Russian Bias in 2026?

[An_Pigeon]

@dovah4

Ah! So you have to pixel snipe a thin little slit and you can only strike individual crew members!

An Pigeon:

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.

@dovah4

“I think it’s good, therefore there shouldn’t be bug fixes for it.”

So you’re biased?

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

@dovah4

So you’re biased?

An Pigeon:

I’m biased to what exactly? I’ve over 1000 games between my abrams alone man I thoroughly enjoy the vehicles.

@dovah4

Here’s your answer: It’s not accurate.

Okay most the games not 100 percent accurate especially with classified armour values on tanks.

@dovah4

If you’re having to use artificial holes in armor to NERF a vehicle. You might as well go full bore and just not bother with accurate values to begin with.

Literally every tank in the game has the same breach weakpoints.

@dovah4

At that point, just start removing hundreds of horsepower from vehicles if you think they’re “Too mobile.” If you still think it’s OP. Remove the stabilizer. Because who cares? It’s game balance anyway.

You are purposefully ignoring how gaijin balance almost every tank in the game.

@dovah4

Woahh 😱

If only Gaijin did something like making it ACCURATE. like they SHOULD.

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”

@dovah4

If you think it’s too OP. THEN DON’T ADD IT

You’re going to have vehicles that just don’t fit.

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-

@dovah4

e wall of spaghetti code that goes all the way back to 2009

2009? Where¡'d you whip that from.

@dovah4

Some nations will just be forgotten (C’mon Gaijin, it’s been like this since release, fix the Zeros that way they can finally move down and Sim will be more balanced.)

Zeroes are at their BR cause idiots will forever try and turn fight them…

@dovah4

But at least they glance their eyes to Russian bug reports from time to time.

Now your tunes changing ¿ the mig 29 like I said sat for nearly 3 years before it even got a look in.

@dovah4

NATO tanks entirely being shat on by half-assing the implementation of modules. So the box that holds White Monsters energy drinks and snacks is now integral to the functioning of the entire turret drive.

Tell me how are they being “shat on” bar the recent leclerc turret baskets-

@dovah4

F-5E. A frankenstein of multiple F-5 variants and heavily overperforming. But because other countries used it, they were happy to fix those issues promptly, which were mostly just instructor bugs. (and most likely because it was used as a squad variant thus money)

What was the issue with the F5E.

@dovah4

Mig-21 was over performing massively and still is by 20% in acceleration. Mig-23 took until the end of 2025 to be fixed. It rated way to well in turns.

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.

@dovah4

As stated before it began to even out as more nations got their own top-tier jets and it was tipping that direction since the F-16 and Mig-29 were added where both sides were viable.

you mean the mig29 which had it’s airframe in teh shitter?

@dovah4

It’s a weakspot that shouldn’t be there.

if we gave CR2 it’s real armour not much would be able to take it out bar short range shots.

@dovah4

And then he goes back into cover repairs it, until you finally get the other guy meanwhile your turret drive is destroyed, maybe already dead after the first shot,

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.

@dovah4

“If it’s too strong and OP. The weapon shouldn’t be in the game.” I agree, I believe we shouldn’t even be at modern era. At the minimum early 70’s with the later model F-4Es and Bis’

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

@dovah4

It’s pretty good at it’s BR as of right now, but it still needs to have it’s TISEO added and a few other features that are missing since it’s a frankenstein block model the way it is right now. It’s a lot better with the refresh compared to before where it was fighting Mig-29s and F-16s all the time.

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.

@dovah4

As stated before. The Radar on it was ganked as hell when it came out. The Phoenix’s weren’t good and were worse, had trouble even doing basic tracking and served as noobie traps and the Mig-23 overperformed a large amount back then which helped it keep up. People still chose the AIM-7s over the AIM-54s after the initial shock

Yet the entire meta shifted around it and it was by far te most dominant platform in teh game?

@dovah4

it was fired farther away and was more maenuverable, and the over performing Mig-23 was able to keep up with the F-14A. Now was the F-14A better? Yeah. Did they fix a lot of the radar problems making it even better? yeah. But by the time the fixes came around the F-16 and Mig-29 just shlorped out into the 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

@DirtyOldCommie

The one that makes “as well as the UFP of the T80’s” refer to “you can pen through” instead of the qualifier about the turret, “bar the absolute front of it”.

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.

@_Renzo

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.

I checked his stat card and it shows he’s not used past the M1 abrams for me

[AlvisWisla]

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.

@Alpharius11348

there are not

Uhuh… Weird how this Flanker photograph exists:

Your attempt to move goalposts from >2012 Flankers to specific Flanker designations is noted, and ignored.

[Saprano_2132]

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.

[AlvisWisla]

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:

Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection (Part 2)

The absolute refutation of this myth that Su-35’s center-line store positions are wider between the engines. That bug report is a bug report on the thickness of the center bar, not the width of the entire dual pylon. As you can see from the photo and screenshot, the width of the dual launcher is correct as the fins overlap perfectly, and the engine width is the same. [Screenshot 2025-10-26 022055] [Screenshot 2025-10-26 021636] Su-35 and Su-30SM: Weird how the countermeasure blocks take …

[KillaKiwi]

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.

[Saprano_2132]

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.

[H_ngma]

@KillaKiwi

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.

That looks correct tbh, they arent part of the crew compartment so modeling them as external is okay

[DirtyOldCommie]

@An_Pigeon

I teach the language for a living at university level mate.

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.”

[AlvisWisla]

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.

[H_ngma]

@AlvisWisla

I don’t understand why people are complaining that Gaijin are following consistent rules in this regard.

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.

[Saprano_2132]

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.

[Saprano_2132]

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.

[AlvisWisla]

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.

[H_ngma]

@AlvisWisla

So you’re for MRMLs being removed from F-15C GE because it never fitted them?

Is it proven that it is technically compatible? If no then remove it. If yes then let it stay.

@AlvisWisla

Never saw a post as you described.

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

[Saprano_2132]

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.

[AlvisWisla]

Your example falls under this:

@AlvisWisla

Specific country for weapons that country integrated [not store equipment]? Yeah.

Germany integrated extra ATGMs, and it is unknown if that was a standard for the aircraft line or something Germany did on their own.

[H_ngma]

@AlvisWisla

Your example falls under this:

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

@AlvisWisla

Germany integrated extra ATGMs, and it is unknown if that was a standard for the aircraft line or something Germany did on their own.

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

[Saprano_2132]

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

[AlvisWisla]

Su-30SM, SM2, and MKM are not older than Su-35 though.

So your comparison is a false equivalence.

The same standard does apply, but it doesn’t change the output cause Su-35 and Su-30 whatever is older than the aircraft we have in game.
It would only change things for aircraft older, or purchased prior to integration, but MKM’s 2019 and now 2025 dates are long after the integration date; and Su-30SM and SM2 are in Russian service so it’s a nothingburger there.

An example would be if F-15A had BOL pod integration in 1970 and that could then be applied to all F-15s after that date.

Thanks for those screenshots that prove the standards within my posts.
I do appreciate when others post my evidence for me.

[H_ngma]

And where exactly is it stated that age of the aircraft is relevant here? Exactly, nowhere besides your head. Must be nice to win any argument by just convincing yourself that youre correct without any evidence whatsoever.