I just took this vehicle into several battles and even killing a Bulldog took me an unforgivably long time (it’s the only light tank I encountered). Then I looked at the crowds of T44s, IS2-3s, and T10s. I think it’s obvious that you have to let most of the enemies pass and hide (after all, if you’re spotted, you have no chance). My stats for this vehicle slightly below 1 KD, which is better than most (but for me, it’s a terrible result). Again, the overall stats are 0.5 KD, which is one of the worst results in the game. I play on this car, and even when driving behind an enemy spawn, I just stand there helplessly and watch the enemies driving by, realizing my weakness on this vehicle.
Vehicle: USS North Daktoa
Mode: Naval Arcade/ Relastic
BR change: 6.3>>>6.0
Reason: Its armor is fine but the fact it has guns is a problem dealing damaging a light cruiser and not being able to penetrate a battlecruiser and with a limited range.
The M1 Abrams is arguably already the best all around 10.7 MBT, it doesn’t need further buffs in the same way that the Challenger Mk.3 doesn’t need L27, the T-80B doesn’t need 3BM-46 or the Leopard 2A4 doesn’t need DM33.
This is one of the few BR’s where all four nations have relatively balanced MBT’s.
M833 was introduced after the M1 entered service.
Furthermore, War Thunder doesn’t adhere to historical ammunition loadouts, and that doesn’t even really exist as vehicles used different ammunition loadouts depending on the point of their service lives.
The T-64A doesn’t use 3BM-32 in-game either.
American tanks DO use ERA.
American tanks in War Thunder on the whole are excellent, with the M1’s now being the best tanks across any top-tier nation.
T-64 is the counterpart to the M60, Leopard 1, AMX-30 and Chieftain, so T-64A to 8.3 when?
3 Likes
Yes, many autocannons have poor stats, but isn’t that a reason to change them? Something needs to be done about this, and I proposed my solution specifically for these two vehicles. And I remind you that the R3 rides on 6.0 and doesn’t break the balance, so why should these two vehicles, with similar characteristics, be so much higher? Among all the cars with autocannons, these are the worst. I can find at least a minimal advantage in others, but not in these.
1 Like
This is a good idea, and could be applied to a lot of Rank I light tanks which have the potential to be Rank II scouts.
2 Likes
Vehicle: F6F-5 / F6F-5 (France)
Mode Air Realistic battles
BR revision: 3.3 → 3.3 Remove from the F4F folder (US F6F-5) and move it to rank III
Reason: The F6F is way too underrepresented currently, buried under 2 F4Fs and stuck at rank II means the F6F is a rarity despite it’s fully F2P nature, however the overtiered F6F-5N is an obligatory aircraft to progress.
So to improve the usage rate of the historically important F6F and allow a smoother transition to the F6F-5N, it shall me moved to rank III, For american F6F-5, it will be between F4U-1A and F4U-4 and upgraded to rank III to make it capable of grinding events, tasks and BP challenges.
For the French F6F-5 it will placed at rank III before the M.B.157 which is planned to move into 3.7
6 Likes
Yep its pathetic… If A6M is so effective, change A6M flight model with Yak-3U which is suposed to be somehow worse and lets see how each of them fare.
2 Likes
Don’t forget the French F6F-5. It should be Rank 3 too, just like the British F6F-5.
1 Like
When it comes to prem vehicles I would exclude players with sub 50% win-rate. Since there’s substantial probability they are noobs in the game that do not know gameplay, maps, likely unfamilar with command features and terefore cannot utilize vehicle’s full potential. Good example of this are prem Su-30’s that likely have mediocre win rate or K/D.
For non-prem vehicles IDK the right solution, its a bit more complicated to judge.
1 Like
German US main starting also Israel and Japan.
no tank that can be penned from 1 km at any angle at most protected side by 11.7 apfsds should be so high
12.0 is minimum
Vehicle: Ju 88 A-1
Mode Air Realistic battles
BR revision: 2.0 → 2.7 / 3.0
Reason: The weakened defensive armament doesn’t justify a 1.0 BR difference with the Ju 88 A-4 and said variant performs just fine at 3.0.
Take into account Ju-88 A-1 is a fast bomber, that climbs very well, is able to simply open up radiators to 100% and WEP all the way to 5km altitude, AT 2.0, most bombers require to plan routes in order to avoid interception and those that don’t have very weak payloads for the BR (Ar 234 or M.B.162) But Ju-88 on a fully loaded loadout of SC50 bombs and FC250s can destroy TEN ENTIRE BASES.
1 Like
I really disagree with the JA37DI / F12 being raised in BR.
It’s taking a comparatively slow airframe with horrific energy retention (the worst at the BR?), a 10km ACM radar (no HMD), AIM-9L (rb74)/no IRCCM, and making that equal BR to an Su-30MK2 ? A MiG-29 SMT? J-11A?
I understand it has 120s, but this is probably the easiest aircraft to beat in pretty much any airframe at this BR already.
2 Likes
̶V̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ Armament: 7.5 mm MAC 31 machine gun / 7.5 mm Darne 1933 machine gun
Change: Add Armored targets belt
Reason: The lack of damage of the French 7.5mm machineguns towards aircraft is very exaggerated, the main way to shoot down aircraft are AP / Ball ammunition and even then these rounds will take 3-4 hits to kill a pilot.
This makes the French reserve aircraft undesired to new players despite the superior firerate , quantity and ammo pools of the 7.5mm armaments.
This also isn’t helped by the fact the normal Incendiary rounds cannot even penetrate the fabric skin of biplanes, take up a lot of belt space and will only cause a fire if shot at an exposed radial engine during a head-on attack.
3 Likes
HMCS Brantford (Flower-class corvette)
Naval Arcade & Realistic Battles:
- 2.3 → 3.0
- Rank II → Rank III
Reasoning: Highly overperforming due to high survivability, strong armament, and a detailed damage model. Far exceeds peers at 2.3 with higher efficiency.
3 Likes
Aconit (Flower-class corvette)
Naval Arcade & Realistic Battles:
- 2.3 → 3.0
- Rank II → Rank III
Reasoning: Grossly overperforming due to high survivability, better armament, and a detailed damage model. It outclasses all 2.3 peers with higher efficiency, so it must be raised.
1 Like
Air
Mosquito FB.VI
3.7=3.7 but add wing bombs (250lb>500lb).
The wing bombs were common features for FB. VI mosquitoes in all nations. There is an existing bug report with photos and details for British, Chinese and Israeli use.
Increasing the maximum load from 2x500lb to 4x500lb (via 250lb) would not only be more representative of the real life vehicle it would also close that gap with the Firefly variants that can carry 2x1000lb albeit a little slower. [Although 1000lb wing bombs were (unsuccessfully) tested on at least one Mozzie sufficient details are lacking and I’m happy to let these remain unavailable.]
These wing pylons/Universal Carriers, are already in use on the B.XVI* so why not all variants that were fitted with the wing mounts?
*note: I’ve yet to see any reference for B. XVI, FB.XVII or TR.33 carrying bombs on these pylons despite the UC being present, only fuel tanks. Whilst they were theoretically capable these types valued longer range and endurance over load. Thus the B.XVI should have wing bombs removed, at least when 4000lb is carried.
2 Likes
It would be a reason to lower them, if it wasn’t evident that each of these vehicles performed similarly at their respective BR. Again, even the 20mm vehicles with ATGMs and the BTR-80 have such low stats.
Let’s say the U-SH 204 GK is the baseline for wheeled autocannon vehicles and the SUB-I-II is the baseline for tracked ones. Every improvement a vehicle gets over these baseline vehicles is worth a BR increase of varying degrees.
All 20mm armed vehicles have their own advantages over these two baseline vehicles, some have more, some have less.
The U-SH lacks APDS, is the slowest of the wheeled 20mm vehicles, no smokes and has only 2 crew members while being vulnerable to 7mm machine gus, so it has no survivability at all.
The SUB-I-II is slow, has an exposed gunner and it’s hull is vulnerable to 7mm machine guns.
All of the 20mm vehicles at higher BRs have better survivability, better mobility, extra features (thermals, ATGMs or stabilizers). It’s not just slight improvements either.
The R3 and AMX-10P have significantly worse survivability than the Luchs.
Compared to the R3 the Luchs gets a reverse gearbox, so while it is slower, it has more mobility overall and it gets APDS.
Compared to the AMX-10P the Luchs is a lot faster and thanks to its wheel layout, it isn’t much less maneuverable.
On top of that, it has a second driver, it gets thermals and scouting. (It also has better gun depression, but I don’t know if that ever really comes into play).
That’s not 0.3 higher than the R3 or same BR as the AMX-10P, that’s definitely enough to warrant the 7.3 BR.
The RCV (P), again, gets a stabilizer. That combined with better survivability than the R3 also is worth a lot more than 0.7 over the R3. Considering that the XM800T does better at 8.7, that should be a good sign that its BR is warranted as well.
Spoiler
If you want to get more kills with the RCV (P), bring it into higher BRs. Modern tanks have less side armour than the ones around 8.0.
Collectors can go for it. The whole point is its optional but still available. We should not be removing these vehicles.
1 Like
…Sure, i know enough not to argue with you but if you want to get in the death box 2000 then be my guest.