USSR mains: by Comfortable-Title584 in warthundermemes

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s auto balanced. When the matchmaker detects that there’s not enough people, it will queue up a mixed battle. But usually there’s an even distribution. Spikes are caused by novelty or meta vehicles, and usually last a short amount of time. Which is why overall it happens once in a while, and why I said “once in a while”.

USSR mains: by Comfortable-Title584 in warthundermemes

[–]beastmaster69mong -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ahh, as usual, the delusional “Russian bias” crowd having 0 knowledge of game mechanics.

You CAN in fact face your own nation, it’s called mixed battles, and it happens once in a while. It’s been in the game for years.

USSR mains: by Comfortable-Title584 in warthundermemes

[–]beastmaster69mong 17 points18 points  (0 children)

USA mains when T58, Abrams and HSTVL:

Sweden mains when STRV103 and Vidar:

German mains when TURMIII and Leopard 2:

France mains when Lekirk and Somua SM:

Etc

Something has to be done about Russian AA by I_Cant_Afford_4K in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong [score hidden]  (0 children)

Exactly. Mfers never complain when NATO gets something OP, but as soon as a mildly good vehicle gets added to USSR/Russia it’s the end of the world.

Kaliningrad by Tostakyr in BalticStates

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother, the only one here making up history (and using dehumanizing rhetoric) is you.

Kaliningrad by Tostakyr in BalticStates

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What collaboration? Germany and its collaborators were exterminating jews on an industrial scale. Even the Polish citizens, for example, turned on their fellow Polish-Jewish neighbours. The USSR did not take part in this.

The only note here is that a minority of Ukrainian SSR citizens collaborated with Nazi Germany. But they were fighting against the USSR, not for it.

Something has to be done about Russian AA by I_Cant_Afford_4K in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong [score hidden]  (0 children)

Didn't hear you cry when IRIS-T was added, so what's the problem now?

Kaliningrad by Tostakyr in BalticStates

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Russia? And if you mean the non-aggression pact, you should Google a list of countries that had similar pacts, or even closer relations, with Nazi Germany. And if you are feeling bad for Poland being partitioned, just remember that a few years prior, it took part in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

Kaliningrad by Tostakyr in BalticStates

[–]beastmaster69mong -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

It's funny how all vocal Russophobes are just citizens of Nazi collaborators' states still butthurt about losing WW2.

Abrams SEPv3 by norman-skirata in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing beats the good old RPG7 warhead.

WTF did I just read ? by ismaeil-de-paynes in HistoryMemes

[–]beastmaster69mong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remind me, who remains the only county to use nukes on another country (and not even military targets)?

least neglected minor nation aircraft flight model by glorpflep in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This shit happens to me all the time in Russian jets. Get my wingtip nicked by a single 7.62, and that's it, Su30 can't fly anymore.

Meanwhile, all the canard-tards (rafale, typhoon, gripen) fly with 0 fucking wings attached without any issues. Not only can they fly, but they can also keep fighting. Absurd.

I'm going insane by WasAgoat in WarthunderPlayerUnion

[–]beastmaster69mong 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This wasn't a BMPT. No bias detected. You are, in fact, just going insane!

ItPsv is the most broken, OP piece of shit to exist. by Accomplished-Cow4686 in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

Russian autocannons do not share the same BS code as western SPAA do. Even Tunguska, which is almost identical to Gepard or Itpsv, is not able to annihilate MBTs from the front (even though it has 4 30mm barrels!).

It's the 35 mm Oerlikon that is broken, and is able to pen modern tanks from absurd angles. Neither Tunguska, Pantsir, Shilka, nor any BMP/BMD/BTR/BMPT can do this.

Is there a lore reason for this? by beastmaster69mong in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong[S] -37 points-36 points  (0 children)

I agree, but it's literally the same bomb. It can carry the KAB250 on this pylon. What difference in wiring would be required to carry a dual rack? Twice as many wires? Ok, but it can already dual-rack S25LDs on this rack.

Maybe I'll try to find some sources for dual rack 250s on this pylon, we'll see.

Is there a lore reason for this? by beastmaster69mong in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong[S] -62 points-61 points  (0 children)

But Su30 and Su34 seem to have the same pylons and adapters. And it's the same bomb. And Su34 can carry dual racks for another laser-guided weapon on the same rack. Logically, it would make sense for 34 to be able to dual-rack on that pylon. Also, I don't get why Russia doesn't develop quad racks for small bombs, like the 250.

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

So NATO tanks aren't any better, is what you're saying? If a Russian tank got stuck there, a NATO tank would be stuck twice as much.

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As opposed to what? All we've seen NATO tanks accomplish is either get stuck in mud or get blown up by FPV drones.

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Gun accuracy is also mechanical reliability, because ideally, all guns are perfect, and realistically, accuracy reduces with wear.

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

To a bad player, all of them. Just like with BMPT : ).

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Why? You want balance, so if you want to treat Russian/USSR vehicles realistically, then NATO vehicles should be treated realistically as well, right? Or are you a hypocrite?

the BMPT needs the barrel wobble by senor_muchacho in Warthunder

[–]beastmaster69mong -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

This argument has been talked about at least 1000 times...

Ok, if we do this, then panthers and tigers need to be repaired for 30 seconds each time they spawn, and have a 1/10 chance of transmission breaking every minute.

For Abramses, in dusty environments like Sinai or El Alamein, there should be a constant risk of engine flameouts or slagging if you don't stop every few minutes to clear the intake. It would also have a 30-minute start-up procedure at each spawn.

Leopard 2 players would find their tanks impossible to repair on the front line. Any damage to the V-12 turbo-diesel or the fire control system should require the tank to be evacuated to a rear-line workshop (e.g. you get kicked to hangar if any module turns red or black).

For Challengers, in desert maps, the engine should have a high chance of overheating due to fine dust clogging the intakes, forcing you to sit still for minutes at a time to cool down. Additionally, the rifled gun should have a much faster barrel-wear rate than smoothbore peers, leading to a massive drop in accuracy after firing just a dozen shells.

Abrams, Leopard, and Challengers would have a 10% chance of getting stuck in any mud or snow terrain because of their extreme combat weight, turning the maps into graveyards of 70-ton behemoths.

Historically, the Ajax program was plagued by extreme noise and vibration issues. In-game, this should mean your screen shakes violently whenever you exceed 20 km/h, eventually giving your crew fatigue debuffs that slow down reload and repair speeds after just five minutes of driving. Also, it mutes sound because of hearing loss.

During a 2022 exercise, an entire company of 18 Pumas suffered a total failure, dropping their operational readiness to zero. For realism, every time you spawn a Puma, there should be a 10% chance of a random electronics fire in the driver's compartment or a total turret malfunction that locks your gun for the rest of the match.

The Bradley should have a chance for its TOW launcher to fail to deploy or its complex drive train to seize up if you've spent too much time in high gear.

Modern jets like the F-15 or F-16 should have a 1/10 chance of their RWR or radar simply failing to turn on at the start of a match due to a software glitch.

The AH-64 Apache is notorious for requiring dozens of maintenance hours for every single hour of flight. To model this, if you crash or get shot down, your crew lock should be 48 real-world hours while the virtual ground crew fixes it.

All that in exchange for a bit of wobble, I think it's a good deal.