Good observation, every BR is going to have a strongest vehicle. 6 examples for 36 brackets big wow.
No, one nation getting selective realism to be strong at a BR is bias.
Yep mate.
It’s suble, it’s in the details, it’s not always visible by the common player, but the bias just exists.
Thank you for those observations.
79 offending posts in 9 hours… that’s something.
231 posts claimed on the topic page, 152 posts when clicking on.
By the way, to this day, Soviets have a total of zero blueprint vehicles.
Germany and Japan have some, but never Soviets.
Out of all the claims of bias, fake vehicles aren’t brought up in the Russian bias mythos.
It’s always posts reaching for stuff: Sure it’s the same technology, but this one’s correct… despite it being correct elsewhere as well, and correctness is bug report-able. Ignoring the fact that Mig-29’s engines have been incorrectly underperforming since release.
A post claimed the weakspots on T-series tanks have been removed?
I’ve been shooting the same exact weakspots against T-72s, 64s, etc since 2019; I’m still shooting those weakspots when I play those BRs, they’re still there. Though I haven’t shot the breach of T-90 or even Type 90 with weak rounds for the BR before their changes.
The reason I talk of posts is the people behind these posts? We’re all the same, we’re all sharing information and seeking understanding. We’re not here to upset each other [at least I hope not], and I love every post I read.
I didn’t know the Clemenceau class carrier was American.
Weird name for an American carrier though. ;)
Russian have blueprint wepon :KH38MT
2 Likes
tbf the 9.7 wheeled bushmaster LTs are more fun than the stats on paper make them appear.
1 Like
I just know after Leopard2s add the '‘Trunnions’'The armor of the Leopard2s has more weak
But in Russian tank add the '‘Trunnions’'Russian tank 's barrel have so sturdy
2A6 and 122B PLSS also stomped so hard when they release that they (together with the 2A5 and 122A at the same time) were the only top tier tanks in game to ever have their reload temporarily nerfed due to balance.
1 Like
It’s not a blueprint design, but we also don’t know its functionality.
We know how it functions because the seeker was produced and its methods documented, but we don’t know with 100% certainty if it was attached to a Kh-38 body.
And we know the Kh-38 body is real as it’s mass produced.
Besides that, not a vehicle.
And since it sits at 13.0 where my top BR American lineup has a lower chance of seeing it cause it’s 12.0 while everyone else is 12.7, the fact I won’t see them nearly as much as others is something to take into account.
I’ve already stated in the past I’d only main Kh-38MTs in air sim, and that has remained the case.
The last times I used Su-34 in ground battles I was exclusively using GPS guided weapons.
KH38ML is realy but KH38MT is fake
What you prefer to play doesn’t affect whether others will play 13.0. They still suffer from biases like kh38MT from Russia
1 Like
if not including ussr naval.
Blueprint/never finished vessels.
Including USSR naval, there is only production vessels, as only production vessels are allowed in War Thunder, which you admit by including this:
This isn’t even equal to prototype as prototype comes before that.
1- Blueprint.
2- Mockup.
3- Prototype. [The minimum needed for helicopters, planes, and tanks.]
4- Production. [The minimum needed for vessels.]
5- Service.
War Thunder has more strict requirements for vessels than it does all other classes of vehicle.
If War Thunder applied vessel rules to tanks, HSTVL and Leopard 2K would be instantly “removed”.
Whatever you try to justify.
Khronshtad , sevastopol, sovetsky,
Never even was close to get on to the waters only reason those are in soviet fleet is to fill it.
Those really existed only in blueprints and engineers great minds.
Izmail, about 65% complete, and from armor not even close to that.
Least hstvl they actually build 1 to test it.
Cant say that on certain soviet ships.
So no, we all know soviet ships are most fillers that never was even near sailing the seas
How many prototypes from those battleships have been made, before starting to build em?
2 Likes
Z47 is an identical situation, and Germany would have no destroyer as good as other tech trees without the later laid down ships.
And they’re still production vessels.
Process everything about the M10 Bookers of naval being in-game all you want, but you’re against the entire War Thunder playerbase with your post’s extreme minority bad take.
No hes not. Theres a difference between a realistic iteration of a laid down ship thats specifications are based on real life examples and reference and an unbuildable pipe dream that some engineer scribbled down to not end up in a Gulag.
The first one is constrained by the laws of reality, the second one is not.
8 Likes
I doubt that.
well maybe some think it is enough that something has been started to build, you get the basic of hull done, none of armor, turret, etc etc etc.
I keep that more like someone saying I got mansion, but in reality only foundation is made, nothing more. It is only on blueprint and imagination of builders
1 Like
You don’t get it bro.
NATO players have such high latency that their 6s reload turns into a 7s one, all the while bias players have nothing of sorts troubling them.
5 Likes
I wanted to jokingly check if there was literally any angle to his ramblings. Turns out russia should actually have the biggest problems with latency lol List of countries by Internet connection speeds - Wikipedia
1 Like
You also need to factor in hardware latency that naturally increases with older, worse/malfunctioning hardware. Western people should definitely have more money to buy quality peripherals instead of using no-name ones from 2005.
He’s just ragebaiting at this point.
4 Likes
The propellant charges either Zh40 or -52(and APFSDS booster charge, e.g. Zh63)for the D81 gun series of 125mm two part ammo are made of (nitro)cellulose(so are the sidewalls of NATO 120mm shells, 105’s are brass), so that are very lightweight and readily combust and so only the stub-plug needs to be extracted (speeding reload) and so should split open and burn very easily in the fighting compartment as it is only held together structurally by millimeters of TNT impregnated nitrocellulose
Based on Abrams training manuals any discovery of a ruptured case should cause the tank to be evacuated immediately due to the potential explosion risk caused by static buildup between parts and the release of fine powders into the fighting compartment.
2 Likes