People underrated the 279. It’s laughable. But hey, if they want to keep it at 9.0, let them.
this is obvious cheating yes, but most users report “obvious cheating” as stuff like them being shot from somewhere they didnt expect
You might not (and it’s Server Replay, NOT client).
But how do you expect any developer of any game to be able to verify your claim when your report doesn’t contain the logs they need to be able to look into the report in the first place?
That’s like filing a police report about a break-in and having video evidence on your computer that you then don’t give to the police. Like, sure, they can note it down but if there is no proof other than your word how do you expect the offender to be sentenced for anything?
Russia 13.0 is arguably the best in the game. Probably sucked into 13.3 hell with the Broken su30s
I get suspicious fairly often, I only reported after watching server replays twice, you should watch replays always what looks sus isn’t always cheating
1 Like
Nice ad hominem and strawman :)
I’m not going to dive into your lack of an argument, so instead, I’d like to see how you go after this. I ask that you carefully consider each point I have made in this reply and my previous replies and point out any flaws or agree with points that you see as reasonable.
I also don’t have any of the “OP” vehicles from either of these “powerhouse” nations (save for the Mirage IIIC) because I only have air for them, where I am barely rank 7. I do not have the Rafale, the Gripen E, or any rank 8 from France/Sweden. I am a US main, which is not known for being a powerhouse in War Thunder. Furthermore, these nations are considered “strong” because they are 1. not a major nation people would play the game for, and as such are 2. almost exclusively played by more experienced players, which is required to reach their top tier since 3. their low tier vehicles suck, driving away even more new players. This results in a higher-than-average-skilled playerbase, a theme that is not new and I’m surprised you’re not familiar with in your 8 years of gameplay.
Funny you mention that since you play almost exclusively USSR. I’ll dive more into the irony of your argument later.
For personal experience, I played a test drive of the T-80UD after a long hiatus from top tier ground, where I had an almost 60% win rate and around a 2:1 KDR — not the best, I know, but the current average is a 0.5 KDR across all players
I will admit that I am not the best player, but I am still relatively new in the grand scheme of things. I have only been playing for a year and a half. But then again, it doesn’t take a professional to read stats.
Let’s talk about an imbalance at top tier, specifically for Russia, since this is the topic of the post.
Let’s also set some ground rules. I will only be looking at stats from the major 3 nations: USA, Germany, USSR. This is for the aforementioned reasons of difference in playerbase — you don’t see many level 15 French mains clawing their way past 2.0.
I will be focusing on top tier win rates and ease of armor penetration.
Let’s look first at the T-72B (10.3) that you want moved down to 10.0 (which you state in this post) versus the M1 Abrams (10.7, almost a full BR higher than where you want the T-72B to be!). Both maps are using the best APFSDS rounds available, fired from 300m.
Do you see a difference? Because I sure do!
You can shoot somewhere random on the Abrams and you’d have a higher chance of penetrating than not. Meanwhile, the T-72 can only be shot in the easily-hidden lower front plate, maybe about 2 inches of the breech, and parts of the roof that will more than likely only take out one crew member.
Now, a higher tier example. This will be between the T-72B3 and the M1A1, both at 11.7.
Same rules as last time – best shell, 300m. Doesn’t look too different from 10.7.
By penetration maps alone, killing a Russian tank is statistically more difficult than a NATO MBT ingame. To blame me on a “skill issue” or playing “OP vehicles” literally cannot be true, as I only have high tier ground for the USA. This wouldn’t be as much of an issue if the Abrams was modelled correctly. But it isn’t. A report has been opened, considered, then ignored for the past 2 years, which can be found here.
Now let’s go on to winrates. These are stats from last week.
You can find those same stats here.
Current Russian winrate is around 57%, compared to American 51% and the “OP” German’s 43%.
Stats from about a month ago indicate an even higher Russian winrate of 60% compared to American 48% and German 41% (December 6th, 2025).
In addition, the addition of turret baskets was nothing but a cheap nerf to top NATO vehicles. They said they would be adding more thoughout 2025, but here we are in 2026 with nothing new. You can now disable the turret of a top tier MBT by shooting the very bottom of the hull – but only for the non-Russian tanks of the 3 major nations.
There is also a lot of leniency with BR for the Russian tech tree. The 2S38 sits lower in BR than similar American vehicles, such as the RDF/LT or HSTV-L. The BMPT also cannot even see these vehicles in a full uptier, despite having more firepower and better armor.
If it was a question of firepower, the missiles can be fired on the move and have 800mm of pen.
If it’s about power when hulldown, why is the AGS at 12.0, despite the fact that it can be overpressured hulldown and the BMPT can’t? Not to mention, the BMPT cannot have it’s weapons disabled in one shot. It would be perfectly happy at 11.3 or higher.
The KH-38MT also probably doesn’t even exist (as per this thread, which is a super interesting read if you have the time).
Now, please tell me if any of this points towards some bias for or away from any specific nation.
2 Likes
USA higher than average skill base? You should play other nations more.
Reread what I wrote. I was talking about France/Sweden.
Oh, sorry, you’re right. On my phone, so not reading that wall of text. Phew, false alarm. I had to stop using one of the USA event vehicles I got from a loot box because the teams were driving me up the wall.
1 Like
All good – glad we cleared it up.
1 Like
The win rate of the BMPT should be 100%. Your data is incorrect
Theres one constant across all those losing teams and its located between chair and keyboard :^)
1 Like
Personal performance does not heavily impact win rate in WT. This is more true for other games with symmetrical balancing/matchmaking.
Jesus christ
Depends on how good you are at carrying
1 Like
It doesn’t.
It does. You can noticeably surpass the average winrate if you are good.
1 Like
That is a different ball game, I don’t believe this until I saw one forumer good enough to carry the team until he has >80% winning rate playing with randoms, average 97% winning rate with squad, that is also when I realized the problem is between the chair and the keyboard lol I personally verified it myself by watching the replays, to summarize what I saw, create map pressure.
No, you can’t. Things like nation of choice, BR selected, etc have far greater results on win rate than individual skill does. This game does not have symmetrical matchmaking for skill expression to be the driving factor in win rate determination. You can be better than the baseline win rate that can be expected of any given lineup/plane etc but you cannot make a vehicle that globally trends at 30% have a 70% win rate purely through exceptional solo play.
1 Like
While my comment wasnt meant to have any deeper thought put behind it and was meant simply as jab at OP…
Judging by the map selection, hes talking about ground RB (abandoned factory, american desert, test site 2271), and while teams, BRs etc. do have impact on personal winrate and there are BRs where, no matter what you do, you are destined to lose since low level premium spam, you can very much influence the winrate through your own performance.
While Ill admit I play the french 7.7 with friend occasionally, my M1 Abrams, Sherman (Hell), as well as others, were played entirely solo. the 20% difference on Sherman (Hell) cant be explained purely by luck.