Vehicle: Challenger 2 (base)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
13 Likes
Vehicle: Challenger 2 TES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
But in addition to the base version, it is even heavier and slower due to the ERA, but the ERA provides no meaningful protection despite its weight and thickness, and only serves to weaken the Challenger 2 further
15 Likes
Vehicle: Challenger 2 OES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
But in addition to the base version, it is even heavier and slower due to the ERA, but the ERA provides no meaningful protection despite its weight and thickness, and only serves to weaken the Challenger 2 further
12 Likes
Good changes(keep in mind I don’t play top tier): Easier heli ATGM grind, XP-50 no airspawn. M551 going down is probably a good thing.
Bad changes: I really don’t think the amx-13 should go to 7.0 - I’d take the T92 over the AMX-13 any day. Also don’t think the T-55M should go to 9.0, considering the extra armor/APS on the AMD/AM is probably more useful than the better APFSDS as there’s a lot of ATGM vehicles and not much has armor at 8.7/9.0. Bit on the fence about the Ikv-91-105 and strv-103, considering both tanks would be fine at 9.0 but really don’t need to go up?
6 Likes
Vehicle: Challenger 2F
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
8 Likes
Vehicle: Challenger 2E
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
The Challenger 2E alone mitigates the Challenger 2s main weakness which is it’s exceptionally poor mobility, but it does not address any of the other weakness of the CR2 and thus, still does not warrant being at 12.0
9 Likes
Vehicle: HMS York
Gamemode: Naval Realistic
BR Change: 5.7 ----> 5.3
Reason: Unlike many other Heavy Cruisers at 5.7. The York only has 6x 8" guns and not 8 that most others have. This greatly limits its firepower vs most other ships. It also is severly lacking in armour vs many other Heavy Cruisers
7 Likes
For now T-55 = TAM = XM-803 = CLASS 3P = Obj 279
They dont care about making game fun. In this reason I dont care to support such developers.
2 Likes
Vehicle: Javelin F.(A.W) Mk.9
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: ARB: 8.3 → 8.0 ASB: 8.7 → 8.0
Reason: The Javelin is easily one of, if not maybe the weakest aircraft at its respective BRs. It is slower than most, turns worse than most and its weapon systems are hard to use. After its recent nerfs in Firebirds update, it has only gotten worse and really needs to be moved down in Battle Rating
3 Likes
Vehicle: Wyvern S4
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: None
Change: Remove air spawn.
Reason: The Wyvern on paper is not that capable of an A2A fighter, it has a number of limiations that mitgates its few strengths. The one thing it does have is air spawn, which means it can easily intercept many bombers and a large ammo count of 20mm Hispanos enables it shread those targets. Its BR should not change as its equal in overall performance to other airframes at the same BR, but removing air spawn removes its only real advantage and the only reason it is considered “OP"
5 Likes
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
Tank: Ikv 103 (Sweden)
Change: 4.0 → 5.3 // Rank III → Rank IV (Before Bkan 1C)
Reasoning: The Ikv 103, currently at BR 4.0, Rank III in Ground Realistic Battles, is a unique Swedish tank destroyer that combines strong firepower, decent mobility, and a low profile. While it lacks significant armor, it’s not entirely defenseless—its angled frontal plate offers some protection against light machine gun fire, and its compact size allows it to take advantage of concealment and terrain.
Its main strength is its 105 mm HEAT shell, which boasts 400 mm of penetration—more than enough to handle virtually any target it encounters, even well above its current BR. The gun remains effective all the way into Cold War matchups, only beginning to struggle against vehicles with advanced armor around 7.7–8.0. Because of this, raising the Ikv 103’s BR to 5.3 would not drastically limit its performance. Its role as an ambush-focused tank destroyer would remain viable, and the increase would place it in matchups that better reflect its potential impact on the battlefield.
In addition to performance considerations, moving the Ikv 103 to Rank IV would provide a meaningful boost to the Swedish lineup at 5.0–6.0, which currently lacks depth. Having it available in that range would offer players more flexibility in creating lineups for both casual and competitive matches, while also improving the nation’s progression curve.
Overall, shifting the Ikv 103 to BR 5.3 and Rank IV would be a fitting adjustment that better matches its firepower and utility with the vehicles it faces, while also enhancing Sweden’s lineup in a key BR range.
3 Likes
Vehicle: Lightning F6 & Lightning F.53
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 → 9.7/10.0
Reason: It is supersonic at a BR that quite often faces sub-sonics. It’s BR should match the 9.3 F-104s, so if they move up, so should the Lightnings
BUT:
Red Tops are currently missing their all-aspect lock capabilies. With all-aspect Red Tops, it would quite comfortably sit at this higher BR without issue and maintain its current level of performance
(All-Aspect Red Tops would not be an issue at 9.7, or even at a lower BR like for the Sea-Vixen due to how easy they are to defeat kinematically)
3 Likes
Vehicle: Harrier GR.3
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 9.3
Reason: The Harrier Gr3 is rather lacking in terms of performance when it comes to CAS and Britain has very little in the way of 9.7 line-up for ground. The Harrier Gr3 is weaker than the Buccaneer S2 already at 9.3 for CAS but would provide a stronger option for a CAP Fighter, which is a little lacking at that BR, with the only meaningful option the Hunter F1 on the TT or Hunter FGA9 if you have the premium.
With the Tornado WTD61, Tornado MFG and Tornado A200 only 0.3 BR above as well, with notably better performance in every single respect, the need to lower the Harrier GR.3 is only increased further.
2 Likes
Vehicle: B-26C (France)
Gamemode: Air Arcade and Air Realistic
BR Change: 4.7 —> 4.3
Reason: It is identical to the B-26B found on the US tech tree which is currently at 4.3 in both Air Arcade and Air Realistic
10 Likes
american 120s MBT at 10.3 is too good maybe 10.7
cons-
poor mobility (m47 hull)
poor hull armour
pros-
improved abrams turret
120mm gun with m29a1 (598 mm penn)
1 Like
VBCI-2(MCT-30), Change Rank VI→VII, This is a suggestion in case this viecle’s BR does not go down. BR 9.3 is fine for rank VI, but if you don’t lower the BR, this guy should be ranked higher. 9.7 makes it hard to build a card deck because of his rank. Please pair him with 35NL.
6 Likes
Its more mobile than normal pt-76, no? Like 200more hp
Rooikat 105
Mode: Ground RB
BR change: 9.7 → 9.3.
The Rooikat 105 has the exact same optics, mobility, and shell as the Rooikat MTTD at 9.3. The main differences is that the MTTD is autoloaded with 3 crew members and a 6.7 second reload, whereas the 105 has four crew and a 6.7 second reload aced. These vehicles are extremely similar yet l one is a higher BR.
4 Likes
They were alright at their BR’s for years now, no point moving them up anymore. Besides how come all the other nations 8.7 MBT’s aren’t moving up but only USSR’s
i just dont find myself fighting 10.0 on a literal t55 like its so unfair im pretty sure that its already good in 8.7
2 Likes