Wdym gaijin has proof for the Su-30s /s
Only the 2A7V outclasses the Abrams. The M1A2 SEPs are easily better than the 2A5/2A6 and the M1A2 is at least on par with these.
Hell I know a bunch of good players that even prefer the base M1A1 over the 2A5/2A6.
You are more biased than me:
-
You are a US main with a severe “the grass is always greener on the other side” pov, shown by your consistent over rating equipment from other nations (that you never played might I add) while also continuously underselling US equipment.
-
You aren’t very good at the game. You either deliberately use “US vehicles bad” as an excuse for your own skill cap, or you look at these vehicles with a warped view because said skill cap. I’m not sure which of these options you are doing yet.
2 Likes
You literally can see in the screenshots I linked it takes out most the turret modules if not all of them…
you can and will disable a T80B if you shoot it through the top of the turret. also not including all of the area around teh breach. those shots are specifically the other parts you can pen.
Which you clearly didn’t know about.
I never said it shouldn’t.
my point is gaijin won’t rush bug fixes for a tank which performs great for it’s respective BR
I’m biased to what exactly? I’ve over 1000 games between my abrams alone man I thoroughly enjoy the vehicles.
Okay most the games not 100 percent accurate especially with classified armour values on tanks.
Literally every tank in the game has the same breach weakpoints.
You are purposefully ignoring how gaijin balance almost every tank in the game.
so let me get this right, you want your abrams to be “accurate” but russian stuff to not be’
So would russian tanks also lose the entire weak point around their breaches and such?
Would abrams then need to go up to 13.0 or higher as it would become teh most dominant “meta” MBT in game due to having their armour put to how it “should” be.
OR CR2 which we know literally in game is missing more than half of it’s armour thickness never mind composite performances¿
There’s a fine line between “balance” and accuracy.
ALl you jets would struggle to pull Gs, should we put the 9G limiter back on F16s as well while were at it for the sake of “accuracy”
You realise that could of been said about abrams when it was added no?
The M1 caused the entire match maker ot get reworked due to how blisteringly powerful it was lol-
2009? Where¡'d you whip that from.
Zeroes are at their BR cause idiots will forever try and turn fight them…
Now your tunes changing ¿ the mig 29 like I said sat for nearly 3 years before it even got a look in.
Tell me how are they being “shat on” bar the recent leclerc turret baskets-
What was the issue with the F5E.
ah yes the mig23 which got asbolutely kerb stomped by the F14A when added.
The mig21 acceleration was stupid sure but it’s now a pretty average air frame which get’s dogged on quite a lot.
you mean the mig29 which had it’s airframe in teh shitter?
if we gave CR2 it’s real armour not much would be able to take it out bar short range shots.
Mate what ? xD you must really suck with teh abrams to lose to a T80 that easy.
The 80B get’s laps ran around it by the M1 at 10.7.
You shoot before he does ofc.
also if you’re using an abrams you shouldn’t be getting shot through the hull like that, if you are it wouldn’t of mattered if you shoot them or not.
That’s bad playing , absolutely zero fault of the tank.
It shouldn’t of been pushed so much so fast, we jumped from the F4E and mig23 to the EF2000 in like 3 years meanwhile it took almost 10 to get to the mig23 and F4E
You realise most planes are frankenstiens, hence the recent addition of the mig29 9 12.
OR the fact the first typhoon for britain is a cobbled mess.
Yet the entire meta shifted around it and it was by far te most dominant platform in teh game?
You cannot tell me the mig23 was better than the F14a mate, it’s a well known fact how dominant the F14A was when it released xD I owuld know I was fighting it in an FGR2
The direciton of the conversation has changed though with the addition of a concession in the fact I stated BAR the turret armour as well as the ufp.
That statement thus directs it into including the UFP into conversation on the argument of it cannot be penned.
I teach the language for a living at university level mate.
I checked his stat card and it shows he’s not used past the M1 abrams for me
2 Likes
1- I specified late Flankers [>2012].
2- The Flanker series of aircraft have designations that include: Su-27, 30, 33, and 35.
3- Su-35 is older than the Su-30SM.
3a- If you have proof that Sukhoi used a different fire control system for a younger jet, by all means provide it.
4- F-15C GE is an older aircraft than what MRMLs are used on IRL.
So if you oppose dual-racks on newer versions of airframes it’s known to be compatible with, you have to oppose dual-racks on aircraft older than aircraft those dual racks are known to be compatibility with to be consistent.
Uhuh… Weird how this Flanker photograph exists:
Your attempt to move goalposts from >2012 Flankers to specific Flanker designations is noted, and ignored.
1 Like
Uhuh… Weird how this Flanker photograph exists:
Hi this is an Su-35S, which has a wider centerline space than other Flankers.
Also, the centerline double rack has only ever been advertised and seen on Su-35S, there is zero evidence that it can be used on other models.
Su-35 has no added space between the engines, it’s a Flanker.
Stop spreading myths you will never have evidence for because evidence cannot physically exist.
Edit: Here’s the proof:
What in the name of Russian Bias?
A lot of low tier Russian tanks now have their fuel tanks modeled as exterior tanks, so damaging them does nothing.
Well even if that is the case… There’s still no evidence proving that 27SM/30SM/30SM2 can utilize it… besides the fact that they’re flankers but that’s kind of a curious reasoning imo.
From what I recall when asked, Smin provided the pic they used to prove 30SM carrying them… Which was a picture taken at a poor angle giving the illusion of twin racks when in reality it was one missile on the centerline and one on the intake.
That looks correct tbh, they arent part of the crew compartment so modeling them as external is okay
I know, hence my surprise you don’t recognise any ambiguity in a statement along the lines of “You can do A, but not B. As well as C.”
The last advertisement for the dual rack R-77 was for Su-30… SK? and Su-35 at the least, because the advertisement is… older than the Su-30SM, SM2, MKM, Su-27SM2/3.
A document cannot include future versions of aircraft that don’t exist yet.
And Sukhoi being a modern [solid state era? Whatever the 21st century era of computers is called for aircraft systems] aircraft manufacturer, the assumption is aircraft manufacturers do not downgrade avionics systems for future versions of their airframes.
Without evidence to prove otherwise, that is the assumption made.
Which is why the British aircraft Tornado GR4 was given PGMs.
I don’t understand why people are complaining that Gaijin are following consistent rules in this regard.
1 Like
Because they arent. Smin stated multiple times in all kinds of suggestion threads that for a weapon or loadout to be considered on a plane it has to be proven without doubt that it is compatible with that specific version of the aircraft.
4 Likes
The last advertisement for the dual rack R-77 was for Su-30…
The last advertisement I recall mentioning the dual racks is the very old and the newer Su-35 brochures.
Su-30MK/MK2, Su-30SME and Su-30KN brochures do not mention such equipment.
Spoiler
older than the Su-30SM, SM2, MKM, Su-27SM2/3.
Also Su-35 proper (901-903 prototypes from the initial testing batch only predate 30SM/SM2, Su-27SM3 isn’t in game but whatever.
And Sukhoi being a modern [solid state era? Whatever the 21st century era of computers is called for aircraft systems] aircraft manufacturer, the assumption is aircraft manufacturers do not downgrade avionics systems for future versions of their airframes.
What?
Without evidence to prove otherwise, that is the assumption made.
Which is why the British aircraft Tornado GR4 was given PGMs.
I simply want my Flankers to be just a wink more historically accurate.
So glad gaijin stood by this standard with Kh-38M, UPAB-500/1500, KAB-250LG and Grom
Like I’m all for more interesting weapon options, but if I can’t even get a historically accurate Su-30SM2, then I don’t some fake dual racks instead, especially since thanks to Su-30SM2 having things it shouldn’t, the dual racks make it more strong than it really needs to be in game.
1 Like
So you’re for MRMLs being removed from F-15C GE because it never fitted them?
I’m not, because the avionics differences between F-15C GE and the F-15s the national guard use currently have been proven non-existent.
And there is no proof that Sukhoi downgraded the avionics from the 2012 Su-35 to the 2013 Su-30SM to the 2024 Su-30SM2 to the 2019 Su-30MKM.
On top of that, no one has ever said it’s for a specific variant of an airframe.
Specific country for weapons that country integrated [not store equipment]? Yeah.
Oldest airframe rule? Yeah.
Never saw a post as you described.
Is it proven that it is technically compatible? If no then remove it. If yes then let it stay.
10 second of searching. Recent example. The Dev Server is Opening with Major Update “Ninth Wave”! — 16.03.2026 (Dev Server is CLOSED) - #554
The Dev Server is Opening with Major Update “Ninth Wave”! — 16.03.2026 (Dev Server is CLOSED) - #614
And there is no proof that Sukhoi downgraded the avionics from the 2012 Su-35 to the 2013 Su-30SM to the 2024 Su-30SM2 to the 2019 Su-30MKM.
This isn’t really an avionics issue, more so a FCS issue.
Which Su-35 since it’s first brochure in the early 2000s has been advertised with dual racks for RVV-AE (and eventually RVV-SD), while Su-30SM/MK has never been seen to be offered with them.
For me at least, that’s reasonable to say that there’s no reason to think 30SM/MK/27SM is compatible with the dual racks.
Your example falls under this:
Germany integrated extra ATGMs, and it is unknown if that was a standard for the aircraft line or something Germany did on their own.
Just because you make up a rule doesnt mean its a rule Gaijin follows. Its about the version of the Heli not where its from
Precisely. Germany integrated additional PARS for their version of the UHT, its unknown whether the French version can do the same. The same applies to the SU30SMs Pylons
Here you go btw
5 Likes
Just because you make up a rule doesn’t mean its a rule Gaijin follows
That’d require them to follow their own rules in the first place.
COUGH COUGH Mi-28NM’s LOADOUTS
1 Like