Year of service =/= capability.
T-90M entered service far later than M1A2 yet is about equal in capability.
AIM-120 is vastly superior to all SARHs purely because it’s not a SARH but rather an AARH.
R-24R is AIM-7E-2 equivalent in capability.
This is a BR focused game, not one of asymmetric warfare.
If you want asymmetric warfare that’s what custom battles are for.
AIM-7F/M/P are the R-27ER equivalents by the way, though 27ER will never have ground reflection resistance if that’s added to War Thunder this year.
I started playing the russian tech tree and the team im on keeps getting dominated by the American and German teams but playing with USA i get kicked in the face by Russian and German team… I think the german team could be the true issue here lol ( this is a joke dont start )
Notice how I said if we look at capability, the R-27ER wouldn’t be in game.
In what way? If the only thing you pay attention to is the question “SARH or ARH?” then you would be right, but if you pay attention to all of their stats then they are not in any way equivalent.
The AIM-7F compared to the R-27R has 0.5M more maximum velocity, 15 seconds more guidance time, and a greater launch/lock range but the R-27R gets IOG and DL and a much greater overload.
The AIM-7F/M in comparison to the R-27ER gets a greater lock range and 15 seconds more guidance, whereas the R-27ER gets 1.8M more maximum velocity, a much greater overload, and IOG and DL. The R-27ER is very much not comparable.
The R-27ER is quite literally just hanging onto the SARH seeker too long, there literally isn’t a comparable missile to it because the US was already moving onto the AIM-120 outside of a niche AIM-7R program that never took off.
The R-27ER is essentially just a really fast, really maneuverable SARH missile that outclasses everything else until the AIM-120 brought ARH into use (less than a year later), and as such it should not have been added before the AIM-120.
I dont play air sim so I cant really comment on the BR but I can tell you in RB they 100% do not need to be moved down just because they slightly struggle fighting 12.3’s
Calling T-80BVM’s turret armor bad is a dumb argument. Like yeah, its not amazing if you dont look at the ERA but guess what, it has ERA!
The khamovs may be “easy to kill” in the same way that all helicopters are easy to kill but they are, with the possible exception of the mi-28’s and their cockpit armor, the two hardest to kill helicopters in the game
War thunder’s driving force to add spall liners is the fact that they try to accurately model their tanks but its totally just a coincidence that t90m was the first and only tank to have it on the first dev server trust me guys. Also armored warfare has had spall liners since the game came out so…
Igla’s being inferior to stingers and mistrals in game isnt the point, gaijin has been presented with numerous sources saying their overloads should be significantly higher than they are right now but their response is “we looked at the missile and their aerodynamic surfaces arent much bigger than the igla, for which we have accurate overload data, so we dont think they can pull 20G’s” and completely ignoring the fact that they use totally different guidance systems. Its not a claim. MANPADS Missiles and Overload: The Technical Details - #65 by Kobata
Sweden is pretty mediocre in ground up until about 10.0
France and britain having the best cas is a good joke. They have some decent cas planes at top tier but “the best CAS in game” is an actual joke
Best helicopter going to rooivalk what the fuck where the hell did you come up with that? The best helicopters in the game are ka-52 or mi-28NM and anyone who has actually playas helicopters isnt disputing that. The f&f helicopters have a unique advantage but spikes are arguably the worst top tier missile in the game right now because they are incredibly slow, loose track easily, and cant be manually directed to reacquire, and always aim for center mass which often fails to kill the target or sometimes fails to even penetrate the armor.
Abrams is solid enough but lacks armor as has been shown. It’s exceptionally easy to one shot both through the driver’s hatch and from angles
Leopard and Russia balance each other out because they’re both pretty hard to one shot.
Challenger is the worst tank in top tier (no, the Ariente is not worse, the Ariente has more speed, more pen, more turret rotation, etc.) Meanwhile in real life it absolutely smashes Soviet equipment
Leclerc seems alright when I face it but can’t really say much
Ariente has no armor whatsoever and as such anything can destroy it
Meanwhile Russia and China have atrocious equipment in real life and it just dominates in top tier, with Sweden and Germany to counter balance.
The only people who complain about NATO tanks being OP are those who are so blind to reality, Gaijin ofc has a near impossible job to balance various aspects of the game, but it’s clear that the USSR/Russian tanks absolutely are given more priority, given more favoritism, and often significantly overperform compared to real life.
I mean hell the entire current Challenger saga shows how much attention is given to them. Nothing at all.
The dude posting it may be trying to speak that says yeah, people always complain bout bias.
But NATO tanks are, if anything, biased against. It’s pretty clear the equipment quality difference in conventional forms of warfare, and it’s not modeled into War Thunder. USSR Equipment is top tier in ground, and it just, has no reason to be.
Да да конечно.
Когда западная аудитория сказала что хочет чтобы T30/T29 не поднимали, разработчики их послушали, хотя танки действительно обладают отличными характеристиками для своего бр.
Когда бритоводы слёзно просили оставить 5 секунд 3ТД, разрабы их не послушали и сделали кд как у леопардов. А вот через неделю дать кд абрамсам в 5 секунд, это другое.
А сколько бритоводы нают на получения хоть какой-то бмп буквально с первого дня существования форума. И что делают разработчики? Ничего. Откройте ветку шведов и вы увидите все вариации бмп CV90, даже три одинаковых на одном бр (просто пушка, зенитка с радаром, бмп с птурами).
Когда люди говорят что разрабы относятся предвзято к США/СССР/Германии, они очень сильно ошибаются, разрабы предвзято относятся только к Шведам, потому что это их любимая нация.)))
NATO tanks at top-tier have generally had more time dominating Russian vehicles than the other way around.
19th of September 2017, ‘‘New E.R.A.’’ releases, in which the Kpz-70/MBT-70 curbstomp the Chieftain Mk10 and T-64A so hard, that an entire ban between Germany and USA being able to team up had to be established.
12th of June 2018, ‘‘Project X’’ releases, in which the M1 Abrams dominates everything with such ease, it had to be limited in spawns. The Leopard 2K was also superior to the T-64B and Challenger.
19th of September 2018, ‘‘The Valkyries’’ releases, the IPM1 absolutely rolls over everything with global 80%+ winrates for months and months, the T-80B, Leopard 2A4 and Challenger stand no chance whatsoever.
12th of March 2019, ‘‘Locked On’’ releases, the Leopard 2A5 dominates the T-80U, Challenger 2 and M1A1, it’s not even close between these vehicles and the T-80U sees deep red 30-40% winrates…
16th of December, ‘‘New Power’’ releases, the Leopard 2A6 demolishes the T-72B3, M1A2 and Challenger 2 like no tomorrow.
It’s curious to me how 3 years of NATO dominating Russia are so easily forgotten, yet the time that the T-80BVM dominated is seen as absolute proof, dispite Russia having atrocious winrates below top-tier for an equal amount of time, being at around 39-49% ranging between 9.0 - 10.3.
The most perplexing element about this discussion for me is people taking partial winrate data from Thunderskill as an accurate sample of (or worse, even the same as) actual winrates.
Range, kill-maneuverability, and notchability.
AIM-7F compared to R-27R, AIM-7E-2, Super 530D, etc is so far ahead.
IOG is acting correctly but things without IOG aren’t at this time.
There is always room for radar missile improvement.
@AUSChalkWarrior
Which only really protects the UFP cause the turret is mostly unprotected when its aiming at you.
@KnightFelix I’m glad you 100% agree with me nothing needs to be moved down.
You are here to defend Russia so I’ll be the one to criticize Russia as I always do.
Weird of you to claim that Leclerc & BVM’s turret are fine. [Leclerc’s turret is only slightly better than BVM’s].
Armored Warfare does not have spall liners.
Sweden has amazing ground from 5.3 to top BR.
France & Britain both share a fighter & strike CAS, which is separate spawn-point pools making their CAS inherently more lethal.
Ka-52? lol 10km TOW-2s aren’t that great.
Spikes don’t aim center mass anymore. No F&F system aims center anymore. They all aim in a cone.
Just because people dominated with Leclerc & BVM does not make them the most powerful machines.
@CrowsShinyWings
Russia and China don’t have equipment that dominates.
T-90M is Strv 122A equivalent and it’s still slower.
Type 99A is slightly worse than Strv 122A.
They only remember things that support their case.
I suppose people forgot updates that introduced systems like thermals or commander overrides, which as we all know aren’t that prevalent on USSR vehicles below top tier.
Gaijin will release stuff according to the schedule, they don’t really care who’s going to be hurting.
Hate to be that guy but Strv 122A isn’t what people think of as “NATO”, they think of it as “Sweden”. So no, they are dominant, and that’s ignoring the fact the Russian and Chinese tanks are absolutely overpowered compared to real life.
And yeah with the T-90, hell the BVM, the ZTZ, shockingly having a tank that is near impervious from the front due to hull and turret mostly being protected, that’s dominant.
My challenger essentially cannot bounce shots, gets a giant hull that can be penned, gets the largest cannon breech that’s missing over half its armor, is slow, worst penning rounds, etc.
Yes the Leopard is good, but it can be damaged pretty easily, same cannot be said for those three.
Abrams improvements got shut down because Gaijin said so.
Which leads to the rightful complaints that NATO is biased against.
Though apparently at old top tier it wasn’t because when the first MBTs get introduced they dominant non MBTs, pikashock. And that there are no problems because at one point other nations got better equipment than others. Just laughable
Soviet tanks in War Thunder pop turrets just like real life.
That’s not OP.
BVM has little armor just like real-life.
T-series tanks all have unclassified armor so their armor is accurate to real-life.
T-series tanks were never OP in War Thunder.
3BM42 was the best round until DM53 was added where 3BM44 was added. Then 3BM46 & 60 were added, and 60 can only be fired from T-72B3 at the time, and it still wasn’t enough to be as powerful as a DM53 equpped 2A5.
