Vehicle: Type 03
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 12.7 —> 12.3
Reason: The weakest anti-aircraft missile system compared to its competitors. Its main complaint is the extremely long distance required to enter trajectory. The missile must be 5 km away from the target for it to reach its target, but it can only hit targets up to 15 km away (beyond that, the missile loses all velocity). If the target maneuvers during trajectory entry, the missile will simply lose contact. It’s one of the slowest missiles in the game and has the shortest acceleration time (and even then, most of that time is spent entering trajectory).
Suggestion :
IJN Chidori
3.7>3.3
She’s outclassed at 3. L7 bringing only 2x 120mm to the Destroyer spawn to face off with DDs sporting 3 or more equivent calibre (Eg IJN Matsu which is relatively close in specs but harder hitting and far cheaper to operate) . To make things worse the rear gun has very limited arcs, being unable to fire fwd or aft, only in beam angles.
Whilst she does have SAP you have no HE-VT, only ineffectual TF. You rely greatly on 25mm Secondaries for AA as well as PT boat defence. Whilst available in decent amounts they are limited due to their calibre.
Only 2 torpedos, and Type 89 and not the Type 93 most often associated with Japanese WW2 - slower, shorter range and with significantly less punch. They add little in game.
Compared to Syanon at 3.3 the latter is slower and lacks torpedos, however the much better rear turret alone makes up for this - twin barrel, better arcs, 11rpm vs 7.7 rpm. Syanon also has more armour and a larger crew.
1 Like
Vehicle: Ariete AMV
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
Reason: Any Abrams at 12.0 has identical armament and speed characteristics, the main difference is that the Ariete has no armor at all, while the Abrams at a lower BR gets everything that the Ariete has, but also with armor.
7 Likes
Yeah, no.
3 Likes
The first 4 changes as well as the PGZ-88, M8A1 and the IS-2s are good ideas. I do not like the Leopard 1A5 and A1A1 going down, they are good at their BR. Most of the changes here seem unnecessary to me, if not negative for the game.
The M109s shouldnt go down and neither should the charioteer, i think the FV4005 going down makes sense because its worse than the M109 at everything but it will still not be good because of its shell.
I dont like how the low tier artillery tanks are going down, especially the hummel, i think it should go up. The Marder 3 H is also perfectly placed at 3.0
Here is a list of tanks i think should go up by a step or two: M4A3 (105), M4A1 (76) W, PZH2000, Leopard 2K, Object-906, Object-685, 2S25 and 2S25M, Churchill 3, Object-122 MT MC, M4A1 (FL-10) ERB (1954), DF-105. These aren’t the only ones but some of the most important ones.
Here is a list of tanks i think should go down by a step or two: M26, T25, Chi-Nu, AMX-13 (FL-11)
Here are a few changes i would do similar to the ones you show: Reduce the reload on the T-32s by about 2 seconds, reduce the reload on the T95 by about 3 seconds, give the T29 its historical reload back, model the autoloaders on the two 2S25s, make the conqueror’s APDS unable to shatter and make it so it doesnt lose so much pen after getting through a mud guard, give the Surbaissé its .50cal, make it so we can expert crews on the M51 from the moment we get it.
The best course of action would be to have another round or two of BR decompression with the 10.0+ tanks going up and then gradually having this extra room be spread around the tech trees. With more space like this you can add more tanks and balance them out better since small differences will be high lighted.
SAVE THESE TANKS
The Char 25t and AMX-50 (TO90/930) should both be moved down to 7.7 because they’re simply no longer competitive at 8.0.
At 8.0, these tanks regularly face significantly more capable MBTs in full uptiers. Many of those vehicles have two-plane stabilizers, thermal sights, and powerful APFSDS rounds, putting the Char 25t and AMX-50 at a considerable disadvantage. These matchmaking issues will only become worse if the proposed battle rating changes go through, as many Leopard 1 variants are being moved down.
Both vehicles would be far more competitive at 7.7, where their mobility and autoloaders would still be valuable without constantly facing tanks equipped with much more modern technology.
It’s also worth noting that they share the same battle rating as the CLOVIS, which is arguably the stronger vehicle in several key areas. It has a lazer rangefinder, excellent mobility, a coaxial 20 mm cannon, and is capable of dealing with tanks like the T-55 from the front much more reliably.
I’d also like to see 8.0 decompressed in the future. In its current state, the BR is one of the least enjoyable in the game because full uptiers so frequently put older tanks against vehicles with vastly superior fire control systems, ammunition, and overall capabilities. Moving the Char 25t and AMX-50 (TO90/930) to 7.7 would be a good first step toward improving the experience.
AMX-50 (TO90/930) 8.0 ➜ 7.7
Char 25t 8.0 ➜ 7.7
A reasonable compromise
If these tanks prove to be too strong at 7.7, their reload time could always be increased to 4.7 or 5.0 seconds.
Final Feedback on the Proposed Battle Rating Changes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Kf92FzZLnysd
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xbmBoLlIkdxg
Finally, I’d like to ask that the Challenger Mk.3, Challenger DS, Challenger OES, and Challenger TES, as well as the German F-4F and F-4F Early, be revisited. I’m not convinced by the reasoning that was provided, especially given the historical evidence that has since been presented. These vehicles currently have historical inaccuracies that could be resolved with relatively simple changes, such as adding the additional armour package as a modification for the Challenger variants so players can equip it whenever they want and equipping the German F-4F and F-4F Early with AIM-9Ls from the Peace Rhine programme.
You can find the section where I discuss the German Phantoms in this post. The implementation would be similar to the AJS 37 amd AJS 37 Early in the Swedish tech tree.
@Smin1080p_WT
@gromvoiny
@Stona_WT
@BVV_d
It’s not right that a Challenger tank sold as a Desert Storm vehicle is missing an important historical feature, especially when it could be corrected with a relatively simple change. The same option should also be available for the tech tree variant.
This would be straightforward to implement since the models already exist in-game. The additional armour could simply be added as a modification, and the Challenger DS wouldn’t even need the cosmetic sand bag changes when the armour is equipped. It’s a simple historical correction that would greatly improve the accuracy of these vehicles.
Please don’t let Challenger players down by overlooking such a straightforward improvement. Finally, please don’t forget to add the historically correct 20-round ready rack to the Challenger Mk.3 and Challenger DS as well.
EDIT: The additional armour package was fitted to every Challenger 1 deployed before Operation Granby.
4 Likes
Vehicle: M44
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 4.0 —> 4.0 (No change)
Reason: The vehicles already show decent stats, and there’s no point in downgrading them; there are no opponents that it cannot penetrate; lowering M44 will only cause discomfort to the 2.7 vehicles. The M55 will be at 3.7 with a 30-second reload, while the M44, with its 15-second reload, will look much more logical at a higher BR.
3 Likes
Naval thoughts after a day or so of pondering…
Nice to see more movement than usually happens, however British 4.7>4.3 and Japanese 5.0>4.7 seems a move in the wrong direction - namely COMPRESSION not DECOMPRESSION!
British : Calpe, Brissendon and Egret have been made obsolete overnight, reduced to mere TT stepping stones. Who’s going to pick 4" over 4.7" guns when the former ships have few advantages to balance out ? I’ve already suggested HMS Egret to move to 4.0 as its much slower and less manouverable than it’s ship mates, but maybe I should request for the others to do go down too. At least British will have a full and good 4.0 lineup then, one that would likely be considered OP in the circumstance.
Japan: In a similar vein 3 turret DDs (Yugomu class) being usurped by close matching ships (Akizuki class) but with 4 turrets giving an instant 33% damage boost. At first glance it’s not so much a problem if you use Tech Tree only vehicles, but Suzutsuki has just been a BP freebie, and Hatsusuki can be received by playing a handfull of WT Mobile games so they aren’t the rarely seen GE premiums they might otherwise be. Look forward to even more HE brute force attacks folks!
I would much rather see the OP Russian 4.3s spreading upwards, and the US 5" DD & 6" CLs following suit but this would require another round of decompression across the board which seems unlikely (they still haven’t gotten around to the promised Coastal rebalance).
…
I love my British 4.3s and I’ll be sad to dry dock them. But the 4.7>4.3 lineup will be even stronger against the Russian spam (apology to any other navy that get squeezed between the two).
…
Side note :French Aisne and Marne seem to have really lost their edge after initially bullying the coastals and being outed to Bluewater spawns. Now they are deemed less effective than the reserve DDs.
This just causes more issues. They are STILL IN GAME, and people can still use them. The damage is done as soon as players can no longer get them. Yes, it can kill immersion, but there’s a simple solution to that: only allow them in rb/ab, not sim. These changes do nothing but lock new players out of very strong vehicles, making the gap between old and new players not just skill, but technology.
3 Likes
Why have a lot of planes lowered their BR but SPAA hasn’t been reduced accordingly?
Bardelas at 7.7 with limited turret traverse due to random LMGs, a lower total ammo load, worse speed, somehow even worse protection and is a significantly harder vehicle to use : “is this some kind of joke?”
2 Likes
SPAA are overly effective against tanks most likely
The 9.7 SU-25 can use CCIP and S-25O and can continuously launch heat-seeking missiles, while air defense can only use the FIM-92 and the cannon.
Lol. But yea they had the BR ranges correctly back then, I look back and just think “what the heck happened?” And then it hits me: “MUH QUEUE TIMES!” > Gaijin screams in fake agony.
Vehicle: M26 Pershing
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 → 6.3
Reasons : Capabilitie wise its the Counterpart to the IS-2 (1944) and Tiger II (Nr. 1-50) (bouth of them also go down to 6.3 aswell)
Also it would fit much bedder BR wise with the other Pershing Variants and how one is the upgrade of another: 6.0 Shershing (M4/T26) → 6.3 M26 Pershing → 6.7 “Super Pershing” (T26E1-1) → 7.0 “Jumbo Pershing” (T26E5)
8 Likes
I fail to understand why the A-6E tram is getting moved up while only having aim-9Ls and laser guided munitions. Su-25 and Su-25K have all aspect missiles, yet they are buffed to 9.7. Paveways were nerfed a long time ago and i don’t see why we are trying to put them on a same level as fire and forget TV munitions. Don’t even get me started on skippers (which are supposedly air to sea missiles). If you’re moving the A-6 to 11.0, maybe consider giving it maverick missiles?
Same with the Churchills moving to 5.0 where they can encounter an is-2 for whatever reason.
APHE always meant it was going up. Gaijin didn’t just add that as a good-will gesture. They had to justify it moving up with its lack of mobility.
1 Like
Vehicle: Object 248
Gamemode: Ground Arcade/Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 —> 6.3
Reason: Since now the IS-2 1944 will go to 6.3, there is no reason for obj. 248 staying at 6.7. It is basically a improved IS-2 1943 in game.
7 Likes
At this point, yeah. It’s really not much better than the Olifant Mk. 1A other than armour, but the Olifant has APFSDS with 40mm more penetration/HEATFS/LRF.
Lower RAH-66 from 11.3 to 10.7; no countermeasures, no K-Hellfire missiles
2 Likes