Battle Rating changes for January 2024 (post feedback)

[Chris_V3SGO]

I wanna begin with something that I talked with a lot of people and not a single soul denied my argument.
Decompress Ground vehicles up to 12.3 and or, make different BRs for CAS for air modes and ground modes
Why?
Aircraft can play against aircraft
Tanks don’t have the option to fight only tanks, its simple as that
Some aircraft have their BR to be too OP in Air vs Air but useless in Air vs Ground, and the other way around, some aircraft will be too OP against ground units but its BR won’t go up because it would make it unbalanced or weak in aircraft mode, SPLIT IT!

on BR/balancing changes, I will be mostly talking about Top tier as I only played this recently and wouldn’t be fair talking about other vehicles that I haven’t played in recent time
To begin with ground forces:

US: M1a2 SEP V2 would benefit from M829A3

Germany: Why is Kugel still at 7.0?
Lower Rolands [German and American] to 10.0 as equal as French Roland 10.0
After Sky Guardians and forward updates, their missile drag and slow response severely weakened the missile and while lacking range it can’t defend itself against some attackers that simply outrange it and some can simply ignore the missile with a small effortless turn

USSR/Russia
2s38 should go up to 10.3 or 10.7, a highly capable vehicle with a price that gives everything someone want, a jack of all trades
2S6 to 11.0 as a highly capable Anti-air and can defend and even go offensive against ground units
T-72AV Turms to 10.3
BMP-2M to 10.3

UK: Lower stormer to 10.0 to match its performance or restore the starstreak to how it was before and analyze the appropriate BR for it as it goes.

Japan: M735 still with faulty-bug-report nerf applied on Type 16 (and Xm-1), you don’t want your premium to not be desired right? but being serious, how has the faulty bug report not been reverted after all this time?

Italy: Otomatic 11.0 or faster reload/shell rack replenish to be on par with other top tier missile SPAA systems
Ariete MBTs to 11.0/11.3 or stay at this BR while other top tier competitors rise to 12.0-12.3 as they are not on the same level of performance, armor, etc

France: lower Leclerc and Leclerc S2 to 11.3, early Leclerc lack Commander thermal vision unlike competitors

Helicopter: AH-1Z lacks AGM-114K and has AGM-114B since its debut

Aircrafts
US: F-15A should go up to 12.7, consider giving it HMD
F-111A should receive AIM-9D or AIM9J
F-5E to 11.0, add AIM9Ls

USSR/Russia: Remove MiG-29 and Yak-141 R-27ERs and add R-73s

Japan: F-15J, same as other F-15s, up to 12.7

Italy: Sagi stays at 9.0

France: Mirage 2000C-S4/S5: Move Matra Magic 2 module from rank 4 to rank 1 or 2 as vehicle is highly ineffective at BR without proper missiles

[FlipAllTheTables]

@TyTheGuy27

Well, that’s just a case of preference. The T25 undoubtedly has superior armour and far superior firepower.

The improvement in armor is only noticeable specifically on the mantlet. The hull front still isn’t enough to stop something of the likes of the US 76 mm, and the turret cheeks near the mantlet are a still a weakspot on the turret.

The 90 mm is powerful, but the stabilizer and mobility of the T20 more than make up for it. On a straight line, in a good road, it takes the longer for the T25 to reach 45 km/h (26 seconds) than the T20 to reach its top speed of 56 km/h (25 seconds). It takes 11 seconds for the T20 to reach 40 km/h, and 21 seconds for the T25 to do the same.´

@TyTheGuy27

I’d disagree with the “massive” decrease in mobility, the speed is essentially identical and while it does take a hit in Hp/tonne ratio it doesn’t have a huge impact IME on mobility. It’s mostly balanced out by the roof armour alone. The access to HEAT is a huge advantage- the M36 can penetrate the majority of the vehicles it faces, especially with APCR. The M36B2 can penetrate every vehicle it faces easily, usually without needing to aim at weak spots.

The hp/ton goes from 17.78 to 13.70. It takes 9 seconds for the M36 to reach 40 km/h compared to 14 seconds on the M36B2.

M82 is still the main round and the high acceleration allows the M36 to not switch rounds as often. HEAT-FS is only really useful in frontal engagements which is the kind of engagement that should be avoided in the first place with an M36. The roof can only protect against either rifle caliber AP rounds or smaller HE rounds, and that’s assuming that the rounds don’t hit on the big hole that exists on the roof. More powerful AP rounds just go through, and more powerful HE rounds bypass the armor via overpressure, which the M36B2 is still vulnerable to.

@TyTheGuy27

The difference in reload isn’t a huge deal, nor is the depression. A vehicle that trades dramatically increased penetration (172/59mm at 500m, see above for M1) for decreased post-pen and moderately decreased mobility doesn’t deserve a whole 1.0 BR lower. Especially when that means vehicles such as the KV-1 L-11 or standard M4s are expected to fight this beast.

Without ready rack the reload rate of the Fireflies receives a 1.5× multiplier, making it 8.82 seconds with a fully maxed out loader. The Sherman VC with track armor is also the Sherman with the worst hp/ton in the entire game so it’s more than “moderately decreased mobility”. Even with track armor, the armor is nothing phenomenal as all the Fireflies have early Sherman hulls with the vulnerable driver and assistant driver bulges, except the Tipo IC which has the well known cast front. Stuff like the KV-1 L-11 and M4 don’t have much trouble against Fireflies, even though they face these tanks in full uptiers.

Beyond all that, penetration only matters if there actuall exists targets against which it matters, which isn’t really the case if you compare the 17 pounder to something like the US 76 mm at this BR, unless the 17 pounder has APDS. The M4A1 (76) sits at 5.0, and is a better vehicle than the 4.7 Fireflies.

@TyTheGuy27

I was including the Comet in the vehicles that I believe ought to move up, as it has excellent speed, great firepower, and a trolly turret.

The basic APCBC is slightly more powerful than the US 76 mm in penetration, but has no explosive filler, and its APDS was massively nerfed with the update to APDS rounds. All of that and the Comet also has a reload rate identical to that of the Panther.

@TyTheGuy27

access to the POT-51P round with 180/61mm penetration. This is one of the most powerful shells at the BR, and closer in (flat) penetration to the KwK 43 than the 76mm M1!

As I said for the Fireflies, penetration only matters if there are targets against which it can be used.
You still can’t penetrate a Panther with PCOT-51P, even at 30 meters. You can penetrate a Jumbo upper plate if it is unangled up to about 400 meters, but that is it. And you still have the early Sherman hull with and added weight.

@TyTheGuy27

The ARL-44 has a decently protected turret, with 110mm armour. I find it blocks more shots than its stats would suggest. And 10s is quite fast-firing when you compare it to other full-calibre weapons with similar penetration around the BR, such as the D-25 and D-10. I don’t see any reason this should be the same BR as the T1E1 and lower than an IS-1 or Tiger H1.

I do not know a single person that has bounced on it, including myself. It is a massive target flat target, and on top of that it is cast armor meaning it is 103.4 mm RHA equivalent, and you cannot angle at all as the turret side is 30 mm. For the reload you specifically picked russian cannons which generally have longer reloads for their power. You have the Nashorn at 5.3 with the long 88 which, although has less pen, has much more post pen and has a 6.67 second reload.

[DIRTYBOMB]

I do not agree with Strela to 10.0, CAS mains just want to spam their planes with no fear.

[LAZER_COW_00262]

Char 25t and amx-50(TO90/930) should stay at 7.7.

[EddieVanHalo]

@Chris_V3SGO

make different BRs for CAS for air modes and ground modes

This is needed. Why should a plane I bought for CAS and relative to my ground units have it’s GRB RB uprated just because of it’s effectiveness in ARB which I don’t even play?

[Coffeemoo]

in “bumped up” I hope you mean as in buffed, as the Yak-141 especially doesn’t deserve to be in a higher BR

[GlorytoHypnotoad]

I’ll be holding a funeral for the J6K1 on Feb. 3rd if anyone wants to attend. She lived a good life, but still died too young due to mistreatment from the snail.

[ShermyDragon]

Same for the A6M5 Ko. Having to fight the P-51H will officially kill it…

[Ziflock]

It’s better, but many of these changes are still awful. T20 still isn’t anywhere near a 6.3 with APCR and you know it. The Saggitario 2 is still going to the same br as its COMPLETE superior. Are you okay? Like seriously.

All you go on about is efficency yet you think a literally completely inferior jet deserves the same BR as it’s better and the T20 is 6.3 material cause APCR, which is a terrible, badly modelled round as it is.

Never seen a game punish players for learning being good. Just put the Frenchies to 9.0 then cause ONE person will make them work in your playerbase.

Meanwhile, you ignore the absolutely broken vehicles that are massively undertiered and slaughter teams like 2S38, 279, BMP-2M, Sav, MANY, many more. So the whole argument is complete nonsense. If you’re saying a T20 needs to go to 6.3 cause it’s THAT GOOD but the 2S38 isn’t, you’re insane. Just literally insane.

[Ziflock]

The T20 is given APCR to justify it going to 6.3. Which is funny cause that means it’s not worthy without it, and you’re right. It isn’t, and even WITH IT it’s not. Thanks for confirming it’s nonsense.

The FL-11 going to 4.3 is a joke. It’s entirely worse than the Chaffee but nah, BUMP IT UP cause win-loss ratios GAHUH. Sure. Punish players for being good and screw over literally everyone else. Amazing “balancing”

[Ziflock]

The Gripen etc. needs to be at like 14.0 for goodness sake, but damn, decompress? Nope, can’t do that. You must all hate the experience more.

[CodyBlues]

There’s no reason for the Chinese one not to have flares.

Make all F-104Gs lower, they are all worst then something like the F-5E that is 10.7

[Midnight_Leopard]

So the 2S25M can get a top tier round with 3BM60 at 10.0 but the AGS can’t get M900 at 11.0 despite the AGS being literally designed to use M900?
This makes zero sense just give it M900 and call it a day.

[CREELAST]

Yes, keep ignoring the rest of my message, FOR ME is not 10.0 material FOR YOU it is, is ok, is just an opinion, but the rest? Why didn’t talk about that right? …

The fact that any F15 is not going up, the t34 staying at 6.7 when all the rest heavies went up, F-5E not going up, could we talk about that? NOT of course, because all that is in your favour.

[goblin_cleaver]

Where as Q-5Ls had them , gaijin still haven’t implemented those

[goblin_cleaver]

Yeah move all those french tanks to 8.0 , I want to kill under equipped french tanks

[Captain_Dani]

You haven’t changed the BR of the Fw 189 and Ju 388 J again…
Both aircraft are forgotten event vehicles and their BRs are WAY too high.

[RB] Fw 189 2.3 → 1.3/1.0 (maybe change it’s class to remove or reduce the height of the airspawn)
2x 7,92mm (500 rpg) and 4x 50kg bombs at 2.3?! Its flight performance is that of an 1.0 too.

---

[RB] Ju 388 J 4.3 → 2.7 (not an exaggeration)
It’s a slow and heavy aircraft with average weapons for it’s size and low ammo capacity, even compared to light aircrafts. In detail:

Comparisons

The Ju 88 C-6 [2.3] is very similar and suffers from the same issues. Both have downward-angled guns and their rudder is bad for vertical aiming. Just a little maneuvering by the enemy and it is impossible for you to hit him. Compared to the Ju 88 C-6, the Ju 388 J has more engine power and more powerful guns. But the drawbacks are too substantial and unchanged.

The Do 217 N [2.7] is similar because both…

• are slow and heavy (don’t turn well and have a terrible climb rate)
• have 2x 13mm or 1x double 13mm gunners
• have useless “Schräge Musik” and Radar

but the Do 217 N is better because…

• it’s gun shots straight
• it has a twin tail (very stable when aiming vertically)
• it has 4x20mm with 200 RPG
  … what makes aiming so much easier.

→ In short: Do 217 N [2.7] > Ju 388 J > Ju 88 C-6/Do 217 J [2.3]

---

PS: Don’t get fooled by the stat card of the Ju 388 J:

1. 2 of 4 20mm w/400 rounds are “Schräge Musik” (in WT dead weight)
2. 612 kmph at 10600m !!! - the game doens’t even last long enough to get to that altitude.
   At lower altitudes, your speed is very similar to that of the Do 217 N/Ju 88 C-6.

Please don’t ignore this post and don’t forget the existence of these aircraft.

[goblin_cleaver]

Plz gaijin save the sabres taiwanese f86f-30 is overtiered hard

[AuroraBoreaIis]

First, thanks for explaining the changes. I appreciate the system of proposing changes and reacting on feedback that has been done now for a while.

Still feel the BR raise of BatChat and AMX 90 is unwarranted, although I understand they are very efficient. They probably are. But they are objectively not superior to a Object 906 for example (with a stabilizer and HEAT and a fast chassis and quick reload too). It would feel more fair when adjusting BR’s the data is corrected somehow with the average player skill, as I feel that might have something to do with it. It feels wrong to have tanks with only APHE and quite bad pen at the same tier where HEAT/APDS is the rule and stabilizers start to appear. 8.0 is firmly early MBT territory. Even more when the in my opinion superior Lorraine 40t and AMX TOA 100 (much better pen and despite only AP shells excellent post pen damage) remain at their BR. In arcade that will now be a gap of 1.0 BR!

Thanks for hearing my suggestion of adding APCR to the T20. APCR is generally not great, but it will help with King Tigers turrets and so on. But why not add the PCOT shell to the EBR? The vehicle is starting to feel overtiered now.

[StickyDeccal]

Please, 2S38 and the HSTV-L needs to switch their BRs. The 2S38 is much, much more capable than HSTV-L and sits 1.3 BR lower. And there is a topic with the real documentations telling that the HSTV-L having the proximity shell and much, much higher penetration values with the APFSDS. Please consider these too when changing BR.
(26-09-2020) HSTV-L XM885 Incorrect Performance by Spookston
HSTV-L Capabilities by BlueRooster57
it uses the Delta 3 and lately Delta 6 as APFSDS-T and its performance is equivalent of the 105mm M774 round. Which penetrates about 400mm at range of 1000m. I don’t know how gaijin does implement these into Lanz-Odermatt formula, but they aren’t fit with the military test documents.
Note: Both topic links I left here has all the sources for the vehicle and the used gun.
Another Note: this is not a report or suggestion, Just a reminder for the BR of these two vehicles.