Russian Bias in 2026?

[pooqich]

@SadRIPer

Current NATO technology allows their IFVs to launch missiles on the move, because they do not require strings anymore.

TOW quite literally stands for Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided

@SadRIPer

Strf 9040 BILL ?? You don’t know your fondamentals man.

i forgot this piece of shit even existed

@SadRIPer

Leclercs/Challengers/Arietes/Abrams/Merkavas/Types are not paper ingame

funny how you leave out the most produced modern nato mbt out

@SadRIPer

Did they release electronics/basket of some sort to balance this nerf added to NATO MBTs ? Nothing. Completely unbalanced.

they actually did increase the hitbox size of traverse modules and added an autoloader module

@SadRIPer

If NATO DARTs are too strong, we decide not to implement them ?

because armor will mean nothing if they implemented those megadarts

@SadRIPer

Even if it means pening russian UFPs. Oh the horror, Russia is going to suffer just a little bit more.

cool now russian mbts have literally nothing going for them
surely you would then agree that they stand at a significantly lower br than the superior nato mbts
RIGHT?

@SadRIPer

Leclercs/Arietes/Challengers/Abrams/Merkavas/Types, those are the ones I’m talking about.

and all of those have different things that make them stand out against others

@SadRIPer

Germany is not the only NATO nation man.

there are two A7’s ingame

@SadRIPer

No it does not. IS-2 shell can literally pen every heavies, turret and anywhere else, while the opposit is simply not true.

@SadRIPer

Yes they do.

CV 90 MK.IV data and discussion

Oh, pushed to devs usually means accepted and sent to devs. Devs don’t see the report unless accepted by Techmods (i think?). UTAAS is also modular, not all UTAAS are the same or have the same functions, so my previous statement still stands, all CV90’s need all the functions proven per model. Edit: Additional info found (https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2012/armaments/Wednesday14132odell.pdf) So the Video tracking module is a separate thing from the UTAAS and that is the part we n…

[Ion_492]

I couldn’t be bothered to, so I just called out the obviously wrong ones, and the ones that know about.

[_Renzo]

@SadRIPer

In particular, I don’t think this one is false neither, as prove by this post :

I watched a couple of the clips in that post and I absolutely wasn’t impressed.

Some of the ones I watched were simply volumetric and some were just bad shots.

[Ghost_of_TelAviv]

@SadRIPer

If NATO DARTs are too strong, we decide not to implement them ?

That’s the definition of russian bias.

What kind of logic is this ?
A few nations will get darts which will pen everything everywhere ?

You don’t care about balance, as long as Nato is OP i guess.

[Ion_492]

What people don’t realize is that would either lead to Russian tanks being downtiered (have fun with a 11.7/12.0 BVM), or them being buffed so that the new darts don’t really change much when facing them.

[SadRIPer]

It’s simply not true. Sweeden is very rich, neighbor of Russia, so they do need IRST in case of an invasion.

The arguments people be using to justify the artificially nerfed stuff of NATO side.

[Ghost_of_TelAviv]

Yea, or they will play nato vs nato on 14.0

[pooqich]

@SadRIPer

And these clips :

they have something in common with many other clips ive posted

bonus rng

[SadRIPer]

No, it’s not true.

Yesterday, I saw a post stating and showing an american humvee something with atgm launch (laser guided one) being launched with radio technology something, without string.

It can shoot on the move.

If I find the post back I’ll edit the post.

[pooqich]

@SadRIPer

Uuh yes I would ? Those areas are extremely angled, of course they’d bounce.

i dont think you really undestood what i meant by what i said

this kind of armor IS OVERMATCHED BY DM63
yet it bounced

because some farthuffer thought it would be funny to leave the ricochets to rng

[pooqich]

@SadRIPer

You only have 41 games with the Ariete, of course you’re gonna have 71% winrate lmao.

Such a dishonest post

[SadRIPer]

2h40m is literally 16 games, if we consider a game lasts 10min (they usually last even longer).

So it’s not even 16 games lmao.

“That’s a lot of time spent playing a tank”, right. I almost forgot you were a raigebaiter man.

[SadRIPer]

60 games, I take you had 30 against Russia and 30 alongwith Russia (Italy is most likely paired with Russia at top tier) ?

So it means your 67% is being increased by half the games. Deduct those games, you plummet at 20-37%.

What are you trying to prove exactly ? lmao.

[Константинович7]

I’m not aware of any vehicle-based ATGM that is issued in the US or any other western country capable of firing on the move that is represented in-game, but if you find the footage and post I’d be glad to know more.

[An_Pigeon]

@Fat_Fury

2s38 premium but better then hstvl ← ammo capacity and works well in top tier

It’s not better than the HSTVL at all man, that’s just a straight up false hood, if you put the HSTVL at the same BR as the 2S38 it’ll definitely blow it out the water.

@Fat_Fury

oh really so the new pantiser with kh-38 spam and lmurs don’t work in your games huh ?

I just don’t see them at all, what I do see are BMPTs wiping teams with extreme prejudice.
As I’ve said I’m playing France, Italy, and China at 11.7 and up and don’t see Lmurs etc much.

the new pantsir as well don’t see it much. I did mention it shooting down my munitions a couple times if you’d bothered to read

@Fat_Fury

yeah my dude sure. like other stuff is also busted but somehow in russian tech tree…

Shall we go through the past 5 years of additions between germany russia and america and see how many are busted or have been busted throughout the years?
it’s literally what they do, tree by tree they have a flavour of the month.

@Fat_Fury

Like alvis which is a baiter?

lol no not just alvis.
I’ve seen literally pages of different people arguing agianst the point of russian MBTs being busted.
You’ve just chosen to ignore it completely.
@_Renzo is one of the few you can see in here actively proving your point wrong . He doesn’t bait people, he converses with them. as well as @pooqich again, doesn’t bait or try provoke anything just counter argues points which are created by stupidity.

@Fat_Fury

None of your arguments work only ones are with tanks other are barely mentioned becuase you can’t dney them like flightpaths etc… .

Sorry what? none of my arguments work ? why not? because they don’t suit the narrative that you are pushing
I’ve over four thousand hours and 6 years playing the game mate, I’ve seen BS biases for each nation come and go.

I can’t deny flightpaths? what about flightpaths?

@Fat_Fury

But they can’t only prooven in existance is thge laser version but the devs won’t do anything… while you have multiple documents about hellfire flightpaths etc reported years ago and nothing why? BECAUSE IT WOULD DEBUFF RUSSIA is it really that hard to see and notice?

debuff russia seen it all now.
They added DM53, M829A2, 5 second reloads to almost every NATO MBT, they added SPAA such as the IRIS T which blew stuff like pantsir out the water.
THe first heavy cruiser premium in game was german and broke naval for time as well.

@Fat_Fury

Like we HAVE VIDEO PROOF OF AMRAAMS DOING BIGGER FIN AOA and they just deny it “video proof does not count lol” but with russian vehicles ohh boi diferent story …

video proof has never been used by gaijin which has always been a well known fact.

The fact you don’t understand how it may be edited and changed tells us everything we need to know.

@Fat_Fury

“video proof does not count lol” but with russian vehicles ohh boi diferent story

They’ve actively rejected video sources for every vehicle in game, irregardless of it being Russian or not.
get your head out the sand.

@Fat_Fury

I’d bet that over 70% of reports get rejected with excuses like “it’s not a bug” or the evidence “doesn’t match Gaijin sources.” And that right there is the problem—what even ARE these “sources” when real, documented evidence gets ignored?"

they actually over buffed the leclercs cause of peoples sources.
@Ralin has proper sources which prove the reload rate of leclercs for example is too fast.

However gaijin used souces provided and now it has an A historcal reload rate.
as a caveat Ralin yeah I looked into it I was completely wrong about the leclercs reloads as well as their spall liners.

@Fat_Fury

"Germany is still missing a huge portion of its Boxer vehicles
America still doesn’t have multiple Stryker variants <---- fgm-148 laucnchers when? MAKE SPIKES ACCURATE TOO BTW

A yes the same Germany that got the puma at 8.3.
the same germany which has South african lights which should rightfully be in the british tree.
teh same germany which is loaded with super strong light tanks from the BR of 6.7 and up?

It’s not a bias for them not to be added to the game yet.

@Fat_Fury

America still doesn’t have multiple Stryker variants <---- fgm-148 laucnchers when? MAKE SPIKES ACCURATE TOO BTW

Spikes are decent as has been proved, not great, not bad.
Decent.
They get lofting and then almost every ground vehicle in game is buggered, same as they should remove lofting from the LMURs completely.

@Fat_Fury

documents about hellfire flightpaths etc reported years ago and nothing why?

Hellfires flight paths also follow not too far off what they should IRL BTW, they loft up then come down when supposed to.

@Fat_Fury

This kind of imbalance is exactly what’s making top tier worse and worse every single update—and it seriously needs to stop.

It’s been a merry goround for a while at top tier. Germany had all the eggs not long ago, IRIS T, Phoon, 2A7 ?

or we brushing over that.

USA had the F15E , 6 abrams between the prems and TT ones all firing the highest penning L/44 round in game.
HSTVL etc or shall we glaze over that.

the big three always have had preferntial treatment for ages.

Oh japan as well with teh Type 90s sitting under BR’d for ages completely destroyed 10.3 - 11.3 for months

@Fat_Fury

starting with the Su-30SM.

Meanwhile, we have clear, visible evidence of things like double AMRAAM racks being tested and flown, yet those don’t get added. So what’s the standard here? Because right now, it just looks completely inconsistent.

Starting with the SU30SM which as far as I can tells only real “bias” is the fact it has the two engine mounted missiles.

the double rack AMRAAM carriers FOR WHAT PLANE cause you got them on the F18s.

So on the topic of ARB, which has pretty much been dominated for years by the USA, then the gripen followed by USA, then the Rafale followed by the typhoons.
Which BTW absolutely dust the Su30SM easily.

ARB russian planes were always cheeks lol. MIG23M with a whopping 12 CMs up against stuff like the F4E with 90, more missiles, better FM, better gun. ETC

@Fat_Fury

And then there’s the Kh-38MT—a weapon that was basically a mock-up—yet it makes it in. But when it comes to missing weapons for other nations, like America or China, it takes MULTIPLE dev reports just to even get acknowledged.

What missing weapon was added to china?
Also my opinion on the KH38MT is well known, it should be removed until proven it exists. Not left in game until proven it doesn’t

It’s also not just in russia though so.

@Fat_Fury

So what’s the point of restricting weapons for certain countries if, when you finally add them, you either make them underperform or completely gimp them?

what like giving germanies Typhoon brimstones it historically never had?
or completely nuetering one of the typhoons most tactically advatnageous weapons it has?

@Fat_Fury

This update had AMPLE time for testing, fixing, and improving weapon guidance. Yet somehow we still end up with stuff like the SLAM-ER completely losing lock because of its dive angle. And you know what makes that even worse? The fact that its GNSS guidance isn’t properly modeled at all.

GNSS modelling doesn’t work for anyone though? it’s not like it works for russia either.

@Fat_Fury

And the cruise altitude? Why is it sitting around 600 meters? That’s high enough for every SPAA within a massive radius to detect it instantly. That is the EXACT opposite of what that weapon was designed to do. It’s supposed to fly low, avoid radar, and actually function as a standoff weapon—not announce its presence to the entire map.

Wait until you realise that most weapons in game don’t function like they’re supposed to

@Fat_Fury

At this point, it doesn’t feel like balancing—it feels like deliberate inconsistency. Why are U.S. aircraft lacking so many of our CAS weapons?

And there it is so many of “our” cas weapons.

You’ve got literally F18s, F15Es, F16s and even F14s if you’re brave enough to choose from and all of which can carry stand-off munitions.

Why are Brimstones the only Missile at top tier which doesn’t have some kind of fire and forget feature like say, the 6 mavericks an F16 can carry.

@Fat_Fury

You added the AGM-154 ONLY to the new F-16—WHY??? Every top-tier U.S. aircraft in the game is capable of carrying it. And don’t say it’s a time issue—you had plenty of time during the dev server phase to implement it across other aircraft.

Because they’ll likely add things like the F15EX to add it to.
Also is it proven that those aircraft can carry it?

@SadRIPer

They have better IFVs than NATO.

No one has ever disputed that THEY HAVE WORSE MBTS is the point lol.

@AlvisWisla

Statshaming others is admitting their arguments are stronger.

the dudes also in no position to be commenting on others performance.

[SadRIPer]

It is, because it is the only post detailing exactly what is happening, in details, at top tier against Russia rn.

[AlvisWisla]

@Fat_Fury

ammo capacity and works well in top tier

Me, that still hasn’t used more than half of the ammo in HSTVL in a match.
In-fact, I’ve dropped my ammo count on MBTs down to 12 - 19 rounds recently.
I’m all in on sustained performance rather than longevity.

I’m not trying to get 10:1 KDRs.

[An_Pigeon]

@SadRIPer

There, other videos exposing the exact opposite showing there is in fact a russia bias, and that it’s not “BS russian bias”. I stand on my point.

You quite literally ignore any point which proves you otherwise and claim it as falshoods.
even seen folks agreeing with you claiming things like statshark are “rigged” then using thunderskill.

@SadRIPer

But they won’t ? And they’re not about to nerf it as well ? So we can agree there is currently a russian bias put in place because of the BMPT ?

BMPT has been nerfed a few times already? firstly BR step incrases.
Secondly trying to make it’s modules take actual damage.

@SadRIPer

Glad we agree on the point that there is, indeed, a russian bias at top tier.

It’s a premium BIAS, they also added the puma at fking 8.3 ?wasthat german bias?
It was almost as broken as the BMPT damage model wise.

@SadRIPer

Rigged numbers as I already said, everyone can play 30 top tier games in a row and see the wins and losses. Big majority of games will be won by Russia.

NATO nations have better winrates at top tier, because sometimes teamed up with Russia. Otherwise they would have 20-30% winrate maximum. I stand on my point.

im sorry what?? rigged numbers xD

@SadRIPer

NATO nations have better winrates at top tier, because sometimes teamed up with Russia. Otherwise they would have 20-30% winrate maximum. I stand on my point.

You’ve absolutely ZERO evidence to support that at all.

the highest win rate nations in teh damn game have conviently been france and Italy, which are considered widely some of the worst MBTs at top tier.
hell, china had the M1A2 as the best MBT at top tier KD and win rate wise for a while.

@SadRIPer

So there is, in fact, a russian bias. Interesting.

A broken ass tank being added doesn’t make it russian bias.
They added as I said and you chose to ignore to other trees broken vehicles before which completely broke the game.
hell the M1 caused the entire match maker to be overhauled when it was added.

@SadRIPer

Oh wow I’m using the META vehicles to get a nuke, as Russia does. I’m out of line lmao.

Yeah but acting like you’re some godly player due to getting nukes, but can’t win a game with the M1 KVT is stupid as hell.

[SadRIPer]

TOW quite literally stands for Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided

The current NATO tech is not tow anymore. But they chose not to implement them ingame, because it would give NATO an advantage (in fact, it would balance their launchers with the russian ones).

i forgot this piece of shit even existed

Conveniently.

funny how you leave out the most produced modern nato mbt out

Man, again, NATO =/= Germany and Sweeden only. There are 6 different NATO MBTs out there, maybe it’s time for Gaijin to consider them.

they actually did increase the hitbox size of traverse modules and added an autoloader module

Oh wow, such a nerf! With an autoloader that doesn’t even explode!

because armor will mean nothing if they implemented those megadarts

It is what it is. You wanna put in place a realistic war sim game, without bias ? You don’t do selective realism, you implement everything. Even if it means Russia must suffer (the horror).

cool now russian mbts have literally nothing going for them
surely you would then agree that they stand at a significantly lower br than the superior nato mbts
RIGHT?

Why would I, as Leclercs/Arietes/Challengers are already GARBAGE, but still sit at 12.7, same BR as russian MBTs ?

Does it seem to bother them, seeing Leclercs at 12.7 while it should go 12.0 as it is so damn bad ? I don’t think so.

Lower BRs for Russia, not for NATO, lmao. It’s called russian bias.

and all of those have different things that make them stand out against others

Ragebait, Arietes/Leclercs are literally poo.

there are two A7’s ingame

It’s still german at the origin.

Maybe compare IS2 to the heavies of its same BR ? lmaooo, such dishonesty

[SadRIPer]

Conveniently enough.