Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026)

“All but confirmed” does fit, since all sources say it did exist in some capacity and issues only come up with questions like how complete it actually was, which isn’t really an issue when unfinished prototypes are still real.

The track link alone suggests that at the very least there was a test rig for the tracks or suspension (unless we assume the unlikely case that a mold was made specifically to create a signle cast track link), but more likely it was part of the prototype we do have direct evidence for.

Information on it is far from perfect and as much as I want it in game I understand that Gaijin need more detail to model it accurately, but this has nothing to do with if it was built or not.

4 Likes

The Leopard A1A1 and 1A5 battle rating are cool, but there’s no changes to the amx-30s and 32s
Why is the amx-32(105) and amx-32 at 9.3 and 9.7 while the 1A5 is at 9.0??

Also, the striker mirage 2000s are at 11.3 and 11.7, the 11.7 one being the RMV, and it makes no sense being like this when tha fighter Mirage 2000 is at 11.3.

5 Likes

So t72b3a going 12.0 but vt4 or vt4a1 not going down ? I really don’t understand

4 Likes

a-10c has glide bombs that players use in ARB to farm howitzers, a-6e doesn’t, neither does the j-22. And that doesn’t particularly matter anyway because the a-10c I would imagine is one of the harder CAS to play at 11.7. Even if we assume all the a-6e’s kills were in GRB, a KB of 1.38 is nothing of note. By that logic that j-22 should have went to 11.3 or 11.7 because it’s KB is 1.95. I’ve seen the skippers were able to be shot down by spaa radars so I have no clue what you are talking about.

M26

Ground Realistic

6.7 to 6.3

It is a less upgraded version of the heavy Pershing’s like T26E1 and T34 and should not be at the same BR.

16 Likes

removing AIM-120C-5 changes nothing btw

1 Like

Why is the F-4J (UK) still at 12.0 BR in Air Realistic Battles? Does it have any advantages compared to the tech-tree F-4 variants?

2 Likes

it’s fine at 13.0
The issue is the compression.

The solution here is to decompress the entire bracket
Not move more stuff down which makes compression worse

2 Likes

T26E5

Ground Realistic

6.7 to 6.7

It is equivalent to the King Tiger, trading firepower for mobility and does not have the characteristics to be 7.0

8 Likes

j-22 targeting optics have like 0 gimbal

Oh I do, but I guess the new ammunition would justify it.

Mode: Ground RB
Vehicle: Pvkv II
Change: 4.3 to 4.0, move slpgr m/43 modification to Tier II.
Justification: The stock grind is extremely painful while using the solid AP, and the vehicle itself offers few advantages over similar vehicles like the Marder III H (which is an entire BR lower) apart from having a turret.

1 Like

I think you should read this

2 Likes

The T20s BR is not absurd. It’s extremely strong.

1 Like

F-14 Iriaf is apparently better than the premium su30s lmao

1 Like

the amount of people actually trying to come up with shit reasons for not having the j-22’s BR higher than the a-6e’s is wild lmfao. in case you didn’t know, the j-22 has MITL FNF TV bombs, the a-6e only has laser

1 Like

What are you yapping about with the T20? thing is 6.3 now with 149 max pen… stop nerfing it, omg.

1 Like

If it wasn’t built, it should not be in the game.

1 Like

At 11.7, China already has two Z-10s. Moving the Z-19 up to 11.7 as well means China would have 4 helicopters at that BR, which seems like too many. I think keeping it at its original BR would have been a more reasonable choice.

7 Likes

Or do like the Italian tree (which has more fireflies than the British??) and add the Ic (cast hull) at 4.7 to keep it there and help bridge the gap and up the welded hull Vc to 5.0 with APDS to build up the 5.0 gap.

6 Likes