Ground RB
M1A1 HC: 11.7 → 12.0
This vehicle (and it’s premium brother) has all features that a 12.0 MBT has. It has pretty good turret armor, paired with a 5s reload speed and M829A2. When compared to some 12.0 vehicles like most CR2s, Arietes and Merkavas, it only lacks in quality of it’s thermals.
It’s best counterpart would be 2A5 and that thing is comfortably sitting at 12.0 for months.
ARL better pen at low angles & better frontal armor, but the high angle performance of the rounds are suprisingly similar and kv-1e armor is much superior to the ARL’s if both tanks are angled correctly.
you cant angle the arl almost at all, its 50mm side armor.
tldr: kv-1e is much better in a good players hands than the ARL. noobs who dont angle and dont know weakspots may have differing opinions.
Ground RB
Centauro I 120: 11.7 → 11.3
This vehicle in it’s current state is simply not good enough for 11.7 as it offers nothing unique from Italy’s MBTs. It has awful HP/t, optics are mid and gun depression/handling isn’t great either. It’s easily beaten by CV 90120 which sits at the same BR.
Ground RB
IS-2 (1944): 6.7 → 6.3
This vehicle has no business being at the same BR as Tiger II (H).
Yes, it has a good round but godawful reload speed, gun handling and gun depression more than make up for it. It also has worse armor than the aforementioned Tiger.
as your reason,Mirage 3C,Mirage 5f,Super Etendard,Shahak,F-105D,Juguar,Su-17etc.both worthless
i actually think it should go up. type 81 should not be 1.3 br higher than the strela.
2s6 and pantsir should also go up.
said 4 are the only scary antiairs at 9.3-12.0. pantsir should have its own special br at 12.3 for obvious reasons
2S6 is far cry from being scary.
Have any of you actually played your own game? Or are you just using AI to complete this project? Why are T55AMD and T62M1 in RB9.0? Why is the AMX40 the same as the Leopard 2K in RB10.0? Why not stretch the compartment and weaken a vehicle? In the case of the same RB, there will be two cars that are more or less the same, but the performance gap is huge, is it not your problem?😂
I think this adjustment is a complete mistake, and we should continue to stretch the overall room allocation. In order to balance the game and create vehicles that are unique in a particular room, rather than trying to weaken certain vehicles with stats.
“Ah yes, let’s once again punish French and British players because they are experienced players playing niche nations.”
AMX-13, AMX-M4 and especially AMX-40 should NOT go any higer than where they are, EVER. AMX-40 has no survivability, no special ammo, it’s 20mm although useful on paper is actually useless in practice because it can’t penetrate anything despite the stats. The only thing that tank has is mobility and it already doesn’t even matter in a full uptier which it always goes to. Plus it will have no line up now and will be entirely useless just like the 2A4 in French tree.
Let’s not forget about FV4030/3? This is again a tank with only a single thing going for it which is turret armour. It’s extremely slow, cannot be used on flat maps because it will die to even 30mm cannons thanks to that lower plate, cannot brawl because upper plate is also not good. The maps are already bad for British tanks and now this.
And finally Wyvern which used to be 3,7 and now going to 4,7. This is an attacker plane which can either carry 3 bombs or 1 bomb with 2 rockets and that’s literally it. It doesn’t have any crazy cannons nor agility like Yak9k which has been destroying entire teams on it’s own even though it’s a fighter. Do you see any changes on that plane? Nope it’s still sitting at 4,0 being the best CAS plane at least until we reach Alpha Jet levels.
With how senseless these changes are there is nothing you can say that would make me believe these are not deliberate hate nerfs.
9.3 t72a/m1 are undertiered and should go up to 9.7 for now.
turms-t is fine where it is, but its funny how much its being overshadowed by the t-80ud being broken at 10.3.
Trust me, they don’t. The only an A-10 is a easy target is if they aren’t paying attention at all.
T55amd and am1 should not be moved to 9.0, I will uninstall this game soo fast. I’m sick and tired of ussr being nerfed bc whining clowns.
The am-1 absolutely deserves to go up and has for a long time now.
No it doesn’t
The Panzer IV family with the long 7,5cm guns needs to be rebalanced, ever since they were dropped to their present BRs years ago. They should be changed as follows:
Ausf. F2
3.3 → 3.7
Ausf. G
3.3 → 4.0
Ausf. G (Italy)
3.7 → 4.0
Ausf. H
3.7 → 4.3
Ausf. J
3.7 → 4.0
Ausf. J (Bfw.)
3.7 → 4.0
The Panzer IV (lang) family is largely perceived as reliant on firepower, or otherwise as “glass cannons”. While it is true that they have strong firepower (some of the best on medium tanks of the early ranks), the Panzer IVs are not as weak as some might think, especially the later variants. All Panzer IVs with the long guns are able to install add-on track armor, which can make the tanks frontally resistant to most of the common guns up to 4.3 in live combat conditions, such as the F-34/ZiS-5, 75mm M2/M3, 75mm QF Mk. V, 75mm Type 3, as even a slight bit of extra range or angle can lead to a non-penetrating hit. Meanwhile, the Pz. IV’s KwK 40 can reliably pen all but the heaviest of opponents it faces.
Moreover, the Pz. IV H should be considered a direct contemporary to the Chi Nu II and Turán III, two other tanks that are also considered reliant on their firepower. The Pz. IV generally offers superior armor protection compared to both, while maintaining parity in mobility, fire-controls and firepower. It is unjustifiable for it to be at a lower BR than both the Turán III and Chi Nu II, both of which are balanced in their current state.
| Pz. IV H | Chi Nu II | Turan III | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battle Rating | 3.7 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Firepower | |||
| Penetration (mm) | 145 / 112 / 52 | 151 / 114 / 58 | 145 / 112 / 52 |
| Explosive (TNTe) | 29 g | 85 g | 29 g |
| Reload | 5.9 s | 6.5 s | 5.9 s |
| Fire-Control | |||
| Traverse | 16.0 deg/s | 16.5 deg/s | 15.0 deg/s |
| Elevation rate | 4 deg/s | 4 deg/s | 4 deg/s |
| Elevation angle | -10/+20 | -10/+15 | -10/+20 |
| Optics | 6.0x | 6.0x | 1.9-3.5x |
| Stabilizer | None | None | None |
| Mobility | |||
| Power/Weight | 11.4 hp/t | 12.1 hp/t | 13.1 hp/t |
| Max. Speed | 39 km/h | 39 km/h | 43 km/h |
| Max. Reverse | 7 km/h | 7 km/h | 43 km/h |
| Turn Time* | 11-12 s | 21-23 s | 19 s |
| Mass | 26.4 t | 19.8 t | 19.8 t |
| Survivability | |||
| Armor | |||
| ~ Hull front | 80 mm + 20 mm tracks** | 50 mm | 75 mm |
| ~ Turret front | 50 mm + 20 mm tracks** | 50 mm | 75 mm |
| ~ Side | 30 mm + 5-8 mm Schürzen | 25 mm | 25-35 mm + 8 mm Schürzen*** |
| ~ Rear | 20-30 mm | 20-25 mm | 25-35 mm |
| Crew | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Size | 7.02 x 2.88 x 2.68 m | 5.73 x 2.61 x 2.33 m | 6.60 x 2.60 x 2.70 m |
* Time to complete one circle while traversing in place from stationary.
** Tracks have an RHAe of 0.75, so the effective thickness is 15 mm
*** Distribution of 35 mm armor is sparse, majority is 25 mm
In fact, even when comparing the Ausf. G (which has a shorter gun and no add-on track armor) or Ausf. J (which is like the H, but with a much slower traverse gear), we find that both of those models are also still comparable and competitive with the Panzer IV’s peers. Only the early Ausf. F2, with its weaker armor, is consistently outclassed by the likes of the Turán III or Chi Nu II.
How? It has ridiculous frontal armor, good gun, ammo, mobility. There are multiple tanks that straight up can’t do anything to it frontally
FV4030/3 is a challenger 2 with a very slightly worse round and no access to GEN 1 thermals. doesnt sound like .6 br amount of differences to me. it should be just one step below, thus 10.0.
its easily the best 9.7 in the game currently.
Please please please, for the love of god, put the Su-27, J-11 and Su-33 at 13.0 in Simulator mode, they are literally unplayable when all they face are Typhoons, Rafales and Hornets.
Boys got SPO-15 for God’s sake (apart from the 33)
Compared to the T62M? which is also in RB9.0😪
Looks like I’m not alone in the opinion that the Sherman II should go down.
Something I said earlier: