Vehicle: Re.2005
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
Reasoning: The G91YS is identical to the G91Y in terms of flight performance except for the fact that it swaps out the 2X AA.20 Nords for 2x Aim-9B’s (I want people to take note of the fact that AA.20s are objectively also a better and more versatile missile than the Aim-9B).
This shouldn’t warrent it being a BR higher and playing it into all aspect, or high powered missile carriers using stuff such as the R-60M and Aim-9L/J/P combind with far superior flight performance is extremely unfun and has virtually no counterplay.
Please move this plane down to 9.0 so it is the same BR as the G91Y since this functionally the same plane with a different and slightly worse missile kit.
IT never should have gone up in BR in teh first place, it gets a peashooter, extremely poor mobility, and armour that is not effective against most threats it fights
Vehicle: Re.2005 (VDM)
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
Vehicle: Mirage 4000
Mode: ARB
Change: BR 13.0 → BR 12.7
Compared to F-16A Block 15, the missiles are about par - Mirage gets 2 SARH missiles on top of 6 IRs, however Magic 2s IRCCM makes them more limited in effective aspect and range than 9Ms. Mirage gains TWS and great countermeasure count, but the guns and flight model are worse than on F-16.
Compared to F-15A, the missiles are worse across the board - 9Ms are even better here as they synergize with SARH ones, being most effective vs notching enemies, plus Mirage can only take 2 SARH 6 IR or 4 SARH 2 IR loadouts, rather than 4-4. Mirage’s guns are again worse (although it matters less here), but it gains better CQC flight performance and TWS.
As a sidegrade to two 12.7 jets, Mirage 4000 should also be 12.7.
Britain mains being better than USA mains doesnt mean we should be punished with inferior aircraft to the average of the BR.
yes the engines are better on the F-4K but we are still missing two fox-1 missiles compared to the F-4J of the USN. Our F-4J which is the exact same model is also two sparrows/slyflash down on the USN F-4J.
It’s going to be funny going up against all those Leopards with those BR8.0 and BR8.3 tanks that have no stabilizer, no arrow, and no thermal imager.
I really don’t understand what they base their BR ratings on.
Vehicle: F-16A OCU (TH)
Game Mode: Air Realistic/Ground Realistic
BR Change
Air BR: 13.7 → 12.7
Ground BR: 12.7 → 12.0
By removing the fictional AIM-120 and HMD and restoring it to the original F-16A OCU, the OCU will fill the BR range currently covered by the F-16AJ, thereby allowing the AJ to be retired.
Reasoning: This Zero variant has clipped wings, which sacrificed some maneuverability for some gain in top speed. However, it’s more considered a sidegrade over its Zero counterparts at 3.7 & 4.3. It doesn’t need any increase in its BR as it has a low ammo count (200 rds) for its okay-ish cannons. Revert this proposed BR change.
Do the developers really think that the T26E5 has enough performance to compete against 7.0 heavy tanks? To penetrate the Tiger II H’s turret, it still needs to switch ammunition and aim precisely, and often requires more than two shots, not to mention attacking other tanks at the same battle rating."
Vehicle: T-72B
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 10.3 → BR 10.0
Moving T-64B up left 9.7-10.0 USSR lineup without an MBT. Of the three 10.3 USSR tech tree MBTs T-72B is the worst-performing one, with the lowest winrate and less than one kill per spawn and per death, so it can be moved down to form a lineup with 2S25M and BMD-4M2.
There is currently a lack of clear information on this tank, meaning currently it cant be introduced. So its not an option (based on current information).
Vehicle: VIDAR
Mode: GRB
Change: maximum propellant charge for M107 (PF) shell
One significant disadvantage VIDAR has compared to Pzh 2000 and PLZ05 is low HEVT shell velocity, which makes it weaker vs air and forces it to waste ready rack on ammo switching on top of that. Unless there are plans to add variable charge mechanic, M107 (PF) should be fired with maximum possible velocity while regular M107 remains as is for people who want a steep fire arc.
Reason: although the Leopard 2 family are still capable, they are no longer the dominant mbt they once were. today, with internal modules and facing more capable and lethal mbts, the Leopards are falling short in some aspects, the main one being reload time. i believe this change could bring the Leopard 2s in pair with todays state of the game, particularly when compared to the new Abrams tanks.
