the bagel is fine at 9.3 with its current loadout.
if it were to get air tracking and apfsds then it should be moved to 10.0
All of the guns that can reliably pen the Kv-1E/B are found on weak TDs or mediums, all of which the Kv can easily kill.
They’re disgustingly OP at 4.0, and they need 4.3. They just have too much armour for that BR.
1 Like
Do you mean 12.3? because they already are 12.0
Ground RB, T18E2. 3.0 > 4.0. All low tier event light tanks have been moved up except this one. The T18E2 is a wheeled tank with good protection and a APHE shell that pens 122mm and also has 41,16g TNT in it. It has an reload of 4 seconds. It is crazy undertiered.
Comparisons
M4A5 Ram II (3.7)
Both tanks have a similar gun, but somehow the T18E2 has the same amount of penetration with its APHE compared to the AP of the M4A5. This alone makes the T18E2 so much superior.
Sd.Kfz. 234/2 (3.7)
The Puma is faster but pays for that with having much weaker armor. But the T18E2 has also more penetration and HE filler.
The characteristics of the T18E2 make it a good 4.0 vehicle. It is able to penetrate every tank from the front and has great one shot capabilities. 4.0 should be the absolute minimum for this monster.
2 Likes
Vehicle: XM8 (M8 AGS)
Br: GRB 9.7->10.3
Rank VI → VII
Addition of M900 APFSDS
Rationale:
The XM8 as it currently exists in-game is representative of the M8 Buford AGS fully adopted by the US Army. In service it would have only used the M900 round, which is already present on other vehicles in its BR range. It is nonsensical that the CCVL prototype is both higher rank and has better ammunition than the production vehicle. This would also allow for the correction of the vehicle with its ammunition blowout system which is a direct improvement over the CCVL.
Relevant bug report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/K1GqtCEt23FE
2 Likes
Yup, editing my comment
1 Like
No, because the 4030 was a late 70s Prototype.
L23/L23A1 didn’t enter service until the LATE 1980s. So there was no overlap.
Even in the Original Shir 2 Documentation, there is no mention of it ever being Intended to use a APFSDS round, Only L15A5.
ARB, Fw 189 2.3 → 1.3/1.0
This aircraft has just 2x7,92mm with 1000 rounds at 2.3. That is crazy and it can only be explained by it being played only by at most experienced players. Its real performance is that of a 1.0 aircraft or even worse.
It is a recon plane. In War Thunder it’s designated as a bomber but it can only carry 4x50kg bombs.
You are forced to play this “bomber” as a fighter. So why don’t you just make it a fighter to remove the airspawn and put it at 1,0. This way it has at least a acceptable armament. While it is maneuverable for a twin engine, it paid the price for that by minimal armament and ammo. Reserve plane fighters will still be superior. Its flight performance and speed is average for 1.0.
1 Like
Air RB, Ju 388 J. 4.3 > 3.0
This is an event vehicle and was never popular, so after one BR change from 4.7 to 4.3, this aircraft was forgotten. This aircraft needs a drastic reduction in its BR because the BR at which it was introduced was extremely overrated. In short, it is a slightly better Ju 88 C-6, which is at 2.3.
detailed reason (very important for everyone who has never played this aircraft):
It’s a slow and heavy aircraft with average weapons for its size and low ammo capacity, even compared to light aircraft. The Ju 88 C-6 (2.3) is very similar and suffers from the same issues. Both have downward-angled guns and their rudder is bad for vertical aiming. Just a little maneuvering by the enemy makes it impossible for you to hit them. Compared to the Ju 88 C-6, the Ju 388 J has more engine power and more powerful guns. But the drawbacks are too substantial and are cumulating in a very negative way:
examples
- Downward-angled guns + low-velocity 30 mm
Two bad factors that make each other even worse. - Downward-angled guns + weak rudder
It is already harder to aim horizontally. Most players will not engage in a head-on with the Junkers, so you have to try to hit them while they are evading (vertical aiming). Because your rudder is too weak to make quick adjustments, you have to roll your aircraft. Now imagine trying to aim a downward-angled gun while rolling. Hitting an aircraft becomes almost impossible. - Low and rare chances of hitting an aircraft + low ammo per gun
Two conflicting limitations: You have to take every small chance of landing a hit, but you can’t spare the ammo for it.
All that comes on top of the low speed, climbrate, turnrate and rollrate.
All the peculiar limitations of these aircraft and their role in the game as bomber-hunters that can’t hunt bombers due to a way too low airspawn and horrible climb rate still apply. Even with an airspawn, fighters that take off from the airfield will reach bomber height twice as fast! So you are forced to fight the fighters, which can always easily avoid you. Overall, the improvements of the Ju 388 J over the Ju 88 C-6 are small and don’t affect the aircraft’s performance by much.
PS: Don’t get fooled by the stat card of the Ju 388 J:
- Two of four 20mm cannons with 400 rounds are “Schräge Musik” (in WT, dead weight).
- 612 km/h at 10,600m!!! - the game doesn’t even last long enough to reach that altitude. At lower altitudes, your speed is very similar to that of the Do 217 N or Ju 88 C-6.
Please don’t ignore this post and don’t forget about the existence of these aircraft.
4 Likes
A protection analysis test shows me that you gotta pixel hunt the machine gun port with any 3.0 tank against an angled 1B/E. That’s paired with the gamble that volumetric doesn’t eat your shot which happens pretty often. I say that from experience using it too lol
Ground RB, Ozelot. 9.7 > 9.3. Two issues would be fixed:
- The ZSU-23-4M4 and PGZ04A are both at 9.3 and not only have IRCCM missiles but also proper radar and guns. The SANTAL is also at 9.3 with 12 missiles and much better ones. Therefore, the Ozelot should at least have the same BR, but not a higher one.
- With the BR decompression from the last BR changes, 9.3 becomes a playable BR, but the best AA for a German lineup would be the Gepard (8.3), which is underwhelming at 9.3.
P.S.
If you think the Ozelot is too good for 9.3 then ALL missile-AA vehicles should be raised at least to 9.7.
Even the Type 93 has a significant advantage over the Ozelot with its contrast mode which makes it possible to attack helicopters before they have killed your whole team. Non-contrast-mode AA can only lock helicopters at about 2,4km while the helicopters around that BR have 3,75-4km range. Even AA guns have a longer effective range (IF YOU WOULD HAVE GUNS).
No? There are plenty of tanks that can pen both, I’ve gone over this before,
Go check out the whole list
Would it be a worse offender than the 12.3 MiG 21 Bison with its R-73, R-21R and R-21T1 loadout?
i get that compression is a huge issue, but keep in mind that the flight model is still nerfed heavily, and at 12.7 it meets some real monsters in uptiers that just hopelessly outperform it.
I would prefer an FM un-nerf, historical loadout, and 12.7, but that’s more of a suggestion than a br change request.
1 Like
I’m fairly sure I already did in that thread, just move the ARL-44 up too if you think it’s so good.
There is just zero justification for the Kv-1E/B to be 4.0. They have incredibly good armour, acceptable mobility/gun handling, and weak gun, with incredibly good one shot potential. Ffs a sherman can’t even pen the sides of them in some parts unless its flat on, and Sherman’s are excellent tanks. That’s also ignoring the fact that angling makes you nearly invulnerable to anything but a TD with a powerful gun.
Look at my stats in the E, and you’ll see that it has a 90% winrate, and 4:1+ KD. Nothing else I own even comes close, and anything that does is another notorious seal clubbing vehicle.
1 Like
Yeah, confirmation here, the first 4030/3, AKA the Shir 2, that was built was in 1977, the program was canned in 1979, 6 years before L23 entered service in 1985.
MiG-29 flight model is almost perfectly accurate to the manual.
Yes. It has much better flight performance and a better loadout. It is objectively better than the Bison with the config you suggested, and it’s BR should reflect that.
1 Like
A R-72R1+R-73 MiG-29A should be fine at 12.7, and tbf, id felt the 9.13 and DDR 9.12A should be the same
1 Like
- The B is better since it doesn’t face German guns.
- The ARL is lower br and arguably better.
- If it were to go up in br, it would need a better shell. It already can see Vk-30s and can’t do anything to them frontally
What is an R72?