They did, that’s why Russia capped all the points and pushed both their spawns 2m35sec after the beginning of the game
They were just kills of opportunity, massive spawnkills I should add
NATO side, I rarely see NATO nations spawnkill Russia side at top top tier. And it’s even less likely to spawnkill them 3min after the game begins. Only Russia can do that at top top tier
Depends, if you count the BMPT as an IFV then yes.
- IFVs : russians have IFVs with much higher fire rate, laser accuracy, 2 cannons (1 main for HE/ATGMs, 1 autocannon), much faster than some wheeled NATO IFVs. NATO IFVs in comparaison ? Bushmaster, completely garbage.
AND
- Russian IFVs can launch their ATGMs on the move, while NATO IFVs cannot, for some reason. Also, NATO IFVs need to deploy the ATGM launchers, which takes a very long time ;
AND
BMPT doesn’t loose all its ammunition when its belts are destroyed, while NATO IFVs do, for some reason
= Russia has, again, the bias in the IFV department as well
I agree on the BMPT part but were talking about strictly best IFV not best per BR. The inability to fire on the move goes away on NATO IFVs as soon as youre getting FnF AGMs which russia also doesnt even have so excluding the BMPT Nato for sure has better IFVs, gimped to hell but still better.
The inability to fire on the move goes away on NATO IFVs as soon as youre getting FnF AGMs which russia also doesnt even have
Ok so of course I forgot about that part, which is one of the most important, so I’m gonna comment about the Spikes/MMPs as well :
- Spikes/MMPs are broken (gotta love hitting commander MG 2 times in a row, a cannon then 6 ERAs eating the ATGM) ;
A little story about that : as a french main, I’m used to FnF missiles for ground IFVs. Yesterday, I registered 5 launches when the FnF missiles just went into space/300 meter behinds the actual target. FnF missiles do not only hit non vital parts on a tank, they also, sometimes, completely miss the target (for some reason). A complete useless tool for NATO IFVs.
Also, BMDs and BMPs can easily be brought to top top tier, so the BRs where they’re used is not very important. I still think they have the best IFVs
Of course you do, you will always think that regardless if it’s true or not.
I just exposed several objectives argument in that mater :
- IFVs : russians have IFVs with much higher fire rate, laser accuracy, 2 cannons (1 main for HE/ATGMs, 1 autocannon), much faster than some wheeled NATO IFVs. NATO IFVs in comparaison ? Bushmaster, completely garbage.
- Russian IFVs can launch their ATGMs on the move, while NATO IFVs cannot, for some reason. Also, NATO IFVs need to deploy the ATGM launchers, which takes a very long time ;
BMPT doesn’t loose all its ammunition when its belts are destroyed, while NATO IFVs do, for some reason
- Spikes/MMPs are broken (gotta love hitting commander MG 2 times in a row, a cannon then 6 ERAs eating the ATGM) ;
I do not invent all these things. I would like the Spikes not to be broken / the bushmaster to fire quicker, be more precise than russian autocannons for example. But it is just not the case
There is objectively a russian bias in the IFV department, as well (unless I’m lying about all these facts ?)
I know that Spikes/MMPs and autocannon accuracy are broken but the respective vehicles carrying them are still better than russian IFVs carrying line of sight AGMs and even the 2S38 clearly loses against the Jaguar/Puma VFJ/Namer
The BMPT is the exception to that.
Lying, maybe not. However overexagerating definitely.
barely an advantage since NATO IFVs have an autocannon and a seperate launcher for their ATGMs as well.
Besides the BMD-4 Russian IFVs are pretty in line with the average nato IFV. It’s mainly just the Namers bringing the average down on the NATO side, for obvious reasons.
F&F missiles can be fired on the move.
(hot take but I prefer F&F ATGMs over the Russian ATGMs most of the time, but that might be because I’m biased against ATGMs overall)
between 2-5 NATO IFVs (I could be slightly off, but this is from memory) need to deploy their launchers, so how did you turn this into a disadvantage for all NATO IFVs overall.
Don’t think so, but it is just my opinion.
I also didn’t talk about the fact that due to the low firerate of the bushmaster, all anti air belts of the puma/namer/kf are basically useless (not talking about the proxy HE of the Jaguar and equivalent here), even with IRST on.
The only good thing I can give NATO IFVs credit for are the unhumanized turrets for several of their IFVs. It can help in situations where you only show your turret behind a hill.
But as the BMPT/72 now have the same ability, I don’t think the unhumanized turret ability as an only NATO ability anymore. Also, it kinda looses its strenght as soon as you get hit in the turret, because all your ammunition just disappears (unlike the BMPT, for some reason).
Also, russian IFVs have a low profile instead, and it is ALSO an advantage in some cases. So we can’t really say NATO has an advantage Russia does not have, because it just has the same “”“opposite”“” kind of advantage.
So yeah, to sum up, Russia has again the bias, unfortunetely.
barely an advantage since NATO IFVs have an autocannon and a seperate launcher for their ATGMs as well.
BMDs can use their HE and ATGM shells midfight while moving, while NATO IFVs like the Bradley just cannot. It makes a big difference, russian IFVs can literraly shoot both their autocannon and main cannon during a close ranged fight
Again, the bushmaster is slow and unaccurate compared to russian autocannons. So there is that
Besides the BMD-4 Russian IFVs are pretty in line with the average nato IFV. It’s mainly just the Namers bringing the average down on the NATO side, for obvious reasons.
Bradley is also slow
Some wheeled NATO IFVs are extremely slow offroad. I prefer having wheels than tracks though, so it can be considered an advantage over russian tracked ifvs. But some nato wheeled ifvs are just slower
F&F missiles can be fired on the move.
(hot take but I prefer F&F ATGMs over the Russian ATGMs most of the time, but that might be because I’m biased against ATGMs overall)
Talking about sight atgms, not FnFs
And FnF missiles are completely broken as I stated, so there is that
between 2-5 NATO IFVs (I could be slightly off, but this is from memory) need to deploy their launchers, so how did you turn this into a disadvantage for all NATO IFVs overall.
Not all nato ifvs, but the ones have a launcher are of course at a disadvantage, compared to atgm russian ifvs
Bradley, the sweedish one, the 2 british ones and maybe some others (can’t remember), they’re basically the main IFVs used at their respective BRs. They’re important IFVs for NATO
And here comes the goal post moving I was expecting, honestly suprised it took this long.
What ?
At their respective BRs, BMDs and BMP-2Ms can shoot on the move, while Bradleys and Strf 9040 BILL just cannot, for example
It gives the advantage to Russia at short/very short, maybe even medium range fights. How is that “goal post moving” lol
I see where youre coming from and you might have a point at lower BRs but the top of the line 11.0/11.3 Nato IVFs are 100% better than everything the russians have besides the BMPT
Depends. At short/very short range, I rather have a very fast fire rate autocannon, than a bushmaster, or even the cannon of the ebrc jaguar
Very hard to destroy a cannon with a low fire rate autocannon. You need that at short range. Sometimes, you need to destroy vital parts of the ennemy tank very quickly at short range, and it’s better to use a rapid fire rate autocannon than a ebrc jaguar autocannon, for example
Also, when you go very fast and aim at a target far from you, the russian autocannons are very accurate (laser accurate even), so it’s very easy to hit them. With a bushmaster or even ebrc jaguar autocannon, you have to counterbalance your own speed while shooting, take in consideration where you shoot (if you go right and shoot left, gotta counterbalance your speed. If you shoot right and go right, gotta counterbalance it as well. Also, gotta take in consideration the own shell’s speed as well). All that because NATO autocannons are just slower, compared to russian autocannons. Cannot count how many times I instantly killed a target with the VBCI 1 autocannon… while it would have taken me like 4-5 seconds with a bushmaster
Plus, when I fire 4 FnF missiles at 1 singular target, and that 3 of them don’t even hit the target… I rather have a manual atgm, like the russian ones
Skill diffed.
Yeah sure, there is a skill difference in favor of Russia in 80% of top top tier GRB games
How convenient, russian players are just better aren’t they ?
Thats all correct but there is still no world in which a BMP 2M is straight up better than a Jaguar, Puma VJTF or Namer
FnF AGMs are just too good even if theyre gimped
A BMP 2M can spam a Jaguar very very fast and kill it before the Jaguar can even shoot its second/third round, in some situations
I wouldn’t bet on the Jaguar in a short range duel fight. Also, the bmp can easily destroy every modules in the puma or namer’s turret, making them unusable and easily killable. FnF missiles are also useless at short range vs the BMP
But again, those situations most likely happen at short or very short range.
Imo, russian vehicle are just made to push, while nato vehicles are made to defend. And their vehicles are well made to do that
Sure there are situations where a BMP can be better but that hardly means that its better overall
Your claim was, and I quote:
Not a single mention of sight ATGMs, just IFVs and atgms overall.
So it’s truely convenient that you change it to sight atgms as soon as someone pointed out that there are multiple NATO IFVs that can fire on the move.