Oh, damn. Those uptiers for the A6M5s, A7Ms and Re.2005s are going to be rough. They are already outpaced by all their opponents, this is just going to make it worse. I kind of understand moving the LF Mk.IX up with it’s good climb rate at least but still. And the Mk.24 to 7.0? yikes.
I think it just goes to show how mismanaged the “Superprop” tier is/has gotten. There needs to probably be a new BR to spread the (current) 4.7-6.7 range out because that high end is getting ridiculous with the nerfs, and makes me sad as a prop main.
I have posted my feedback regarding the proposed BR changes on the spreadsheets, and hopefully, Gaijin takes my feedback and considers it along with input from other users. Now, I will propose additional BR changes for vehicles not listed on the spreadsheets that should also be reviewed.
F4F-4
Air Realistic Battles: 3.0 → 2.7
Reasoning: Compared to the F4F-3 Wildcat, the F4F-4 Wildcat has an identical engine and similar performance. The main differences are additional internal armor in the fuselage (up to 8 mm protection) and two extra .50-cal machine guns. As a result, the F4F-4 has a worse flight model due to a lower power-to-weight ratio. Overall, it suffers from a super-poor climb rate while having two BR steps higher than the F4F-3.
There is no reason for it to be at 3.0, sharing the same BR as the F4U-1A Corsair (USMC), which has significantly better flight performance along with six .50-cal machine guns. The F4F-4 is not comparable to the F4U-1A or other fighters at 3.0, and it is often outclassed in engagements.
Personally, I would place it at 2.3, as the F4F-4 is essentially a side-grade to the F4F-3, but it may perform better due to the increased firepower, particularly in head-on engagements, at the cost of worsened flight performance.
Reasoning: While possessing good armament and maneuverability, it has low speed, engine power, and climb rate. They are strong in the right hands in the right place, but getting them there is difficult as is and uptiering them will make the situation worse.
Yes, the f16CM is good, and the F-14 just needs to update its missile kit with AIM-9L/M and AIM-7M and P missiles.
Even if that’s what I proposed as a modification for the F14 in this post, just go back a few comments and you’ll see.
Edit: The F-16CM only needs more pylons.
Reasoning: While an all round good aircraft, uptiering it puts it at high risk to facing jets like the MiG-15 and F-86A-5, where it would be, quite frankly slaughtered more often than not.
Reasoning: While the Zeros are among the most maneuverable fighters in the game for their tiers, they are also among the slowest and most fragile. They already struggle fighting among the faster aircraft, as they are near always playing catch-up, literally.
The problem with the J-15 isn’t its br, it’s the aircraft itself and how it was implemented.
The same goes for the J10C; Gaijin always ruins Chinese vehicles and takes years to make them decent.
The WS10B has mediocre performance, lacking countermeasures; the PL12A is literally the PL12 with GNSS.
The J-10C is a very rare aircraft; it lacks everything: performance (because the aircraft has an absurd amount of drag), missile performance, engine, fuel, and countermeasures.
Both the J15T and J10C aircraft needed a rework; they need fixing. There’s no BR change will fix them.
Vehicles:
Challenger 2
Challenger 2 OES
Challenger 2 TES
Challenger 2 2F
Challenger 2 CUP
BR: 11.7 > 11.3
Reasoning: as a brit main i love the challengers more than anything BUT i see 0 reason why this set of vehicles should be a higher BR than something like the Merkava mk3 or a T72B3/B3 ARENA or even something such as the ZTZ99-III as it is just as slow/slower than all those vehicles mentioned has the worst round out of all those vehicles mentioned and similar/worse armour to all those vehicles mentioned this tank is sitting at the same BR as the M1A1 with a worse shell worse mobility worse survivability worse gun handling worse sustained ROF and a higher BR than the IPM1 with a slightly better round and worse in everything else i just mentioned with the M1A1, the only reason i can see these vehicles being 11.7 compared to there comparative vehicles is player skill obviously instead of this gaijin could put a bit more focus onto the various bug reports on the challenger 2s to make the tank worth its BR but we have gone 2 years with little change to said bug reports obviously this post is a rant about britain so it going anywhere is more than unlikely but its worth the chance in my eyes
Reasoning: This is a similar case regarding the BR placements of the F4F-3 and F4F-4 Wildcats. Compared to the standard F6F-5, the F6F-5N Hellcat has the same engine and similar performance. The primary differences are two 20 mm cannons in place of two .50-cal machine guns and the addition of airborne radar. Consequently, its flight performance is worse due to the increased weight and drag, significantly reducing the power-to-weight ratio.
I do not see how the increased firepower and the addition of airborne radar justify a full 1.0 BR increase over the standard F6F-5. At 4.3, the F6F-5N is often outclassed by other fighters at the same BR, particularly in climb rate and energy retention.
Reason: The F-4C at 9.7 has, in my opinion, much better CAS loadouts and a roughly equal flight model when compared to the Thunderchief. Its lack of flares is also pretty rough. Compared to other 10.0 vehicles, like the Su-22M3 with 4x laser missiles, all-aspect missiles, and similar FM, it’s even more lacking.
