The Ariete is DM53 L/44. This has less pen than the A2 shells on the M1A2s.
DM53 L/44
M829A2:
Its not much, but technically the M1A2 has the better firepower
DM53 L/55 for comparison
Its only DM53 L/55 that has better pen and those are all 6 second reloads, even those that really shouldnt be like the CR3TD
Ariete’s turret cheeks dont provide any meaninful protection against top tier shells. It literally has no armour and should be classed as a light tank, not an MBT
It has weaker shells than the M1A2
and Ive already said its smaller
survivability =/= penetration, the ariete is much more likely to survive being penetrated than an abrams
My experience is that Abrams usually take 2 shells to kill. Where Arietes (if I ever see them) is one. And thats with the weakest shell at 12.7
Aubl 74 HVG reload buff 5.0 secs to 4.25 secs
Seafire LF III to 4.3 in Air RB please
the thing has hull ammo storage
Ariete > Abrams is the most drunk top tier take I’ve ever heard
Even then, I don’t see the M8 LAC as 1.0 material. 1.3~1.7 would sound more appropriate without the .50 cal. Though that’s assuming some of the current overperforming 1.0s go up.
Reasoning: Historically, the XP-55 Ascender was never armed with two 20 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns. The report I created cites a source stating that the XP-55 was equipped only with four .50-cal machine guns during construction. Along with another report already correcting its engine performance, this warrants a reduction of one BR step by replacing the 20 mm cannons with .50-cal machine guns.
spitfire mk24 somehow at higher br than the BI btw
Vehicle : Falcon
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 8.3 —> 7.7(Remove Radar)
Reason : Falcon’s historically inaccurate radar should be removed, and its BR should be lowered.
This would also fill the gap in SPAA units in the BR 5.3–8.3 range.
tbh, we have radar SPAAGs like the M163 at 7.3
So I dont really see the harm in it being 7.7 with a tracking radar now it doesnt have APDS
leclerc is a worse abrams effectively
Vehicle : Swingfire
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 8.0 —> 7.7
Reason : Swingfire is equipped only with missiles that have a penetration of 535 mm, which is significantly lower than that of other missile vehicles in BR 8.0. (For comparison, the RB55B has 630 mm and the RB55C has 800 mm.)
I think BR 7.7 is appropriate.
The abrams pretty much has the best ammo storage out of all top tier MBTs, almost all of it is stored in the turret with a blowout panel, so it’s definitely more survivable compared to an ariete with hull ammo storage
Vehicle : Merkava Mk.1
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 9.3 —> 9.0
Reason : Merkava Mk.1 can only use the M111 APFSDS round and cannot use TVD rounds. It cannot be said to have the performance of a BR 9.3. A BR equivalent to that of the Sho’t Kal Dalet is appropriate.
I completely agree, and i would make that request as well, but i didn’t firstly because US doesn’t really have a GRB lineup at 11.0, so this change wouldn’t be that useful, and secondly i already made the request in the January BR changes and they didn’t listen so i wanted to prioritize the change i feel more necessary first
doesnt really mean much tbh, if the turret gets penned (which is comically easy to do) its still gonna detonate, and honestly, blowout panels are completely useless with how WT is designed, which requires you to be agressive and play cap point if you want to even use the tank anymore, which atp just J out
yes, ill admit that in an abrams i can tank a shot or two and still “live”
having zero fire control, zero movement control, zero turret control, and two crew with a fire that all together takes a minute to repair while an enemy with a 6s reload is staring at you, no i dont consider that as surviving
especially considering the volume of fire of the falcon compared to the M163 i dont see a reason for the falcon to be so high considering most counterparts at that BR have SRC and TRK radars
this also depends on the TRK capacity of the falcon, which i dont know since i dont have it
Reasoning: As it stands, the F9F-2 Panther does not offer any meaningful advantage over the F9F-5 Panther, which shares the same 8.0 BR. The F9F-5 is objectively better, while the F9F-2 has performance closer to the F2H-2 Banshee at 7.3, albeit slightly lighter and faster.
There is little to no reason to choose the F9F-2 when the F9F-5 occupies the same BR and offers superior flight characteristics. Moving the F9F-2 to 7.7 would be a more logical placement and would serve as a smoother progression between the F2H-2 (7.3) and F9F-5 (8.0), creating a more linear Banshee–Panther progression at 7.3, 7.7, 8.0, and 8.3.