Vehicle：G91YS
Game Mode：9.3→8.7（Air RB） 9.3→8.0（Ground RB）
Reason：G91YS lack chaff and flare and its a sub-sonic so it should be 8.7 not 9.3
Since the L39（Japan） with a rocket ccip in 7.3 the G91YS should be 8.0.
Really Gaijin should remove the L23. The 900 is built off of a Mk 5/3 so never had the stowage for APFSDS, and considering they implemented it “as-is” and not “as-intended” then the round should be removed and BR reduced.
and thats what i said you see only one aspect … and not the full package…
you see the speed on A10 you dont see what carry … what can do…
does the A10 has 1 millon flares on the br.? it has… DOES HAVE the UNIQUE cannon? YES IT DOES … does has mavericks YES IT HAS… is capable to work on 10.0… NO cause AA that face are overpowered.
is the AH-1 … fast NO HELL NO EVEN ON A DIVE!!! is maneuverable? NO it dreams one day become crop duster… it has anything that you can work with … in the brs is in? depends how bad are the enemy team(aka AA that dont shoot on airplanes and w in to become a free kill.)
so where is your point… to move away with an airplane 3.7 brs higher…
you dont see that?
it has ballistic computer? NO
is fast ? NO
it can turn ? NO
it can dogfight? NO
is a free kill… YES IT IS…
and the last question that i need you to answer … how long it was the last time you saw an AH-1 in your games.? i already told you yesterday… 1 on 40 games… only yesterday… and to add on… 1 on the full month… to add more… 3 the last 5 months… so … is useful to have zunis at 6.3 with a slow airplane that has no real defense? or cant defend it self… just the zunis justified that?
1 good on that airplane can make it be in a br… that could not existed… and is dissapeared… ? and many forgot about it? is really good airplane the AH 1 cause has only zunis in the br that it is…?
the comparison you never did… was with the IA58A … why that thing instead to get straight on 6.0 and 6.3 cause has amazing rockets and is a 40$ premium sits on 4.3 and destroy everything?
is faster … more manueverable… and more agile from the AH-1 … has more engine power… is from the 70s and not from the late 40s…
and still is on 4.3…
is fair?
what do you think…
rethink the AH1 … how over br is … just for zunis… having nothing else…
and see how op is the IA58A on the 4.3 with the over powered copy zunis from the 70s that it got… from the get go…
is the IA58A the same br with the FIREBALL? can do both the same job?
fireball has 4 50cal… 2 bombs and HVAR x 4…
IA58A has … op rockets X30 has 4 cannons… and those are in the same BR and those are equal by gaijin.
imagine that … the IA58A that should be at comparable with the 40 zuni AH-1 … that is slower on higher br… if is that not BIAS what is?
what you are talking is not right… cause your excuse is just the zunis… what is.
instead to see the problem you focus on one + that the airplane in question has. thats the problem… 1 + and you are 2 brs higher than something op… that is faster and agile… amazing! how i did not thought about !!
thats the correct comparison IA58 with AH1… not A10 that has nothing to do … with the prop… and how it is…
- the A10 … use the engines for stability… and accuracy that it uses “commercial” engines and not any kind of a GE 104… or J75… or something like that… they could do that yes they did not…
they wanted a fly low stable platform. thats the A10 …
Will the King Tiger (SLA16) BR be downgraded to 6.3?
At this point I don’t know why we don’t ask for Chieftain Mk 3 to be 8.3, in several ways it’s actually worse than the Olifant 1A. Olifant has APFSDS, like 40mm more penetration, and a shorter reload. It’s also got a LRF, and soon the Chieftain won’t have any range finder, even in terms of mobility the Olifant is more mobile.
The only advantage the Chieftain has at this point is simply armour.
Gamemode: All
Vehicle: Type 69-IIa
Change: Add APFDS, move to 8.7, change rank from V to VI
Reason: Despite having a laser rangefinder and smoke grenades, this is still the same TO-55, which scores a 9.3 against formidable opponents like the T-72A and KPz/MBT-70. Equipping it with APFDS rounds and up the BR would make it comparable to the T-55A—but better, and thus one tier higher.
I replied you in my posts, a detailed BR strength discussion.
your logic is backwards. The Su‑27SM is itself over‑tiered at 12.7 – you don’t use an inflated BR as a benchmark to raise others. I’ve already replied to Grondolf with a detailed BR strength discussion – go check that thread. By the way, mig29smt has better radar so its br is higher.
Gamemode: GRB
Vehicle: XM803
Change: up BR from 9.0 to 9.3
Reason: MBT with good mobility, LR, autoloader and good damage will be sit on the 9.3. The same thing with MBT-70/KPz-70 (the german variant have 6 sec reload time), but on the 9.7
1 Like
M26/M26 T99/M26A1 (all nations)
Both modes
6.7 → 6.3
At 6.7, it has the armor and firepower of a medium tank but the mobility of a heavy tank. You have a gun that struggles frontally against enemy armor without any real tools to work around this weakness.
With the IS-2 and the early King Tigers planned to go down to 6.3 (I don’t think these changes are good), it is frankly absurd for the M26 to stay at 6.7
3 Likes
I am once again suggesting the Kfir Gderot (known as “Kfir Canard” in game) to have their BR reduced to 10.7
Vehicle: Kfir Gderot (Kfir Canard in game)
Suggested change: 11.0 BR to 10.7 BR
Why: This aircraft is worse than a number of 10.7 BR aircraft. Especially the J-7D with double the missiles, with vastly improved missile performance, defensive capabilities and avionics.
1 Like
Doesn’t change that the Su-30MK2 absolutely shouldn’t be moved to 12.0.
Game mode: GRB
Vehicle: CLAWS/NASAMS
Change: up BR from 12.7 to 12.0
Reason: The NASAMS and CLAWS are currently ineffective SAM systems in the game. They are unable to reliably intercept incoming missiles or engage helicopters equipped with DIRCM (Directional Infrared Countermeasures).
The AIM-9X loses lock too easily, while the AIM-120 and AMRAAM-ER are easily decoyed by chaff, making both systems significantly less effective than they should be.
Yea I’m not even gonna argue anymore… It’s pointless to argue to a rock…
To Grondolf:
Your argument that the Su‑30MK2 and MiG‑29M should be above 12.0 because they have “better quality ordnance” completely ignores the actual BR placement of US aircraft with the same class of weapons .
Let’s look at the facts, not your subjective opinion:
All US TV‑guided CAS platforms sit at 12.0 – the F‑16A (early), F‑15A, and F/A‑18 (early) all carry TV‑guided AGM‑65A/B Mavericks and GBU‑series bombs, yet they are at 12.0 . Meanwhile, the US aircraft that get infrared (IIR) seekers – such as the F‑16CM and F‑15C MSIP II – are placed at 12.7 , precisely because thermal imaging gives a massive advantage in target acquisition and all‑weather employment.The Su‑30MK2 and MiG‑29M are strictly restricted to TV‑guided AGMs (KH‑29T, KH‑25ML? Actually KH‑29T is TV, KH‑25ML is laser? But essentially they lack any thermal seeker for air‑to‑ground). So by that exact same logic, they belong at 12.0 , not higher. You cannot demand a higher BR for aircraft that are inferior in seeker technology to those already at 12.0.
Even more damning: the A‑10C sits at 11.7 and carries AGM‑65G/H with infrared imaging – fire‑and‑forget, day/night capable. The AV‑8B+ at 12.0 also has AGM‑65G (IIR) and the AN/AAS‑38 targeting pod with thermal. The F‑14, though at 11.7, gets the LANTIRN pod with thermal imaging (though its ordnance is not fire‑and‑forget). So we have US platforms at lower or equal BRs equipped with IR seekers , while the Russian TV‑only jets are being pushed up? That is the opposite of balanced.
Your claim that Su‑30’s loadout “puts them miles above” is hollow when you compare the actual engagement effectiveness – a TV seeker is useless in real battle (Once you tried them in test flight) while a thermal seeker works perfectly. A 12.0 F/A‑18 with TV is already a peer; the Su‑30 with the same limitation should be at the same BR , not artificially inflated because you compare it to the over‑tiered Su‑27SM.
So, Grondolf, bring actual BR comparisons, not rhetoric. The numbers are clear for fire and forget missiles: TV = 12.0, IR = 12.7. Su‑30 and MiG‑29 are TV – therefore 12.0 is exactly where they belong.
To MiGoon_Fox-3:
your logic is backwards. The Su‑27SM is itself over‑tiered at 12.7 – you don’t use an inflated BR as a benchmark to raise others. I’ve already replied to Grondolf with a detailed BR strength discussion – go check that thread. By the way, mig29smt has better radar so its br is higher.
1 Like
Let’s be honest, you only want it at 12.0 so you can pair with your T-80U-E1 on your main account or on this alt account with the next sale.
why?
Fox 3, IRRCM IR missiles, a wide range of advanced A2G weapons, decent flight performance.
Vehicle: Kfir C.7
Suggested change: 12.0 BR to 11.7 BR and/or implement missing countermeasure dispensers
Why: Kfir C.7 struggles against the many extremely capable SARH missile slingers and lacks IRCCM to back up the good close-in flight performance. Other aircraft can very easily bleed it dry of hyper-limited countermeasures and it can do very little against the top aircraft of 12.0 (F-4S) even with a positional advantage. Python 3 has decent flight performance but the seeker is terrible with extreme flare vulnerability. Very clearly struggling to compete with current specs.
1 Like
J2M5(type5)
GRB 5.0-5.3
Add 20mm guns, issue report(accepted):Community Bug Reporting System
Currently, J2M5 only has 84 rounds which is not correct, and also it will be 5.3 so it is time to add 20mm guns which the report has been accpetd