nothing has changed mate.
Game is not suited for it.
lol Game is suited for it. We’re even on Dagor Engine 6.5.
Facts > your opinion.
Keep playing then.
I think you are missing the point I was making entirely.
So let me be clear.
The Kh-38 missiles are way stronger than any comparable missile at 11.7.
What does that mean:
- longer range, which means you can sit outside the range of enemy SPAA
- better warhead, is both HE and has more TNT equivalent
- way, way faster
The Su-25SM3 just happens to be the platform the missile is mounted to. And if you say, that guided bombs are so much better than this missile, the plane with the missile can go down straight to 8.7 where the A-4E early sits with its TV guided bombs.
CAS is more than a missile. It’s the platform as well.
ALL top CAS has been sitting outside the range of SPAA for 1 - 2 years now, no exception; Su-25SM3 is not new, it doesn’t change what’s already been going on.
Speed of a F&F warhead from 8000 meters up does not matter, everything will get to a non-obstructed [no dead tanks, trees, or buildings] in time.
Not sure why you’re arguing to make Su-25SM3 8.7… Your post sounds like a Russian main.
2 Likes
I assure you, I am not.
I was simply playing with your idea of the Su-25 being a subpar subsonic aircraft and your idea of guided bombs being better or the same as the Kh-38 missiles, because they both outrange SPAA, so I imagined the plane at a BR where guided bombs exist, so it can live to its full potential. Sadly you missed it. You really have to label everything with /s these days.
You are not climbing up to 8km to fire F&F missiles, are you?
The thing about the speed, is in comparison to comparable A2G missiles like the AGM-65s
If you mean make CAS even stronger, then yes, it has done exactly that.
The Kh-38 missiles can go up to 12.7 (with the stupid Su-25SM3) if it were for me.
Talk with that guy it like talking to automaton when commonsense really don’t exist you talk to a guy that think
Apache better than KA-52 (well irl it does but not in this stupid game)
Pantsir is worse SPAA in top tier
Maverick better than Kh-38 (when it lack damage compare to Kh-38)
2 Likes
You mean your made-up argument… AKA a strawman fallacy. You can’t use strawman fallacies in proximity to me, cause I’ll call them out without actually calling them the strawman fallacies they are.
The Kh-38s are what make the Su-25SM3 as OP as Harrier in ground modes IMO.
Kh-38 would be 12.7 on a Mig-29, and be OP.
@ARK_BOI
I’m glad that you agree with me that Pantsir isn’t the worst top SPAA.
I’m glad that you agree with me that Kh-38 is superior to Maverick [missile to missile comparison, not counting airframes].
I’m glad that you agree with me that Ka-52 is stronger than at least most Apaches.
Not sure why you claim I’m wrong on those then agree with me on all those points.
Maybe you weren’t there when I said those points…
Different is i can beat the sht out of most stuff with any stuff I touched can still can tell the difference that which is better than other
You don’t
Examples?
I can use AH-MK1 and still beat the sht out of KA-52 and still tell that KA-52/MI-28NM still better overall why? because I don’t look at single aspect i look at overall performance what it can do what it can’t do
or Kills sht tons of Russian tanks in single match without dying in Challenger 2 but overall i still say Chally2 still harder to play than most of Russian top tier tanks because it need specific playing style to do well in order to utilize it performance while you can rush and turn of your brain with Russian tanks and do well
You can’t see those pictures
I do
That difference
Just because i do well in something doesn’t mean other can as well that why i look the difference aspect i’m not use myself as centered to judge what is good or bad what i look is what it can do yeah sampler than you think even right now people doing so bad in Strv122 make sweden win-rate drop to 45 percent i still say “it good tanks how people use such good tanks like that?”
I’m glad you and I use similar methods to determine how powerful things are. That explains why you and I share so many agreements in this regard.
Like that fact you too look at overall performance of vehicles, AKA cross analysis.
However, you then claim that you and I cannot see those after claiming you do… which is weird. Cause you clearly use an almost identical method I do, then claim it’s incorrect while claiming to use it.
However, you are incorrect on Soviet tanks. If you shut off your brain you will die more often.
And then spawn the other broken toys in their line up? i don’t see in the problem for them the reason I treat some line up tanks better than Soviet because i knew this fact in the past before Gripen when i’m playing Sweden i knew that i have much to lose in Swedish line up because if i lose my 122 I don’t have any other toys so i treat it with care unlike Soviet that when i die in tanks i can spawn other or something more broken like MI-28NM
You mean the same broken toys that all the NATO tech trees have… well, more powerful ones such as Gripen. 28NM is just an Apache with Vikhr sidegrade-at-best instead, Ka-52 is better than the 28NM.
You can tell from my stats that I use the same tactics in both Challenger 2 as I do T-80BVM.
Sweden had 3 meta MBTs before Gripen/Strf 122 vs Soviet’s 2 before T-90M. And one of the two was as armored as the 2A6: T-80BVM.
T-80UK had more armor but worse thermals and slightly worse maneuverability leading to its 0.3 BR lower than T-80BVM.
And as much as I’m good at onion layers 1 - 3, I do feel onion layer 4 is more necessary for Soviet tanks due to their lower maneuverability on average.
1 Like
You mean yourself with the guided bombs. Not once you went ahead and even mentioned the Kh-38 missiles. The thing I argued was that the missile is way stronger than anything comparable. But no, only guided bombs, because they are OP in your eyes. You understand that the missiles are just bombs too with a rocket motor attached, hurling at you from 20+ km away with a speed higher than any guided bomb can achieve.
Not once have you answered to the relevant things.
I wish the BMV was as armored as the 2A6, would make my life easier.
As in the BVM would be easier to kill, just to spell it out for people that don’t have the best reading comprehension.
That is the first time you mentioned that missile, good to know that you too think it belongs to 12.7
Missiles aren’t in a vacuum though, the platform is used as well.
So Su-25 + Kh38 in air RB are as OP as Harrier + AGM-65s.
Add the Kh-38 to a supersonic platform and it can go higher.
4 Likes
There’s only 1 thing those GBU’s are better. And it’s that you cant shoot em for some idiotic reason. You can shoot any incoming missiles on AA missiles on top tier, but GBU’s are immune on that
Almost like their planes suck so they need newer stuff to compete. More recent date doesnt equal better. Biggest example is the Swedish tank tree.
3 Likes
Basically, yeah. They want to have some sort of balance. Bringing NATO tech up to the current year would be horrible.
Also means that Russia is going to hit a wall much sooner.
Because the brimestone is better. I could see them being added by the end of this year or early next year. Active ground radar tracking would be a huge change and i am not sure what counter measures tanks have for stuff like that.
1 Like
Russian tanks have their armor modeled properly making shots between the hull / turret very hard to do.
German and Swedish tanks have very narrow cannon breeches and spall liners making penetrating shots difficult and when done produce little spall.
In comparison, the Abrams Leclerc and Ariete are modeled as light tanks ignoring their weight and tonnage. The Challenger as a medium.
4 Likes
You can kill a Leo 2 with a shot just about anywhere except the turret cheeks. Especially after the spall “fix” they introduced last patch.
A few matches ago I got shot clean through the most armored part of the ufp of my 2A6