Russian bias

[Gold Merchant Lev]

Always find it funny when people cry about Russian bias because the game is made by a Russian company, yet 90% of the maps are designed to make life in Russian tanks as miserable as possible. No flat plain maps where Russian tanks were designed to cross, instead every one is hilly as ♥♥♥♥ where your -2 degrees of gun elevation make it impossible to take any shots without fully exposing your tank. And then your sub 5 kmph reverse speed makes retreating back not an option at all if you do decide to risk it and expose your tank on a hill.

Russian bias is amazing indeed lmao

[Kay]

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Pe-8 bombing and killing half of the team in spawn point is clear example of Russian bias.

Not like the Lancaster can do that (with a bigger bomb) or anything

[elsimate]

Publicado originalmente por Kay:

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Pe-8 bombing and killing half of the team in spawn point is clear example of Russian bias.

Not like the Lancaster can do that (with a bigger bomb) or anything

Those are White Masters and they have this right. Dirty asian untermenchen do not.

[BurakZG]

Publicado originalmente por Kay:

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Pe-8 bombing and killing half of the team in spawn point is clear example of Russian bias.

Not like the Lancaster can do that (with a bigger bomb) or anything

You can see how time I spent in this game. I have never seen Lancaster bombing and killing half of the team in GRB. I have seen Pe-8 doing that many times. Why?

[Kay]

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Publicado originalmente por Kay:

Not like the Lancaster can do that (with a bigger bomb) or anything

You can see how time I spent in this game. I have never seen Lancaster bombing and killing half of the team in GRB. I have seen Pe-8 doing that many times. Why?

A. no we can't, your profile isn't set to show that.
B. ♥♥♥♥ knows, not playing at the same BRs, the Lancaster wasn't memed as much, UK is a less popular nation etc.

[BurakZG]

Publicado originalmente por Kay:

I call it a tank getting hit with a high calibre autocannon in thin armour 6 times (it has 2 45mm guns, you can't fire one at a time)

Just like what happens when a tank is hit by an Me 262 A-1/U4's 50mm cannon, or the Tempest Vickers P cannon.

As long as I play, my tank has never been destroyed by cannon of Tempest.
I can remember only one time, when my tank has been destroyed by Me-262. I was in light tank then (Pbv 501).

Saying that a plane, with 2 vibrating engines, flying over 200km/h would give three consecutive shots on target from heavy cannon is more than naive.
Not to even mention, that plane was obsolete the time when it was tested and even then, they were not able to build it, because they didn't have engines (small detail).

I have spent more than I should in this game (>4k hours). Mostly in GRB.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Saying that a plane, with 2 vibrating engines, flying over 200km/h would give three consecutive shots on target from heavy cannon is more than naive.

There is this plane called the A-10 which can comfortably land a couple dozen if not hundreds of consecutive shots on target, with a cannon so comically heavy that they had to design the entire plane around it...

[elsimate]

Publicado originalmente por whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

Saying that a plane, with 2 vibrating engines, flying over 200km/h would give three consecutive shots on target from heavy cannon is more than naive.

There is this plane called the A-10 which can comfortably land a couple dozen if not hundreds of consecutive shots on target, with a cannon so comically heavy that they had to design the entire plane around it...

That is White Masters plane, how dare you to make such comparision.

[BurakZG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

I just leave these links without comment. Trying to compare those 2....

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Publicado originalmente por elsimate:

Publicado originalmente por whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

There is this plane called the A-10 which can comfortably land a couple dozen if not hundreds of consecutive shots on target, with a cannon so comically heavy that they had to design the entire plane around it...

That is White Masters plane, how dare you to make such comparision.

Just saying, Il-2, Hs 129 (especially B-3 variant), Hurricane Mk IID, P-39, Ju 87G, all planes with comparatively heavy cannons that were very effective in anti-armor role in WW2.

Particularly the Hs 129 B-3, which mounted a 75mm cannon, was praised for its devastating effect on even the heaviest armor.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

I just leave these links without comment. Trying to compare those 2....

Compare to the Hs 129 then...

Or any of the other examples I've given really. Your statement about cannon-equipped planes not being highly effective is nonsense, it was proven in WW2 time and time again how devastating they are against armor.

[elsimate]

Publicado originalmente por whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

I just leave these links without comment. Trying to compare those 2....

Compare to the Hs 129 then...

Or any of the other examples I've given really. Your statement about cannon-equipped planes not being highly effective is nonsense, it was proven in WW2 time and time again how devastating they are against armor.

Realistically speaking they were not. It was really hard to hit a tank from a WW2 plane. Best results with IL2 was achieved not with its cannons, but with PTABs.
HS was not a good plane itself and was used in really small groups with no effect.
P39 was not used as a tank hunters.
Cannon Stukas was overhyped but again, really almost no results (Rudel destroyed 200 soviet armor, soviets didn't noticed that at all).

[BurakZG]

IS-2 driving backwards (everybody knows why) in this game is actually the most obvious and most ridiculous example of Russian bias.

[elsimate]

Publicado originalmente por BurakZG:

IS-2 driving backwards (everybody knows why) in this game is actually the most obvious and most ridiculous example of Russian bias.

And how that differs from tanks with forward placed engine?

[BurakZG]

Seriously?
Because one was designed to use certain properties of tank elements in specific way and another is just game fantasy. Or you can point me to real battle where IS-2 have been seen driving backwards, getting no (or limited) damage?

[elsimate]

They get engine damage. Or again, TOGs doing the same is perfectly ok?