And the counterargument stems mostly from a diverse, not russia playing, objective group of people?
No, from people playing multiple nations including Russia.
1 Like
yeah so pretty much as unobjective as the other group.
???
It is based on an observed thing.
And it is perfect to bring it up because the russian bias belief is a conspiracy theory.
Just like with the majority of the humans being average height, the most people in game are average…
Great, then prove it!
How is a group that played accused Nation as unobjective as all the cry babies that never did ? A lot of them even only play only one Nation.
1 Like
Ok so i was right in my initial assessment that your argument is: Russian bias = Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory believers = stupid ------> believers in russian bias = stupid?
Bruh…they are average compared to the playerbase, because they are the average of the playerbase. That does not mean that the average player is not objectively bad at the game.
@Ghost_of_TelAviv
Because they still profit from the theoretical bias just as much as the other group suffers from it. Which is why player opinions generally belong in the trash since no one is objective.
He doesn’t. He compares similar situations:
- Less educated people are quicker to believe in conspiracy theories
- Less skilled players are quicker to believe in Russian Bias.
Nowhere is it implied that people who believe in Russian Bias also believe in (other) conspiracy theories.
and whats that then? If hes not suggesting that russian bias believers are dumb then his comparison makes even less sense, because those 2 things have nothing to do with each other
Not at all, one actually played everything and has a good record that shows he understands the vehicle strengths and weaknesses, another one (mostly US mains) has a record that shows that he plays like dog💩 and makes a bunch of stupid claims, whose voice do you think holds more weight?
Click Bait has a higher win-rate than other M1A1s.
@MotorolaCRO was correct.
This is July 2025:
Not sure why you claim that US top tier has the worst teams…
@H_ngma
The Russian propaganda I see come from the same accounts claiming Russian bias exists.
Those that admit Russian bias doesn’t exist are typically those that also defend NATO equipment the most.
When all of the multi-tech tree players are admitting Russian bias doesn’t exist and defend NATO equipment, I tend to trust those posts over the ones saying that Soviet tanks have special magical powers that no other tech tree has.
I never once claimed that russian bias is vehicle strenght at all, the tanks are mid and always have been. My claim is that russian bias is favoritism when it comes to stuff like the KH38MT, Soyuz, Igla vs Stinger debate, the highly targeted additions of realistic modules and mechanics for tanks and generally the difference in acceptance of sources compared to other trees.
Dont put me in the “muh T80/T90 is the best tank in the game” mouthbreather group
Ok and?
Thats a you issue.
Once again.
Ok and?
You claimed that SAP and BFHE are bad against all well armored ships, its still a well armored ship and identical to the one you tested.
Nice strawman.
Fun fact these guns exist at 7.3 so they can face it unlike your strawman.
My post wasn’t targeting anyone, and especially not you.
It was me addressing narrative-based posts. If you never did those narratives, obviously I’m not critiquing your own posts.
Igla being the worst manpad, and Soyuz being yet another of over 20 laid down ships in War Thunder that won’t stop there [Lion class says hi].
Kh-38MT was the only missile that finally made Gaijin pay attention to how OP CAS was.
When F-16s and Harriers, and later Rafale and F-15E were dominating ground matches for years Gaijin did nothing.
Only when Su-34 was added did Gaijin finally admit CAS is OP and more powerful SPAA was needed.
So while there were [and potentially still are] issues with Kh-38MT, it is the reason Su-34, F-15E, and Rafale aren’t OP anymore.
What is the debate here ?
Igla is atrociously bad.
I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again:
Awful players flock to what’s meta/popular (Russian top tier in this case, but previously stuff like the Rafale, Gripens, F-14, 2A7V, etc) and they’ll do that by crippling the matchmaker surrounding their chosen premium’s BR (J-7D, A-10/Su-25, Clickbait, T80UE1).
This is why I don’t believe in comparing nations VIA winrates (at top tier anyway) because it’s a fundamentally flawed metric given the sheer state of the matchmaker in the last 2ish years
2 Likes
yes and stinger should be better but it isnt, because Gaijin thinks: If looks similar how can be better? (oversimplified)
In not gonna go into an argument again why a 46k tons 406mm Lion class is no comparison to the absurdity that is Soyuz. And Lion is not in the game maybe Soyuz would be more acceptable if we got it alongside Lion and H39
its not about KH38MT being strong, its about its addition to the game and to the SU30SM based on flimsy sources that would not be accepted usually
And how did they choose to address it…
Not by removing it, but by making SPAA massively powercrept.
Same logic can be applied to the Pantsir, why bring one vehicle into line with the rest when we can just massively shift the matchmaker and make people grind a whole 400k+
That’s kind of disingenuous however - they are not similar. Correlation does not equate to causation.
That’s like me saying ‘100% of people who eat broccoli later go on to die. Ergo, Broccoli kills them.’
Counterpoint - lots of players who are skilled will point at the Kh-38/Soyuz/Kamov/whatever broken toy is currently causing havoc and say ‘that’s bias in action.’ Or do they not count because you don’t agree with them?
It seems to me that basically there are two camps with a lot of space in-between -
-
Favouritism IS a thing in War Thunder and it DOES tend towards the RU tech-tree.
-
No Russian bias exists. No problems at all.
You cannot dismiss one side wholesale as being ‘less-skilled’ because there are examples of good/bad players in both camps. That’s basically not debating the argument, just sniping at the person making the point.
Otherwise, we could point at Oh-No Straining and say that because he plays nothing but Arcade at top tier - all those who think Russian bias isn’t a thing can’t play the game properly. It’s a kiddie’s game mode - but I’m not lumping everyone who disagrees with me into that boat.
Plainly many of those I regularly clash with on this subject can play the game better than me, many play worse. It doesn’t change my personal view of whether some tech trees get more toys and handholding.
1 Like
I mean go check the stats of everyone who whines about Russian bias and the overwhelming majority is mid at best at the game (and in a lot of cases calling them mid is being generous).
I will admit that the worse players are usually on the more extreme end of Russian bias discussion. For example the people complaining about Russian MBTs supposedly surviving full side shots all the time are usually the not very good players.
1 Like
The ‘debate’ was one of Gaijin’s making.
A report was filed that the Stinger should be capable of increased G performance. Gaijin came back - in the form of a web-page article - that the Igla and the Stinger appeared similar visually.
Hence, their logic was that the Stinger could not have a better performance than the Igla.
Their article - MANPADS Missiles and Overload: The Technical Details - Official News, Development Blogs and Updates - War Thunder — official forum
I quote - "For other MANPADS systems, open sources indicate a higher overload such as 18, 20 and even 25g in the case of the Mistral 1 MANPADS. However, these MANPADS systems have only slight differences in the area of aerodynamic surfaces compared to the 9M39, so a multiple increase in average achievable overload compared to the 9M39 cannot be expected. "
Hence, the meme was born. The Igla is Crap - hence anything that looks like the Igla must be Crap also.
Another one of those totally isolated incidents (of which there are more than a few)…
4 Likes