Yeah it’s frankly pretty ridiculous. They introduce a new attacker at a viable BR range, then nerf it just when everyone’s had enough time to grind it…
HE IS THE MESSIAh!
Batchat must be at 6.7
1 Like
It is Gaijin, what do you thought
1 Like
Uh oh someone hasn’t flown yhe AJS thats 4 9ls if you dont take any counter measures. Also the mirage IIIC going to 10.0 and the AJ 37 staying 10.3 is ridiculous when comparing their air to air abilities and flight performance. Also no guns for the AJS if you take the other 2 9L’s, same 2 pylons are shared between gunpods, countermeasure pods, and 9L’s
How the amx 30 dca can be 8.7 ??
7 Likes
VIFFing is largely useless in my experience, to me its an extra stage to flaps, in my around 1200 games in differnent harriers ive never noticed any real improvement in turn from VIFFing if anything it just slows you down and makes overshoots easier, honestly would be good if they made rear aspect missiles lose lock when VIFFing, at the moment VIFFing makes even the AIM-9B all aspect
the SRAAM is extremely pontent if fired in range, (i have a clip where it pulled a 180 turn off the rail and killed an Su-25 in the Hunter F.6), the lack of countermeasures is a big hit but the SRAAM is a perfect flare in a headon and you can outrun anything that has all aspects at the BRs you see and flying into the sun nullifes practially any AAM launch and with the Harrier P/W and accleration its not too difficult to accelerate toward the sun
Jagdpanzer IV: 4.3 to 4.7.
It’s the best casemate tank destroyer in the game 2nd to none for the BR it currently is.
1 Like
WHY GAIJIN WHY Prinz Eugen and Hipper back to 5.7???
you kill the 4.7 BR.
3 Likes
Yeah, that was an IRL tactic, but missiles lock onto the engine and not exhaust, that is why the F-5C is far colder than the Harrier. Even when on full reheat.
So many balance issues could be fixed if they modeled IR signatures realistically
Yeah thats true i forgot about CM pods and guns. Same as you forgot about CM pods which mirage doesnt have but AJ37 do
Rating change
Gaijin
Earth to Garbage bin
1 Like
- 2 AIM-9Js
ive just realised that the Sea Harrier FRS.1 is also at 10.7, Doubt they care much about the British tree, find any aircraft at any BR and there is something superior (minus the Gripen)
But they F-16A for China doesn’t have the HMDS in this game ,and its engine output is minimal among F-16 in game
The BMP-1, currently stationed at a Battle Rating of 7.7 in War Thunder, is appropriately positioned within the game’s ecosystem. Moving it up to 8.0 BR would disrupt the balance of gameplay, as its capabilities align more closely with vehicles at the 7.7 level. With its combination of no armor, good armament, and mobility, the BMP-1 thrives in engagements against opponents within its current range. Elevating its Battle Rating would subject it to adversaries with significantly greater firepower and armor, and also stabilizers and lazer rangefinders potentially rendering it less effective and diminishing its role on the battlefield. Therefore, it’s prudent for the BMP-1 to remain at its current Battle Rating of 7.7 in order to preserve the integrity of gameplay.
2 Likes
Then you’re simply wrong, or at least, using the Fireflies wrong.
Stay at range, and your small weak spots will be much, much harder to hit. Alternatively, simply fire first. You can centre-mass penetrate 90% of the vehicles you face from any range, while they will need to carefully aim for two very small areas. The Firefly, if used even half-decently, is capable of dominating 4.7, 5.0, or even 5.3 battles.
shocker 2S38 is ignored again… when are you gunna stop smoking that copium on your money machine and put this up to 11.0, its LITERALLY a better HSTVL but as per usual “huh duh stats”
2 Likes
very, very angry swedish noises
Ah yes because better missiles, internal gun and flight performance definitely and no countermeasures warrants it going to 10.0 oh wait the 10.3 J35D is in the same boat. Also i knew what the C was missing because the E directly improves that while also staying at 10.3 shocker
M60A3 TTS (China)
This vehicle has a DIRECT counterpart in the US tree, even sporting the same name and BR (9.0). The issue lays in the Chinese version being objectively worse! It doesn’t have M774 as its top ammunition, being forced to use the nerfed M735 resulting in 25% worse overall penetration - this makes a very big difference, especially since 9.0 often gets pulled into 10.0 games. Another issue, though not as critical, the US version also is outfitted with ERA protection, which the chinese version also doesn’t get. Please add the M774 to it and consider putting the ERA as an add-on armor modification.
ISU-122 5.3 → 5.0
The KV-122 is the same chassis, same gun, same armor and also the same BR, but gets a fully traversible turret over the ISU. The difference in utility between a vehicle with a forward-locked gun and one that can just peek at 45 degrees, fire a shot and use the amazing reverse to be behind cover before the first even gets its gun on target, is massive and cannot be overstated.
M113A1 (TOW), China, Italy, Israel 8.3 → 8.0
Currently these vehicles, which are merely a missile tube on a simple tracked platform, are the same BR as fully fledged IFVs like the Bradley and Warrior. Let me list what these two have above the post’s subjects: proper APDS firing autocannon, better moblity (both forwards and in reverse), better armor (do not die to .5 cals and they are not overpressured by artillery landing a few meters away), gen 1 (or even 3!) thermals, stabilisers or very fast aiming speeds, fully traversible turrets (M113A1’s have a limited firing arc).
What do M113’s have in comparison? 200mm more penetration on their missiles against the Bradley or better depression against the Warrior (which actually has BETTER missiles!). This performance gap is just unnecessarily large.
For even closer comparison consider the M901 (USA), the same chassis, but, again, a fully traversible turret, being able to fire two shots in succession, thermals and even better depression! The M113A1’s only have a lower profile over it!
Tiger II P, M26, IS-2 (1944) 6.7 → 6.3
Tiger II P and M26 are in a very weird spot currently, with direct upgrades (Tiger II) or extreme capability differences at the cost of HP/t (M26) sitting at the same BR. Why would I play the M26 when I can play one that’s invulnerable to long 88, or one that massively improves both the turret and cannon? Why would I weaken my turret face to below 120mm from 160mm+ for zero benefit?
The plight of the IS-2 is slightly harder to see, but compared to its other heavy tank contemporaries it’s clear to see that it comes out the worst. Having TRIPLE the reload time of a Tiger II and 1/3rd the depression of the US ones. It’s turret is only better than the II P, and can be penetrated by guns 2 BRs below it! And even if not, the towering cupola will take care of telling the enemy where to shoot. The only thing this tank offers is overpressure, but why bother when others will have better positions, will hit your weakspots first and will have triple the chances even if they miss?
14 Likes