They nerfed it specifically to avoid sending it up to 7.3, so be careful what you wish for.
Shoot suspicious bushes with 8 3000lb bombs
Why will SU-25 be able to face 8.7??
Spam? Yes. But you have to understand how frustrating this has been. For the past four years, the historical evidence supporting this change has largely been ignored, and the reasoning I was given doesn’t make sense when the tanks deployed during the conflict were fitted with the additional armour package.
Come on. I love this game, and I just don’t want people paying an expensive price for a vehicle that isn’t represented in its historically accurate configuration even with a modification. I think that’s a fair request.
Gamemode: Air Realistic
Vehicles: Harrier GR.7 & Tornado GR.4
BR Change: 12.3 → 12.0
Reasoning:
Flight performance and payload are extremely suboptimal when dealing with planes in the 12.3-13.3 bracket.
The two IRCCM-capable AIM-9Ms are the only thing that keeps these aircraft from being entirely unplayable, and you may say they justify keeping those aircraft at 12.3, but let’s remember that the Su-39, with its onboard IRCM, varied / extensive payload AND R-73 IRCCM-capable missiles sits at 11.3, and the Su-25BM with the same R-73 missiles sits at 11.0.
As a little sidenote, this change would also help align the BR of those aircraft with British Phantoms for proper lineups in the upcoming Nuclear Escalation gamemode.
8 Likes
If the TTD used primarily HEAT i’d agree. but bushes are not an issue with APFSDS, especially when commander sight and binoculars are available for an elevated camera that mitigates the obstruction of the bush
You could add the Tornado SLE to that :3
1 Like
yeah, its just a worse GR.4 in every circumstance i can name really
Here’s your rank 5 CAS aircraft for Japan
at 8.3 ground realistic
L39ZA is has no good counter from ground.
Spaag melt facing it.
the only way to realistically deal with the L-39ZA is to spawn another plane but at that point it has already killed 3-4 people.
IT IS TOO EASY TO USE.
We dont get this kind of cas until 8.3 and it should have an even higher ground BR so it faces more radar SPAAG.
It will be DoA. Moving it to 7.7 already makes it meet 8.7 so it gets to AHEAD/HE-VT territory. The flight performance of it doesnt justify such high BR. It flies worse than a 5.7 prop. Currently when it gets hit,it cant turn and sometimes will even just crash cause it cant pull out suddenly.
1 Like
compromise for balance reason
remove rocket ballistics computer.
Gaijin has said in the past they can remove something historical for balance reasons.
ngl I had the same idea with that, but the 8 Magic IIs tho…
so far at 12.7 the most IRCCM carried by a single plane is Belgian F-16s (6 AIM-9M or Magic II) followed by F-15A with 4. Maybe can be done if they remove the drop tank pylon support for 2 Magic II (and I don’t like those drop tank pylons either)
Is 3-4 kills a lot?! That’s a fairly common result for a mid-tier aircraft; any aircraft capable of ground attack can achieve that kind of efficiency and more. You’ve listed rank 5 aircraft, so what should I get for 7.3 (main BR for Japanese tanks of rank 5)?
1 Like
mind you that most my unguided firing planes have HVARs at 7.7
you can use the Kikka with the 800kg bomb
Absolutely needed.
2 Likes
Who were the guns invented for? The aircraft in these rank are excellent at dealing with ground vehicles thanks to their guns, and their effective range is no less than that of missiles.
One bomb, a great option for 600 respawn points
1 Like
remove the rocket ballistics computer and you can keep it where it is.
Soviet albatros on 6.3 with no ballistics
1 Like
Gaijin? Can we please split these into 3 separate threads? One for ground, one for air, and one for naval.
Surely this is a mess for you to go through as well. At least if the topics are split they’ll be more focused.
2 Likes