War Thunder: T-series tanks explode in the thousands.
IRL: Most of the time electronics fail/crews panic from hits, or equipment malfunctions, rather than ammo being hit.
War Thunder: Mig-29’s RD-33 engines have an under-represented thrust curve causing incorrectly low acceleration between 0 & ~700kph in indicated air speed.
IRL: Mig-29 is one of the best multi-role interceptors for the cost.
War Thunder: Pantsir cannot intercept aircraft performing CAS duties due to how easy it is to control CAS aircraft outside of Pantsir’s effective range.
IRL: Pantsir performs decently against aircraft using older air to ground weapons due to said weapons being harder to use IRL than in-game.
War Thunder: War Thunder players know how to play the game and get into strong positions, using the game mechanics of audio, 3rd person view, and aim down barrel mechanics.
IRL: Tanks are inherently harder to use, and while tankers are well trained, they cannot ever achieve performance similar to that of video games.
100% First think NATO do is destroy Russian Satellites and then cripple every part of command and control.
Yes NATO will lose aircraft it’s inevitable, but they are so much more advanced than Russia it would not be a massive ask.
Remember Russia are failing to shoot down drones, drones have a massive RCS compared to an F-35
you know how stupid that is?
lets put alot of debry in close earth orbit that is on uncontrolled trajetories and will more likely than not damage or destroy friendly assets which could lead to a chain reaction that could take out most of the satilites around earth
Realistically and nukes aside, i’d bet on NATO more than Russia
No our days the US rival is China, Russia i just a pale remain of what it once was (especially if we take into account the fact that some SSRs are now against russia)
So theoretically if it was shot down, does anyone have any ideas or explanation on how? Did the Patriot pick it up at a lower speed that allowed it to be tracked by radar and then launched a missile towards its flight path to intercept it at a lower speed. Has the PAC-2 GEM T or the PAC-3 been updated to the point it can pick up the missile at hypersonic speeds and just launched a missile with the correct intercepting trajectory? Did Russia just not figure out the best way to use the missile, or are they exaggerating the missiles capabilities?
It’s not biased friend it’s critical thinking. Russia are just getting the Su-57 in meaningful numbers. Most experts would agree F-22 is still the premier A2A aircraft, would you agree with that?
As a point USA has 143 F-22s in various stages of upgrades so we can say conservatively 80-100 airframes available. Russia has 36 Su-57 and we haven’t even approached the F-35 numbers, B-21 and even systems like F-15EX.
It’s not a conventional war that Russia can win.
S-500 looks great on paper but so did S-400 and S-350V they have failed to live up to expectations.
Production isn’t just a building and some pattents, it’s first and foremost people and know-hows
If you don’t take care of those because of other priorities (say unstability or economical issues) it can be very difficult to start it again later down the line.
One can also look at a simple map and realize russia and USSR are different, or even the workforce and demographics
Spoiler
On a more personnal opinion, i think USSR was Russia at its peak like french or british colonial empires. But just like these 2 it would, imo, be better for it to let it go and focus on what they already have.
Russia has resources and all the people they need, but for some reason they seem to think their best course of action is to go on their own version of Vietnam.
From an external POV, it looks like shooting yourself in the foot and it’s genuinely quite confusing
