You’re very welcome to find an example where i did comrade botsky.
Basically 80% of your replys (including the current/last one).
Lmao dude great argument. Can’t even name a single example. I sincerely hope you’re a Bot, because that amount of incompetence in a human would be just sad.
2 Likes
Bold, comming from you. You yourself have never provided a solid argument, only assumptions, conformational bias’s and russophobia (granded in the last one you’re moderete).
I dont inted to quote all the bs that came out of you… its in every thread connected to Russian/USSR vehchicles. The collage, that @Necrons31467 did is moren then enough for the regular forum dwellers, to see the small, but vocal minority of BS-talkers, that allways “knows better” even if they haven’t touched the object of discussion…
Man I think someone with non-profit IT skill swarm this forums with multiple personas
Anyway, WT is E-sport ready
I’ve provided nothing else which is exactly why you can’t name a single example. And like I’ve already told your collage making friend. You don’t need to play russia to see that the LMUR loft compared to everyone else is bs or that the kh38mt shouldn’t be in the game or that the between engine racks of the su30 are fake or that the irbis is overperforming compared to actual AESAs or that the belt on the BMPT is unrealistic. I have no idea why you people think that having played russia is some kind of necessity so see and call out these things.
The perceived impact of these things is dependent on having experience with the tree, their existence isn’t.
2 Likes
Fair enough
Russian bias are just a idea
3 Likes
You see, there’s a difference between a ground target and an air target. Hope this helps 👍
big if true
Alright since you’re being a dick I’m just going to stop the interacting with you
Sure pulled out of thin air it’s not like we have an footage of it actually working in combat but I guess whatever you say bro I guess
1 Like
Damn, bro, I did not know you get touched so much by words, don’t cry, but also, do you really expect a TANK to have 37mm of FRONTAL armor?
If I told you a thin sheet of paper couldn’t stop a bowlingball going at 150km/h, would you also need proof for that or would you use commmon sense?
Well duh, I never said there isn’t, so, let me sum it up for you (it looks like you aren’t good at understanding), Why do LMURs get perfect implementation FROM THE RELEASE, while PARS, JAGM, Spike, etc. were implemented like dogshit?
I play Rafale a lot, but I would GLADLY take the IR Hammers away if :
- western manpads are fixed
- LDIRCM stops overperforming in general
- Multipath is gone, and doppler effect from rotor is modelled
- KH38 MT are removed
- LMUR loadout is reduced from 8 to 4 on Mi28MN
- Spikes and MMP actually get their loft and don’t randomly go for unimportant places (tracks, machine gun)
- the caroussel structure on t-series either spalls, or does not stop shrapnel from previous impacts, like it currently does
- Aster 30 drag is fixed
That means :
- no more OP mi28mn CAS (but still 4 competitive LMURs)
- no more OP Su34 or Su30 CAS (but still the best non F&F AGM)
- t-tank actually dying when hit in the ammo caroussel area, instead of having to pixel point one ammo / charge in particular
4 Likes
Top tier is currently is screwed in general, it’s the epitome of about 15 different issues with different ingame features (some implemented for good reasons but never updated and some straight up mismodelled).
Russian (and Chinese) CAS currently seems to benefit from them heavily since they use HE munitions rather HEAT which are much more reliable at killing tanks (since IR guidance on anti-tank munitions is modelled horribly, meaning that munitions which can overpressure are much better, and HEAT overpressures worse than regular HE). Russian top tier tanks themselves are far from being broken when strv122’s and leo2a7’s exist, since they’re slow, have mediocre reloads at best and aren’t too difficult to kill.
Gaijin has to fix a ton of issues to fix top tier, to list a few: aa spam/aa missile spam, cas missile spam, IR guidance on anti-tank munitions, revising overpressure, decompression to 13.0, complete heli balancing and research rework (helis for the most part are either dogwater or quite overpowered with few ones in between, also heli research jumps from ~160k rp to ~360k rp after the second heli in the techtree)
Artificial loadout restrictions should never happen.
Also that would just reduce the Mi-28NM’s BR.
All right then, Mr. Smart Man, tell me how much armor it should have. Because of every single damn picture and video and the inside of the tank, I saw that plate was pretty fucking thin. So I don’t know why you want a 38 mm plate to be 700 mm?
And please tell me, where did you get this idea that the LMUR was implemented properly? Because I can number at least two of the things that LMUR has that we don’t have in War Thunder. And if you think being an asshole will make your argument correct or whatever, it really won’t; it’s just showing how intelligent you are, so please try to be civil.
you mean real loadout restrictions? there has never been any evidence for LMUR being compatable with the inner pylons
4 Likes
Why? I believe that 8 LMURs are not as bad as 16 JAGMs, which not even top tier SAMs can properly fight or shoot down all the munition and the helicopter itself without being overwhelmed by a singular helicopter. It is not of my opinion that LMURs are bad, just that yes they are strong, but there’s only 8 of them, as opposed to 16 of slightly less (but still-) potent missiles.
1 Like
They absolutely do. For which many potential precedents can be pointed to;
The Inner wing station’s stores options (not just STD-1760 smart stores ) for the F-16C, -D & I?
F-16C missing inner wing pylon smart weapon carriage
See contents of "Table 2.2 " in the following excerpt
Or the Sealed AIM-54C to restore capabilities to the F-14A & -14B’s to reduce loadout restrictions imposed by now needing coolant It’s not like the AIM-54C would prove a Sufficient increase in performance over the -54A to warrant an increase the BR of the F-14A either, only restore capability that was removed, instead of corrected.
Or the Premium Early A-10A’s other pair of “conspicuously” missing Sidewinders for the LAU-105 rails without reason other than it doesn’t get them.
A-10A Thunderbolt II: The ‘Warthog’ Arrives in War Thunder!
"“The difference between the aircraft is only in the armament - the early A-10A carries a maximum of two AIM-9L missiles, while the later one is capable of carrying four. AGM-65D missiles are also available for the late version of the A-10A only, while the premium version operates with AGM-65BMaverick missiles.”
inner pylons aren’t compatible, as others pointed out multiple times already
that would be fixed if multipath and rotor return was modelled anyway
besides, if playing MICA has taught me anything, it’s that when it comes to missiles, quality is usually more important than quantity. Considering how HEAT is modelled compared to SAPHE, and considering the lofting angle, one can still be considered a casino machine while the other is far more reliable at one shoting stuff. I will also remind you that Strv122 and Merkava, formerly immune to this missile, had their roof armored nerfed right after it was introduced. Interesting timing, shall we say.