Fair, I do recall the Matilda having good armour. I do think they aren’t talked about because they have no speed, the cost of making a tank, not to fight other tanks, but to support infantry.
The full area is starting to have a bad case of compesserion, which can be traced to the long gunned panzer IVs. As when I was playing 2.7, they were the biggest threat, as 90% of 2.7 can’t do anything to them. Well, they can one-shot everything there, and they see them every game now.
You could just suggest Swedens current T-34 become the 747 model on Germany, well more specifically a slightly different model as it has a German cupola as 6 models were sold to Finland with only 3 arriving. That’s already 4.3
Again moving the only decent mobile tank off the lineup kills it given Sweden 4.0 is literally just tank destroyers that nobody plays cause they are bad/harder to use than other nations TD’s at lower BR’s
QN-506
Ground RB
10.0 → 9.7
Compared to other vehicles with Fire-and-Forget missiles, the QN-506 is sorely lacking in one major feature: mobility. The QN502 missiles are extremely unreliable at killing enemy ground vehicles in most situations on most maps, and are best used as an anti-helicopter weapon, while the QN201 missiles are utterly useless despite their stated penetration. Vehicles like the Freccia and KF41, while not exactly great, can compensate for this with good mobility to complement their autocannon, but the QN506 simply cannot. The ZBD04A at the same BR totally outclasses it as an all-around fighter.
The QN-506 should also be reclassified from Light Tank to Tank Destroyer, just like the BMPTs that its imitating
It’s honestly hilarious that you’ve been trying to lecture me on Sim balance when you don’t even play the mode yourself. That’s just beyond ridiculous.
You’re talking about the F-5E’s radar like it’s a huge advantage, but in Sim, it’s mostly garbage. All it does is ping enemy RWRs and give away your position, and it doesn’t even have IFF.
And I have a 3.0 K/D ratio in the base F-5A in Sim, this is a very good airplane.
Lack of IFF is an issue, but does still come in handy for locating contacts, which, if you apply a little thought too, can usually allow for intercept, VID and then attack.
If given the choice between no radar at all and a SRC radar without IFF. Id always pick the latter.
Back when the SHar had the F-5s radar, it was annoying not having IFF, but made life way easier than the radar-less airframes such as the Harrier GR7.
T-72M1, T-72A
Ground RB
9.3 → 9.7
This change has been overdue for sometime, especially as the various rounds of BR decompression have had their time to settle in. These tanks are clearly superior to several of the “upgraded” MBTs also found at 9.3 (e.g. CM11, Leopard 1A5, late Magach 6/7s, Super M48, Type 74) as well as some other contemporaries, such as MBT/KPz 70. The T-72A/M1’s APFSDS is overkill at its current BR which allows them fightable against the current 10.7 vehicles such as Leopard 2A4 or M1 Abrams, while also having some armor that can actually take a hit in return (unlike most other 9.3 MBTs mentioned before). These vehicles are vastly superior to the current 9.0, such as ZTZ88B or T-62M or T-55AM-1, and absolutely do not need to be facing 8.3 vehicles that are firing only 100/105mm APDS (e.g. Type 69-IIA, T-55A, M60A1 AOS, and STB-2), some of which lack stabilizers, and none of which have armour that even stands a chance against the 125mm gun.
the swiss F-5E at same BR has the AN/APG-69 Pulse Doppler radar with TWS and IFF
ZTZ96
Ground RB
9.3 → 9.7
The ZTZ96 has some of the same advantages of the T-72A, although having slightly weaker protection for a major upgrade in firepower. The Type 85-1 shell vastly outmatches any tank the ZTZ96 can face (most of which lack composite armour of any kind) and is viable against even many 11.0-11.3 tanks. Like the T-72A, it is superior to contemporary ““upgraded medium tanks”” like the various M48 and M60 upgrades, as well as late variants of ““light”” MBTs like hte Leopard, OF-40, and Type 74. It should not be facing 8.3 tanks, many of which still fire 100/105mm APDS, and many of which still lack stabilizers.
T-64A
Ground RB
9.3 → 9.7
The T-64A has many of the same advantages against 8.3-9.3 opponents as the T-72A/M1 (mentioned above), but also benefits from an autoloader (allowing it to outpace almost all contemporary tanks) at the cost of some frontal armour. It shouldn’t be facing 8.3 tanks firing APDS.
(translator) GRB (Japan)
TKX(P) - 12.0>11.7. The machine has no differences from the Type 90. A higher-quality thermal imager is compensated by poorer mobility and survivability due to a smaller area of armored zones.
Type 81 Tan SAM - 11.7 >11.0. According to the combined characteristics of the missile, it is an opponent of the 2s6 Tunguska. At the same time, it has disadvantages in the form of dependence on the weather and the map (the photo contrast does not work against the background of the earth, as well as clouds interfere with capture in both modes) and the lack of radar, which makes it practically blind against the background of other AA.
Tan Sam kai - 12.0>11.3. Compared to the previous machine, we only get a radar with not the best scanning speed and ARH-missiles, which do not differ much in performance from IR (they explode at about 11 km, instead of 10, coolly), and at the same time warning targets about launch, which gives the target time to dodge, as it happens with other AA with SACLOS.
Thanks for reading.
T28
Ground RB
6.3 → 6.7
This vehicle should not be facing 5.3 tanks, which it is practically invulnerable to. Even though it has weaker side armor compared to the T95, frontally it is still a 7.0 vehicle. It still has incredible firepower for its battle rating while being frontally impervious to all but the strongest guns, especially at range. The reduced side armor is a downgrade, but it only requires more careful playstyle/planning rather than compromising the entire vehicle.
BMP-T nerf is not enough it can easily be at least 12.3 but you guys wont do anything to fix it but raise it 0.4 br higher. Honestly dumbest decision to only raise it to 11.7.
That is your opinion, not a fact.
To find and engage targets in a plane without a radar, you just use your RWR, the kill feed, the map, and objective markers.
It’s cool, but very few people actually have it after all, the German tech tree isn’t particularly popular.
Its a downgrade not a sidegrade, all aspect vs rear aspect
mid all aspect vs greatest rear aspect
Its a major nation, it’s popular by definition
Its easily the third most popular
britain best nation trust
They’re going to have to ignore your post if you do then all in one post.
Reasoning: I do not think I need to say much. The direct British counterpart, the Jaguar GR.1A, has the AIM-9G available without the need for research. The same applies to the Jaguar IS, which already has the Magic II available without research.
The Jaguar A sits at a BR where missile engagements are more common, and it is frustrating to grind for the missile modification at Tier IV when the Jaguar A is already outclassed by fighters at 10.7 and above. It has to rely on securing third-party air kills to make meaningful progress in modification research.