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
Agree with many light tanks going up. They had way too potent guns for their tier in combination with their strong mobility.
Anyway, please move the ferdinand to 6.3
Yes, that would put it in a bad situation. F-16A MLU isn’t that good of an airframe in 12.7. But I’d rather see the plane with strong weapons at top tier, than having to fight the most agile 12.0-12.3 airframe with IRCCM missile when I’m in a Mig23 of F4.
9M are simply too strong. F-15 is already ridiculous enough at 12.3.
2 Likes
Good proposal, M113 is horrible platform and missiles are also pretty bad
2 Likes
I don’t agree with the strv 103s being touched. You just shoot the engine with a HEAT round and they can’t move at all. It is just a tank that separates the people who know how to play tanks from the people who don’t.
2 Likes
Yep, then you have the 30 stock flares /30 last flares (when you have 90) on the buccaneer S.2B being utterly useless and can only flare standard R-60s Reliably and any Sidewinder that isnt a B is almost impossible to flare
Ive heard of that, but i didn’t want to say anything on it cause ive never researched it and the last time I regurgitated something without research i got harrased for a week, (not to mention its probabally pointless IRl anyway, when harriers ever saw combat they had flares, easier to pop a few flares than pull a lever, and pray while losing airspeed)
Not to mention the F-5C could probabally be 10.7 and do just fine and the F-5E could go to 11.0 again without issue hell maybe hthy can even give it a 9L who knows
then theres the fact the F-5C has no flares IRL and gaijin just gave it to them because 'The F-5C is an F-5A airframe and they recived countermeasures, then where is Hunter F.6 flares and Harrier Gr.1 flares, or F-104J flares
5 Likes
If F-15s can go 12.7,F-16 mlu go 12.7 with AIM9M and more advanced means of ground strike is OK
2 Likes
Why do you want to remove OTOMATIC APFSDS? You are a crazy person. OTOMATIC need to be lowered a bit and your beloved 2S38 need to go up. Full stop.
9 Likes
You responded to the wrong person as my beloved tank is Type 10.
I said move 2S38 up to 10.3 where it belongs.
OTOMATIC needs to have its DM23 equivalent round removed for it to be lowered.
2 Likes
Well you literally played HSTVL for 8 matches, killed 11 tanks, and died 6 times… I wouldn’t exactly say those numbers are “statistic ready”.
Regardless, you’re a good player, probably will do good in anything. I have also almost a 2.0K/D with Ariete AMV and that doesn’t mean it’s equal to a Leopard 2A7 at 11.7.
1 Like
Absolutely agree on that.
1 Like