British RB Ground BR’s:
- Valentine Mk I: 2.7 down to 2.3 and reclassify as a Heavy Tank. I still don’t understand why this was even necessary. It’s now sharing a BR with its direct upgrade and now is completely pointless to play. It’s also worse than the Matilda II in many ways.
I would also reclassify the other Valentine’s as Heavy Tanks
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, etc.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- AEC AA Mk II: 3.7 down to 3.3. From 2.7 to 3.7, that’s a massive jump. Now you’re expected to use the Staghound AA from 2.0 to 3.3 (the Crusader AA Mk I is a terrible SPAA and you’re better off playing that like a Fox). It should go back down to 3.3
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
When I heard people claiming the T-80UD is “super good” and should go to 10.7 - despite lacking thermals and a decent reverse speed - while also arguing that the 2S38 is much better than the HSTV-L, I realized there was no point in further discussion.
Furthermore, everyone seems to forget that the statistics for these tanks were heavily inflated by the BMPT being at 10.3 at the time. To be honest, the BMPT can be incredibly toxic, but not because it can destroy any tank in seconds. It’s toxic because it shreds all your modules, turning your match into a “repair simulator,” which is beyond frustrating. It’s essentially something like a Gepard or XM800T but with heavy armor at top tier. However, unlike the Gepard, which can actually shred many tanks through the front, the BMPT usually can’t do that; it just disables you and leaves you helpless.
I completely agree with your point: instead of being given worthy opponents to face, many tanks are simply up-tiered until they become ineffective or downright useless.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.3 (which is also incorrect, see my bug report, it should have the worse 6-Pdr Mk III further justifying the drop).
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
British RB Ground BR’s:
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
British RB Ground BR’s:
Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)?
It’s capability is what should matter. Not stats.
I didn’t expect anything new from you; it’s quite predictable. While I appreciate you bringing up the win rate data, looking at statistics in a vacuum doesn’t tell the whole story. Win rates are often skewed by the popularity of certain lineups and the density of experienced players in a specific bracket, rather than just the vehicle’s raw performance.
My point wasn’t to “cry wolf,” but to highlight a fundamental mechanical difference: the BMPT’s “annoyance factor” comes from module damage, not objective combat superiority. If we follow your logic that any vehicle with a high win rate is “clearly OP,” then we’d have to up-tier half the minor nations’ lineups just because veteran players use them to stomp.
It’s easy to dismiss any counter-argument as “bias,” but it would be more productive to discuss actual performance metrics-like the T-80UD’s lack of thermals and poor reverse speed-rather than just pointing at a leaderboard. Labeling every disagreement as “crying” doesn’t make your argument stronger; it just shuts down any chance of constructive discussion.
Finally, if you truly believe the game is built on a foundation of “Russian bias,” it makes me wonder why you continue to play it. It seems counterproductive to engage with a project where you believe the balance is fundamentally rigged against you.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow.
finally play the game so you can comment. you’re stuck in the past. everything you say is nonsense.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Falcon: 8.3 down to 7.7. You removed the APDS and Britain need something to address the massive SPAA gap. If the SAP is an issue then just remove the AP belt as well, just keep the default AP/HE mix and the HE belts. I would rather have a better SPAA at an appropriate BR than an SPAA playing light tank.
In an effort to increase the chances of this actually happening i will go on a yap session as to why the Turm III is that busted on 8.3.
The issue with the Turm III is that it has one of the fastest reloads on its BR (5 sec STOCK vs 6.7/7.5 ACED on other tanks). Coupled with a 30mm coax and the result is that no tank can reliably peek the Turm III; this is even more pronounced when playing an unstabilized tank which the Turm III commonly faces being only 8.3.
One would imagine that having this oppressive of an offensive capability the Turm III has some notable draw backs.
Looking at the mobility and gun handling you quickly notice that the Turm III certainly isn’t lacking in those departments, matter of fact its one of the best in the two categories at 8.3.
Two common downside the Turm III playerbase likes to proclaim is the it only having APDS and the lack of armor:
First off Dm13 is by no means a bad round, it is as good as 3bm25 (or other sub caliber rounds at 8.3/8.7/9.0) both damage and penetration wise.
Secondly: congratulations the Turm III having very thing armor is the first downside it has !!! But as wholsome as the vehicle is this downside has a caviat: Because it has so little armor a common occurence is shells simply not creating enough spall to damage components/crewmembers guaranteeing a one-shot. So even tho it has “zero armor” the only spot guaranteeing a one-shot is the right side of the turret where the commander and gunner sit behind each other.
Quickly addressing the electronics: Not having a laser-rangefinder is common at 8.3/8.7 and even 9.0 in some instances, same goes for thermals (so no this is both NOT a downside)
Summary:
The Turm III is too oppressive offensively while having little downsides in return and any resemblence of downsides is expected for 8.3/8.7/9.0
Maybe you should actually play the game, because being cannon fodder like you do doesn’t really count.
