Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026)

[HazelPam7769]

I understand your point, but I don’t agree with it because of just how poor the F-4J(UK) is. I’d much rather see both aircraft receive the new missiles than only one.

There’d also be the added benefit of Britain finally having a decent premium grinder, while giving people a reason to enjoy flying the F-4J(UK) again.

I never said all three aircraft should receive the change, only the FGR.2 and the F-4J(UK). Even with AIM-9Ls, the F-4J(UK) would still be the weaker of the two because of its inferior engine performance.

There’s no reason we can’t enjoy two cakes instead of one. War Thunder already has plenty of examples where multiple vehicles receive similar improvements without causing any issues.

[pvwatermelon]

Air realistic
A21RB
6.7->7.0
Rarely played plane that’s pretty insane, having almost no weaknesses besides rip speed which you can at least react to either by using the airbrake, or climbing to get a height advantage. Literal vampire engine at 6.7 like what? Play this thing and fighting props is so easy mode.

[KhorneFlakez1337]

What the heck are we doing here?

Sure, let’s compress BRs EVEN MORE

That totally won’t backfire at all

[MajorLorne]

Why does T26E5 goes up in the BR while King Tigers go down? that makes no sense

[Nostalgistic]

• Air Realistic Battles: 3.0 → 2.7

Reasoning: Compared to the F4F-3 Wildcat, the F4F-4 Wildcat has an identical engine and similar performance. The main differences are additional internal armor in the fuselage (up to 8 mm protection) and two extra .50-cal machine guns. As a result, the F4F-4 has a worse flight model due to a lower power-to-weight ratio. Overall, it suffers from a super-poor climb rate while having two BR steps higher than the F4F-3.

There is no reason for it to be at 3.0, sharing the same BR as the F4U-1A Corsair (USMC), which has significantly better flight performance along with six .50-cal machine guns. The F4F-4 is not comparable to the F4U-1A or other fighters at 3.0, and it is often outclassed in engagements.

Personally, I would place it at 2.3, as the F4F-4 is essentially a side-grade to the F4F-3, but it may perform better due to the increased firepower, particularly in head-on engagements, at the cost of worsened flight performance.

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Who the hell is in charge of these BR changes?

You can’t tell me the people that are in charge of the game balancing play the game

Also, the Churchills and the Cromwells going up in BR after getting APHE is just amazing. I’m so glad that these no longer have proper line-ups after the BR increase. I would rather have them lose APHE than to go up in BR.

[Nostalgistic]

F6F-5N, F6F-5N (France)

• Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.0

Reasoning: This is a similar case regarding the BR placements of the F4F-3 and F4F-4 Wildcats. Compared to the standard F6F-5, the F6F-5N Hellcat has the same engine and similar performance. The primary differences are two 20 mm cannons in place of two .50-cal machine guns and the addition of airborne radar. Consequently, its flight performance is worse due to the increased weight and drag, significantly reducing the power-to-weight ratio.

I do not see how the increased firepower and the addition of airborne radar justify a full 1.0 BR increase over the standard F6F-5. At 4.3, the F6F-5N is often outclassed by other fighters at the same BR, particularly in climb rate and energy retention.

[Sandsmann]

A6M5 in 2028 (Slight down tier)

[Homieman2015]

i whole heartedly agree, especially since gaijin denied the experimental engines with more horse power despite the fact that the stat card is based on the expected performance WITH said experimental engines

[THE_STEELSHADOW]

super props outclimb you and cach you in a dive easily.

[Kievskiy_Minipig]

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

i dont know, the fact that their titles have stronger language than equivalent for the a6e?

Is this your proof? Really?

Also I think outranging any spaa including 11.3 ones while being 10.7 is wee bit unfair.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

oh so gbu39s ARE useful…

In arb/asb yes

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

a10c cant gain altitude to 5k meters in arb?

It can. The issue is that it takes a while plus you risk getting your bum beaten by fighters which get to center of map much faster. Single brit f4j can end your climb with 1 swift sparrow.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

and he says 0.7 while you say 0.3?

Wdym by that?

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

uh, it looks like the su-24m is 11.3 because of the kh29ts not the mitl munitions that use the same racks… compared to the j22 with them at 10.7.

You face same enemies thats the point.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

skippers very hard to shoot down lol?

Because they fly outside spaa radar fov.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

a single enemy plane comes, gg, oh right we’re talking where almost all games have no fighters intercepting cas aircraft, interesting.

A single f4j at 10.7 will shred your j22 to pieces.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

(after climbing for 5 minutes)

Overestimating

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

lmao, good on you if you have such an excess of free time willing to spend on war thunder.

I dont play it that often.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

yeah i agree, the kosova is overrated, grom b isn’t

Grom b is only 0.9 mach. It has faster tv missiles you can use for aa and las missiles with good quantity. Mix of those is best choice prob.

@TMUNLIMITEDLTD

oh my stand is: j22 at 11.0, a-6e at 10.7, too bad if you simply cant understand why

My stand is: both deserve to go up, j22 can go up to 11.3 after decompression (because of more toys to play with). Currently it has no business being among su25t, su24m, f4e, mig27k.

[Nostalgistic]

P-47D-25

• Air Realistic Battles: Keep at 4.3 as it is
• Increase the manifold pressure limit of the Republic P-47D-25 Thunderbolt from 56" Hg to 64" Hg, resulting in improved engine performance (Bug Report)

Reasoning: Currently, both the P-47D-22 (Razorback) Thunderbolt and P-47D-25 (Bubbletop) Thunderbolt have nearly identical engine performance, both operating at 56" Hg and producing around 2,300 bhp at War Emergency Power.

@Rockonanon33 submitted a bug report proposing an increase in manifold pressure for the P-47D-25 to 64" Hg, as implemented historically. At 64" Hg, the engine would produce approximately 2,535 bhp instead of 2,300 bhp.

However, the report was accepted and then closed as “Not a Bug.” Here’s BRM’s comment in the bug report, stating reasoning for the “Not a Bug” classification:

The developers have reviewed it in full. Currently, there is no error here. No changes are required at this time. Increasing the boost pressure to 64 inches of mercury will change the aircraft’s performance, requiring an increase in the aircraft’s battle rating in the game. So this modification is not planned for now.

For this reason, I propose increasing the P-47D-25’s manifold pressure from 56" to 64" Hg. As it stands, both the P-47D-22 and P-47D-25 have nearly identical engine and flight performance. The main advantage of the D-25 is a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio due to differences in the turbocharger, while the D-22 retains a slightly better flight model due to its lighter airframe.

I disagree with the reasoning that adjusting the manifold pressure would necessitate a BR increase, especially considering the P-47D-25 is already at 4.3, while the P-47D-22 sits at 3.7 and can be considered superior in some aspects.

Therefore, the P-47D-25 should receive the historical 64" Hg manifold pressure at WEP to better differentiate its performance from the D-22.

Additionally, the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt already uses a 70" boost in-game. Modeling all three variants (D-22, D-25, and D-28) with their respective boost settings (56", 64", and 70") would create a clearer and more logical performance progression within the Thunderbolt series.

[pvwatermelon]

Air realistic
F5T
Give it it’s missing missiles. I believe it was bug reported; it’s literally a further development of the FCU(squadron f5) yet loses 2 missiles in return for the helmet, like what

[德抑智高于BVVD]

Vehicle: Tornado IDS (WTD61)/Tornado IDS MFG/Tornado IDS ASSTA1/Tornado IDS SLE
Gamemode: Ground Realistic/Air Realistic
BR Change:nerf

Reason:
Restricted by the Tornado IDS’s airframe, radar suite, and severely limited ordnance loadout, its Battle Rating (BR) merits a downward adjustment.

In air-to-air (ATA) combat:

The Tornado IDS radar only supports SRC SEA and ACM modes, rendering radar-aided air combat virtually unworkable. Its sole air intercept armament consists of twin AIM-9L missiles; the incremental AIM-9L/I-1 provides negligible performance uplift, failing to sustain viable dogfighting capability and barely granting self-defense capacity.

For Close Air Support (CAS) sorties:

• WTD61 variant is limited solely to unguided free-fall ordnance;
• ASSTA1 loadout caps at laser-guided munitions only;
• SLE variant carries AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles (ARM) and fire-and-forget HOSBO rounds, yet suffers severe hardpoint compatibility conflicts that drastically restrict single-sortie ordnance capacity.

Beyond loadout constraints, the Tornado IDS airframe lacks the performance to execute rapid attack ingress following Nap-of-the-Earth (NOE) flight, nor can it complete fast egress post-strike.

Accordingly, the Tornado IDS is fundamentally misaligned with the current game meta and BR spread; an immediate BR nerf is imperative.

[KhorneFlakez1337]

@Stona_WT

We welcome your suggestions for adjusting aircraft BRs in Tank Realistic Battles!

Don’t reduce any BRs, only increase the BRs of problematic vehicles.
You are creating even more problems by compressing the BRs.

[pvwatermelon]

You go way faster being a jet, and it actually turns well for a jet. You don’t need to dive if you are faster or 2) don’t just go straight into the battle at the start, which is probably why people call the earliest jets like he162 trash. You have to be mindful of and stay far enough away from prop planes that are above and close enough to you that they can dive on you.

[Nostalgistic]

B-17E/L

• Air Realistic Battles: 5.0 → 4.7

Reasoning:

Compared to B-17E (Early), the B-17E (Late) is identical in nearly every aspect except for its different ball turret design and access to M20 Armor-piercing incendiary tracer bullet belts. As a result, the only notable change is a slight increase in weight, leading to somewhat worse flight performance.

With the B-17E (Early) at 4.7, there is NO reason to use the B-17E (Late) at 5.0, as there is no meaningful gameplay difference between the two variants.

[Manhattan_Cafę]

gen quastion
why is the 1a5 going to 9.0 with dm33 and thermals while of 40 with dm33 and no thermals stays at 9.3? thats abit silly
also italian 1a5 even has laser warning so like what the flip?
idk none of this makes sense to me
edit : i forgor 9.0 of 40 mk2 has laser so im fine with the a1a1 change by 1a5 nah uh

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Easy answer, the balancing team is genuinely stupid

[Nostalgistic]

B-24D-25-CO

• Air Realistic Battles: 5.7 → 5.0
• Give B-24D its missing additional bombs (Bug Report)

Reasoning: How this bomber is still at 5.7 while the B-17G Flying Fortress sits at 5.0, despite being objectively better than the B-24D Liberator, is unclear. Legacy BR, perhaps?

Objectively speaking, compared to the B-17G, the B-24D has worse engine performance, overall inferior flight characteristics, and a lower power-to-weight ratio. The B-17G features a nose turret that provides significantly better frontal protection, whereas the B-24D relies on nose guns with limited traverse, resulting in weaker forward defense. B-24D has a larger profile than the B-17G, making it an easy and massive target to shoot down with a volley of cannon fire.

The B-24D carries the same maximum payload of 8 x 1,000 lb or 4 x 2,000 lb bombs as the B-17G, meaning it does not offer a meaningful gameplay advantage. The B-24D is missing its 4,000 lb bombs as mentioned in the bug report.

The only notable advantages the B-24D has over the B-17G are a faster-opening bomb bay and the fact that all bombs are carried internally, reducing drag.

Overall, the B-24D is objectively inferior to the B-17G and can be considered either a worse side-grade to the B-17G or a slight improvement over the B-17E series. Therefore, a BR of 5.0 would be a more logical placement for the B-24D.