there is no bias, NATO teams are just god awful.

[BlackWolf9988]

i play a lot of ground sim (9 and 10 BR mostly) and NATO teams are just significantly worse player wise than russian/chinese players.

lets just compare some stats for me in sim.

Leo 2A4 = 1.6 KD, 45% winrate in 10 BR sim
T-90A = 1.8 KD, 71% winrate in 10 BR sim

Leo 1A5 = 1.4 KD, 43% winrate in 9 BR sim
BMP-3 = 1.2 KD, 66% winrate in 9 BR sim

i recently started grinding the american ground tree with the m1 abrams and the stryker and its the same, while i get good kill matches but half of my team struggles to even get a single kill and leaves.

https://imgur.com/FRRdaCt

[French Cat]

I would agree with you, but one of my friends bought the Ruskie T-80 (even when I told him not to) and does ok with it. The kicker is, he doesn’t have more than 20 hours in the game. If he’s beating people with over 1000, I think there might be something to look at. Maybe he’s just Nigel reborn idk.

[Wandering Flare]

Originally posted by Aaron:

Most Ruskie Teams tend to respawn more often so often end up with the numerical advantage whereas 80% of NATO Teams will have ODL three Minutes into the Game.

Basically yea. Can't exactly win when there's 5 T-80s to 1 sorry Leopard.

[Ryan]

Nato tanks suck, none of their tanks have frontal armor beside the 2a7. So in close quarter or when sniper your going to loose against t-80/t-90 because if there smaller weak spots. T-90A compared to those tanks has better armor, decent speed (reversing speed is bad but the armor will help), and better gun.

With big weakspot russian tank don't need to aim at all compared to what nato tanks have to.

[Wandering Flare]

Originally posted by Ryan:

Nato tanks suck, none of their tanks have frontal armor beside the 2a7. So in close quarter or when sniper your going to loose against t-80/t-90 because if there smaller weak spots.

From my experience fighting 2A7s, not even them. Same centermass instakill as 2A6s and Strv 122s, including the cosmetic uparmor one.

[BlackWolf9988]

Originally posted by Ryan:

Nato tanks suck, none of their tanks have frontal armor beside the 2a7. So in close quarter or when sniper your going to loose against t-80/t-90 because if there smaller weak spots. T-90A compared to those tanks has better armor, decent speed (reversing speed is bad but the armor will help), and better gun.

With big weakspot russian tank don't need to aim at all compared to what nato tanks have to.

its not that hard to hit lower plate, driver hatch or if they are slightly angled through the tracks into the autoloader.

russian tanks also have massive downsides like terrrible gun depression, slower reload, slow reverse speed and slow turret traverse speed.

both NATO and russian tanks have their strengths and weaknesses. personally i find NATO tanks far better in the hands of skilled players because they are more versatile.

russian tanks are good at holding W, because its the only thing they can do. but they suck at absolutely everything else.

[Black_Fox]

Originally posted by BlackWolf9988:

Originally posted by Ryan:

Nato tanks suck, none of their tanks have frontal armor beside the 2a7. So in close quarter or when sniper your going to loose against t-80/t-90 because if there smaller weak spots. T-90A compared to those tanks has better armor, decent speed (reversing speed is bad but the armor will help), and better gun.

With big weakspot russian tank don't need to aim at all compared to what nato tanks have to.

its not that hard to hit lower plate, driver hatch or if they are slightly angled through the tracks into the autoloader.

And in most cases that will end in not doing anything what so ever because the shell non-pens, shatters or gets magically deflected

[Eldgrim - Cole 505]

Oh a 720 somewhat hour player thinking he knows his stuff huh!

[QUANTUM MECHANICS c000021a]

M1A2s are just awfull in this game, thanks to Gaijin who simply refuse to give it proper hull armor or spall liner. All tanks in major factions have spall liner in certain places.

I have all the top tier tanks of USA, USSR, Germany and even Britain and M1A2 are just awfull. Paradox is M1A2 SEP is far better then SEPV2 because it has not that 3 stupid antenas which makes you visible even behind high obstacles.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by BlackWolf9988:

Originally posted by Ryan:

Nato tanks suck, none of their tanks have frontal armor beside the 2a7. So in close quarter or when sniper your going to loose against t-80/t-90 because if there smaller weak spots. T-90A compared to those tanks has better armor, decent speed (reversing speed is bad but the armor will help), and better gun.

With big weakspot russian tank don't need to aim at all compared to what nato tanks have to.

its not that hard to hit lower plate, driver hatch or if they are slightly angled through the tracks into the autoloader.

russian tanks also have massive downsides like terrrible gun depression, slower reload, slow reverse speed and slow turret traverse speed.

both NATO and russian tanks have their strengths and weaknesses. personally i find NATO tanks far better in the hands of skilled players because they are more versatile.

russian tanks are good at holding W, because its the only thing they can do. but they suck at absolutely everything else.

Then again Russian tanks dont require aiming at those spots to one shot nato tanks. Slower reload by a 1 second doesn't change much if you miss you shot (also a skill issue). No hull armor is problem in sniping maps.

I like nato tanks too as I finish German tech tree, but now grinding the US tech tree and its awful.

[Betrayer]

i love the US top tier lineup. some of the best in the game
but the teams are so bad its not worth playing
also i never bought the sepv2... that thing is just a huge downgrade compared to the v1
sure u can get another spawn but most US players spawn 1-2 times so u dont need it lmao

[[TMC]Gunslinger]

soviet bias since year one when there was only planes . SOS years later. They out turn , out burn , out shoot and all with stalinium armor .

[Bob]

It's irritating how people only discuss top tier and maybe 6.7 or 9.3 for ground.

[BlackWolf9988]

Originally posted by Aim Bob:

It's irritating how people only discuss top tier and maybe 6.7 or 9.3 for ground.

Just preference.

I like 1 - 4 BR in low tier but it becomes really boring in mid tier up until 8 BR with how slow almost every tank is.

For me personally i find 9 and 10 BR the most fun in the game, with me avoiding top tier because of how annoying CAS has become.

High tier also has the most players.

[Zeromentor]

Over matched high BR tanks like the Ariete shouldn't be rated in BR as highly as they are. Tanks like the M1 have a turret ring weakpoint that doesn't realistically exist. Near the start of WW2, when the Germans and Russians fought, German steel was nearly 40% better in some cases, and after the Russians moved their factories beyond the Urals the quality of their steel sharply dropped for a time, none of which is modeled ingame with German, US, UK and Russian steel all functionally being the same. In reality most German tanks tried to fire from 1KM away or more, to avoid counter-fire from Allies, and knew very well that letting Allied tanks engage closer than 800m was practically suicidal, yet most map engagement ranges are sub 500m giving major advantages to Russian tanks (for example, and not the only tanks, either).

We can talk about Russia Bias all day long, but it's the obvious stuff they need to look at. The poor Italian MBT is a joke at it's tier (though, it still wouldn't shine very well, it's not a good tank) and needs to be dropped lower. The M1 needs the turret ring fixed, cause it's thicker, and lower, in real life (have they fixed this yet???) and there are tons of other issues that people have complained about for AT LEAST a year.

So while it might be explict bias towards Russian tanks, it's a possibly malicious negligence against Russian adversaries.

[Dadadudu]

Originally posted by Zeromentor:

Over matched high BR tanks like the Ariete shouldn't be rated in BR as highly as they are. Tanks like the M1 have a turret ring weakpoint that doesn't realistically exist. Near the start of WW2, when the Germans and Russians fought, German steel was nearly 40% better in some cases, and after the Russians moved their factories beyond the Urals the quality of their steel sharply dropped for a time, none of which is modeled ingame with German, US, UK and Russian steel all functionally being the same. In reality most German tanks tried to fire from 1KM away or more, to avoid counter-fire from Allies, and knew very well that letting Allied tanks engage closer than 800m was practically suicidal, yet most map engagement ranges are sub 500m giving major advantages to Russian tanks (for example, and not the only tanks, either).

We can talk about Russia Bias all day long, but it's the obvious stuff they need to look at. The poor Italian MBT is a joke at it's tier (though, it still wouldn't shine very well, it's not a good tank) and needs to be dropped lower. The M1 needs the turret ring fixed, cause it's thicker, and lower, in real life (have they fixed this yet???) and there are tons of other issues that people have complained about for AT LEAST a year.

So while it might be explict bias towards Russian tanks, it's a possibly malicious negligence against Russian adversaries.

Chinas MBT are quite nerfed as well, the 99A has APS IRL and way better APFSDS too. According to some Sources also up to -7 gun depression and not -5 and theres a whole giant thread on Forum about the 99A wrong model, weakspots it has in game but not irl due to it, even had whole armour missing for a long time (not sure if still does) and after playing both USSR and China at Top Tier can confidently say their ERA is like non existent, fighting against them also no problem just going through era but against USSR the ERA just blocks everything

and they definitely neglect any other tree aside from USA/USSR/Germany, the PLZ05 should have burst fire as well like the PzH.2000 but while PzH.2000 got it due to so many complaining PLZ05 doesn't