Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026)

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Jaguar GR1A
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 10.7 —> 10.3
Reason: The Jaguar GR1A is the strongest of the 4 current TT Jaguars, with slightly more powerful engines, a half decent RWR and the ability to freely run the Phimat Pod alongside its full complement of Air-to-Air missiles, something that the other 3 cannot do. But even with all this, the Jaguar GR1A is not in a good state, as like the Jaguar A & E, it cannot really compete in any role within Air Realistic, and has to play extremely cautiously in Air Simulator. A BR reduction, any BR reduction would be a notable improvement for the airframe, whilst options to buff exist like giving the Jaguar GR1A a pair of Aim-9Ls, I would prefer it did not receive that buff as it would benefit far more from a BR reduction.

Another buff the Jaguar GR1A can and should receive is the Jaguar GR1B’s Digital RWR, the Jaguar GR1A already has the TIALD pod and cockpit from the Jaguar GR1B, so they might as well add the Digital RWR as well, improving the situational awareness and defensive potential of the Jaguar, which pairs beautifully with the Phimat Pod.

Ideally the Jaguar GR1A should go lower, down to 10.0, where it would probably be better placed, but 10.3 would be the bare minimum the airframe requires and places it alongside other similar airframes like the Mirage 5BA

[Morvran]

Vehicle: HMS Tiger
Gamemode: Naval Arcade & Realistic
BR Change: 6.0 -----> 5.3
Reason:

On the surface, HMS Tiger looks like a strong ship, with 2x very high rate of fire 6" main guns and 3x Incredibly fast firing 3" secondary guns. But the reality is that HMS Tiger is far weaker than most light cruisers at 5.7 and especially 6.0.

HMS Tiger’s mains guns have 3s reload (80 rounds per minute), which sounds good on paper. However, this is actually pretty poor for the BR. This is marginally better than HMS Liverpool with 9x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (72 rounds per minute) but far lower than ships such as USS Atlanta’s 14x 5" guns with 2.8 second reload (300 rounds per minute) or Nurnberg with 9x 6" guns with 5 second reloads (108 rounds per minute)

Compared to 6.0 cruisers since her BR increase, directly compared to something like HMS Belfast with 12x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (96 rounds per minute) just makes matter even worse

On top of the fairly poor shells per minute of the main guns, they have massive shell spread, and will rarely all impact the target, Easily 25%-50% of shells fired miss the target due to shell spread. Even at shorter ranges. These guns are only good at taking down aircraft with HE-VT due to their spread, as they act like bird shot. In comparison. 95% of the rounds fired from HMS Liverpool will hit the target due to having a very tight grouping.

Based upon datamines. HMS Tiger’s main 6" guns have double the shell spread of all other British 6" guns in game and there is no justified reason for this increase. If anything, Tiger should be more accurate

Since Tusk Force, the ability to fire the secondary guns at the same time as the Primary guns has been removed. Due to the inherent weapon spread of secondary guns vs naval targets when AI controlled, this has removed them entirely as being an anti-ship weapon vs anything other than coastal boats. I cant see any reason to be firing them manually at a target instead of the 6” guns unless they have been disabled. So this change has eliminated more 50% of the Tigers firepower, especially vs destroyers, which I imagine is the reason for her BR increase to 6.0

As a final note, HMS Tiger also has very poor survivability and cannot withstand fire for very long. She loses crew incredibly fast and due to having so few guns, can be suppressed and disabled very easily. Let alone if ammo racked leaving one or more guns being disabled for an extended period of time.

HMS Tiger, was never a strong 5.7, the increase to 6.0 was already highly unnecessary with the ship in the state it was…… With the further nerfs it has recently received…. It is now impossible to justify being 5.7 and 5.3 would be a more appropriate BR for this air-defence light cruiser

[DaweN_XL]

brooooo gaijin management makes me sick, yeah let’s sell xbox exclusive chrysler to everyone&after robbing done increase br 9.0 to 9.3! NICE!

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Tornado F3, ADV and F3 Late
Gamemode: All
BR Change: None
Change: Add Phimat (at least 1 to the F3 & ADV, but definitely all configurations to the F3 Late)
Reason: The Tornado ADVs are currently reliant on BOL for their chaff, and BOL is currently in an artificially nerfed state that renders it much weaker than it should be, when combined with the increased challenge in getting an ADV into an effective notch, the combination often results in being unable to reliably notch an incoming missile. Phimat pods are historically accurate feature to the ADVs and would change the ¼ strength BOL Chaff into Large Calibre Chaff that is approximately 22x more effective. The F3 Late especially needs this kind of buff given what it faces on a routine basis and should recieve the configuration where it has 2x Phimat. If balance is a concern for the 12.0 aircraft, I would suggest the configuration that replaces an Aim-9, so there is a downside to taking it.

Possible configurations:

• 1x Phimat instead of an Aim-9
• 1x Phimat mounted on the unused outer pylon, TRD on the opposite wing (obviously non-functional at this time)
• 2x Phimat on the fuel pylons.

I would like to see a mix of configurations ideally for the F3 Late as different gamemode/situations would need a different configuration, for example Air Sim you ideally want fuel tanks.

This may increase the effectiveness of the 12.0 ADVs to the point of needing to be 12.3, but should be reviewed afterwards, not pre-emptively as more data is available.

[Artіst]

there never were any Ho-Ri prototypes

[Master_Teaz]

Ground RB

All 11.7 Challenger 2s
(Challenger 2, Challenger 2 2F, Challenger 2 TES, Challenger 2 OES)

11.7 → 11.7

Remove L23A1 as the stock shell , and replace it with L26A1, like you have done with Challenger 2 Black Night and Challenger 2E

L23A1 is not a suitable stock ground at that BR, and L26A1 is equal to other stock ground at the BR such as 3BM42 or M829

[Morvran]

Vehicle: F-15C GE
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Simulator
BR Change: 14.3 —> 14.7
Reason: The F-15C GE started out as a relatively weak addition, but has only gotten stronger as it has received more and more buffs. The addition of BOL and additional AMRAAM mountings in the December 2025 update was quite a notable buff for the airframes on its own, easily making the F-15C GE the strongest of the 14.3 aircraft. The relatively recent addition of Aim-120D has taken it even further and its now consistently within the top 5 aircraft at 14.3/14.7 according to Statshark, even beating out the German AESA Typhoon and the Su-30SM2. During March it was ONLY beaten by the FGR4 (AESA). I think it’s pretty clear that the F-15C GE is no longer a 14.3 worthy aircraft and instead should be 14.7.

[Psc0905]

Vehicle: Kfir C2
Mode: Air RB
Change: 11.7 → 11.3
would allow for a logical progression down from the C7 to the canard. The C2 is currently completely overtiered for it only having 2 missiles.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: J-15T
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Simulator
BR Change: 14.7 —> 14.3
Reason: The J-15T was always going to be in a rough state without a decent CM count, but it had potential as a niche and challenging aircraft, but still just about an effective aircraft at 14.7, that was until the changes to the PL-12 family of missile, which has removed one of its core advantages over most other aircraft of a similar nature, this has simply turned the J-15T into a straight downgrade over almost anything else at 14.3, let alone 14.7.

[Mitchverr]

Mode: Realistic battles
Vehicle: Strikemaster mk88
BR change with new weapon: 6.3>6.7/7.0 with new air to air armament (miniguns/20mm cannons)

Reasoning:
As shown via these reports
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eq1ml5W6sNK1

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/o9gNfes1s1UE

The Strikemaster is capable of using more than just the universal 7.62 gunpod. The main reason for its relatively lower BR then its performance is the lack of offensive capacity vs other aircraft, especially fighters. This means that the Strikemaster is able to dominate in GRB due to its weapons options and capacity and also in 1 on 1 combat against other aircraft even with its limited weapons.

The solution is to grant it access to the SUU-11 gunpod and the 20mm 20m 621 20mm cannon and increase BR accordingly.

As other aircraft have similar armament at those BRs such as the MB326B/K aircraft.

[Pvt_Wade]

@FlyingOstridge

to the actual original prototype

the original wooden mock-up?

[tpom]

If it moves up then both the Cl13B and F4D should go up as well as they are both superior to the 91Y. The logic for moving just the 91Y up and leaving the objectively better planes at the lower br makes no sense.

Also 91YS should be 9.0 along with the Y since its a side grade or even slight downgrade at worst.

[YaSen]

M-346FA (AAB) 13.0 → 12.7, this would allow to use the plane in Assault air arcade mode, which would make the grind of vital modifications way easier.

[autocorrect01]

Vehicle: T26E5
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 → 6.7

Reasoning: The T26E5 is very close in performance to the Tiger II(H), trading firepower for better turret armor and a slightly weaker hull. Unless the Tiger II(H) is also moving to 7.0, the T26E5 should stay at its current BR

[V_IV_Rusty1]

finally someone saying facts

[Psc0905]

Vehicle: VT4
Mode: Ground RB
Change: 12.3 → 11.7 also moving to Rank VII
As of right now, the VT4 is a very weird tank in the tech tree that doesnt feel like it has any point of being played over any tank at 12.3 and honestly even when compared to the Al Khaled it doesnt really offer anything over that tank, therefore i would suggest to make it go down in BR to 11.7 in order to make it fit into that nice Chinese lineup on that BR where if a player is not owning the Al Khaled it would offer a tradeoff to the MBT 2000, as you are losing mobility but therefore gaining better optics and a bit of reload

[UZWReisa]

Vehicle : AMX-32 (105)
Mode : Ground Realistic
Change : 9.3 > 9.0
Reasoning : Absolutely zero reason for this thing to stay at 9.3 if Leopard 1A5 is going down to 9.0 when they perform very similarly. AMX-32’s 10x fixed optics is also horrible compared to adjustable zoom of 1A5

[Kon98K]

Firebrand TF Mk IV

3.7 → 3.3
The right idea with GRB, but also should be moved for ARB. Simply a far worse Firefly, at a higher BR

[Haruspice]

Mode : Ground Realistic
Vehicle : AMX-32 (105)
BR change : Same as Leopard 1A5
Reason : If Leopard1A5 were to go down , so shall the amx-32(105) , since it’s way more sluggish , worse shell but get a 20mm in return.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Hawk 200
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 10.7 —> 10.3
Reason: The Hawk 200 could be best compared to something like the A-10A in the US for CAS in GRB which currently resides at 10.3. Whilst the Hawk is faster, the A-10A compensates by having a far larger weapons load and defensive suite. In maximum A2G configurations, the A-10A can field 6x AGM-65B, in addition to other rockets or bombs, and still carry 2x Aim-9Ls and 480 CMs. The Hawk 200 on the other hand, currently at 10.7 could only carry 4x AGM-65B, a single unguided bomb, no AAMs and only 60 CMs, substantially weaker, especially if also compared to the A-10A Late which exchanges the AGM-65Bs for AGM-65Ds and 4x Aim-9Ls currently at 10.7. Whilst the Hawk is the faster airframe, the differences in loadout more than mitigate this difference.

At the same BR as the Hawk 200, is the Hawk 209, with 4x AGM-65Gs and 2x Aim-9P-4s or the Hawk 200 RDA