And now for changes that need to happen
(groups are vehicles that all need changed together to be balanced)
Top tier ground decompression
T20 to 6.0
reasoning
Doesn’t have the firepower or armour for 6.3. It’s decidedly worse than the T25 but better than the M4A3 76, 6.0 is perfect.
AMX-10P to 5.3
reasoning
relatively low RPM, it was perfect at 5.3. It’s no R3 and worse than the TPK.
AMX-13 DCA to 4.7
reasoning
It’s a good SPAA but not that good.
AML/Eland-90s to 7.3
reasoning
In no way equal to LRF Ikv 91. 7.3 was fine.
MiG-29SMT, G to 12.3
reasoning
Worse flight performance and missile loadout than Su-27, JAS-39, F-16C, even F-15.
Barak II to 12.3
reasoning
Heavier F-16C with weaker engine.
F-15s to 12.7
reasoning
Extremely fast, well-armed aircraft with good maneuverability.
F-104s except A/C, -.3BR
G (Italy) add 2x AIM-9J
reasoning
Completely lacking in maneuverability. They’re fast, but not extraordinarily so. They also have armaments unimpressive for the BR. The Italian G is bizarrely locked to 2x AIM-9J.
Panzer IV Gs to 3.7
Panzer IV Hs to 4.3
reasoning
The KwK 40 is a great gun, nearly on-par with the 76mm M1. The G has significantly better armour than the F2, though it’s still not great. The H is rather similar in armour, mobility, and firepower to the M4A1 (76) yet it’s 1.3 lower??? The J has a hand-cranked turret which makes it balanced at 3.7.
Jagdpanzer IV to 4.7
reasoning
Excellent armour, good mobility, good firepower. It’s certainly better than the Hetzer and at least equal to the M43 75/46.
Do 335B-2 to 5.0
reasoning
Not sure why this is 1.0/1.3 over its TT counterparts.
KV-1 ZiS-5 to 4 3
reasoning
Lacks the firepower to fight many 4.7s let alone 5.7s.
F-89B
Su-9
Su-11
All up by .3
reasoning
Exceptional engine performance provides excellent climb rate and speed on top of good manueverability and armament. The 89B is a direct upgrade over the D.
M36s up by .3
reasoning
90mm M3 is an excellent gun, far better than the 76mm M1. With similar armour and mobility to the M4 76s, the M36 and M36B1 deserve at least the same BR. The M36B2 with HEAT-FS is even better, being a close counterpart to the M-51. Especially after the mobility buff.
Tiger IIs except P
T34
Jagdtiger
Obj. 268
Tortoise
All to 7.0
Su-122-54 to 7.7
M103, Conq to 8.0
AMX-50 Foch to 7.7
reasoning
These vehicles all have exceptional armour and firepower without a huge lack of mobility. Most Tiger IIs are obviously significantly better than the P, the Jagdtiger is definitely better than the Ferdinand, the T34 has the best armour, mobility, and firepower of any 6.7 heavy, and the 268 is extremely well protected with good mobility. The Tortoise is iffy but seems like it would warrant moving along with the other super-heavies around the BR. Su-122-54 has HEAT-FS, APDS, a good reload, ~156mm LoS armour, rangefinder, good mobility, low profile, and 14.5mm MGs.
M103 and Conq have HEAT-FS and APDS+stabilizer as well as great armour and good mobility. They are both more similar to the T-10M than Maus or IS-4 IMO. They offer much more powerful cannons and much more protected turrets over the M48 and Caernarvon that share their hulls and BRs. The Foch offers >300mm LoS armour frontally (more than the T95!), great mobility, an exceptional 120mm cannon, a 15mm mg, and rangefinder. It doesn’t deserve to be the same BR as the IS-3, only .3 higher than the T95 (and Jagdtiger, 268, etc).
T-44-100 to 7.3
reasoning
Excellent firepower, mobility, and armour. More similar to the T-54s than 85mm T-44. Significantly better than Panther II or M46.
TO-55 to 8.3
reasoning
Twin-plane stabilized, well armoured MBT with good firepower at 8.0? It’s literally just a T-55. Less ammo, sure, but no one packs full anyways.
Magach 5 to 8.3
reasoning
M111 at 8.0. It’s just an M48A2 GA2 with ERA but at a lower BR, they should both be 8.3.
Type 87 RCV (P), Type 87 RCV, VBCI-2 MTC30 -.3
reasoning
These vehicles don’t have the firepower to compete with conventional IFVs or armoured cars and offer minimal mobility advantage. The VBC is excluded from this list as it is moderately well-protected for the BR and has advanced systems that make it more competitive.
All 17pndr/77mm equipped vehicles excluding Centurions, Archer up by .3
M4 FL-10 to 5.3
M4A4 SA50 to 5.3
ARL-44 to 5.7
reasoning
17pndr has exceptional penetration, on par with KwK42 and 90mm M3. Yet Fireflies are currently 1.0 lower than M4A3 (76)??? Centurions 1 and 2 are balanced at their higher BRs, and Archer is such a glass cannon it doesn’t matter much. SA50 is even more powerful, being closer in penetration to the KwK43 than 76mm M1! The ARL-44 has excellent armour, good mobility, and a decently fast-firing gun that can comfortably UFP Panthers.
Me 262A-1a to 6.7
reasoning
Just not a great aircraft. Slow, with poor acceleration and prohibitively low-velocity cannons. See here.
SU-100s to 6.3
reasoning
Firepower is extremely similar to Jagdpanther. While armour is slightly lower, the better mobility (especially reverse rate) and lower profile makes up for it.
T-72A/M1, ZTZ96 to 9.7
reasoning
Exceptional armour and firepower with good mobility. Shouldn’t be fighting T-55As and M60A1s.
PUMA to 9.7 or add working AHEAD
reasoning
IFV with only a cannon at the same BR as IFVs with tandem and top attack ATGMs. Mobility isn’t great, and armour doesn’t stand up to anything more than autocannon fire from other IFVs. I’d have it at 9.3 alongside the CV9030 but 9.7 like the CV9040 is acceptable.
OF-40 to 8.3
reasoning
It’s a slightly better armoured Leopard 1 with LRF. 8.3 or Leo 1 to 7.7.
Leo A1A1 to 8.7 or add DM33
TAM to 9.0
TAM 2IP to 9.3
reasoning
A1A1 has terrible armour, mediocre firepower, decent mobility, and poor gun handling for 9.0. Most significantly, it lacks a LRF, a feature found on essentially every other 9.0 MBT, including vehicles that is absolutely essential for a vehicle restricted to long range by low armour and gun handling. TAM is more mobile, with LRF, better gun handling, and its front engine provides better survivability. TAM 2IP adds more armour and DM33 to that.
ZBD86 to 8.3
reasoning
This BMP variant quietly has 800mm pen tandem ATGM at the same BR as the rest of the family.
All 20pndr equipped vehicles excluding Cent Mk 3, Strv 81, and Caernavorn +.3
reasoning
20pndr has better flat pen than the L7 and a slightly faster fire rate, but lower sloped pen. The Cent Mk 3 and its Swedish copy and the Caernarvon are fine and balanced, but every other Cent is a direct and significant upgrade in armour and/or mobility over the Mk 3. The 4202 is slightly more mobile than the Mk 3 with only slightly worse armour. The Charioteer offers MBT-level firepower with great mobility and non-terrible survivability, yet it’s a disproportionately lower BR than light tanks like the leKPz 41 or C13 T90.
JPz 4-5 to 7.0
reasoning
MUCH more mobile than the ASU-85 and better protected than the M56. It’s a Ru-251 without the turret. Quite uncharacteristic for a TT vehicle to be undertiered compared to a premium.
2S6 to 11.0
Spoiler
Excellent missiles and 4x 30mm guns.
Strv-103A, Strv 103-0 to 8.7
Strv-103C to 9.0
reasoning
Long gone are the days these were uncontrollable wiggle-wobblers. Now they aim as easily as a normal tank. With LRF, 4 second autoloader, armour that shatters or deflects almost anything, and excellent ammunition these vehicles are extremely broken on anything but urban maps.
Finally, BR changes with minor model changes I’d like to see
Sherman II remove APCR, to 3.3
reasoning
It’s an M4A1 at a higher BR because of a shell that’s essentially useless. Move it down, and then add something like the Sherman V to fill that niche.
XM-1s add M774, to 9.7
reasoning
Extremely mobile tanks with thermals and LRF, very strong for 9.3. However, lacking firepower for 9.7. M774 is realistic and would address those issues. Yes, I have both XM-1s and the Chrysler is not significantly less protected than the GM.
MiG-23MLD add R-73, to 11.7
reasoning
ML and MLA are some of the strongest 11.3s, and the MLD is a direct upgrade with better maneuverability and RWR. However, it would struggle at 11.7 with R-60Ms. Allowing the historically accurate carriage of 2x R-73 instead of 4x R-60M would make a very well rounded and well-balanced 11.7 fighter, differentiating the MLD from the ML and making it no longer just a better MLA at the same BR.
T-54 (1949) remove 3BM-8, to 7.7
reasoning
Poor mobility and gun handling. Removing the 1967 3BM-8 and lowering the BR would make a more well-rounded vehicle, flesh out the 7.7 lineup, and be more historically accurate. See here.
Leopard 40/70 add HE-VT, to 7.7
Spoiler
Would allow the 40/70 to be more of an actual SPAA instead of a tank destroyer while providing Italy with longer-range air defense.
MiG-21S add option to replace gun with SPS-141, R-13M, to 10.0
MiG-21SPS-K add APU-60-2, to 10.0
MiG-21PFM add APU-13-2, R-13M, to 9.7
MiG-19PT add R-13M, to 9.7
R-13M for all other R-3S carriers except MiG-21F-13 and MiG-17AS, additionally J35XS
reasoning
21S is an extremely capable airframe with R-3Rs that are exceptional in head-ons and dominate a BR without RWR or frequent countermeasures. It’s handicapped by poor IR missiles and no countermeasures itself. R-13Ms and SPS-141 make a more balanced, capable, and well-rounded vehicle.
SPS-K is similar, though with a bit worse engine. APU-60-2 is apparently historical, and would make for a similarly powerful vehicle with great missile options.
PFM is a significant upgrade over the F-13, though would struggle at 9.7 with only 2x R-3S. Giving it historical capability of 4x R-3S or 2x R-13M would make for a more balanced and well-rounded vehicle.
MiG-19S is a good 9.3, and the PT is a direct upgrade. However, as above, it’d struggle with 2x R-3S at 9.7. R-13M would make a more well-rounded and balanced vehicle.
R-13M was produced in far, far larger numbers than the M1 and unlike its brother was actually exported. It should be in-game and might make a good stock missile for the 21bis. With vehicles except those already discussed, it’d obviously not be the top missile and wouldn’t affect BR.
F-4F add AIM-9L, AGM-65D/G, to 11.0
reasoning
Historical armaments. With decompression the argument of avoiding uptiers to top tier by nerfing armament is no longer valid. See here.
F-111A add AIM-9E, AIM-9J, M117R, to 10.7
reasoning
F-111A is an exceptional bomber hamstringed by a lack of A2A capabilities. 9E/J is historical and would make a more well-rounded and balanced vehicle. See here.
Leo 2A4s add DM33, to 10.7
M1 add M833, to 10.7
T-72B (1989) to 10.3
TURMS-T to 10.3
T-80B add 3BM46, to 10.7
T-80UD add 3BM46, to 10.7
ZTZ-96A, 96A (P) to 10.3
Vickers Mk 7 add gen 2 thermals, to 10.7
reasoning
Decompression 9.3-10.3. 10.3s would generally struggle in uptiers against 11.3 and 11.7, espeically in terms of firepower, so each has received a buff. 2A4s and M1 are missing their primary historical round. Vickers is missing its gen 2 sights. This one might need a bit more buff, perhaps in reload rate. B '89 and TURMS are direct upgrades over the standard T-72B, as are the ZTZ-96As, introducing thermals, better ERA, and/or better ammunition.
120S to 10.3
Obj. 292 to 10.7
reasoning
These two vehicles have insane firepower for their BR, along with decent mobility and great armour, especially on the 292. Sure, they can’t brawl or flank as well as many other MBTs, but they’re incredible snipers unbeatable in a hull-down that should be used accordingly.
2S25M to 10.3
reasoning
3BM60 is an incredible round
F-5C remove countermeasures, to 10.0
reasoning
Countermeasures are fictional. Removing them would allow a lower BR where AIM-9E would be more effective while making the vehicle more realistic.
M1 KVT
reasoning
Just make it the right tank ffs
MiG-17 replace with MiG-17F
reasoning
The Soviet MiG-17 is just straight worse than the Lim-5P and MiG-17PF at the same BR because of its non-afterburning engine. Remodeling it as the MiG-17F with the VK-1F would fix this.
MiG-29, MiG-29A add R-73/E, remove R-27ER/ER1
Yak-141 add R-73, to 12.3
reasoning
R-27ER dominates BVR at the moment. Especially when the MiG-29s fight aircraft without PD radars or all-aspect missiles that allow them to fight at low altitude this is a problem. Swapping R-27ER capability for R-73 would not make a huge difference in overall performance but would help 11.0s and 11.3s greatly. With the R-73 entering service several years before the ER and Germany never using ERs, these aircraft would also be more accurate. See here.
Yak-141 was historically designed for R-73s and should receive them, with the appropriate BR increase.
