What BRs are you looking at for what tanks
It doesn’t.
I don’t have definite numbers, it was just a idea.
But for example, here are some of the changes I would like to see:
- BMP-2M: 10.0 → 10.3
- PUMA: 10.0 → 9.0 or 9.3
- M3A3: 10.0 → 9.0 or 9.3
- Dardo: 10.0 → 9.7
- …
Of course, we would need to push top BR further up to be able to fine tune these numbers.
That being said, in my opinion best IFVs should be seen at BRs where tanks like T-80B, M1 or 2A4 reside, anything above that is really pushing it.
1 Like
I think you’re undertiered these vehicles quite a bit considering we’re finally getting some decompression in ground (flawed decompression but I think gaijin will figure that out pretty fast)
I’d just keep everything where it is rn honestly. Puma needs bug fixes and it’ll be great at 10.0. M3A3 and the other IFVs that rely on ATGMs need SACLOS ATGMS to be fixed from when they broke it.
Even before decompression I was of a opinion that most IFVs should be at around L/44 / T-72A range, with only exception being 2M.
In my opinion ATGMs are way inferior to darts and this is why I think they should drop down in BR even further. Additionally, higher up you go, mobility of most IFVs becomes on-par with MBTs at best (often subpar), which takes away from their efficiency and playstyle.
I don’t know what bug fixes you are referring to when mentioning Puma, but I don’t think it should be two BR steps higher than Begleitpanzer.
As M3A3 is concerned, it has to wait for it’s launcher to deploy, which locks it in a certain playstyle, so in my books it should have the lowest BR from IFVs I’ve listed above.
Even before decompression I was of a opinion that most IFVs should be at around L/44 / T-72A range, with only exception being 2M.
I can’t agree with that.
In my opinion ATGMs are way inferior to darts
Yeah, they are, but pre-nerf ATGMs were fine. They had a niche.
1 Like
Most IFVs will have troubles penetrating MBTs frontally with their autocannons, which means they have to flank in order to use their main gun effectively. I guess it’s not easy to flank when you aren’t even faster than MBTs, let alone other light vehicles.
One more thing, most ATGMs can’t be fired on the move, so that’s yet another limiting factor that won’t let you play aggressively.
I don’t know man, in my opinion IFVs shouldn’t be one of the slowest vehicles in the match.
Exactly, those vehicles got more niche higher you went.
I think that one BR step separating things like M3A3 and 2A4 just isn’t enough to describe how much more versatile and better latter vehicle is.
Germany made these tanks they obviously can and will up-armour them if they have to deploy them to a warzone. It is self-explanatory and simple logic aside from all the proof that they can and will do so. Just give the PSO the UFP upgrade and stop diminishing the German TT for no reason…
Instead of treating the PSO like a war tank, with extra capabilities for urban combat, they are treating it as if it were a Caterpillar with combat capabilities.
No one in their right mind would say that in a combat vehicle, between the dozer and the armor, the dozer is the priority. The dozer is an eventuality, a capability, as long as it is not necessary, it remains a war tank. It’s ridiculous.
1 Like
Why are you still playing if you feel oppressed and humiliated ?
1 Like
F-4F ICE with 9Ms/9Lis & AMRAAMs for 12.7 - 13.0, Mig-29G with R-73s for 12.3.
Eurofighter for 13.3.
No need for F-16s.
@richthofen122
Why are you talking about other companies here?
This is a War Thunder thread, European Union company, not Russian.
Germany’s treated rather well.
4 Likes
It’s their game, nothing will change unless they seem it’s fit. Yelling for changes on their forum won’t make a single difference, believe me.
If this was that big of a deal, another review-bombing would’ve happened years ago.
Our victory is inevitable.
Same as is cringe from your comments.
4 Likes
The review bombing occurred AFTER the direct line of communication with Gaijin’s developers was opened and the econ update reverted.
Econ was reverted early morning May 18th for me, slight afternoon of May 18th for the developers.
In the afternoon of May 19th for me, evening for the developers, around over 30 hours after the reverted update, a new publication commenting on the review bombings that started after the reverted update with their news post.
People are quick to forget this due to the countless videos painting a different narrative.
The uproar on the old forum caused the direct line of communication to open more than anything else.
Ten-thousands of posts ever more upset as it grew closer to econ update, and then ten-thousands more until reverted & direct line was opened.
3 Likes
In my opinion ATGMs are way inferior to darts and this is why I think they should drop down in BR even further.
Puma w/all the reported fixes and ATGMs would be quite alright at 10.0 tbh. Sabot mass would go up to 160g (making it spall better), armour protection would increase to a point where even 2S38 would have to think twice before spraying and praying, making it a very good cannon only IFV.
Then Puma S1 would ‘fix’ the lack of heavy firepower via adding Spike-LR (4 of them in total), if given direct fire capability (basically gunner guidence like all other IFVs) it would have very little problem dealing with MBTs.
Of course, both things are still far off from being added/done, using Begleit as an example, prolly another ~3 years until all the fixes are implemented and about ~2 years before we get the Spikes.
I can see Lynx sitting at a higher BR due to its APS which catches any and all ATGMs fired at it, regardless of the platform and the lack of spalling (the fuel tanks on it eat, at least from my experience, >90% of spall).
However as it stands now, I do agree with your BR changes for IFVs.
well due to a lot of calculations of armor only something above 57 mm apfsds can penetrate the frontal plate
Yes, i’m aware. I was the one who did those calculations.
If you go to the old forum now and look for the post again, you will find yourself seeing my name there.