T28
RB
6.3 → 6.7
This vehicle should not be facing 5.3 tanks, which it is practically invulnerable to. Even though it has weaker side armor compared to the T95, frontally it is still a 7.0 vehicle. It still has incredible firepower for its battle rating while being frontally impervious to all but the strongest guns, especially at range. The reduced side armor is a downgrade, but it only requires more careful playstyle/planning rather than compromising the entire vehicle.
1 Like
At this point i want a refund on the merkava mk2d as it is already weak at 9.7 it’s slow it’s big and it’s barely survivable 10.0 makes absolutely no sense for this thing. Meanwhile the t64b with a better gun, a better round, better armour, and better mobility is at 9.7 how does that make sense. What a scam company
1 Like
Marder III
RB
2.3 → 2.7
The level of firepower it possesses is unreasonable for 2.3, compared to a contemporary like the ZiS-30 it is superior in all but reload rate and some degree in mobility. It is comparable to the Marder III H and could arguably be the same BR at 3.0.
1 Like
The Syrians got the upgrade to the Turms-T sight in 1998 at the earliest, which means the 3BM42, which entered Soviet service in 1986 was not “modern at time”, in addition the Upgrade gave the Turms the Ability to use the 9M119 ATGM.
Concerning your rumors about them being to long:
on this page there is a picture showing off ammo captured by I**S in 2016
This one to be precise which shows 3BM32 and 3BM42. IF the Syrians had nothing to shoot it with why would they have bought it?
T-34-85 (D-5T)
RB
5.3 → 5.7
Due to its use of volumetric armor, the turret armor is actually stronger frontally compared to the standard T-34-85. The firepower performance is the same, and the only real disadvantage is the lack of a 5th crew member. They should be the same BR, as they perform more or less the same when at full performance, only lacking slightly in survivability.
3 Likes
Crusader AA Mk. II
RB
3.7 → 2.7
The firepower is equal to the AEC AA Mk. II, with the only advantage in total ammunition count, not even belt sizes. Their BRs could be different, but they should not be so far apart.
Ka-Chi
RB
2.0 → 2.3
The Ka-Chi has very strong frontal armor, much stronger than the Chi-Ha Kai even. The large size makes it rather cumbersome to use, but it also means that, with its large crew count, makes it very survivable, especially against low-rank opponents. Right now it seal-clubs most 1.0-2.0 vehicles due to its good protection and survivability, while its firepower and mobility are adequate for the tier.
3 Likes
Air AB, French F-100D. 9.7 > 9.3 : like the american one which is better thanks to its Aim9E and is 9.3 since years!
Sidenote : same situation for the chinese F-100A.
1 Like
Yeah probably. There is also a question of how they wish to model ASRAAM. To be honest. I’m expecting a seeker performance just barely better than the Aim-9M/Magic II.
Just a far more capable missile performance.
We’ve already seen them nerf both the Aim-9M and PL-8B as well as all ARH seekers for the sake balance. So it’s not necessarily new.
As for strike aircraft. ARB is just bad for them and they seem to have abandoned ASB
“AMX-13 to 7.0”
I’m almost disappointed, you could do better, Char 25T to 8.3 when ?
1 Like
Air AB, French F-84F. 9.0 > 8.7 : like the israeli and german ones which are identical. Terrible flight performance for a 9.0 aircraft. This inconsistency is in the game since these vehicles were added!
Sidenote : same situation for the american and italian F-84F.
T-80UD
RB
10.3 → 10.7
It is way too powerful at 10.0, it is essentially a T-80U with slightly weaker front armor and less mobility, or a T-80B with slightly stronger frontal armor and less mobility. Compared to the Chinese T-80UD/DU1, the only real difference is the lack of thermals, which is a disadvantage but enough to justify the BR decrease. This should not be facing 9.3 tanks like the MBT-70, which it totally outclasses in all ways, and is without a shadow of a doubt superior to contemporary MBTs at 10.3 like the ZTZ96A or T-72B.
3 Likes
At least it gets stock chaff 🤣
Sherman II
RB
3.7 → 3.3
The Sherman II has all the same weaknesses as the standard M4A1, which the addition of APCR will not fix. While the APCR is a nice bonus, it is by far not the primary round used with the Sherman II, and thus should not be the cause for its raised BR.
4 Likes
Air AB, French Mystere IVA. 9.0 > 8.7 : it has no IR missiles, no afterburner and worst aerodynamics compare to the Super Mystere B2 which is also 9.0. The 30mm canons are good but 8.0 F-86s have better flight performance and its energy retention is terrible. The comparison is even worse with a 8.3 Javelin or Scimitar which have better firepower AND flight caracteristics !
Same thing for the Israeli one.
4 Likes
Air AB, Mystere IIC. 8.7 → 8.3 : same issues than its big brother but with even worst flight performances, especially acceleration.
2 Likes
Air AB, AV-8A. 9.3 → 9.7 : almost untouchable if flighted well with its countermeasures, huge climb rate and (too much) good missiles for its BR.
T-72A, T-72M1, ZTZ96
RB
9.3 → 9.7
This change has been overdue for sometime, especially as the various rounds of BR decompression have had their time to settle in. These tanks are clearly superior to several of the “upgraded” MBTs also found at 9.3 (e.g. CM11, Leopard 1A5) as well as some other contemporaries, such as MBT/KPz 70. All of these tanks wield incredible firepower (in 3BM42 and Type 85-1) that makes them fightable against the current 10.7 vehicles such as Leopard 2A4 or M1 Abrams, while also having some armor that can actually take a hit in return (unlike other 9.3 MBTs). These vehicles are more than 1 BR step up over the current 9.0, such as ZTZ88B or T-62M or T-55AM-1, and absolutely do not need to be facing 8.3 vehicles that are firing only 100/105mm APDS, some of which lack stabilizers.
1 Like
Antelope TC-1
RB
10.3 → 10.0
With the Israeli I-Chaparral having moved down to 9.7, this vehicle probably can move down to 10.0 as well. The TC-1L missiles are superior to the MIM-72G, but the terrible platform and lack of a search radar still drags this vehicle down immensely. All IR-homing missiles are also useless against about half of the helicopters they face as even with IRCCM, they cannot counteract the IRCM jammers found on helicopters such as later Mi-24s, making the Antelope extremely vulnerable.
2 Likes
A-4N Ayit
Ground RB
9.7 → 10.3
Being able to carry 5 decently long-range guided munitions is already quite excessive at 9.7, as most SPAA are limited by the range of their MANPADS missiles (Stinger, HN-6, etc.) and cannot easily combat the Ayit, especially with its countermeasures. Its air-to-ground performance is more comparable to the A-10A Early (10.3 in GRB), while having improved flight performance that makes it a much harder target to hit and gives it decent air-to-air combat abilities. It should not be dunking on 8.7-9.0 SPAAGs that have no chance of even engaging it before it dumps a missile or GBU onto it.
2 Likes