The paper range is 700m, but in actual gameplay, it is very difficult to hit enemies even within 2km.
This is a website commonly used by Chinese players to check player data.
Ah, so something like statshark.
Looks like it’s also developed to work on mobile too
Statshark devs really need to up their game there
Vehicle: J-22M1A
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.0 —> 10.7 (stay at 10.7)
Reason: Compared to the A-10 Late, it has less munitions, no AAM, and the seekers on the Kosava are worse.
Using the Kosavas with MITL makes them less fire-and-forget than the mavericks, and it only carries 4. It takes much longer to get kills with these compared to true fire and forget missiles, since MITL can only control a single missile at a time. And the J-22 has so few munitions, and they each need to be launched separately, so they can very easily be intercepted by SPAA. And while controlling MITL, control is lost on the plane, so it is very easy to kill.
Moving it to 11.0 will make it face more SPAA systems that can intercept it’s missiles, and even the plane itself, which is slow. This will force J-22 players to stay far away (>10km) from the battlefield, which means they will be lucky to even get a single missile on target before the match ends, since the Kosavas are not very fast.
This is already the case in 10.7, the matches are short and the SP cost of the plane is high (800 SP). The plane is spawned, takes a minute or 2 to get into position, then launch 1 Kosava, switch to MITL and guide it to target, takes 1 minute, then launch another one. Repeat. It’s taken the J-22M1A 5-6 minutes to launch 4 missiles. While the A-10 can fly to the battlefield, quickly launch all 6 mavericks, and disengage, that’s 3 minutes to launch 6 missiles. The A-10 can overwhelm SPAA and distract them with the aircraft, while the J-22 with Kosavas cannot do this.
The plane without MITL would be 10.3 or even 10.0, since the Kosavas are equivalent to early TV mavericks. Having MITL doesn’t make the Kosavas better, it makes them usable at this high BR. Considering the drawbacks of MITL, it shouldn’t justify 11.0.
At 10.7 the J-22 had a line-up, now at 11.0 it’s going to be hard to justify up-BR’ing the 10.7 line up just for this plane, considering the points above. Additionally this plane is rank 6, a 11.0 plane has no place at rank 6.
There is also the economical view, this premium plane was just released at a low rank, and now it’s going up to a BR that has never been seen in that rank. This will make me rethink pre-ordering vehicles in the future, if it is inevitable they get “nerfed” shortly after release.
I would like to hear the justification on the BR increase.
1 Like
A6E TRAM
When A6E is moved to version 11.0, it should obtain AGM78.
Leopard 1 A5 (all)
9.3 → Stay 9.3
This is once again a symptom of terrible BR compression in this bracket. The Leopard 1A5 is largely an inferior tank compared to “Gen 2” MBTs like the T-72, ZTZ96, XM1, etc., but it is far too powerful to be clubbing 8.0 tanks that are unstabilized and are mostly firing APDS or APHE.
I made this point in a post during the April 2026 BR changes, and to summarize:
The rate at which tanks between 8.0 and 8.7 acquire both stabilizers AND APFSDS munitions means that the performance difference between the average 8.0 tank and 8.7 tank is very extreme. The introduction of stabilizers, APFSDS, and laser rangefinders needs to be more gradual in order to make the matchups of 7.3 vs 8.3, 7.7 vs 8.7, 8.0 vs 9.0, and 8.3 vs 9.3 less unfair. This must be done by raising the BR ceiling and moving most 9.0+ vehicles up in BR together in order to give the 7.7-9.3 bracket more breathing space.
2 Likes
Yes, this website is similar to statshark in functionality, but it only has the feature to query player data, without the other features that statshark has. However, it can be used on mobile phones and on the Chinese version of Telegram, which is more convenient when you don’t have access to a computer.
That’s pretty cool to know
The same applies to the A-6. There is absolutely no justification for moving it up in Battle Rating when it’s already well balanced at 10.7.
StatDragon I guess
1 Like
lol
Vehicle: Rooikat Mk.1D
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
- Reload 6.7s > 5.0s
- BR 8.7 > 9.0
Reason: The Rooikat has a 76 mm gun with the reload speed of a 105 mm, meaning that while having a high penetration value, the low mass of the Rooikat’s APFSDS rarely results in single-round kills.
In reality the Rooikat’s turret is very spacious on the loader’s side and the ammunition is very small in comparison to NATO 105 mm, with a ready rack of 9 rounds.
This increase in performance could justify moving Rooikat to the Badger folder (as primary vehicle?), with which it shares country of origin.
2 Likes
Leopard 1a5 series:
9.3 → 9.3
reasoning: under no reason should this thing be considered on par with the M60a3TTS series and the Type 74 E/Fs and when you compare the tanks in question it becomes glaringly obvious that they should remain 9.3 though I’ll break it down anyways
against M60a3TT(US)
The leopard 1a5s are faster outright and more agile outright, has both APFSDS are better on the leopard with the US m60a3 TT has the ERA that seems to catch everything with a good dice roll
against M60A3 TT (ROC, Thai)
The comparison for mobility is the same as the US one with armor being similar enough, as in you don’t want to get hit in the first place, though firepower is slightly more similar in the end as both get DM33 though to get there the leopard 1a5 has access to Dm23 which is indefinitely better than M735
against Type 74E/F
this one may be the more unique one as the type 74E/F models are faster foward than the leopard 1a5 due to a more powerful engine and lower weight, however this comes at a cost of having a noticeably worse reverse gear. Firepower wise the Leopard 1a5 is better as Dm23 is indefinitely better than M735 as mentioned before, Dm33 is slightly better than Type 93 APFSDS though not as much as the difference between it and M774. It should also be worth mentioning that the leopard 1a5 has thermals while the type 74E/Fs don’t
All howitzer vehicles (e.g. M44, M55, M109, PLZ83, 2S3, 2S19, AuF1, G6, etc.)
Stay at current BR
Howitzer vehicles do not need to be lowered further in Battle Rating. The nature of how their firepower works and plays makes it so that these vehicles will be similarly effective no matter what BR they are placed at, since they can always kill vehicles of any rank, any time, while being highly vulnerable to basically any return fire.
Lowering the BR of these vehicles is not going to “fix” them, it is only going to make tanks that rely on armor protection suffer even more.
3 Likes
yes
nooo it will still be trash.
Vehicles: MiG-29G, MiG-29 (9-13)
Game mode: Air Simulator Battles
Battle rating: 13.0 —> 12.7
This plane has been suffering in the simulator for so long that it’s basically of no use in the 13.0 battle rating. Considering what you’re going up against in the same BR, which have better missiles, better radars and better avionics, you are set to endure so much pain because you have neither the RWR or the radar to keep up with the enemy jets of the equal BR (It’s actually quite ridiculous that the 9-13 is considered an equal to F-2 ADTW which has better everything)
The existence of R-73s is no valid reason to put it TWO BR steps above the 9-12 MiG-29. Please move this plane to 12.7 where it actually belongs, even though it still gets almost outclassed.
1 Like
It has a win rate of 52-56%, it will be fine.
yea thats gonna be more because its with chieftains and vickers viper than the vehicles capacity itself id bet
Lowk agree on most of it, but BMPT 13.3 is crazy, would be 12.7 then at most, it is in no way better than a VT4 or Merkava
What are you salty about today? I find it fine, and a low reload would make it a lot more effective.
Chieftains that overperform in mobility and underperform in sighting and armour, Vickers that is… well. Let’s say it’s certainly quite tall.