Just like in simulation battles—where a Leopard 1A5 might end up on the roof of a T-90A—it is possible to damage enemy tanks regardless of their armor angle (hitting the lower front plate, the turret, etc.).
Can’t you even consider the possibility that there might be a typo?
Damn Google Translate.
That is infinitely better kill probability than T-44 has when it meets Maus.
Who the hell knows. German mains are unpredictable.
First of all, I am a German main, so you can drop it with this act. I am pointing out an irreconcilable logical inconsistency in your argument that you refuse to address.
For example, this is the ground sim room you are complaining about, which has two variants of the EBR on the Allied side; of course ahistorical vehicles (as is the norm in this game).
If we wanted to give this room a historical character let’s say, I suppose the closest analogue you could find is the Kamenetsk - Podolski pocket; after all, the German player has access to the Panther D and the Tiger, while the Soviet side has the T-34-85 but not yet the IS-2.
Let us for a second ignore the fact that all Axis nations and all Allied nations will be on the same battlefield at the same time, and that you’ll fight in ahistorical maps like Sun City, and just focus on the vehicle roster. You complain about the EBR being in this room and claim that this is proof of bias towards the Allies. However, the Axis side in this very room also has access to vehicles that date to a later period than March 1944:
That’s not all, you can also use the Ostwind II in this lobby, which is not historical at all (and which I might add eats M18s and EBRs for breakfast). You can use the BV 155, even though its first flight was in September 1944.
Japan also gets an M44. Italy gets both an M44 and an M55. Just like the Allied side, Italy also gets to use the M18. I could go on. All ahistorical vehicles on the Axis side that you are conspicuously silent about.
Now look at the 1.1 room.
Many of the vehicles featured in this room date from the Spanish Civil War or Fall Weiss. So a player in a Soviet or Chinese T-26 has to fight an Axis player that can use…
Up to three spawns of an armoured car which debuted in combat in late 1943, using a long 50mm gun that did not even exist when WW2 began and the standard armament for Panzer IIIs was 37mm.
The Puma is much faster than the T-26, has a much better gun, and has actually better survivability because rounds don’t always fuze or take out the whole crew, while in the T-26, the crew compartment is so cramped that any penetrating shot is going to nuke everyone inside.
You have better odds of beating an EBR in a Tiger E, than you have of beating a Puma in a T-26. Yet you only complain about the one on the “enemy side”.
Let me put this as clearly and bluntly as I can. There is nothing original about your position. You are just the latest in a long line of players that get upset when they die to something, and run to the forums to whine and complain about balance, instead of trying to understand balance from a holistic perspective.
There is nothing more that can be said on this topic until you address this irreconcilable double standard in your approach, unfortunately.
Yes, I agree that the inclusion of these specific vehicle models doesn’t make sense from a historical perspective.
However, these models don’t dominate the game the way tanks like the aforementioned EBR 1954 do. As you pointed out with the M18 example, they can even be destroyed by machine-gun fire when cornered. Their reload speeds are also quite slow.
The IS-2 and T-34-85—which you mentioned—were vehicles designed to counter the Panther and the Tiger I.
On the German side, they had the Tiger II; had the war continued, they might have even fielded the Panther II—it’s hard to say for sure.
When you follow a historical progression, the two sides can actually be balanced.
But the moment you introduce vehicles designed for a Cold War doctrine—tanks that are highly mobile, feature fast reload times, and possess superior armor-piercing capabilities—everything changes. These models are based on an entirely different combat concept.
Stop citing absurd, nonsensical combat scenarios from “realistic” or “arcade” game modes. In those instances, a vehicle of that type can quickly maneuver into a position behind enemy lines; the moment it hears the rumble of an approaching tank, it pops its turret out, aims in a split second, and fires. By the time the enemy—who might be standing still, trying to line up a shot—realizes what’s happening or where the fire is coming from, they’ve already fallen right into the trap, only to be humiliated by a second, follow-up shot.
I am honestly fed up with having to spell things out, step-by-step, as if I were explaining them to a fool.
You people are so devoid of any moral integrity that you try to construct counter-arguments based on one or two exceptions.
For starters, the tanks you refer to—the KV-1 and IS-3—are exceptional cases.
Honestly, I’m surprised the IS-3 wasn’t included in battles against the Tiger II; it should have been there to absolutely crush us.
You lot haven’t even come to terms with the Puma yet—even though there are perfectly viable alternatives to counter it.
If we’re prioritizing the year of entry into service, then let’s not pit the T-34-85 (which entered service in February 1944) against the Tiger I (which entered service in 1942), shall we? Do you see me complaining about that?
Moral integrity is a vital virtue.
Personally, I take no pleasure in destroying enemies using a Tiger I against a T-34-76.
But a bunch of kids like you might find enjoyment in that—and then go on to fancy yourselves “good players.”
I’ll say it again: simulation battles are a completely different world. They require a high level of precision. Instead of wasting time on new, nonsensical vehicles, the focus should be on fine-tuning this mode.
Look, most of the vehicles mentioned here entered service during WWII and were built around specific design concepts.
My friend, the AMX-13 uses ammunition with 200mm of penetration; it’s agile, fast, and has a quick aim time. By what logic can you claim it’s worse than a Panther A? Are you talking about Arcade or Realistic battles?
Look at what I explained to the other guy—breaking it down as if for a fool: armor thickness on paper stands no chance when faced with superior mobility. It’s the same as pitting an IS-7 against a Leopard 1A5. I mean, I even have to explain this. What kind of level is this?
You definitely not complaining about T-64A(1969) vs Leopard 1A5 (1987).
Most Yak’s lose performance fairly noticeably at higher altitudes with the exception being the Yak-3U. A 109G-6 largely outclasses a Yak-3 above 4km if you energy fight him. The G-6 can actually spiral climb away from a Yak-3 even on the deck.
I disagree here as well. Just a few nights ago I was 3 vs 1 in my Sea Fury against a Ki-84, Yak-3 and a P-51 (I think) at Stalingrad with all of us above 20,000ft off memory. On larger maps like Denmark and Dover higher altitude fights are fairly common.
My point is as a 109 pilot against Russians your job is to always be above them, never fight them on equal terms unless you’re at a high enough altitude. If the Yaks are at 5km then why aren’t you at 6km where you most certainly out perform them and they can’t do squat to stop you. The Yak-3 can’t even dive away.
I disagree barring the D-9 which with AEC is well off the mark and with a stupid BR. Early 190’s can dominate most things they face including the Spitfires. It’s only from the Mk IX onwards where the Spitfires reach parity/overpower the 190. The TA-152 can out sustained turn any Spitfire as well unless something has changed. The way that thing can pull and hold 400km/h indicated even on the deck borders on magic.
Not even close. German tanks pretty much across the board abuse OPHE far easier than the other two thanks to having higher penetration on average. Add on to this greater armour and much better mobility than you’d expect and you have easy-mode tanks. It was always funny to me how German mains complained about the IS-2 deleting German tanks at close range whilst said German tanks can delete everyone at close range, medium range and long range… including said “OP” IS-2.
That’s rich coming from the guy who mainly complains about one French armoured car.
No, this is the norm, because history is not balanced. Which is why we don’t have historical matchmaking in the game.
Maybe that should make you question your assumptions.
I. Am. A. German. Main.
There are perfectly viable alternatives to counter the EBR.
Either both the Puma and the EBR deserve to travel back in time, or neither do. There is no third option available.
The Tiger I on the Eastern Front was used in exactly one (1) action in 1942, around Leningrad, which ended in failure. Its first proper mass employment in the east was at Kursk. That is beside the point however, if you want historical MM a vehicle will be fighting for the duration of its service life, not just at the beginning. So a room that involves both the Tiger I and the T-34-85 would by necessity represent a time no earlier than March 1944.
You’re either for or against historical MM. You don’t get to cherry pick.
And yet under the historical MM you are advocating for, this should be possible.
On the contrary. It is us who are saying that MM should be based on performance. It is you who are saying vehicles should not meet each other if they are apart in time.
Are you confused?
Simulator is played by 1% of the playerbase. The new vehicles bring them money and players and it is a sensible business decision to focus on them. Moreover, it is unclear what this has to do with the EBR, which has been in the game for years.
Bruh. Listen to yourself. The T-26 first entered service in 1931 and the Puma is from 1943 (12 years), the Tiger I first entered service in 1942 while the EBR is from 1951 (9 years), but the first one is fine because Pumas can be killed? Guess what, EBRs can be killed too! For someone who yaps so much about moral integrity and goes around calling people liars, you are displaying a remarkable lack of those qualities here. You don’t care about other players. You don’t care if they have a balanced experience or not. All you care about is me me me me.
I’d rather be in the IS-7, thank you very much.
Puma is now 3.7 with the most superior mobility at the rank. Yet some believe its too high.
The Tiger I was used in the Third Battle of Kharkov. Are you ignorant?
You keep going on about the Puma entering service in 1943. My friend, the light tanks currently active in this part of the game’s tech tree—from the American, British, and Russian lines—are all facing each other. They aren’t being pitted against vehicles like the Tiger II or the Char 25t, which are in a completely different league.
Besides, similar vehicles exist in the tech trees of other nations as well.
I feel like I’m repeating myself over and over.
So, are you actually trying to claim that the Tiger II and Panther have the same performance as the Char 25t?
Just stick with the IS-7; it works fine in both Arcade and Realistic modes.
Our discussion is over.
No they dont, thus they have lower battle rating. More specifically 6.7 while Char 25 is 8.0 and you can meet him ONLY by intentionally playing higher rating with your Tiger 2. You cant even meet it in SIM! Well you CAN but you also can NOT use the Tiger 2 there.
Batrakov, listen to me.
Change the game language to English.
Go to the game lobby, click on “Community,” and then navigate to the “Stream and Replay” section. It will ask for an ID—enter my nickname or my ID code. Look through the battles and find the one I played on October 22nd at 09:59; take a look at the Char 25t there.
How can I phrase “Ground Sim Battle” in the main title? These guys don’t seem to know any game modes other than Realistic and Arcade.
We apply most of the techniques you mentioned; however, in simulation battles, combat generally takes place at low altitudes.
Looking at it, the Bf 109 G-14 and the Yak-3 actually entered service during the same period.
The G-6 feels more like an intermediate variant; I couldn’t find a direct counterpart for it in the Soviet tech tree. The Soviets introduced their high-performance, next-generation aircraft in 1944.
The Yak-9T seems to fill that gap reasonably well.
In the hands of a skilled pilot, you could potentially hold your own against a Yak-3 using a G-6, but a G-14 is required to achieve a true balance.
After all, we’re talking about the Yak-3—it’s an absolute beast. It doesn’t lose energy the way you described; to put it simply, while you might need to expend 10 units of energy in a G-6, the Yak-3 only needs 2. It can execute the very maneuvers you’ve painstakingly planned and calculated with the ease of someone playing an arcade-style match. At the very least, you need to be a kilometer above it, because the plane doesn’t bleed energy—it turns incredibly fast, climbs rapidly, and has excellent weaponry. It is, quite simply, the best Soviet aircraft.
What I don’t understand is why, in simulation battles, it’s always the German side that has to play with such extreme caution. They are constantly forced to play at their absolute best, requiring significantly more effort.
The reason for this is the point we’ve been discussing since this thread began:
Even though the Allies have equivalent vehicles, they are effectively playing with “superior” machines. <
In the name of “balance,” they’ve stripped the aircraft of any distinct character. Across the board, Allied planes outperform their German counterparts in every single category. Take the Yak-1B, for instance—an aircraft that entered service in the autumn of 1942—it has a Battle Rating (BR) of 3.3! Its maneuverability is excellent; it turns even better than the F-4 and doesn’t bleed energy. We’ve reached a point where players of the German tech tree—who are constantly fixated on performance—end up settling for “at least it’s worse in this one specific area,” even when the overall performance is actually on par. We just use that to console ourselves.
An Allied aircraft should never, under any circumstances, perform worse in any aspect. But a German aircraft? Well, plenty of people play those, so it doesn’t matter at all.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
t55 amd-1 ,t62m-1 ?
Pfff i don’t care if Sim goes on production date br ill be on T-80U against Leo2A4 or Leo1A5
Perfect! That much easier for you to get above them and stay above them where the Yak’s can’t touch you.
I’ll be honest I’m not a skilled pilot at all but as long as I make sure to have altitude and to make sure I never ever turn fight a Yak-3 they’re not a problem. I’m far more scared of being caught by a good Spitfire pilot or Typhoon/P-47.
Spitfires require more effort on average than 109’s simply due to the flight model. An average pilot can keep a 109 flying straight whereas the Spitfire will have them crabbing and stalling all over the place. Although some aircraft can be a bit braindead to play most of them require discipline and German aircraft are far from the worst to fly.
The He-100 outclasses everything it faces at 2.0, the 190E-1 and E-3 is also very strong at their BR’s.
The early 109F’s can turn with anything barring the Yak-1B and a Spitfire. The 190A walks away from both of those aircraft. The 109F-4 is even popular in later prop tiers.
The 109G-2/G-6 can out turn and out climb pretty much everything American and murders anything Russian in boom and zoom attacks. They’ll even out turn or turn with the La-5FN with the 109’s being better in prolonged turning fights. The Yak-3 is dangerous but the 109’s are perfectly capable of killing them at altitude. I’d actually say the I-185 was harder to fly than the 109’s and the La’s require more discipline as well.
The G-10 out turns everything American, out climbs everything American, out accelerates everything American at all but high speed and can even stick with them for a while in a dive. It can out dive and out climb most things Russian whilst being even better at altitude but it’ll never out turn them barring the La-7.
The K-4 is a G-10 on steroids and arguably a better aircraft than the Tempest V, P-51D’s and most Yak’s you see flying barring the 3U.
I’d never say that Germany was braindead to fly for but they don’t have it bad… I’d personally rather fly a 109 over any equivalent Yak as you have more options.
Is the Spitfire LF bad, too?
Frankly, any vehicle at a high altitude—or positioned above its enemy—already holds an advantage.
The only thing they can cling to is the idea that “you have an advantage when you fly high!”
That’s the state of players who main the German tech tree; they even use this as a form of consolation. :)
Let’s look at ground forces for a moment. I just noticed that some of my Golden Eagles are gone—the KV-1C 756(r) used to be available in the current ground simulation battles, but it’s been removed from the tech tree. It was dominating the game, so its removal makes sense.
But should changes really be made just because some people are unhappy about certain things? Does the absence of complaints from others mean that everything is fine?
Does the person who shouts the loudest get to be right?
Should we listen to the types—I don’t even know how to describe them—who claim that the original, “invincible” versions of bombers were perfectly fine, simply because they’re the ones making the most noise?
The IS-7 has been added to the same lineup as the Leopard 1A5. I mean, what could an IS-7 possibly do against those tanks?
Honestly, simulation battles are in dire need of serious balancing. Instead of focusing on new vehicles, these issues should be addressed.
The He 100? It’s got good speed, but that’s about it. I’d suggest looking at the Hurricane, the Swedish tech tree, the P-400, or those Soviet biplane contraptions. They’ve really captured the “German character” in the He 100, though—the Bf 109 E-1 is even worse.
The Bf 109 E-3 (late 1939) is “very strong” at its BR? Are you joking? The Yak-1 (1941) entered service in late 1941; its performance and armament are quite solid—a typical Soviet aircraft. Then there’s the P-40F-10 (late 1942), the Buffalo F2A-3 (late 1941), the A-36 Apache (1943), the Ki-43-II (December 1942), and various Italian machines (too many to list). I’ve also spotted a few decent things in the Swedish tree. And honestly, those FF/M cannons are such a curse—you practically have to shove your plane right into the enemy’s face to land a hit.
The F-1 and F-2 variants also feature models that were produced much later—like the Yak-1B or the F6F-5—but I won’t bother listing them all.
You mentioned the G-2 at 4.3 BR; well, it faces the P-51 C-10 at 4.0 BR—a plane from late 1943 (or even 1944) that outperforms the G-2 in every single category. Then there’s the Yak-3 at 4.3 BR (mid-to-late 1944). Frankly, most Soviet aircraft turn better than the F-4 or G-2 and are better at energy retention. The P-38J-15 (early 1944) sits at 4.0, the F6F-5N (1944) at 4.3, and the FR-1 Fireball (1945) is also present. There’s the Italian C.205 (August 1943), and the French F6F-5 at 3.7 BR—a truly nasty machine (mid-1944) that turns better than the Japanese planes while retaining all its energy.
Against the G-6, you have the Yak-3 (July 1944)—an absolute beast. The British P-38L-5-LO (June 1944) feels like an unfair inclusion. The Japanese ‘A’ series seems relatively balanced, though their ‘Ki’ series planes have remained at low BRs despite being produced later and performing exceptionally well.
The G-14 is somewhat balanced, but it faces the D-10 and that monster known as the Spitfire LF. It’s fair to say the Germans were on the decline during that period, though it feels like the British were treated a bit unfairly—though the “LF” beast more than makes up for it.
The G-14’s counterpart, the G-10, is the plane I hate the most; it’s neither fast nor particularly maneuverable—I wish it didn’t even exist. It faces the P-51D-30 (April/July 1945) and the P-38K (currently on sale—a real beast, though I’m not sure when it would have actually entered service; it would have likely been produced around the same time as the G-14). The Spitfire series has opened up an incredible performance gap—they seem completely overpowered. In terms of the timeline, things seem okay, though. There’s the Yak-9P (1946); I didn’t bother looking into the Japanese lineup, and the Italian tree has a new VDM-prop model—something a bit different. On paper, it looks good, and its production year would have roughly aligned with the G-14.
If we look at the K-4, D-9, and Ta 152, some aircraft that stand out to me are the Corsair F4U-4B (with a 1948 engine!)—and while the British models might not look out of place chronologically, they are far too advanced—as well as the French Sea Fury FB 51 at 5.7 BR (from 1952!). I haven’t even checked the Japanese tech tree; there might be some other odd additions there, too.
Let’s add this as well: American aircraft produced after 1943—with the exception of the Corsair and the P-47 (which is on par with the Fw 190)—possess incredible turn rates at high speeds. Furthermore, unlike the models I mentioned in parentheses, they don’t lose energy during these maneuvers. Because they are capable of such high speeds, they can easily compensate for any disadvantage in climb rate. Models like the F5F and F6F are quite unique—they are more agile than Zeros, yet they retain energy better and are faster, too.
In these assessments, the G-14 seems historically balanced, and the G-10 appears balanced as well. However, the earlier models—specifically the E-3, F-4, G-2, and G-6—suffer from a disastrous lack of balance.
The K-4 is a good enough aircraft to remain competitive against some opponents, but it simply cannot handle the Americans. American aircraft are currently in a state where they are nearly impossible to counter, thanks to their superior energy retention combined with excellent maneuverability. Even though there are some balanced models in the game, far superior aircraft have been added to these tiers.
In short, anyone intending to make claims should first take the time to read the comments that have already been posted.
I’m tired of trying to explain things to you people.
You are blatantly ignoring facts and presenting an incomplete picture.
No one said that. They explicitly stated that they are more afraid of spitfires than a yak3
So you now have a sure way to always have the advantage!
Because, like a P47, you are in a plane that is very well suited to getting high, and unlike a yak, get much more advantage from it
Because it is a very effective strategy when flying planes that climb and dive fast
Premiums do get removed from the shop from time to time
This is how war thunder has always been (yak130, yak9k, zeros)
In this game? Yes
They were not being the loudest, hence why damage models got looked at again, although they are still a little ridiculous
Shoot it literally anywhere? You have 300mm pen aphe?
And by extension every game mode
The P400 is a higher br. The I153 is a higher br. The hurricane is a higher br. If you want to turn, play russia or japan
All these planes you listed have downsides. The Yak-1 doesn’t climb as well as you do and cannot fly as fast. The P40 climbs very slow and cannot turn under 400kmh, the buffalo is in general very slow. The apache is very bad outside of straight lines. The Ki43 is slow. Italian planes are almost always ass.
No one cares about production dates. We have been over this.
No one cares about production dates. We have been over this.
Calling the A6Ms balanced after they have been uptiered to oblivion is funny, especially considering you were just complaining about people who speak the loudest getting their will.
Which Ki planes? That could refer to any army plane ever. Could be the Ki43 turnfighter, the Ki61 which is pretty ass, the Ki84 which is very strong, etc
LF mk.9 is at 6.0 now, rapidly approaching prop top tier
You seen to have trouble with not turning. The P51 Ds are usually regarded as the worst for br compared to the C and H. You keep complaining about production dates. Please stop. The 9P just got upgraded weapons and a metal frame. The new bp Italian plane has a dookie airframe
Production date means nothing. I know for a fact JP has nothing postwar because they got 2 cities blown up. Blame Germany for losing Berlin that they didn’t make postwar props, but that isn’t a good thing to advocate for is it.
Saying the F6F turns better than a zero is bait. I assume you refer to the P51 H before, which is regarded as the strongest prop for a reason.
If you have trouble with specific models, just don’t play them, as I have grown to doubt a lot of your statements and can’t trust that they are actually bad.
The P51 H is 2 steps higher. It is gonna be better and happens to be very popular. Luckily USA players tend to be the worst in air
I can say I have read everything now
Then stop replying
This town ain’t big enough for the two of us…
Germany is not better than the other two. USSR gets APHE just as much and so does the USA. Penetration does not matter to the degree you’re implying. All tanks have pros and cons. The Panzer 4 is the worst of the 3 big mediums for a reason.
