I don’t see you used the Shilka anywhere.
T-55A is objectively worse than both of those.
You still don’t get it, don’t you ?
I already said to you, they have similar levels of armor in a duel.
1 Like
Check out my secondary account GaDeD, or my third account Aj_zeke, the rest I’m still improving
I have eliminated both with the t55A without problems
I do it, the one who seems not to do it is you.
But one penetrates more than 400mm and the other does not even reach 400
None have any games with Shilka.
So just because you killed them it means they’re somehow on par ?
I don’t think so.
Oh no, one gets ~30mm more flat pen and ~20mm at 60 degrees, that’s a substantial difference don’t you think ?
It’s surely enough for M1 to drop to 10.0 lol.
Im pretty sure it is against the rules to have multiple accounts
3 Likes
Since when is it against the rules to have multiple accounts to play with if they are all from consoles and they are not to avoid bans or similar? What you say does not make sense, the same youtuber DollarPlays You have two accounts and one of them is used for your “free to play experience” videos. Is it against the rules to play with multiple accounts? 🤡
lmao
LMAO! This only happens if ALL 8.7s move up to 9.0. T-55A fires the worst APFSDS rounds.
Especially when you claim that T-55A is anywhere as good as Leopard A1A1 when Leopard has DM23, fast turret, and fast mobility.
More lmao. Imagine this being the same BR as Gepard while being vastly superior.
There’s physically not enough vehicles in the world for this.
Mathematically 15.0 is possible, and ~16.3 post-Meteor missiles.
1 Like
The upgraded missile no longer has its smokeless motor.
It had this bug for months, then the last br changes rolled in and lowered it. Makes complete sense for its stats to drop when it has a bug that effectively removes its top missile
We can very easily get more than 3 BR steps out of the entirety of air. I’d wager that 16.0 is possible and very doable, since we can reach 15.0 just by decompressing 12.3+.
We can also get another 1.3+ by just decompressing 7.0-8.0 and 8.0-10.0. Plus, it isn’t the end of the world if something is a bit too decompressed, mostly because that’s never actually happened in the history of WT.
General decompression idea
8.0 Mig-15s and sabres go to 8.7 (they should be 8.3, but that compresses the bracket a bit too much), balance the current 8.0-9.0 bracket using those as a baseline. Bring the good missile carrying subsonics up in order to create a better gap between supersonics, sub-sonics, and missile slingers. And just decompress the rest from there.
Under no circumstances should the current 14.0s be in the same match as an F-4F ICE (just by looking at how stuff at lower BRs is, something with that much of a capability jump is too high for even a 1.0 gap). We just need a ton of decompression at 13.0+, and better meshing between 3rd/4th gen planes, non IRCCM/IRCCM carriers, and ARH/non ARH carriers.
Not to be mean but dude, these aren’t the best.
Speed isn’t the full context.
While there are some, some aircraft that are genuinely under-BR’d there are those that aren’t.
Mig-21 and F-104 were originally designed to intercept bombers, which is why neither can dogfight anywhere close to good.
F-104/Mig-21F-13 vs Mig-15Bis, Mig-17, LIM-5, Sabre, G91, G91Y; the outcome is a stalemate, a perfect stalemate.
Now, you put in F-100D and it’ll wipe the flow with the supersonics, but still die to the LIM-5 and G91Y at the minimum.
This is the air RB scenario.
Now let’s talk about a jet that use to be 10.0: F-4C.
This thing can easily dominate all jets listed except a smart LIM-5 player and of course the F-100D.
So there’s more than just “supersonic vs subsonic” it’s maneuverable speed vs pure speed.
I know that. I just want the 9.X range to be sorted out and have a less harsh transition between subsonics, supersonics, and missile carries (with missiles better than 9Es). It’s a mess right now where a 9.3/9.7 is very good in a downtier, and very bad in an uptier, especially if it lacks flares.
What I’m saying is that the early supersonics need to be decompressed as well, since a Mig-19S is worse than the PT, and the F-100A is better than the Q-5 (early).
As for BR compression in other BR ranges, the F-5 series shows it quite well. There needs to be atleast a 1.3 BR difference between the A and E FCU, but right now we only have a 0.7 difference.
Obviously Mig-19S and F-100D need to be a higher BR than F-104 and Mig-21F-13.
Also as for F-5s… Imagine F-16 with just AIM-9Js. Would you have that BR’d at 11.3, the same BR as the F-4E?
Probably not.
The jump between a gunfighter with AIM-9Es and a gunfighter with AIM-9Ls is not 1.3 when it’s the same platform.
AIM-9Ls are meta rear aspect missiles that can be flared in the head on. All-aspect capability only matters when it has IRCCM or the enemy doesn’t have flares; the thing that makes 9Ls more potent than 9Js is the improved maneuverability and improved flare resistance.
Pretty much a similar difference between Magic 1 and AIM-9G.
All-aspect is a cool sounding threat, and it was a threat when flareless jets consistently fought against them, emphasis on was.
Now it’s a threat in the rear aspect when afterburning as it should be.
The Mig-19S is worse due to a lack of missiles imo. Ideally it would be Mig-19S/F-104A/Mig-21F at 9.7, F-100s at 10.0 (due to the 9Es), and something like the Mig-21S at 10.3 in a decompressed state.
What does that have to do with anything? I was just giving an example of what they would look like in a decompressed state.
That is very blatantly incorrect. Being all aspect makes partial front aspect shots incredibly easy to pull off. Not everything is a headon, and not everything is visible. 9Ls excel at longer range shots against targets that aren’t looking at you, while R-60Ms excel in headons due to their much higher pull off the rails, as well as their short arming time.
Wrong again. Them being 10.3 means they face the 9.3 supersonics that were moved from 9.7 because of them.
1 Like
The Mig-19S can dogfight as well as the F-16A [I wish this was a joke, but I confirmed it myself in 1v1s].
Is as easily flared as a headon shot.
That’s assuming it’s visible in the first place. 9Ls also have fairly poor flare resistance in general.
I’m not going to comment on this since the S is just worse than the PT because it’s incapable of killing any supersonic that has enough brains to just run away.
Then… Will French F-100D (which doesn’t have 9E thanks to both Historical and Typical-Gaijins-Double-Standard issues) be 9.7?
1 Like
Nothing should be the same BR as a direct upgrade of the exact same vehicle in my opinion.
The Gepards radar sucks, it’s only at it’s BR due to it’s AT ability.
This post stinks of a whole lot of USA cope.
1 Like
Yeah,
I always thought that ‘same plane, same BR, different weapons’ like
- F-5A(ROCAF) with AIM-9P vs F-5C with AIM-9E (10.7)
- F-100D(USAF) with AIM-9E vs F-100D (AdlA) with AIM-9B (9.3)
- F-4J(USN) with AIM-7F vs F-4J(UK) with Skyflash(AIM-7E-2 equivalent) (12.0)
was nothing but bullshit.
I think we can have only two options for those.
- makes proper large decompression to make them have different BR.
- or just giving an ahistorical loadout to everyone including minor nations. no more lollygagging with double standards.
I meant, that "if one variant equipped it, then the whole variant can’ bullshit.
which usually can be seen as USA/USSR exclusive.
No, M247 needs to 9.3 or more, VT makes it becomes one of the most dangerous SPAA at that BR, no CAS could approach if M247 exists, whatever it is Heli or Jets, especially at this BR most of CAS doesn’t have RWR or pretty bad RWR.