I asked Gemini AI if War Thunder bias was real and this is what it said -
Functionally, yes, the current state of War Thunder exhibits a measurable bias that favors Russian ground vehicles over their American counterparts. While developers attribute this to “asymmetric balancing” rather than political intent, the technical outcome consistently disadvantages the US tech tree in the following verifiable ways:
1. The “Burden of Proof” Disparity
This is the primary technical driver of the bias.
Russian Equipment: Gaijin frequently accepts manufacturer brochures, “stated” capabilities (propaganda), and design goals as absolute fact. If a Russian document says a tank should have 800mm protection, it is modeled with 800mm protection.
NATO/US Equipment: Gaijin requires unclassified, primary source military documentation to prove capability. Since modern US specs are classified (e.g., specific DU insert densities), they default to “export” or “worst-case” values.
Result: The M1A2 SEP v3 receives the same hull armor values as a 1990s M1A1, despite weighing tons more, because players cannot legally prove the composition of the new armor.
2. Asymmetric “Domain” Balancing
The game attempts to balance US Air Superiority against Russian Ground Superiority, which ruins the experience for US Tank players.
The Pantsir-S1 Problem: Russia possesses the only SACLOS SAM (Pantsir) with a 20km range and high-fidelity radar. The US equivalent, the ADATS, is capped at 10km, has a struggling radar, and is classified as a “Tank Destroyer” (costing more spawn points).
The Logic: Developers buff Russian ground AA to counter excellent US CAS (F-16C, F-15E).
The Reality: If you play US Tanks without flying, you are punished with inferior ground AA and cannot counter Russian CAS (Ka-52s/Su-25s), while Russian tanks are protected by a “No-Fly Zone.”
3. Selective “Realism” (Damage Models)
Spall Liners: When Spall Liners were introduced, the T-90M received them immediately, drastically increasing survivability. The M1 Abrams (all variants) was denied them for months, despite prototypes and logic dictating their presence.
Ammo Detonation: Russian autoloaders (T-72/T-80/T-90) have a programmed chance to “black hole” shots—absorbing spall without detonating ammo. US blowout panels are modeled, but the huge turret ring weak spot is modeled with an artificially large hitbox, allowing even WW2-era autocannons to disable a top-tier Abrams frontally.
4. Visual/Quality Bias
Regarding the models.
Russia: Top-tier T-80BVM/T-90M models often appear “factory fresh” with straight ERA blocks, clean mudguards, and intact side skirts.
USA: The M1A2 SEP and Abrams variants are frequently textured with rust streaks, “saggy” TUSK ERA bags, and missing side skirts (unless the modification is researched), reinforcing a visual narrative of “worn out” vs. “state of the art.”
Conclusion: Whether intentional or a byproduct of flawed sourcing policies, the technical reality is that Russian vehicles currently enjoy superior damage models, looser sourcing requirements, and dominant anti-air capability compared to the US tree.
2A7V uses a round that is not compatible with its main cannon while Abrams still hasn’t even recieved its M829A3, let alone the A4 and you’re claiming Gaijin purposely hold back Russian tanks with ammunition choices?
YES! You must understand that current US and German APFSDS not only are enough to destroy everything they meet, but they also are FAR SUPERIOR to any other nation! So balance-wise they dont even need better, whilest USSR has ones that also not most modern, but also are much weaker.
Yup, current DM53 is incompatible with L55/A1 cannon on 2A7V.
Superior German and Us technology buddy and considering there are more advanced shells that can come to those nations this is nothing.
3BM60 is the most modern round they can get for their 125mm cannons, there are certain prototype rounds out there but none of them accepted into service as far as I know.
Excuse me? None of what you said is artificial holdback. The russian tanks got an autoloader buff the second the sources were good. The Carousel is still modeled like hot shit without any complex modules compared to the baskets. ERA is a complete artificial joke. NATO tanks are insanely held back with 2 decade old rounds and armor values based on some 90s trial, because innovation in armor seems to be a marketing lie to Gaijin. Their AGM is the only one that lofts. The plane launched AGM is made up. The additional R77 racks on the SU30SM are made up. The scan speed of the IRBIS compared to the AESAs is made up. There is not a single instance in top tier where russia gets held back by selective realism while everyone else does.
Probably because the reports were shit. The cyclogram is questionable as is but at least its clear.
It eats spall and doesnt create secondary spall when it should. And there are no electrical or smaller modules modeled on it like on the baskets.
True but one type of armor gets a joke thats entirely positive and the others get cardboard.
Thats alright. The ground stuff with LMURs loft or Iglas that just have to be as good as stingers or the completely joke that is the damage model of the BMPT should be enough to show what i mean.
still defeats your point. They spent more than a year to come to the conclusion they need to do research about it as many say its wrong, and they only changed it after they decided to by their own documents
Yes, thats a fair point. Still it is modelled and also makes a tank in a disadvantage, even if its a different one
is there a report about it, or is it random feature? I may be wrong but i saw spall fly throught it
eh, its also not consistent. the TTD has a bigger NERA block in front hull, but it has less power against APFSDS than leopard 2a4. I know the NERA is a wide term so they are balanced differently but hell.
But they came to the conclusion and gave them the best possible times. Other autoloaded tanks like the Japanese ones dont get the best possible.
Probably spall from outside, the carousel itself doesnt create spall when hit, the upper part of the autoloader does for some reason.
Its not consistent but especially in top tier the armor values are all over the place, tanks that are multiple tons heavier without any improvement in armor or 2020s tanks having values from the 90s. Its a mess.
Yes, but then they also made it for the China. And im pretty sure that if it wasnt for china, we wouldnt have it still… Tho its a conspiracy, i want to point out that USSR werent the only ones who got that.
Well, their reports are also aging now, and with that rebalance i think we can wait now that they also will take over the Japs
Sure is. Having add. 5 tonne on Challenger 2 without added protection is a joke.
At least they made so Abramses do have different protection even having same NERA sizes
Neither Leopard nor Abrams are firing incompatible ammo.
If you think DM53 can’t be fired out of Leopard 2A7V, neither can DM73… imagine getting stuck with DM43…
@xLORD_ZAPx
So Gemini AI is producing wrong data and should be avoided.
Thanks for warning us not to trust what Gemini AI states.
The fact that Gemini claims Abrams has spall liners when it doesn’t, and omits Leopard 2s getting them instantly is proof enough.
First of all I only mentioned Leopard, not Abrams.
Current Abram’s can use M829A2 despite the shell itself already out of service in Us Army.
Standart DM53 is can’t be fired from L55/A1, if you don’t know this then it’s your problem not mine.
DM73 is complete new shell and designed to be fired from L55/A1 cannon from the beginning, meanwhile DM53 is almost two decades old and was designed for L44 cannon initially.
DM53 wasn’t designed for the OG L/44, too high of pressure. Which is why DM43 is fired at most.
The only way DM53 cannot be fired is if the newer cannon has a lower chamber pressure limits, which would impact DM73 as well.
DM53 went into service 1998, If I remember correctly. It was started to phase out DM53 roughly a decade before 2A7V entered service. Last shells of the DM53 family (DM53A1) were given away four years ago. All before the A7 entered service. DM53 is not even coded in their fire control computers anymore. Means they indeed can’t practically fire it. The computer wouldn’t recognize the shell, if loaded.
Even if it would have been possible: Bundeswehr wouldn’t ever allow to use these shells with their precious L/55A1 high pressure guns. Barrel wear of DM53 is too high. Standard shells are DM73 (DM63 penetrator + more propellant for higher pen) and soon the new DM83 (everything newly designed). As far as I know DM73 and DM83 can only be fired with L55A1 high pressure guns.
“The whole has an equivalent of 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHA on the turret front against all chemical energy rounds, and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) for kinetic energy penetrators (APFSDS or “sabot” rounds). The M1 also tried in operations reactive armor over the track skirts to defeat RPGs, mostly encountered in an urban environment, or slat armor (rear and rear fuel cells) against ATGMs. A Kevlar liner prevents any spalling.”
