Ground Vehicles **PROPOSED** RB battle rating changes

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
2386

Did you know it already has it? Google CM11 of china tree.

thats what is wrong with Gaijin - the reload time is considered a balance feature, so it can be changed to anything. Thy dont have any restrictions to that. But the point is, Gaijin is hella inconsistent.

Well, kinda?
All those encounters have the chance to flank and sideshot. Also except of OP British that have stabs at 7.0+ most are easy shot to the barrel. And some have weakspots on front. I mean, it should be obvious that tanks 1.0 br higher should at least not be penned from lower rank guns. If, however, the gun isnt their only good feature (like Archer that pens anything, and its okay). Other way its unbalanced that heavy or protected machinery only meets enemies that can pen it easilly.

1 Like
2387

Only the XM803 and KPZ-70 are good at their respective BRs.
The MBT-70 is pretty mediocre at 9.3.

1 Like
2388

panther F 6.3 but T-44 6.0???

-1 omg this thing was nightmare to face for 6.7+ tanks.

-1
does not need any change keep like it is

stays at 6.0 no for 5.7

i disagree fully with this it’s very op tank does not need any change keep it at 6.0. maybe with buff reload

8.3 this thing does not care about armor at all it’s slow but gun is great maybe with reload buff to help it.

8.3 br is also good for somua i own it and it’s king tiger with 4s relaod and better pen very op tank.

9.0 is good br for that thing at 8.7 7.7 tanks still have to deal with that thing on of the best tanks at 8.3.

keep it 6.0 the turret armor is easy to pen the panther G is better than the F in turret armor. does not need any change.

2 Likes
2389

No, it needs its historically correct turret traverse speed… its not as slow as in game.

2 Likes
2390

i mean about the BR not the turret !

1 Like
2391

The 130mm has much better angled penetration, not to mention overmatch, the 88mm round is only good if you shoot at below 35° or so.

2392

What do you think of premium OF-40 sitting at 9.3.
Stat wise it’s doing really good and even when looking at the vehicle, metric by metric, it looks to be really good.

Same for premium AMX.

2393

In-case you people take plane BRs in tank battles

Italy:

F.C.20 Bis 2.0 > 2.3 (It’s a better Hs 129 B-2 since it has aphe and you know, actually flies well.)

2394

BMPT —> 15.7
Russian vehicles all -----> 17.0

2 Likes
2395

The FM T-44 is a lot worse than the regular T-44 since it uses the T-44-122 chassis.
I think the FM T-44 and the T-34-85 STP should be 6.0.

The Panther F should still be 6.0 considering it’s mostly a side-grade to the Panther G (Less trolly gun mantlet, worse turret rotation speed, but gets a better gun shield, better reload, and a rangefinder).
It’s by no means better than the KV-220 – that’s for sure.

IS-6 should stay at 7.7, I agree.

The T-54s are quite mediocre for their BRs. I wouldn’t be opposed with moving it down along with the Leopard I unless the strong 8.0s move up (Vickers Mk.1, TO-55, and Type 69, though I’m sure they’d become mediocre at 8.3 – at least the TO-55 and Type 69).

6.0 without any changes is fine. 6.7s at 6.3 would make sense.

It’s not THAT good.
It’s very strong at 7.7 so I could see it being 8.0, but 8.3 is too much.

It’s armour would be meaningless at 8.3 where DM23 starts becoming common.

Its APDS only has ~144mm of 60 degree angle pen so it’s barely any better than 105mm APDS found at 8.0/8.3.
Coupled with mediocre spall, shell shattering, and a 15s reload…
Put it at 8.0 and buff its reload to ~12.5s.

Again, way too high.
It’s armour is very good at 7.7 but at 8.3 it would once again be meaningless… and it doesn’t have a stabilizer nor reverse speed to rely on, unlike the Conqueror.
It should be 8.0 in my opinion.

Agreed.

2 Likes
2396

i agree with this if ground rb gets 13.7 max and these tanks move could help

1 Like
2397

Well its mobility is above average, but not as good as the XM-1GM’s or KPZ-70’s. It used to be completely superior to the Leopard 1A5’s but they nerfed its top speed from 65km/h to 60km/h and (less-so) its reverse speed from 25km/h to 24km/h.

Its gun handling is just as good as the XM-1GM and KPZ-70.

The armour is not as good but hull-down I’d argue it’s has better survivability than either the KPZ and the XM-1.

The biggest difference is that it gets lol-pen DM33 with a decent 6.7s reload.
Much better firepower than the XM-1GM and slightly better firepower than the KPZ-70 (because of its 6s reload as well as its 20mm).

Good players play it because its good and its stats are definitely boosted by quite a bit as a result, just like the T20.

If the AMX-32 (120) is ‘justified’ at 9.7, then the XM-1GM, Olifant Mk.2, Gal Batash, KPZ-70, TAM 2IP, CM11, and OF-40 (MTCA) should be 9.7… along with maybe the ZTZ96, AMX-30 Super, and Magach 7C.

Which AMX are you talking about? AMX-30 Super?
That one is also really good as it doesn’t have the acceleration / impulse issue that the AMX-32 Variants have and has the -46km/h in reverse and slightly better gun handling over the Leopard 1A5, though it uses an inferior 105mm round (basically slightly inferior M774, which may struggle with the UFP of T-72s, for example) than the Leopard 1A5.

However its fuel tanks love eating spall so it’s survivability may be slightly better, though it has unprotected ammo in its turret bustle, meaning that it is able to be one-shot fairly easily even when hull-down.

I’m not sure if it’s too strong for 9.3 but I think the other 9.3s I stated are definitely worth 9.7.

2398

Yeah and Italy offers a really nice look into how it compares to popular vehicles from major nations, like T-72A and 1A5. Even if we account for minor nations’ premiums having slightly better stats than their TT copies, the difference between those three is still huge and should be looked into by Gaijin.

AMX-30 Super when compared to MTCA has thermals, better mobility, optics and arguably survivability. It loses out on penetration, gun handling and gun depression.

I still think those two should be at the same BR, which is 9.7.
After T-64B got up in BR I’d say it’s time for some 9.3s to move up as well and create some lineups there.

2 Likes
2399

Do you believe the AMX-32 deserved to be 9.7?

I don’t.

I think that’s probably a more important question at this point. Raising all of those staple 9.3 MBTs to 9.7 would negate the decompression between 9.3 and old 10.3(now 10.7) we got last year.

I for one do not want a return to the dark days of 9.3 being completely unplayable. Lol

2400

Hence why I put justified in quotation marks.

I don’t think it’s the strongest 9.7 out of the 9.3s that should be 9.7, but if it were 9.3 then it would be extremely good considering the AMX-32 (105) is just that but worse in acceleration, armour, and round.
AMX-32 (105) shouldn’t go to 9.0 either considering I’m thinking of having the M60A3s (with the American one possibly receiving M883), Class 3 (P), XM803, Chieftain 900, TAM, and Object 279 move up to 9.3 .

And they should move up those BRs again.
Hell, the 2S38 would become a menace to these 9.3s again after it gets moved to 10.7.

I get that. Just be happy that it’s in a decent position at the moment 😅

2401

8.3 needs to see decompression somehow as well.

2402

Does it though? I spend a lot of my play time in the 8.3-9.3 range and it’s honestly one of the bright spots in GRB at the moment. I don’t play all nations so I can’t speak from experience on all fronts but it’s seemed quite good of late.

I feel worse for 7.3s fighting 8.3s than I do 8.3s fighting 9.3s.

2403

Well, if you move some 9.3s up then you might move up some 8.3s as well.
Probably the worst compression is currently happening at ~8.0 and it needs fixing.

2404

You forgot to mention it’s slower than an M109 and a full 2.7 higher.

I better comparison is just VIDAR but without LRF or thermals (the main things that make VIDAR OP) at the same BR

2405

It shouldn’t be, the M48 turret is shite ergonomically for the loader. The M60A1 turret is basically perfect.

I mean yeah, about the T-34 but the KV-1E is just painful for 3.0s or any kv1/t34 for 2.7