It’s hard to figure out the effective range because it varies on the person who uses it. The biggest strength the BA-9 has is it’s sustainer engine. It can turn on a dime which makes it very effective in environments where clear LOS, constant laze, predictable targets is not possible.
My biggest gripe with hellfires is that as the missile start going farther, the more of a boat the missile turns into hitting targets that is unpredictable and loosing the occasional laze, unreliable. It’s the same reason why I’d take the JAGM(SAL) over the hellfires at any range.
I personally think hit probability matters more than stat card performance. Top tier hellfire platforms have always been over-brd imo and it’s good seeing that they are coming down in BR.
Comparing the platforms, I don’t know if a 64A is better than a Z-19. it’s a much more nimble and stable platform, and it comes with a MAW. I’m unsure if the cost of having no cannon is worth it though.
The Su-30MK2 and MKK are the same plane
There are no real differences between the two
Suggesting you put the Su-30MK2 (One of the best 13.3s, which should be 13.7) at 13.0 is completely delusional and idiotic
I hope to god that’s a meme suggestion and not genuine
Why is there still a 0.7 BR difference with the Challenger and Charioteer Mk VII?
The Challenger has:
Better reload (5.1s instead of 6.3s)
Better frontal turret armour (~80mm-100mm instead of ~30mm)
Better turret side armour (~40mm instead of ~20mm)
More crew (5 crew members instead of 3)
Smoke mortar w/ 30 smoke grenades (instead of just two pops of 6 smoke grenades)
Better turret rotation speed (33 degrees per second instead of 20 degrees per second)
Better gun depression (-10 degrees instead of -5 degrees)
So with all those benefits the Challenger has at 5.3, what does the Charioteer get that warrants a 0.7 BR difference?
Slightly better forward top speed (57km/h instead of 52km/h)
Slightly better side armour (46mm instead of 28mm)
Slightly better acceleration (20 hp/ton instead of 19 hp/ton)
Better AP and APDS round (50mm more penetration for the AP round (slightly more post-pen damage and now enough penetration to UFP the Panther), and 25mm more pen APDS at 60 degrees ( again, slightly more post-pen damage and now enough to UFP the Tiger II if it is unangled)).
I could understand (at most) it being a 0.3 BR difference, but I’d even argue they should be the same BR of 5.7 / 6.0.
Gaijin seems unwilling to fix British tanks even when there is historical evidence supporting the changes, especially when these fixes would be relatively simple to implement.
Vehicle: chi-nu Ⅱ
Gamemode: Ground RB
Br: 4.3 ----> 3.7 or 4.3 → 4.0 with reload reduce to 5.0s
Reason:
The overall performance of this vehicle is merely that of an ordinary late‑model Panzer IV, and its armour protection is actually worse than that of the Panzer IV H. Moreover, in the next update, the reload time for all late‑model Panzer IVs will be uniformly reduced to 5 seconds, which will further widen the performance gap of this tank. Therefore, its BR should be lowered to 3.7 to match the Panzer IV F2 – where one has slightly better protection while the other has a faster reload. Alternatively, its BR could be lowered to 4.0 while also reducing its reload time to 5 seconds, bringing it in line with the Panzer IV H.
If they are the same, how come the statistics and theory tell a completely different story? You can’t even make any (bad) arguments about premium players being bad, because both are premium planes.
