Although true, R-77s are still Fox-3s and better at close ranges, where usually the early game pressure from the AIM-120 equalizes the difference leading to the AMRAAM being better over all, a serious advantage in the number of missiles is still far more important.
Vehicle: Yak-3U
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 5.7 → 6.0
Reason: Some of the best flight performance of any prop in the game. The best low altitude climb rate of any prop in the game, manoeuvrability that handily beats griffon spitfires, fantastic energy retention, great speed, decent guns. This vehicle has it all.
10 Likes
You are terribly misinformed
Range performance past 20km is irrelevant
Hell, even 15 or 10km if you’re fighting good players
1 Like
Imo the r77 is less effective because if it does one turn it quckly stalls and aim 120 is more practical at medium ranges that most fights are are and close range fox 2 is available
Vehicle: La-9 and La-9 (China)
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 6.0 → 5.7
Reason: The strong engine performance really only exists at sea level, and the power to weight is worse than the La-7 at all other altitudes. The laminar wings give it worse energy retention - many players consider this to be worse OVERALL in ARB than the La-7 (i.e. they would rather play the La-7 at 6.0 than the La-9). In any case, it is not competitive whatsoever at 6.0.
4 Likes
Bro, AIM-120 SUCKS in jousts
It’s so bad that jousts between AIM-120 carriers often will end on a merge rather than a missile kill
R-77 will actually pull for a shot
the AIM-120 will just straight up say “no”
4 Likes
On average you must be fighting the average player. And yes you are right, but due to early game pressure AMRAAM carriers achieve a positional advantage which equalizes for missile performance, in essence getting to launch less off boresight more often and from higher altitude increasing missile speed.
positional advantage is completely nullified once the enemy knows not to die to your 15km launch
Why do you think the meta vehicles from 13.0+ are not AIM-120 carriers unless they have a metric shitload of them?
F-15C GE is the only “meta” plane with AIM-120s.
That’s how bad AIM-120s really are
AESA euro is the third best top tier plane sure, but will get completely rinsed so hard by the Su-30SM2 and Rafale that it isn’t really meta.
There is no other 14.7 apart from the J-15T anyways (which completely sucks due to being stuck with 48 countermeasures and an Su-33 airframe)
1 Like
Your probably right
Vehicle: MiG-9 Early and MiG-9 Early (China)
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 7.3 → 7.0
Reason: Vastly worse flight performance than the MiG-9 Late at the very same BR. Performance is equal to, if not worse than, a lot of 7.0 vehicles.
5 Likes
Vehicle: La-200
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 7.7 → 8.0
Reason: Untouchable in downtiers if played passively. Manoeuvrability is not that bad. Poor guns and poor ergonomics keep playerbase wide statistics low.
3 Likes
apart from one instance every 5 matches where they may actually pull for a 5km shot
Oh the R77-1 are way better than the aim120
They’re the best Fox-3 in the game based on pure kinematics
MICA wins out due to seeker
1 Like
Cromwell V & Cromwell V (RP-3)
uk_a27m_cromwell_5
uk_a27m_cromwell_5_rp3
-
Arcade Battle BR: 4.0 → 3.7 (Currently 3.3 in-game, incorrectly listed as 3.7 in changes)
-
Realistic Battle BR: 4.0 → 3.7 (Revert change)
-
Reload Speed: 5.0 s → 5.6 s
-
Correct armor (Bug Report)
-
Correct missing rear smoke dischargers (Bug Report 1) (Bug Report 2)
-
Correct gun depression limit (Bug Report)
Rationale
The recent addition of APHE has significantly boosted the combat effectiveness of the Cromwell V, but not to the level warranting 4.0.
Compared to the early Sherman models at 3.7, the Cromwell is noticeably faster, but is generally worse or equal in all other regards. The flat armor, mediocre reverse gear, lack of a .50 cal, and most importantly, the lack of a gun stabilizer mean that the Cromwell V can’t be outright better than the Shermans.
With corrected armor modeling, some parts, such as the UFP or lower sides would become a bit thinner, further cementing the Cromwell V’s role as a sidegrade to the Sherman II rather than an upgrade.
Compared to the Shermans, the Cromwell’s turret has less space for the loader and lacks any sort of ammunition stowage in the turret or basket. A slight reload nerf would have some logic to it, and could allow the Cromwell V to remain at its current BR.
Cromwell vs Sherman Turret Comparison
12 Likes
Vehicle: MiG-15bis ISh
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 8.0 → 8.3
Reason: The flight performance is closer to that of the MiG-15bis at 8.3 than it is to the MiG-15 at 8.0. The MiG-15 at 8.0 is already a very strong vehicle, as is the MiG-15bis at 8.3. The MiG-15bis ISh is simply undertiered.
5 Likes
Is this the old chart? Cause B/C/D did get buffed this or last patch in maneuverability.
This is a newer chart after the pull buff to the Cs and Ds
AIM-120B always has performed the exact same compared to the A
This is the one directly after 9th wave, where the change happened
1 Like
Vehicle: BI
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 7.0 → 7.3
Reason: Better acceleration, energy generation and sustained turning performance than the Me 163s. The fuel looks like it is more limited, but it actually isn’t given this vehicle’s ability to cruise on very low throttle percentages.
5 Likes
Good job