One thing is not “everything”.
Disputing a misunderstanding of what win-rate is, is not “everything”.
Funny how people never mention the game mode where nations are mixed to reduce [not eliminate] the team skill disparity of nation users:
“Italy must be OP!”
Or the teams the Italian players are playing on are just better because that’s primarily what win-rate is about: Team skill disparity.
It is foolish to compare Italy with Russia. The number of players in the Russian team is almost ten times that of Italy. You cannot argue that the largest player group has the highest technical level
And, no one cares about your arcade. Only the KH38 LMUR 95YA6M that refreshes crazily in RB and the BMPT that almost never explodes matter
Number of battles =/= population.
On top of that, it’s not USSR vs the world, it’s USSR + up to 8 other tech trees vs 1 + up to 8 other tech trees at any given time.
The skill disparity doesn’t need to be large, and nuke wins can muddy results as well.
All I need to cite is the following:
CL-13 incident.
Also, I am not arguing anything, Statshark’s data is making that argument.
There are hundreds of skill related variables that influence win rate, and one of those variables is the nature of nation vs nation matchmaking.
but why did you take arcade, the meta is different there
So “Because my plane wasn’t meta, that means it’s bad.”
Contrast this with the F-4E fighting the Mig-23 (That was overperforming massively btw) and it literally couldn’t do ANYTHING against it, or the F-4E fighting the Mig-21Bis (That was overperforming massively and is still over performing) and the R-60s were straight up better missiles than the J and hard turn radius was more important than turn rate, which didn’t matter because the Mig-21bis over performed so much, it beat the F-4E in everything.
Same with the SMT vs the F-4C.
Same thing happened with the F-100. Only did it begin to balance out more after the F-16 vs the Mig-29 where until the Rafale came along and stomped everything.
Now that a lot of the U.S. top-tier is using AIM-120C’s and D’s. America technically has some of the worst missiles in the game with their horrific underperforming AoA.
Bruh
I had to click in 3 different spots that can “penetrate” Only to get absorbed for minimal damage to the T-80B. Both same BR as the M1 Abrams.
Explain to me why Gaijin won’t fix the Abrams? People have been reporting about the inconsistencies about the M1 Abrams turret ring for years with gaijin admitting there is something wrong, but they refuse to to fix it. The Gun mantlet should be thicker than it is in-game.
They admit the Gun mantlet issue, but highly likely will leave it there for years.
Going beyond the “But this tank performs at this BR compared to this other tank at the same BR.” and crap like that.
How come when it comes to actually fixing things, as in how Gaijin actually treats the bug fixing process and suggestions for U.S. vehicles. Why does Gaijin just shaft U.S. vehicles constantly? And then they happily work around the clock when it comes to Russia?
The only times I’ve seen U.S. vehicles really get a dedicated fix is when other nations get that vehicle as well.
Russia gets a plastic model fantasy missile, Russia’s overperforming vehicles take literal YEARS to fix or are still overperforming even now. And Gaijin will happily do what they can to try and fix the Mig-29 (From what I picked up from others and devs had stated. Fine-tuning the Mig-29 specifically is kind’ve difficult because it runs into several in-engine aerodynamic simulation bugs)
Where’s the two-way datalink for the AIM-120D?
Why does the Su-30SM2 get belly hardpoints that were only on the Su-35SM meanwhile it took the F-15CGE several months to get it’s AMBER racks?
it wasnt meta, it was THE WORST jet at that time (maybe chinese flankers were even worse) so maybe 2nd worst
To point out how useless win rate is as a statistic when talking about vehicles in an obvious manner.
BMPTs in Arcade even perform identically to better than BMPTs in realistic battles, where the only real difference is win rate, because arcade battles is truly random.
Arcade ground meta is still mobility and positioning.
Gunners optic is a pretty easy and consistent shot.
Gaijin is lazy and the M1 is already the shared best 10.7 MBT in game, so they can use that as an excuse.
It took the F-15C GE only slightly over 1 month to get MRML.
The plane was added on the 11th of november 2025 and it got MRML with the release of line of contact on the 16th of december 2025.
The turret drive weakspot is so massive that literal 2.7 vehicles can pen and one shot it. It’s functionally less survivable as you can easily wipe out the crew in a single shot in multiple areas.
And you only take out one crew member
There was still a delay for the F-15CGE to get the racks it should’ve gotten. Gaijin even mulled about on if it should give it it’s BOL pods on the dev server and basically did what they did to the F-4E where they didn’t know what version they wanted it to be. Meanwhile gaijin gives the Su-30SM2 racks it never carried and gaijin gives Russia the most broken A2G missile with the Kh-38MT. A literal fantasy missile.
Fixed it for you
it has both of them now, it got bol before it went live and got mrml in the next patch
su27sm lacked dual rack r77 for like 2 patches despite being the worst jet alongside j11a
It shouldn’t have even gotten them.
Read this part again.
doesnt matter, it got it
yes, it lacked the rack that from all available evidence it cannot use
meanwhile F15CGE was added without a missile rack that is known to be functional, compatible with F15Cs and having been shown on those stations
well yeah it shouldnt have gotten dual rack r77, rather ungimped r77 and ungimped fm back then which would have actually helped it
you mean like how F15C still should get its flight model fixed?
and how AIM-120 is massively nerfed currently?
*russian, not Russian
just like the fulcrums
same can be said for the R-77 series, but they are now pretty goated in game so idc
Mobility, gun handling and reload just beats every advantage that the T-series have. Also the weaknesses you mentioned mean very little when played well, why do you think good players always flock to the Abrams over the T-series when they have to perform.
I think you are confusing your personal struggling in the M1 with the tanks performance. Then again, a lot of people always find it easier to blame external factors for personal struggles so it might also just be that.
1 crew member + destroyed FCS/optics + red/destroyed breech.
Congrats, the T-series is now a free kill.
Lemme guess. You wanna quote that CIA document where it was just a guess on it’s performance at an airshow and conflate it with the 1993 German tests.
Or you’re using the engine bench thrust instead of the engine thrust when mounted in the airframe itself.
The biggest issue the Fulcrum has currently is it’s FM, and Gaijin has already made multiple strides to fix it again and again. Which says a lot when Gaijin loves nerfbatting everything the U.S. has or leaving it in an incomplete state (AIM-120s, F-4E) or has completely inconsistent standards on what sources and the amount are needed.
It rolls back behind the hill it was using as cover and repairs itself.
The major issue the T-80 and T-64 lack is reverse rate.
Having an autoloader that’s 100% consistent is better than having your loader be killed in the Abrams (if you don’t die in a single shot.) and having a slow as crap reload.
This honestly shows your bias very well. Instead of having the vehicle be accurate it’s always “Let me arbitrarily nerf other nations.” Because that’s totally fair
