Thats not a negative. If he found evidence of US manufacturers lying he would have his proof
which should be fairly easy tbh
1 Like
Are you even reading half the thread?
JAGMs get mentioned - you contest that the information for them is from a brochure.
Tripod explains that, no - it’s a presentation from the arms industry.
Ron says ‘they are lying.’
I say, prove that they ARE lying.
You then seem to think that asking for proof is proving a negative?
point is atleast the su35 can use dual pylons for r77s, dual r77 pylon is real in a flanker . but we haven’t seen any pics of eurofighter with dual pylons for amraams. gaijin probably thinks su35 would be to op for war thunder and su27sm/30sm is underwhelming (compared to the rest) which is probably why they gave it su35’s weapons (kh38 , dual pylons). i wont be surprised if they end up removing dual pylons for su27sm/30sm once they add the su35.
Yes it is as something new and better being added is bound to happen. Vehicles as a whole are perfectly fine, unless you wanna argue missiles have BRs of their own.
38MTs kinematics are perfectly realistic as it shares the body with other members of the family like 38ML.
It’s IR seeker is open to changes, but every top tier IR seeker is the same copy paste regardless.
You can release realistic stuff in a balanced state as well. Stuff like shells, reload speed and even armor packages can be used to balance things out.
1 Like
Now prove that US manufacturers aren’t lying.
1 Like
THE EXISTENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF THE IR SEEKER ARE THE THINGS IN QUESTION, no one cares about the KH38 rest.
Yes but dont you get the difference between “adding something broken with its real life stats” and “adding something broken with stats we made up”?
That would be the negative proof
1 Like
You can’t prove they are lying regarding JAGMs due to obvious reasons.
1 Like
So you admit your claims are baseless?
dont think they will remove the dual pylons for the 27sm but maybe for the 30SM
i still think that they want hte 27SM to be a poor mans 27SM3 but they didnt want to change the 3d model
Well, there are heaps of wrecked vehicles, aircraft, ships and helicopters on the fields and seabeds of certain countries that would indicate that no, Russian armaments have NOT proven to match their claimed performance.
Western systems - usually subject to greater democratic oversight (and yes, meddling and costs associated with politcking) - usually have.
Please refer to virtually every armed conflict post-1945 where the two sides’ technology has met on the battlefield.
1 Like
IR seeker exists and in game every IR seeker is overperforming anyways.
That’s the same thing, as you should only be caring if something is broken or not, as it ruins the gameplay.
Try placing 2A7 and a completely fictional vehicle of same performance at 8.0.
Both would be brokenly OP and you crying about one thing more than the other would make absolutely no sense.
Gaijin has an option to balance everything properly before it’s addition, regardless fake or real.
1 Like
Thats a bad argument, you can expect russian arms manufacturers to account for their equipment being used by barley trained dudes who peddle half their equipment on the black market
You basing your argument off of a brochure isn’t baseless.
1 Like
q e d
yes but you really dont see why these 2 things get different reactions in the community?
Many of the 1980s, 1990s and 2020s engagements are them being used by Russian forces. So not monkey models, nor used by client states.
insert the office same picture meme
1 Like
Fair do’s. …
Is this why UA strike drone from decades ago flew over several NATO members before crashing in one of it’s capitals without even being spotted ?
That’s embarrassing.
1 Like
its almost like those countries are not at war and therefore not on alert or something
1 Like
Or more to the point, how bjorked does a guidance system need to be to get that lost in the first place? I would NOT be proud of it.
‘This gun is superior Igor - you aim this way and it blyats the guy behind you instead!’