Because China bought and used the Tor M1.
Because it’s terrible and they already have the Pantsir and Tunguska, as well as the Strela nearby and more recently the Osa. No doubt they’ll get it; there’s just no priority to add it so they’ll hold it as content for another patch sometime and a “unique” vehicle for the Chinese tech tree in the meantime.
Maybe the Tor-M2, the Tor-M1 is far inferior in missile behaviour than the 2S6 Tunguska, and USSR has plently of SPAA vehicle, the best for now is more light tanks.
operator nation
CN players: Why Gaijin give we a bad SAM instead of lots domestic designs?
RU players: Why Gaijin dont allow we to play our SAM in our tree?
2S6 does not belong at 11.7, it’s inferior to TOR-M1 and ADATS, and ADATS is arguably over-BR’d.
But USA has F-16 your whole analogy its wrong.
To be fair, it should go to both. Just as the F16s ended up spread amongst a host of users.
It doesn’t seem all that flash, but it seems like fun, so I’d rather it be in the Ruski tree than the Chinese tree, as I’ve no interest in Chinese kit to get a Russian piece of kit. More ways to smite my fellow CAS players is always nice.
2S6 is not 11.7 material, its 11.3 at highest.
It should be 11.0.
Does Russia need it? No. Can Gaijin be bothered? Maybe, if there is enough of a cry considering it is just a C+V. Why would u want it? IDK.
In addressing why China has the Tor it is not wrong. In addressing the full post it is.
The question OP its doing its why there is no Tor on Russia TT. Your whole analogy its terrible. Everyone know that China use it. But its also in active service on Russia. There is no reason for it not to be in the Russia TT. Russia already having a good AA system its also a terrible take. Its up to player what they want to use.
Why USA got F-15 if they already have F-16C?. The latest its already good enough right?.. At that level its your analogy.
You clearly don’t understand the point.
I answered this question. Not the whole post.
The Chinese TT needed the Tor and the Chinese operated it, that’s why it’s in the TT.
Depends how you see it. But I disagree that the 2S6 should be the same BR as ADATS.
Pros
Cons
This is where I completely disagree with you. The TOR-M1 is by far the easiest spaa to counter. You can put this vehicle at 4.0 and it’ll still suck
The HQ17 is a different story, it’s quite deadly.
Pros
Cons
The smokey motor is what really kills it. You can spot miles away and react accordingly to the missile’s trajectory to miss it
Pros
Cons
What holds the ADATS back is it’s lack of TWS functionality. If it had it, it could very well stand toe to toe with the VT1 slingers.
What Russia needs are Tor-M2/Tor-E2 and Pantsir-S1M and Pantsir-S2 not an outdated Tor-M1 which can be comparable to the 2S6 which Russia already has
It’s horrible anyway, I would gladly trade away the TOR for 625E.
Yes, let’s give Russia TWO top tier SPAAs ON TOP OF the three SPAAs in Rank VII (that are not foldered), on top of all the other copy-paste ZSUs that are not foldered, on top of the BTs that are copy pasted and not foldered, on top of the GAZ that are copy pasted and not foldered.
that why it should be at 10.7, the 2s6 doesn’t belong at 10.7
Trust me. you dont want the tor. its garbage
Short answer? Because Russian TT have no need for 11.0 SAM while Tunguska 2S6, being lower in BR, can perform on part if not outright better (especially with those <1km and/or low altitude targets) while on higher we have “The mighty and powerful” Panstir-S1
But… personally? Wouldn’t mind having Tor in Soviet TT, provided it folded with Tunguska (as a side-grade, Tor’s missiles are a bit greater in ranger after all and can intercept drones as they spawn) and/or with upgrade package of Tor-M2
cringhe