Automatic tracking is borderline useless on the M10 since it has no TF or proxy ammo to use it with.
VT5 has better gun handling, autoloader, mobility and spall liners. It shouldn’t be more than 0.3 higher than the M10 though.
1 Like
Yak-130
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.7 → 9.3
remove 2 Kab500kr from any of the 4 pylons on the Yak, making the aircraft’s ammunition load consist of 2 TV Kabs + 2 nars or bombs
on 9.7, an aircraft without flares and rwr will not survive if it is hit by 10.3 Osa, strela
1 Like
Mode : Ground Realistic
Vehicle : M113a1 TOW (all nation variants)
BR change : 8.3 → 8.0
Reason : Fells like a vehicle out of place, really doesn’t do anything special, gets easily countered by MG fire, plus also up-tiers Italy, China, and Israel’s 8.0 line-ups where it could add more options and variety.
Another thing to consider is that at its own BR there are better vehicles that do the same role, like the M901 and the C13 version, several TDs that beat it in speed and reload or versatility, a couple of IFVs that outclass it in armor, speed, and firepower, and a vehicle that, besides the 50 cal is the same, but already sits at 8.0 (Pvrbv 551).
What you said does make sense. I mistakenly thought that Booker’s HEATFS had similar multiple purpose capabilities like Abrams. 11.0 is a more reasonable answer for VT5.
I swear I’m not crazy, I was able to get it down to like 25%, I gotta do some testing, I’ll send a personal message if I figure it out
1 Like
Suggestion :
HMS Abdiel
4.7 >4.3
The majority of British 4.7 ships are going down, exceptions being the Battle Class and Abdiel, the former is understandable as they are late war DDs with the fast firing (3s) 4.5" Mk. V guns and improved secondaries/AA.
Abdiel, however, has the same main armament of 4.0"Mk. XVI as the Hunt Class (BR4.0) which although they too can sustain 3s and lay down the same volume of fire, they do not land the same weight of fire due to the smaller calibre, especially as the rear turrrent has very poor arcs. In addition she carries only a single quad 40mm and a handful of MGs, with no 20mms, and relies heavily on her mains for anti air/PT.
She’s got good speed, although no better than the Tribal class ships (going 4.7>4.3) but her larger size and longer length reduces manouverability.
Her one advantage is slightly better armour, but she’s going to be a larger, less mobile target heavily reliant on those two bow turrets (or offering an even bigger broadside silhouette for all 3 turrets) so this is balanced out.
Classification as a ‘Light Cruiser’ is misleading as she’s simply a fat Destroyer in layout and operation (in game, and frequently in real life). The Cruiser title was only used early on merely because she utilised cruiser engines and transmission to give her the speed needed for the added volume and weight. Forcing Cruiser spawn with 4.0" guns means she’s often left behind, but without the large guns to cover the extra range. Simply reclassify as a Minelayer and give her the DD spawn. This will also allow her to use maps like Fuego Island, Ireland Bay and North Sea that dont have large ship spawns points but do allow much more heavily armed DDs to join.
1 Like
Vehicle: BM Oplot-T(M)
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
Reason: The Oplot is very similar in its characteristics to the T80U-E1. The main difference is its greater reverse, which the Oplot pays for with significantly weaker armor. In practice, any top-tier apfsds can penetrate the Oplot frontally without any problems, and even low-tier apfsds have a slim chance of penetrating it frontally. The T80, on the other hand, is completely protected from penetration in the front by non-top shells, and only shells with 600+ penetration are capable of penetrating it, and even then, only with a chance. The situation is even worse in the side: Kontakt-V has a significant chance of absorbing shells that hit the side, allowing the T80 to occasionally survive shots to the side, Oplot lacks of this opportunity. Another drawback of the Oplot is its slightly worse gun depression, -4 degrees puts the tank at significant limitations compared to other tanks. It also has the worst vertical aiming speed at 12.3 and one of the weakest shells. Given all these drawbacks, I don’t think the tank is suited for positions above the T80, as the Oplot is inferior in a number of characteristics, and the improved reverse speed does little to improve the situation. The tank already plays on par with the top tanks, but does not reach any of these tanks’ stats; its BR should not exceed 12.0.
5 Likes
You do realize that Gaijin when it comes to decompression move an entire BR up without touching maybe 1-2 tanks
If those tanks deserve to go down then so be it… with the LeoA1A1 going to 8.7 the other tank at that BR is the TURMS, a premium.
made worse for who?? don’t you even see that people aren’t even playing the AMX30 B2 because it get outclassed by everything else?
type 90 is the fastest techtree mbt in the game atleast in the terms of acceleration.
its faster than all abrams.
type 90 would do just fine at 12.0. wouldnt be the first “light tank” at such high br.
id argue its would better than the cv90120 at 12.0 and currently stronger than the vt-5 at 11.7.
4s autoloader will always be strong on a stabilized fast platform as long as it can pen enemy weakspots.
1 Like
Mode: Air RB
Vehicle: Ki-94-II
BR: 6.0 → 5.7+Airspawn/ 5.3 without
Reason: This aircraft the same armament (but with less ammo for its 30mm cannons) and practically the same engine as the Ki-87 that is moving to 5.3 while being at 6.0. Its advantages of good high altitude performance and good energy retention are negated by having ground spawn. This allows its opponents to easily out climb it while also outperforming it in all other aspects. I feel like it has been a little bit forgotten due to its rarity. A BR reduction would allow it to have a niche, since currently it is just a much worse version of the Ta-152H at the same BR.
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
Yeah, no.
2 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.
2 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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Why have a lot of planes lowered their BR but SPAA hasn’t been reduced accordingly?