Reasoning: As it stands, the F4U-1C is the worst-performing F4U-1 variant in terms of flight performance compared to the F4U-1A , F4U-1A (USMC), and F4U-1D Corsairs. Reminder: all F4U-1 series, including the F4U-1C, use the identical engine, so the F4U-1C has objectively inferior flight performance and is easily outclassed by other aircraft at 4.7 BR, particularly due to its very poor climb rate. Simply put, its flight characteristics are closer to those of a 3.0 aircraft.
The 4.7 BR placement appears to be a harsh response to its fairly powerful 4 x 20 mm armament with a high ammunition count, which is understandable from a game design perspective in Air RB. However, I believe moving it down to 4.3 would be a fairer adjustment rather than placing it at 3.0 alongside the F4U-1A and F4U-1D.
The Mig-17 already sits at 8.7 as do the Lim-5P and 17PF (which are vastly superior), the 17AS going to 8.7 will not change anything except to make the plane worth playing. 2x R-3S are not a valid reason to be a br higher.
Mystere IVa should not be 8.7 as well, its a 8.3 plane.
Give P-47M-1-RE its 100/150 octane fuel, further improving the flight performance (Bug Report).
Reasoning: As it stands, the P-47M-1-RE Thunderbolt does not offer a meaningful difference in flight or engine performance compared to the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt at 5.0, since the P-47M-1-RE’s engine was nerfed. Although the P-47M-1-RE is lighter, it produces less horsepower and has a lower top speed at low altitude compared to the P-47D-28.
I believe the P-47M-1-RE could be improved in its current state of engine performance so that it better justifies its 5.7 BR placement.
It has been reported that the P-47M-1-RE historically operated with 100/150 octane fuel. In-game, however, the P-47D-28 already uses 100/150 octane, while the P-47M-1-RE is modeled with 100/130 octane and could potentially be upgraded to 100/150.
If equipped with 100/150 octane fuel, the P-47M-1-RE’s engine power and top speed would improve further, surpassing the P-47D-28 even when it also uses 100/150 octane. This would create a clearer performance distinction and help justify its 5.7 BR placement.
The related bug report was accepted but later closed as “Not a Bug,” citing that the performance change from 100/150 octane fuel could impact the aircraft’s battle rating.
Aim-9Ds facing shouldn’t be facing flareless 8.0s. Just for reference, the F8U-2 was considered OP at 10.0 for the same Aim-9Ds. It’s pretty much just point-n-click free kills currently.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
Removal of 2 x 20 mm cannons and replacement with two .50-cal machine guns (Bug Report).
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.
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.
F101C
Air realistic
9.3->9.0
It’s effectively an American mig19 but noticeably worse at turning, 0 missiles, and although niche quite a big target. It does have a good amount of ammo but due to it’s worse turn I think it’s worth trying at 9.0.
Same as U.S. Chappy but with Stinger seeker. IRCCM does not belong facing flareless post-war jets.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
Give an airspawn to the F-84F Thunderstreak in non-US tech trees.
Reasoning: The F-84F Thunderstreak at 8.3 is not comparable to other 8.3 aircraft such as the F-86F Sabre and MiG-15bis, as it has worse maneuverability, acceleration, and energy retention.
Since aircraft like the B-52H Stratofortress and Tu-95 at Rank VI are exceptions that receive airspawns while other attackers and bombers do not, the same exception should be applied to F-84Fs in non-US tech trees. This would bring a fairer situation, as the F-84F in the US tree sits at a lower rank and is currently the only variant in the family with access to an airspawn.
As it stands, it is inconsistent that only one F-84F variant benefits from this mechanic while others at a higher rank do not.
Vehicle : AMX-13 (HOT)
Mode : Ground Realistic
BR Change : 8.3 > 8.0 or 7.7
Reason : It’s the AMX-13 from 7.0 with 6 missiles HOT which are mounted upward making them almost useless below 600m.
The IS-2 was at 5.7 many years ago and it also did go to 6.0 at some point before moving to its current BR at 6.3, but at that BR it extremely underperforms and many vehicles can outplay it really well especially stabilized 75mm and 76mm because it can one shot the IS-2 turret. I wouldn’t say it’s equal to M4/T26, but performance is overall about the same: bad hull armor and okay turret.
Real, nobody talks about how the early sams ruin the day of almost any no flare subsonic plane like an f86. Even if poor g overload they have such range that anything with dumb bombs has little change getting close unless going super low on a map that gives cover for it.
It’s surprisingly one of the ranges where spaa actually dominate.
Long range IRCCM missiles, with the added bonus of having guns to fend off close range strafing/rocket attacks. IRCCM does not belong facing flareless post-war jets.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
Vehicle: L-39ZA/ART
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 7.3 —> 7.3
Reason: The aircraft may surpass its counterparts in terms of attack potential (which amounts to 8 kills, which is not an exorbitant figure, and many lower-ranked aircraft have much greater potential and realize it much more successfully), but its flight characteristics significantly lag behind all other aircraft, and even mid-tier anti-aircraft tanks have no trouble countering it due to its low speed and fragility (whot is shown by its normal monthly statistics, which are at the level of other aircraft). The main complaint is that the 7.3 setup is being destroyed; Japan already has a limited range of combat ratings, and the Albatross filled the attack gap for this setup and almost all of Japan’s rank 5 aircraft. With increasing BR, this gap reappears, and there is no replacement aircraft for the numerous 7.3 tanks.
The T26E5 going up is silly. It uses the bog standard 90mm round, which while good, already struggles against some mediums and a lot of heavies at the 6.7 battle rating.
The armor is great but only against completely unaware players or for trying to take advantage of panicked shots from players under duress. It is not something that is overly hard to kill as long as you slap it in one of its multiple weakpoints.
Are we really going to say that the T26E5, with it’s M82 shot, is really equivalent or better than,
The Tiger 2 105, the T29, the T-44-100, Object 268, or that it is comparable to the IS-3 in its heyday at 7.0?
Look. I love the T26E5, but if you’re slapping a decent chassis with a gun that can already be anemic, especially at range, up to 7.0, it’s kind of ridiculous. It already faces HEATFS, it already faces the occasional missile, it still gets demolished in any half decent circumstance against a long 88 or a 122. I understand that the American 6.7 lineup is strong, but this genuinely feels silly. It’s a fun tank to play, and not a bad one to play against in any means.
Reasoning: I have already explained the reasoning for moving the Yak-3 to 4.7, and the Yak-3 (e) should be moved there as well. The Yak-3 (e) shares the same engine and 99.9% identical flight performance as the Yak-3, although it is slightly lighter and has marginally better maneuverability. It also retains strong 20 mm cannon ballistics, which make securing clean kills relatively easy.
Moving it to 4.7 would still leave it comfortably balanced at that BR.
You already moved this to 4.7 but only in AB, sharing the same BR as the standard Yak-3, so why not in RB too??
