Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026)

[_KrulciferUa]

Mode: Ground Realistic Battles

Vehicle: Centurion Mk.1

Change: 6.0 → 5.7

Reasoning: The turret frontal armor of the tank has long been only 127 mm, not 152 mm, which makes it vulnerable to most guns at BR 6.0. The vehicle’s survivability is low, as 3 out of 4 crew members are located in the turret, and any hit to it often results in the tank being destroyed.

The gun has good nominal penetration; however, due to the use of sub-caliber and solid-shot rounds without explosive filler, it deals poor post-penetration damage. The high rate of fire is further limited by the 5+1 round mechanic, which negates its advantage in combat.

In addition, the tank’s mobility is unsatisfactory - its maximum speed is only 36-38 km/h, which does not allow it to maneuver effectively on the battlefield.

Taken together, these drawbacks indicate that the Centurion Mk.1 does not fit BR 6.0, and lowering it to 5.7 would be a more balanced solution.

[_KrulciferUa]

Mode: Air Realistic Battles

Aircraft: Me 262 A-1a, Me 262 A-1a/Jabo, and Me 262 A-2a

Change: 7.0 → 6.3, 7.0 → 6.3, and 6.7 → 6.3

Reasoning: These were the world’s first mass-produced jet aircraft. They have poor maneuverability and take a long time to build up speed, which means they can only rely on their velocity - something that is rarely achievable at BR 7.0 (where they very often face 7.7 and 8.0). In addition, they are equipped with a very specific armament: four 30 mm MK 108 cannons with extremely poor ballistics.

It should also be noted that at BR 6.3 (new 6.0) there is already the Me 262 A-1/U4, armed with the 50 mm Mk.214a cannon, which offers far superior ballistics and aiming performance, and yet it does not cause any balance issues.

[_KrulciferUa]

Mode: Naval Arcade & Realistic Battles

Ship: RN Zara and RN Pola

Change: 6.0 → 5.7

Reasoning: One of the longest reload times for 203 mm guns among its counterparts, weak damage from their 203 mm shells, low accuracy of the same 203 mm guns, lack of torpedo armament, not the best armor.

[我要成为俄罗斯原神糕手]

@BACKRAGE44428-live

compare it to the premium Panzer IV in germany that should have good KD

The German premium Panzer IV is the J variant. The performance of the J type is notably inferior to that of the H type; its turret traverse speed is only 10° /s much slower than the H type’s 16°/s

[AurenKarach]

@我要成为俄罗斯原神糕手

The German premium Panzer IV is the J variant.

Correct.

Much more useful to compare the Italian Pz IV G with the Italian Sherman Ic. Both are premiums, both are in the same tree and a minor nation tree at that, and until recently they were even at the same BR. The comparison should prove… Illuminating.

[Wheredego]

R2Y2 still a rotting corpse at 8.0 Air RB…

[efetenekeci]

I have posted a lot of coastal suggestions, only for them to get ignored. If they are going to consider any naval change now, I will repost them

[Филин]

Ho-Ri (prototype) - GRB 6.7->6.0 - the vehicle is equal in protection to, and in some ways inferior to, both the Jagdpanther and the Su-100 at lower BRs. However, it is definitely inferior in mobility. The gun also doesn’t have outstanding characteristics - better in some ways, worse in others, but is roughly on par with the faster-firing and more penetrating German 8.8cm with less damage and the higher-penetration Soviet 100mm.

[Филин]

Ho-Ri Production - GRB 7.3->7.0 - the vehicle is equal to the Ferdinand in all stats except mobility. Mobility alone adds 0.3 BR. Another 0.3 is added purely for the stats gained from enemies shooting at the upper frontal plate, its strongest point.

[oom1992]

F9F-2 Panther decrease battle rating for Air AB, Air RB, Air SB

Air Arcade battle

8.3 → 8.0

Air Realistic battle

8.0 → 7.7

Air Simulator battle

8.3 → 8.0

[Real_K_Soze]

Mode: Air RB
Vehicle: Bf 110 G-4 night fighter (plus premium in Italian TT)
Recommendation: BR 3.7 (keep BR but give it an air superiority fighter spawn)
Reasoning:

Short:
Severe disadvantage vs night fighters from the UK/SWE/US due to way lower spawn altitude results in significantly lower combat effectiveness by design and not by player skill.

Long:

Upfront:

1. Air superiority fighter air spawn: 2 km altitude
2. Interceptor air spawn: 1 km altitude
3. Strike aircraft air spawn: 1 km altitude

Current spawn altitudes for all prop night fighters for Rank III:

• 2 km: Mosquito NF.Mk. II and J30 (3.7), US prem P-61 (3.7), P-61 TT (4.0)
• 1 km: Bf-110 G-4 (3.7), Ta 154, Ju 388L, He 219 (all 4.3)

Impact on combat effectiveness of higher spawn altitudes:

1. As all of the mentioned night fighters have similar climb rates is seems logical than when a UK/SWE/US night fighter meets an GER/IT night fighter the 1st group has always (in case all climbed at optimal speeds) the initiative in a fight as he has the higher altitude / energy state - whilst the 2nd group can just react.
2. Higher spawn altitudes makes planes more effective - that’s why the Mosqito NF.Mk.II was in May 2026 the most successful British fighter regarding Kills per Spawn - and way ahead of any Spitfire at any BR - whilst the 4 German night fighters produced very poor A2A combat results.

Reasoning for special “treatment” of night fighters:

• A night fighter carries a lot of additional equipment which affects the flight characteristics and somehow justifies a higher spawn altitude compared to twin engine day fighters which have due to less weight (and often drag) without this radar equipment at least in theory a way better performance.

Current “as it is” situation:

If you play Air RB frequently at this BR and invest some time on StatShark analyzing the factors:

• Kills per Spawn
• Kills per Death
• SL & RP income

you find out that night fighters with the 2 km air spawn severely outperform those with 1 km air spawn - quite logical due to energy advantage and significantly more success intercepting medium / heavy bombers.

Therefore it seems logical that the systemic disadvantage needs to go.

[Real_K_Soze]

Mode: Air RB
Vehicle: Ta 154 night fighter
Recommendation: BR 4.3 (keep BR but give it an air superiority fighter spawn)
Reasoning:

Short:
Severe disadvantage vs night fighters from the UK/SWE/US due to way lower spawn altitude results in significantly lower combat effectiveness by design and not by player skill.

Long:

Upfront:

1. Air superiority fighter air spawn: 2 km altitude
2. Interceptor air spawn: 1 km altitude
3. Strike aircraft air spawn: 1 km altitude

Current spawn altitudes for all prop night fighters for Rank III:

• 2 km: Mosquito NF.Mk. II and J30 (3.7), US prem P-61 (3.7), P-61 TT (4.0)
• 1 km: Bf-110 G-4 (3.7), Ta 154, Ju 388L, He 219 (all 4.3)

Impact on combat effectiveness of higher spawn altitudes:

1. As all of the mentioned night fighters have similar climb rates is seems logical than when a UK/SWE/US night fighter meets an GER/IT night fighter the 1st group has always (in case all climbed at optimal speeds) the initiative in a fight as he has the higher altitude / energy state - whilst the 2nd group can just react.
2. Higher spawn altitudes makes planes more effective - that’s why the Mosqito NF.Mk.II was in May 2026 the most successful British fighter regarding Kills per Spawn - and way ahead of any Spitfire at any BR - whilst the 4 German night fighters produced very poor A2A combat results.

Reasoning for special “treatment” of night fighters:

• A night fighter carries a lot of additional equipment which affects the flight characteristics and somehow justifies a higher spawn altitude compared to twin engine day fighters which have due to less weight (and often drag) without this radar equipment at least in theory a way better performance.

Current “as it is” situation:

If you play Air RB frequently at this BR and invest some time on StatShark analyzing the factors:

• Kills per Spawn
• Kills per Death
• SL & RP income

you find out that night fighters with the 2 km air spawn severely outperform those with 1 km air spawn - quite logical due to energy advantage and significantly more success intercepting medium / heavy bombers.

Therefore it seems logical that the systemic disadvantage needs to go.

[Real_K_Soze]

Mode: Air RB
Vehicle: He 219 night fighter
Recommendation: BR 4.3 (keep BR but give it an air superiority fighter spawn)
Reasoning:

Short:
Severe disadvantage vs night fighters from the UK/SWE/US due to way lower spawn altitude results in significantly lower combat effectiveness by design and not by player skill.

Long:

Upfront:

1. Air superioriry fighter air spawn: 2 km altitude
2. Interceptor air spawn: 1 km altitude
3. Strike aircraft air spawn: 1 km altitude

Current spawn altitudes for all prop night fighters for Rank III:

• 2 km: Mosquito NF.Mk. II and J30 (3.7), US prem P-61 (3.7), P-61 TT (4.0)
• 1 km: Bf-110 G-4 (3.7), Ta 154, Ju 388L, He 219 (all 4.3)

Impact on combat effectiveness of higher spawn altitudes:

1. As all of the mentioned night fighters have similar climb rates is seems logical than when a UK/SWE/US night fighter meets an GER/IT night fighter the 1st group has always (in case all climbed at optimal speeds) the initiative in a fight as he has the higher altitude / energy state - whilst the 2nd group can just react.
2. Higher spawn altitudes makes planes more effective - that’s why the Mosqito NF.Mk.II was in May 2026 the most successful British fighter regarding Kills per Spawn - and way ahead of any Spitfire at any BR - whilst the 4 German night fighters produced very poor A2A combat results.

Reasoning for special “treatment” of night fighters:

• A night fighter carries a lot of additional equipment which affects the flight characteristics and somehow justifies a higher spawn altitude compared to twin engine day fighters which have due to less weight (and often drag) without this radar equipment at least in theory a way better performance.

Current “as it is” situation:

If you play Air RB frequently at this BR and invest some time on StatShark analyzing the factors:

• Kills per Spawn
• Kills per Death
• SL & RP income

you find out that night fighters with the 2 km air spawn severely outperform those with 1 km air spawn - quite logical due to energy advantage and significantly more success intercepting medium / heavy bombers.

This premium aircraft is (like the Ta 154) a very rare view in Air RB - and the way lower spawn altitude and resulting reduced combat effectiveness explains why. With a 2 km Air Superiority fighter spawn the plane could overcome this systemic disadvantage and it might be able to push sales too.

Therefore it seems logical that the systemic disadvantage needs to go.

[LeonDasPro-live]

Suggestion:

Naval

KM-5

1.7>1.3

It is essentially just a bigger LS3 but unjustifiably 0.7 higher.

The twin 7.92mm MGs are almost worthless having very poor chance of causing any type of notable damage unless at point blank range. That leaves the single 15mm MG151 (same as LS3) , meanwhile most opponents at 1.7 will boast something like a 20mm and twin 12.7mms, with some upping the game to a 40mm (or even large low velocity guns)…

Additionally being larger, slower and less manouverable makes it a much easier target than the LS3. The increase in hull strength is OK but as your likely to be taking more and heavier hits in reality it adds little to survivability.

[Wheredego]

R2Y2 should imo go to 7.3 or 7.7 in Air RB, you removed the airspawn and the guns are slightly weaker than they used to be, so moving it down wouldnt really be an issue. I know it isn’t in the tech tree anymore, but if you are willing to alter the BR of the 341 despite it not being in the game either for a bit, then you certainly can do the same for the R2Y2

[PlagueOfGripes]

I can’t speak about air, as I know nothing about it.

The Leopard BR reduction isn’t necessary. It’s a very good tank and does very well at its BR.
The T26E5 is barely functional as a “heavy” at 6.7 due to its spotty volumetric reliance. You can die just as easily as you can bounce, from being hit almost anywhere by a German 88. Putting it at 7.0 where it will encounter 8.0s is a death sentence, especially with its mediocre gun. It won’t be able to function outside of downtiers. This is probably the most offensive BR change in the whole list, and needs to not be implemented, at all.
The Super Hellcat BR going up is baffling. It’s not that good.
The IS-2 dropping makes sense, although combined with all the M61 British tanks going up is especially offensive. Those UK tanks need to stay where they are.
All the M109a1 types going down is fine. They’re pretty trash, and people overstate the gun. The platforms are massive and slow.
The FV4005 just needs its gun to do what it would actually do: kill anything it hits. Its turret could also rotate anywhere; it just had a recommended rotation vector. In other words, fix it instead of trying to move it.
The M44s and M55s are a bit odd, but not a big deal. They honestly may have more trouble in lower BRs, where enemies are faster and more aggressive.

And lastly, leave the T20 alone. Its stats are high because veterans play it. You never see them on the battlefield, otherwise, so they’re never a problem. Also, either revert the mistakes you made with the T25 or change its BR, if you want to do something productive.

[Metal_Bandit]

@PlagueOfGripes

The T26E5 is barely functional as a “heavy” at 6.7

HAHAHAHA

Well deserve change.
I hope Gaijin dont fall again in the trap of massive allies fanboys cry and all changes are implemented.

[paolgand1975-psn]

Mode: Ground Realistic Battles

Aircraft: Sagittario 2

Change: 9.3 → 9.0

Reasoning: The Sagittario 2 is one of the clearest examples of an aircraft whose Ground RB battle rating should be separated from its performance in Air RB.

In Ground RB, it is essentially a pure CAP aircraft. It has no suspended armament whatsoever: no bombs, rockets, guided weapons or air-to-air missiles. Its only weapons are two 30 mm cannons, whose AP ammunition penetrates only 39 mm at point-blank range and 24 mm at 500 metres. It can attack exposed SPAAs and lightly armoured vehicles, but it has no meaningful CAS capability.

It also has no radar, no RWR, no countermeasures, no missiles and no ballistic computer. Its manoeuvrability makes it a capable dogfighter, but good handling alone cannot fully compensate for the complete absence of defensive electronics and secondary armament in combined battles.

The planned changes make this inconsistency particularly clear. The Su-17M2, which is 10.0 in Air RB, and the MiG-23BN, Jaguar GR.1 and AV-8A, which are all 9.7 in Air RB, are being reduced from 9.7 to 9.3 in Ground RB. All of them have an Air RB battle rating higher than the Sagittario 2’s 9.3, while also possessing actual ground-attack loadouts, ballistic computers, missiles, bombs or rockets.

An even more direct comparison is the MiG-21 SPS-K. It is 9.7 in Air RB, yet it is being reduced from 9.3 to 9.0 in Ground RB. It can carry R-60, R-13M1 and radar-guided R-3R missiles, has radar and RWR, and can equip a countermeasure pod. The Yak-38 is also being reduced from 9.3 to 9.0 despite carrying R-60 missiles, bombs, rockets and the Kh-23M guided air-to-ground missile.

The Sagittario 2 does not need to be lowered in Air RB, where its manoeuvrability remains important. However, reducing it to 9.0 specifically in Ground RB would simply recognise its extremely limited role: it can perform CAP, but it has no real CAS capability and none of the electronic or defensive equipment available to many aircraft receiving the same or even larger reductions.

A Ground RB rating of 9.0 would therefore be consistent with the logic applied throughout the proposed BR changes, without making the aircraft overpowered.

[paolgand1975-psn]

Aircraft: G.91 pre-serie

Change: 8.3 → 7.7/8.0

Reasoning: If the G.91 R/1 is being reduced from 8.7 to 8.3 in Ground RB, the G.91 pre-serie cannot reasonably remain at 8.3.

The two aircraft have very similar basic flight characteristics and manoeuvrability, but the R/1 is the clearly superior version. It has the more powerful Orpheus Mk.803 engine and, most importantly for Ground RB, access to both AS-20 Nord guided air-to-ground missiles and AA-20 air-to-air missiles. The pre-serie has neither.

The pre-serie is limited to 12.7 mm machine guns, unguided FFAR rockets and a maximum of two 500 lb bombs. Its guns are practically irrelevant against normal ground vehicles, its rockets are inaccurate, and its two bombs require the aircraft to fly directly over the battlefield without any ballistic computer or guided delivery system. It has no meaningful stand-off capability and no air-to-air missiles.

Saying that the aircraft is manoeuvrable does not justify keeping it at 8.3 in Ground RB. Manoeuvrability is primarily an Air RB advantage, and this is already reflected in the separate Air RB ratings: the pre-serie is 8.3 in Air RB, while the superior R/1 is 8.7. If Air RB performance and Ground RB effectiveness are being evaluated separately, then the pre-serie must be placed below the R/1 in Ground RB as well.

Leaving both aircraft at 8.3 would mean giving the same Ground RB rating to two almost equally manoeuvrable aircraft, while one of them has guided anti-tank missiles and the other has only basic unguided ordnance comparable to aircraft found around 7.7.

The G.91 pre-serie is a capable light fighter, but in Ground RB its armament is completely inadequate for 8.3. A reduction to 7.7/8.0 would correctly reflect its extremely limited ground-attack capability and maintain a logical separation from the much more capable G.91 R/1.

[paolgand1975-psn]

Mode: Ground Realistic Battles

Aircraft: Ariete

Change: 9.3 → 9.0

Reasoning: The Ariete is an exceptionally manoeuvrable and capable dogfighter. However, this strength is already reflected in its 9.3 Air RB battle rating. This proposal is not asking for any reduction in Air RB, but for its extremely limited usefulness in Ground RB to be properly recognised.

In Ground RB, the Ariete is exclusively a CAP aircraft. It has no bombs, rockets, air-to-ground weapons or air-to-air missiles. It also has no countermeasures, no RWR and no defensive electronics. Its entire armament consists of two 30 mm cannons with only 240 rounds and a maximum penetration of 39 mm at point-blank range, falling to 24 mm at 500 metres. They are useful against aircraft, exposed SPAAs and light vehicles, but they provide no meaningful CAS capability against normal ground targets.

The obvious response will be that the Ariete is extremely manoeuvrable. That is true, but manoeuvrability is primarily an Air RB advantage, and this is exactly why the Ariete is rated at 9.3 in Air RB. If manoeuvrability alone were sufficient to determine the Ground RB rating, there would be little purpose in having separate Air and Ground battle ratings.

The proposed changes make the inconsistency particularly clear. The MiG-21 SPS-K is rated higher than the Ariete in Air RB at 9.7, yet it is being reduced from 9.3 to 9.0 in Ground RB. In addition to its supersonic performance, it has radar, RWR, an optional countermeasure pod, R-60, R-13M1 and radar-guided R-3R air-to-air missiles, as well as bombs and rockets. The Ariete possesses none of these capabilities.

The Yak-38 is also being reduced from 9.3 to 9.0 in Ground RB despite having R-60 air-to-air missiles, bombs, several types of rockets, the Kh-23M guided air-to-ground missile, RWR and a ballistic computer. Its flight performance is clearly inferior to the Ariete’s, but that difference is already represented by their Air RB performance. In Ground RB, the Yak-38 offers a complete selection of weapons for both CAS and air defence, while the Ariete can only perform CAP with its cannons.

Therefore, the Ariete can reasonably remain at 9.3 in Air RB, where its manoeuvrability makes it a highly capable fighter, while being reduced to 9.0 in Ground RB, where it has no CAS capability, no missiles and no defensive electronics.

Keeping it at 9.3 in Ground RB solely because it is manoeuvrable, while aircraft with higher Air RB ratings and vastly superior weapon systems are moved to 9.0, would be inconsistent with the entire purpose of separate Ground RB battle ratings.