Wyvern has 4x 20mm Hispanos, Ki-67-I Otsu has no pilot-operated armament.
Top speed: Wyvern 650km/h (sea level), Ki-67-I Otsu 543km/h (6.5km)
Speed limit: Wyvern 844km/h, Ki-67-I Otsu 650km/h
Climb rate: Wyvern 23m/s, Ki-67-I Otsu 6.9m/s
Turn time: Wyvern 32s, Ki-67-I Otsu 27s
So, Wyvern is a better bomber than Ki-67-I Otsu and in addition can function as a good boom-and-zoom fighter afterwards with its strong forward armament and high speed.
Ki-67-I Otsu is very quick and nimble for a bomber, but cannot in any way impact the battle the same way a Wyvern can, while Wyvern is also better as a bomber even if the player decided to never use their guns.
Which one of these planes is at least 1.0 BR off where it should be? Or does the Ki-67-I Otsu have some trick up its sleeve that goes beyond numbers?
If you have found other similar oddities, feel free to post them below. But remember to take into account that vehicles often have vastly different roles and abilities if comparing vehicles of different types. E.g. the comparison I made would’ve been moot if the Wyvern couldn’t easily surpass the Ki-67-I Otsu in its intended role.
British Falcon, goes up to 8.3 for balance reasons due it being to good at ground pounding, Gayjin removes the APDS round…remains at 8.3 for yet again, balance. Britain still has 3x SPAA all at 8.3.
Tornado IDS (1998), GR1 and ASSTA1 all being 11.7 because they have GBUs which of course, are very powerful in ARB (/s) compared to their non-GBU equivalents at 11.3
Ki-67-I Otsu at 5.7? What was the last time you saw a japanese bomber that isn’t the B7A or g8n1? Japanese payload SUCK, and their defenses can pack a sting but only covers mostly the rear, one side or frontal attack is death for them, also japanese 20mil velocity is very bad.
MiG-17AS shares the same BR as the F3H while having the exact same FM and engine as the TT MiG-17 that sits .3 below it; in a full uptier it can face mirages, phantoms and draakens
The Ki-67 is arguably the best medium bomber in the game. It’s capable of defending itself, fast, and maneuverable. Its bomb load is the only drawback.
I was about to write about MiG 17AS and Shenyang F-5. Essentially MiG 17 and MiG 17F in the same Br and both of them with R3s.
MiG 17AS has R3s , MiG 17 doesn’t have R3s … that’s why the 0,3 difference.
@iegaatdao
Also defensive armament on bombers barely counts because the skill required to use them effectively even on the most heavily armed bombers is significantly higher than what it takes to use the nose-mounted weaponry on any fighter aircraft.
@Grzegames
Yes the flight performance is very enjoyable compared to most other bombers in the game. I’m not mocking the Ki-67, I’m simply wondering how it is possible for it to be completely surpassed even as a bomber by a high-performance strike aircraft at the exact same BR.
@Terminated_800
I don’t think that is necessary anymore since everyone, Gaijin included, is painfully aware how broken that vehicle is.
Aim-9Gs are actually perfectly reasonable, as all the Phantoms at this BR have the same (rear-aspect Aim-9), sure they are a little lack luster but that is a compression issue.
I personally dont like the radar but again, its perfectly reasonable for the BR, same for the RWR (also on that note RWRs are not affected by Ground clutter and that is precisely what the PD mode is for on the radar)
But the Phantom FGR2, FG1 and F4J(UK) all do ahve a major balance issue, that is the Skyflash DFs, these are largely an equivalent to the Aim-7E-2 found on the F-4E and not an equivalent to the Aim-7F found on the Phantoms at the same BR and leaves the British Phantoms way more under-gunned than the 9Gs do. These could be replaced by Skyflash SuperTEMPs (reported and accepted, but not implemented) but they wont for some reason
As for its BR. no. in its current state it wouldnt be any lower than 11.7 for various reasons, just compare to something like the Hawk 200 RDA