is why I always stated that missile v missile Kh-38 is superior in-game currently; and that both AGM-65G and Kh-38 are equally effective against tanks back when the maximum engagement range of SPAA was 16km. Of course equally effective does not mean they have equal traits.
All you know is to defend Russia.






