FJ-4B VMF-232: 9.0 → 9.0 (Ground RB)
Subsonic
No countermeasures
No guided bombs
No CCIP
Average flight performance.
You think it deserves 9.3 just because it’s got manually guided missiles? No.
Vehicle: TTD
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
- Reload; 6.7s > 6.0-5.0s
- Add spall liner.
- Increase engine deck armour to 10 mm.
- Add internal details.
- BR review after changes, may need to return to 10.3
Reason: The TTD is equipped with a 16-round protected turret bustle ammunition compartment and 6-round ready rack. The similarity of the turret bustle system to tanks such as Abrams and Leopard is evident, so the reload rate should be equal or faster as the TTD uses smaller 105 mm ammunition.
While only carrying a 105 when contemporary vehicles use 120 or 125 mm main armaments, the TTD’s survivability is high due to a comprehensive armour array. Adding a spall liner (as seen in Reumech’s promotional material for the TTD) would further increase its survivability.
The engine deck armour is 5 mm, but does appear to feature solid steel louvres below the mesh. An increase to 10 mm (as seen on contemporary tanks) would provide a small improvement to strafing protection.
The TTD’s internal model is very basic, with unprotected ammunition stowage, no turret basket, no power system, no gun cradle or “trunnions”, no elevation drive, and awkwardly-positioned crew models. Most of these issues could be easily corrected using logical reasoning even in the absence of reference images, allowing for improved in-game portrayal.
See also;
Driver's position
Turret bustle ammunition
TTD (6.7s)
Leopard 2A4 (6.0s)
M1A2 Abrams (5.0s)
Engine deck
TTD
Leopard 2A4
Challenger 2
8 Likes
New BR change idea:
Game mode: Air realistic battles
Vehicules: Su30MKK and Su30 MK2AMV from 13.3 to 13.7
Reason: they are very op at their br and I think that moving them up in br shouldn’t change anything for the ppl who play them. I mean at 13.3 you have 10 missiles (8 fox 3) while some vehicles in 13.0 like the Jas39A don’t even have decent fox1s. Another example, in 13.7 you have the f16C which has 6 missiles.
4 Likes
The TTD would need to be 10.7 if it got all of that, and i’m for it, its very strong at 10.0 as is
1 Like
The lack of internal detail contributes quite a lot to its survivability, but yeah it could easily go back to 10.3
I think, and agree that mostly the remodel of the Ho-Ri to the ho-Ri II will give a completely different playstyle of the tank itself.
As well as historically speaking, the in-game version called Ho-Ri Production is the design with the mid-engine layout researched and engineered as the ‘Ho-Ri I’. 2 where thought, 1 with the same hull as the Ho-Ri II and the Chi-Ri prototype, the other with a slopped hull. This variant is in-game, and with the famous wooden mockup.
The second version that was engineered and after a bit more finished was the Ho-Ri II that you name as the real one.
Both versions have been designed and thought between mid 1943 to May-August 1945.
In term of gameplay, it ould be radically different; so much that it needs to be a full other tank.
The Ho-Ri II have an armor of about 125mm on the front of the superstructure and 75mm on the hull front, and 25mm on both sides.
This would make it (following the 3.05mx3.10m) a full 9m² square front plate that can be pen by every canon of 5.0 anywhere, making it bad against most APHE.
But it would be better at long range, since it features a rangefinder, and for a better defense against infantery and light tank, there will be a 37mm in the hull.
1 Like
sentence
Vehicle: T26E5
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 —> 6.7 (No change)
Reason: while Arguably VERY good at 6.7 In the right hands there is no reason for it to go to 7.0 and have to fight 8.0 tanks in full uptiers. Plus the tank is pretty sluggish, and definetly way to sluggish for 7.0-8.0, and also not necesarrily having enough pen for 8.0 tanks, youd be running almost every time you see one. Also the Jumbo Pershing and the Tiger 2H are similar in capabilities, so if one goes up then both should go up.
5 Likes
They’re not buffing the reload of “the 90mm” as a weapon, but the reload speed of multiple TDs for reasons that I think should be obvious.
Moving the IS-2 (1944) to 6.3 is absolutely unreasonable; it would have a completely overwhelming advantage at that BR. On the other hand, the British Excelsior should be moved straight up to 4.7 in Arcade Battles.
Vehicle: VT-5 11.7→10.7(or 11.0 better)（Ground Realistic）
Compared with the M10 “Booker”, the VT-5 lacks an automatic tracking system and has poorer penetration and protection capabilities. Though its loading efficiency is superior to that of the M-10 without the golden crew.
8 Likes
Given the systematic discrimination and prejudice that Gaijin has towards Chinese vehicles (such as unfixed bugs that have been accepted for a long time and the selective handling of data), if for various reasons you decides not to restore the performance of the equipments, then at the very least, give those vehicles a reasonable BR.
2 Likes
Is this overwhelming advantage in the room with us right now?
2 Likes
Automatic tracking is borderline useless on the M10 since it has no TF or proxy ammo to use it with.
VT5 has better gun handling, autoloader, mobility and spall liners. It shouldn’t be more than 0.3 higher than the M10 though.
1 Like
Yak-130
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.7 → 9.3
remove 2 Kab500kr from any of the 4 pylons on the Yak, making the aircraft’s ammunition load consist of 2 TV Kabs + 2 nars or bombs
on 9.7, an aircraft without flares and rwr will not survive if it is hit by 10.3 Osa, strela
1 Like
Mode : Ground Realistic
Vehicle : M113a1 TOW (all nation variants)
BR change : 8.3 → 8.0
Reason : Fells like a vehicle out of place, really doesn’t do anything special, gets easily countered by MG fire, plus also up-tiers Italy, China, and Israel’s 8.0 line-ups where it could add more options and variety.
Another thing to consider is that at its own BR there are better vehicles that do the same role, like the M901 and the C13 version, several TDs that beat it in speed and reload or versatility, a couple of IFVs that outclass it in armor, speed, and firepower, and a vehicle that, besides the 50 cal is the same, but already sits at 8.0 (Pvrbv 551).
What you said does make sense. I mistakenly thought that Booker’s HEATFS had similar multiple purpose capabilities like Abrams. 11.0 is a more reasonable answer for VT5.
I swear I’m not crazy, I was able to get it down to like 25%, I gotta do some testing, I’ll send a personal message if I figure it out
1 Like
Suggestion :
HMS Abdiel
4.7 >4.3
The majority of British 4.7 ships are going down, exceptions being the Battle Class and Abdiel, the former is understandable as they are late war DDs with the fast firing (3s) 4.5" Mk. V guns and improved secondaries/AA.
Abdiel, however, has the same main armament of 4.0"Mk. XVI as the Hunt Class (BR4.0) which although they too can sustain 3s and lay down the same volume of fire, they do not land the same weight of fire due to the smaller calibre, especially as the rear turrrent has very poor arcs. In addition she carries only a single quad 40mm and a handful of MGs, with no 20mms, and relies heavily on her mains for anti air/PT.
She’s got good speed, although no better than the Tribal class ships (going 4.7>4.3) but her larger size and longer length reduces manouverability.
Her one advantage is slightly better armour, but she’s going to be a larger, less mobile target heavily reliant on those two bow turrets (or offering an even bigger broadside silhouette for all 3 turrets) so this is balanced out.
Classification as a ‘Light Cruiser’ is misleading as she’s simply a fat Destroyer in layout and operation (in game, and frequently in real life). The Cruiser title was only used early on merely because she utilised cruiser engines and transmission to give her the speed needed for the added volume and weight. Forcing Cruiser spawn with 4.0" guns means she’s often left behind, but without the large guns to cover the extra range. Simply reclassify as a Minelayer and give her the DD spawn. This will also allow her to use maps like Fuego Island, Ireland Bay and North Sea that dont have large ship spawns points but do allow much more heavily armed DDs to join.
1 Like
Vehicle: BM Oplot-T(M)
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
Reason: The Oplot is very similar in its characteristics to the T80U-E1. The main difference is its greater reverse, which the Oplot pays for with significantly weaker armor. In practice, any top-tier apfsds can penetrate the Oplot frontally without any problems, and even low-tier apfsds have a slim chance of penetrating it frontally. The T80, on the other hand, is completely protected from penetration in the front by non-top shells, and only shells with 600+ penetration are capable of penetrating it, and even then, only with a chance. The situation is even worse in the side: Kontakt-V has a significant chance of absorbing shells that hit the side, allowing the T80 to occasionally survive shots to the side, Oplot lacks of this opportunity. Another drawback of the Oplot is its slightly worse gun depression, -4 degrees puts the tank at significant limitations compared to other tanks. It also has the worst vertical aiming speed at 12.3 and one of the weakest shells. Given all these drawbacks, I don’t think the tank is suited for positions above the T80, as the Oplot is inferior in a number of characteristics, and the improved reverse speed does little to improve the situation. The tank already plays on par with the top tanks, but does not reach any of these tanks’ stats; its BR should not exceed 12.0.
7 Likes