Sea Meteor go wheeeee
No - gaijin has implemented the F Mk III late variant, the first models had weaker engines.
Sea meteor is like the Spifire LF Mk.IX variant (spacefire)
→
1 Like
From what I can tell (wiki)
Meteor F Mk.3 has a weaker engine (by 850ish kgf) but it is like a ton lighter compared to the Sea Meteor F Mk 3, which also carries less fuel.
But idk man, if you want meteor to 7.0 you make the post, I really can’t talk here, only for the 262. The meteors I kind of see them and I usually see them die somewhere else or by my hand really.
Wheee? Severely undertiered prototype from 1948:
T-44(FM) 6.3 ➜ 6.0
T-44 6.7 ➜ 6.3
Both tanks should serve as counters to the Panther and Pershing. Moving the T-44 (FM) to 6.0 would also strengthen the Soviet lineup, while the standard T-44 could move to 6.3 and take its place.
2 Likes
I don’t know about the regular T-44, but the FM seems to get a fine K/D of around 1.6 according to statshark, so I don’t think that one should move down
Also, we don’t need more compression.
Vehicle: M60 120S
Mode: Ground Realitic Battles
Proposed BR change: 10.3 → 10.0 or increase engine power to 1200hp
Reason: Since its been added to the game in 2024, the M60 120S has been a really contended vehicle. Its great fire power is much appreciated but the 1950 era slop mobility at 10.3 doomed its playing experience to be abominable. Its several modernized patton peers like the M60 AMBT and Sabra Mk.1 are performing much better than the 120S while both sitting at a lower BR.
Henceforward in order to make the BR of M60 120S more matching its performance. Moving it down from 10.3 to 10.0 would be a great change. At 10.0 the 120s is a tech tree version of the M60 AMBT with better firepower but worse mobility. Or alternatively, GDLS once proposed a 1200hp diesel engine for the 120S. (General Dynamics Land Systems AVDS-1790 V-12 diesel engine) With that brand new engine , the 120S gets a power-to-weight ratio of 21.35. Both alternations would make the 120S a more appealing vehicle in sense of reasonable BR and to better gameplay.
Also changing its name from 120S to M60-2000 would be cool as well. (feelin the millennial vibe)
A revelant photo material indicating the M60 120S has a 1200hp engine proposal:
4 Likes
It would also be a decent counter to the T20. The treatment of Allied medium tanks around this battle rating has always seemed inconsistent. Panthers sit at relatively low battle ratings, largely because many of the players using them don’t perform particularly well, while vehicles like the M26 and T-44 remain at 6.7 because the players seem to know what they’re doing.
The T-44 can certainly be difficult to deal with, but it’s far from invincible. This also isn’t an unreasonable request, especially considering the Tiger II (Nr.1-50) is being moved down to 6.3 and the IS-2s are also moving down in as well.
Nah.
So long as reserve cant see top tier, there is plenty of room to increase compression :P
1 Like
To be completely honest, neither the Tigers, nor the IS-2s should be moving down
Gaijin is just doing their usual “who cares about compression” changes
We are getting closer and closer to that reality
Churchills meeting IS-2s
M44s at 3.7
Hunter F.6 fighting MiG-21bis and F-5Es
3 Likes
Im not sure how the Su-30 premiums are going to cope vs the LF Spitfires and Zeros. They might need a buff
2 Likes
flareless hunter at same br as hunter with flares and rwr
1 Like
The Ho-Ri Prototype should move down to 6.3 as well. At 6.7, the Japanese medium tanks overshadow it, and the armour around the gun can be a bit weak at times. It has an excellent gun on an otherwise average platform. Personally, I prefer the Jagdpanther.
I can’t tell if you are serious or not
I’m being serious. Why do you think you hardly ever see that tank anymore? It’s because it’s nowhere near as strong as it used to be because you can kill it pretty easily now.
By the way, I’m talking about the much weaker premium prototype. Most people would take the Jagdpanther over the Ho-Ri. The only reason the Jagdpanther isn’t 6.7 is because of German players. That thing is amazing.
Vehicle: M113A1 (TOW) (China/Italy), Giraf
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
Proposed BR change: 8.3 → 8.0
Reason: The M113A1 TOW launcher vehicles suffered great criticism for their bad mobility and lack of supportive equipments. (thermal imaging device, smoke grenades and an unmanned turret)
Their counterpart vehicles like the soviet IT-1, american M901 (C13/TUA), british Swingfire and Striker and swedish Pvrbv 551 & UDES 33 are all doing better than the M113A1 TOW at the same or even lower BR.
Moving them down from 8.3 to 8.0 would be a reasonable BR change to make the three vehicles’ BR more align with their combat capabilities.
4 Likes
The USSR lacks a CAS aircraft between BR 8.3 and 9.0 that features CCIP for free-fall bombs in Ground Historical Battles.
I’ve mentioned the 8.0 lineups many times, and it’ll be even harder to play if all the Leopard 1a5s move down to 9.0, which is genuinely insane. The Italian one literally has a laser warning receiver. I really hope that doesn’t happen. And for the T-44s, that suggestion makes sense because that’s how it was not too long ago.