Exactly my point… why isn’t it going up? It suffers at the hands of all aspect IR missiles, why should everyone else go down in BR and not the Hunter? I mean I’d rather everything that’s ruining that BR go up instead, but if we’re gonna move everything down… why not the Hunter?
Oh I forgot that one. Then again, I generally only appear in matches above 4.0. Because British DDs.
Or just make its ammo configuration actually accurate. That being seperate 3 round drum + ready rack of APFSDS for that drum + arbitrary ammo storage.
A lot of vehicles would benefit from a readyrack/ammoconfig/loadingconfig rework
Yes.
Agreed. CL-13 Mk.6 and F-40 can go to 9.0, but all other Sabres & MiG-15/17s should stay at 8.3-9.0!
Sherman VC has 11.45 to 12.04 horsepower/ton depending on if you take the add on armor or not.
M4A3 (76) has 15.20 to 15.50 in the same conditions.
M4A3 (76) takes 11 seconds to reach 40 km/h in a straight line on a good road, which is faster than the T-34-85.
Their top speeds are similar, but the M4A3 (76) beats the Firefly out of the park in acceleration, which generally matters far more than pure top speed.
Sherman VC has a ready rack, M4A3 does not, hence I said “overall reload”. Once the Firefly fires just 5 rounds, you get a nearly 9 second reload (1.5 reload multiplier for the Firefly). Edit: and that’s 8.8 seconds aced.
Never said it did. It’s the combination of improvements that makes it that difference.
Again, the combined improvements add to the BR difference, it’s not just the one thing.
And just because the Russians have bad gun depression does not mean it isn’t a disadvantage. It still very much is and noticeably limits the capabilities of said Russian tanks and the Fireflies.
All of which the 76 mm can also deal with.
This is not relevant. Besides it’s not like the Fireflies are invincible in a downtier because they all use either early small hatch hulls or composite hulls which have noticeable weakspots that even a 3.3 medium tank can kill them through.
Naval & Attacker/Bomber Arcade suggestions…
Bristol Brigand - 3.7>3.3 - the removal of the combat flaps made the brick even more of a brick. It’s also a bomber than comes out the box with no bombs which makes absolutely no sense and the initial grind insufferable.
HMS Mohawk - 4.7>4.3 - It’s lineup got lowered to 4.3 a while ago leaving Mohawk behind. It should sit alongside its class mate HMS Eskimo which swaps the 4th main turret for secondaries.At 4.7 it just can’t compete with the Battles and Daring alternatives let alone the US DDs.
The majority of the Italian Bluewater DDs (ie not the post war ones with US guns) - compared to their competitors most have slower firing guns and lost out when the Fragmentation changes arrived as their fewer but hard hitting shells counted for less.
Russian 4.3 - remains easily the strongest lineup with SKRs, 206s, Bez & Smelyi, Pe-8
Even the secondary vehicles like the Soob, MPKs, Pe-2(l) could make a good lineup on their own. Half of me wants them to remain where they are but tbh it’s difficult to avoid the fact they the SKR-7/Pe-8 combo in particular needs to get split with either one or both going up.
Z46/47 - decent hulls, decent guns, good secondaries but still dubious at 4.7 with nose fused HE and HE-TF only, as well as only 720 rounds total (vs US Gearing class at 720 rounds per turret including SAP and and VT!). Definitely case for lowering them, or alternatively at least use the ‘for balancing’ argument and give them base fused HE for a small penetration buff. Yes it’s non-historical but wouldn’t be the first time.
Japanese coastal - another tweak to the K’s, but the rest of the small PT and river boats are totally outclassed and need a major revision.
Fairey Firebrand - return Tier II>III - moving it down made it pointless to play and derives the British of a semi-decent torpedo bomber for tasks/challenges. The Mosquito and Firefly at 3.7 remained TIII so why was it changed in the first place?
Italian SM-91 3.7>3.3, multiple cannons but poor performance makes grinding for the mediocre load of 4x100kgs frustrating. It’s simply not very good at any particular role and would be better placed at the lower BR to give it a chance.
SM-92 4.0>3.7 - much like the 91 it’s a painful route to get bombs which is when it finally manages to be occasionally useful as these are at least a max of 2x 500kg… Still not great though as overall performance is so-so probably due to being weighed down by the useless 2nd crew member and meme worthy rear MG. If they aren’t going to move then please hurry up with the Hungarian Me210Ca so I can hanger both the 92 and 91 permanently.
AMX-30 Roland is not identical to the other two, it is limited to 35 degrees of elevation. You can very easily deny an AMX-30 Roland any shots on you with a small amount of climbing.
Gaijin really out here telling me that the MiG-15Bis and F-86F-30/35s are equal to performance to the F9F-8, F84F and Swift F.1
Lol, lmao
F-15 are still 12.3 lmao.
I guess we should thanks american main for driving the stats of one of the best top tier aircraft to the ground, preventing it to reach 12.7.
And now gaijin destroys middle ranks even more…
Imense skill issue, learn to aim
or just remove the SRAAM all together (yes its unique but it was only a prototype missile) and have them permanently lower, in any case the Hunter F.6 stands little chance agaist the Ariete bar hte SRAAMs, and the Harrier GR.1 is playable if barely, especcially after the takeoff flaps cannot be extended at high speed giving it an acceptable turn anymore
Wyvern was 5.0/4.7 some years ago, it was an easy target for the fighter opponents P-51 or Bf-109 which were mostly the same as nowadays 5.7-4.7.
Wyvern’s turn is very bad, can be out-turn by most single-engines and some twin-engines. And Wyvern lose energy rapidly during maneuvers, the energy advantage is usually lost before the second B&Z . Avoiding Wyvern’s headon and doing some defensive fly are actually much easier than doing dogfight with the decent fighters like Yak-3, P-51, Bf-109.
If the rookie pilots don’t know avoiding headon with 4x20mm, Firebrand or Firefly are also deadly.
Suggested changes:
Air:
Ground:
Naval:
The 17pndr and 77mm are exceptional weapons, I don’t know what your problem with them are.
I specifically compared the firefly as it’s the most prevalent 17 pounders vehicle and the one with the most 1:1 comparison.
Vehicles such as the avenger also deserve to go up, but I don’t want to overwhelm anyone with excessive writing.
On the 77mm, it’s on the Comet, which sure has a bit lower penetration than the Challenger at the same BR but also dramatically improved armour and a bit better mobility.
Then there’s the Concept 3, which is all the way at 4.3.
The 76mm M1 is roughly comparable to the 17pndr, though I’d argue that the 17pndr is generally more effective with its dramatically higher penetration. The KwK42 is found at much higher BRs than the 17 pounder, as is the 90mm ME except on the M36s which I’m sure you saw I believe are undertiered.
Too many people will look for any reason to bring or keep a vehicle at the lowest BR possible, and then they wonder why there’s compression…
please look at the KA-50 again and rethink if its fair, fun or smart to keep it at 11.0. I suggest raising it’s BR to 11.3 I think it’s a no brainer that it shouldnt fight at BRs with only one more or less effective SAM which is the french Roland.
No?
Yeah the M4A3s mobility makes a huge difference. Whenever I played the M4A2 in an uptier I struggled way harder then a M4A3, simply because I couldn’t get into positions fast enough.
The M4A2 mobility is the same or worse then other tanks (medium/heavy) at the BR but having better mobility then the enemy makes a big difference in survivability and getting kills.
Gaijin… for the love of God please… you FORGOT the Shenyang F5 at 9.3 again. PLEASE its not supersonic and it has the worst missiles at that BR.