I find it most difficult to understand why, despite knowing that the loading speed of the Type 99A main battle tank is faster than 7.1 seconds, it is set to 7.1 seconds in the game. When designing Japanese tanks, they clearly knew that a too-fast loading speed is inappropriate, so they chose a slower but more ‘reasonable’ speed for game balance. Why, when designing Chinese tanks, was there a reluctance to slightly increase the loading speed? Is it considered reasonable only if Chinese tanks are slow?
1 Like
The only thing we need is to be able to take more than 4 squad mates.
Now we have mouth-breathing enemies in blue as a dental filler in our teams.
1 Like
So they can nerf the Japanese tanks to be ‘reasonable’, but they can’t put the "all classified’ 2S38 up in br? tThey give the 2S38 theoratical stats, because that thing is still in designing fase (so no information has been released yet), but yet its in game.
Same goes for the ostwind-II.
Yet, adding historical, and proven facts to the game is considerd inappropriate?
Look at the Russian armour values ingame and take a look at 10.0 Russia… with that 2S38 in there.
The Russian, American and German tanks are unpenatrable at a distance for the type-10 in long range. Especially the turrets when behind cover.
Yet i get overpressured when bouncing a heatfs shell in my type-10 when shot at the front of my turret.
Lets not forget the Abrams got a major buff by decreasing its reload speed - having 5 seconds to reload, crazy armour and incredebly good manouvrability.
1 Like
Most minor nations are struggling way more.
Since i last checked - vehicles that are worse then those vehicles you just mentioned, are at a higher br then these.
Although the T95E1 and chieftain mk 3/5 could go down.
Since they never were at a good position (only when just added).
1 Like
Germany could use some tanks between 10.4-11.3. Otherwise this happens.
11.3 battle with almost entire team being german means everyone is max. 10.3. So german 10.3 Leo2A4 vs some russian 11.3 T-72B3 and T-90. Needless to say anything about the difference between 10.3 MBT and 11.3 MBT and what it would mean to have a battle of 16x 10.3 MBT vs. 16x 11.3 MBT.
Just a waste of time playing such battles. Everyone disconnects after 1 death for obvious reasons. I usually don’t spawn even the first tank when I see Leo2A4 being 100SP so it’s a 11.3 battle.
Fix this.
1 Like
EY yo my lovely people on this platform, please fix F-111 A UwU thank youuuuuu
Now why in god’s name is the Sagittario 2 is going up to 9.3? The Ariete sits at 9.3 and it’s objectively superior.
1 Like
Guys what happend to the SPOT system ? I am looking at the enemy tank maybe 100meters far through bino, wanna spot him… nothing happend… enemy tank behind building, try to spot him and i spotted him… logic, bug ?
This tickled me. So, basically scamming the player base and also poorly optimizing vehicles in-game? Sure, if that’s what you’re calling “unique & complex”? Playing Ground from 1.0 to 6.7 is fluid, but going past that, it’s a whole mess and greatly imbalanced. The American tech tree can’t survive more than one shell, and the armor is entirely a mess, no matter the location on the American tanks whether it is the front, left, right, top, hell even BOTTOM! However the STRV-122, and Leopards got the most ridiculous armor scheme, especially when trying to get disable it or destroy it, but for some reason, their thinly armored sides just ricochets or bounces APFSDF, but they’ll kill you instantly off the bat before you even know it!
What really astounds me is the fact that the Developers get or receive information that’s accurate, they completely disregard it and butcher it. This is the infamous case for the M1 Abrams, where there has been countless links and sources that contain said information.
The Leclerc is actually a solid tank, yet in War Thunder it has been mediocre and possibly the least played tank next to the Merkava and Ariete AMV, yet these tanks are remarkable in real life but leave very little to wanting to grind towards these vehicles, and overall making them the weakest and most unreliable vehicles in the game with MANY of their important functions and capabilities thrown or discarded out the window, essentially they feel like you’re playing a Rank IV tank in Rank VII-VIII matches. I’m not saying that these tanks aren’t usable in game, but they’re lacking useful tools to help sway the game besides just having fast reload times for the shells you’re bouncing every time you shoot.
Also, it wasn’t until very recently that Britain started to be “good” in top tier, it took a while before they fixed the mess of what was the Challenger, but nonetheless, playing as the US, British or any country that lacks the T-80/90s and Leopards is a horrendous experience with the Abrams being incredible weak in terms of armor/survivability, and being forced to having to use the heavy and god-awful armor that’s around the SEP V2 24/7. The British Challengers are still rather heavy and also really easy to detonate if any shell makes it through the lower half of the tank at any point of the body.
Overall, the ‘Allies’ / ‘NATO’ get terrible matches. Majority of games I have received were a mess, often giving me the weakest team imaginable like so:
All US vs Germany, Russia, China
US, UK vs Germany, Russia, China
US, Italy, France vs Germany, Russia, China, UK
Us, Italy, UK vs Germany, Russia, China, Sweden
US, USSR, UK vs Germany, China, Sweden
US, Germany, UK vs USSR, China, Sweden
US, Sweden, Italy, France vs USSR, Germany, UK, China
Once in a blue moon you’ll see the Allies/NATO do really well, but won’t see it again for a long while. Playing these tech trees at Ground top tier is a horrible experience that’ll lead to more losses than wins, and if you are wanting to bring CAS for the Allies, good luck because Matchmaking only finds you teammates that don’t have any AA to support you, and add the cherry on top that is the Leopard/Strv 122 that’s deflecting every shell from every distance and angle on the enemy team, makes for the worst kind of gameplay experience and frustrating matches.
I want to know what kind of meth they’re smoking or paint they’re huffing while developing these vehicles early on. Feels like they give more fucks to making Leopards and the Soviet T’s playable versus the other nations in Ground, while only giving 1/10th of the fucks to give towards the other nations.
This is up to date Win-Rates for the “Big 3” Nations in Ground RBs from 10.7+ that influence the teams you shall receive:
*US - 38%
*Germany - 65%
*USSR - 50%
As you see, you’re better off not selecting the US for Top Tier ground or having a teammate playing with American tanks. The US hasn’t seen any positive Win-Rates since 2020, early 2021 and that’s not going to be changed any time soon, especially with the current stage of the game where 80% of your team only consists of one tank only per person; factor that in with subpar armor, it’s like sticking your johnson in a blender.
2 Likes
France battleship Courbet need to chance RB BR 6.3 to 6.0，this ship got the worst maingun、worst AAs、high chances to explored be hit by enemy BBs even CAs.
To also add to the armor issue we are experiencing, let’s take in the armor package that the V2 Abram has, that bulky armor that’s just as useful as dinner plates and compare it to the Leopards.
Abrams SEP V2 Armor: Hull- 133/60/32mm and the Turret being 139/120/13mm. The armor package adds 5mm of extra armor protection, however with the way the armor is designed, this package should be effective at forcing most ammunition to deflect downward or off to the sides or reduce the kinetic force before penetrating the hull and stopping it; in War Thunder, this does not work and Gaijin will probably make it work once we’re a new tier or two above the current.
Leopard 2(any variant): Hull: 80/30/20 and Turret 75/80/20. There is no armor package compared to the Abram SEP V2. The armor is difficult to pen from the front, and they will often survive multiple rounds before a successful kill, essentially their armor is what should be the Abrams, I understand that the Leopards got an aggressive turret armor, and that I can respect for being difficult to pen, but when their hull armor is thinner at the average firing range of 100 meters to 300 meters, it still bounces and deflects rounds better than any other tank, yet having the thinnest armor.
I would say it is safe to say that the Leopards and Strv-122s are currently busted as far as survivability goes and firepower and overtuned this update. Due to the recent update, it is challenging to play any nation against Germany/Sweden, you’ll get lucky to kill one or two leopards/strvs a match, but they’ll kill you every time reliably and effectively without much thought on round placement.
I guess you’re just trying to say that this situation is not allowed to happen at once, otherwise it would be China and Russia being strong. So much so that you overlooked that the probability of hitting the same location in the picture and triggering an explosion is actually 90%，The situation where no damage is caused will occur on any tank, which is a problem with the game, and you just use your arrogant thinking to think that apart from Chinese and Russian tanks, these are reasonable
In reality, the scene of Leopard 2 exploding is even more intense, why can’t I see this in the game？
Gaijin should fix how MM works, especially pairing teams together, like the lopsided 2 nations vs 4 nations or 1 nation vs 3-4 nations. That shouldn’t be a fucking thing to begin with. If there’s ONE nation against multiple others, that’s a fucked up game because you’ll be guaranteed to lose if you’re a solo nation. You’ll be facing nations with great AA and nations with great tanks while putting you in the shit storm.
If it’s one nation on a team, there should only be ONE nation on the enemy team. Not that fucking bullshit.
If you play German tanks on BR 7.0 - you will see exactly the same pattern. Most of the BR 7.0 German tanks have an WW-II 88 mm. cannon - but have to fight against BR 8.0 tanks, where most of them have a 105 mm. cannon and with much better ammunition and even helicopters and Jets etc.
,
, 
, 
, 
1 Like
Here our opponent was on BR 5.7 on all his line-up… and me in a BR 7.0 line-up. A BR difference on BR 1.3.
No one should tell us that there is no strong match-fixing going on in the game, which is disrespectful and confirms to me that my statistics are valid and credible. For several years, I have compiled statistics of my matches and the pronounced match-fixing that takes place. I simply don’t understand why players don’t speak up - and stop this blatant cheating.
This could be easily fixed. If Gaijin introduces a Max. BR level for each match with max deviation of BR 0.3. , then we would have to fight based on our experience and skills - and not on deviant BR levels, where some favored players are awarded advantages - and are always at the top of kill ratios - at the expense of other players’ costs.
I want neither being uptired nor downtired – but only that we fight on fair and equal terms. I feel sorry for my opponent, who has to fight against BR 7.0.
1 Like
A question out of curiosity? Why doesn’t Gaijin show BR level based on each individual player in the combat statistics in RB as they do in AB ?.. Why hiding this?
I wonder when they are gonna implement the BR changes
1 Like
I wouldn’t consider data from cards, this is a scam
I just received a FIM-92K missile at a distance of 6 km to the nearest base (and the respawn is even further), although on the wiki it’s 5 km and in game is 6 km for Ozelot
1 Like
British RB Ground BR’s:
- A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse. It has no redeeming qualities.
- SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kind of it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped.
- Churchill Mk I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz III M’s, M4A1’s, etc.
- AC I: 3.0 down to 2.7. It plays exactly like a faster Valentine Mk I, the armour is good but not amazing. Like the Churchill, the 2-Pdr really begins to struggle around this BR. The Churchill Mk I dropping to 3.0 should be the highest BR vehicle armed with a 2-Pdr.
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up previously. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind. Far less rate-of-fire per gun and half the guns. Lacks HVAP to combat enemy tanks. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. Even saying that though, the Wirbelwind has a far better protected hull and has similar top speeds. The Crusader AA Mk II just has an easier time hitting that top speed. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- Churchill Mk III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk II at 3.0.
- Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk II, I really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk II, and now the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3 for the Crusader AA Mk. II or a 1.7 BR difference for the Whirbelwind)? If you want a 5.3 Skink, then you should consider adding the welded version with the 4 20mm Hispanos.
- Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, they’re very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots and lacks APHE.
Falcon: 8.3 down to 8.0. Just remove the APDS and/or adjust the belts. There’s now 3 British SPAA’s at 8.3 now, what’s the point? The Falcon has no radar and should be lower.
Chieftain Mk 3: 8.7 down to 8.3. The Chieftain Mk 5 has far better mobility and top speed, and sometime soon will get a LRF. This makes the Chieftain Mk 3 feel more like a heavy tank in comparison but only with decent armour when hull down.
2 Likes