@HOMINUSNOCTURNO
Didn’t know F-16C, F-15E, Rafale, etc were just all Su-34. /s
Not sure why you’re shilling for Soviets and insulting Americans when you could just ask sincere questions and learn something.
Bro gtfo the same lame ass responses. Come back when you have something intelligent to actual add
ts pmo sm bro, you gotta stop trolling.
@French_Cat2
So criticizing War Thunder, and calling CAS OP means people are trolls…
Keep defending Gaijin and CAS instead of conversing on-topic.
CAS is OP, War Thunder needs SPAA for all 10 tech trees.
1 Like
Nah bro your literally just a russ1an bootlicking bot like the Devs lol
and thats a bann for insulting the devs just saying xD
@HOMINUSNOCTURNO
Weird how your posts are defending Russia while mine criticize Russian equipment; and my posts are defending Abrams from attacks.
Not only that but I’m American with NATO biases, everyone knows this.
Your online persona is looking anti-America, which you may intend or not. I hope it’s not your intent.
And on top of all that your post implies that NATO is Russia.
Soviet equipment is correctly eh in War Thunder just as it is IRL.
The fact it took Su-34 for Soviets to get something on-par with F-16C for ground battles is hilarious, and even then CAS is too much spawn points to warrant a spawn.
I only spawn tanks and the odd anti-CAS jet.
I mean its obviously and painfully true considering the state of the game lol they ignore half the reports pertaining to Russian vehicles and just keep them op and super unrealistic.
Yet zero Soviet vehicles are OP in War Thunder, notice I said vehicles.
Top CAS as a class of vehicles is OP regardless of tech tree.
Bug reports are never ignored, just not gotten to.
RD33 is still using too much fuel on dry thrust, but that bug report hasn’t gotten actioned on yet.
Oh, and if you’re going to complain about tank acceleration because T-80 accelerates too quickly; the tank that accelerates faster than its IRL counterpart more than all other tanks is Centurion.
1 Like
Problem is the Abrams can go 60mph irl in the game they barely break 20mph.
1- Abrams with the speed governor turned off can go 60MPH on a runway tarmac in testing without ammo or armor arrays installed.
2- Abrams can go ~42MPH on pavement which it does in War Thunder.
1 Like
Main issue for me is that it’s been over a year since the turret ring being too thin bug report was accepted and they haven’t implemented a fix.
1 Like
If the game followed history, we American mains would have had F-22 a long time ago.
Americans want SEP V3 because it was introduced in 2017 until now somehow top tier Russian and Chinese both have tanks introduced in 2016-2017 while NATO has all the vehicles from 2000-2010
roof tiles isn’t gonna save you from atgms, maybe from vikhrs but any smart player would aim for weakspots.
It does look cool though, I’ll give it that.
Not used in service but it was tested on the SepV2.
Welcome to NATO having superior vehicles both in-game and IRL.
And yes the SEP2 Trophy test platform is a good potential event vehicle @HondaCivici
1 Like
You also would have the Object 279 vs at the same BR as the base M60. Not a good idea pal.
1 Like
Not necessarily. There was no new designation as it wasn’t a test platform, it was just a regular SepV2. Trophy APS kits were already intended to be compatible with the SepV2 and SepV3.
Thus it should be reflected like that in game.
This vehicle is the SEPv3 test bed. You can tell it’s not a SEPv3 as the edges of the turret cheeks are not flat. (It’s easiest to verify with the Polish SEPv3s, as they went from M1A1 FEP to M1A2 SEPv3 and won’t have the SEPv3 test beds mixed in) I still do think that trophy should be added to the SEPv2 non the less.
3 Likes