Vehicle: Challenger 3 TD in GRB/AB/SB
BR: Unchanged
Other changes: reload from 7.8s/6.0s to 6.5s/5.0s
The CR3 is arguably inferior to L/55 equipped leopard 2s with worse mobility and hull armor, plus it is the only western MBT that does not have a 5 second reload. Requires a fire rate buff, otherwise fine.
3 Likes
Some people believe it has extremely poor survivability and armour and that it should only be 0.3 BR higher than the 2A4
It gets clapped by good Tiger II H players.
Vehicle: VT5 in GRB/AB/SB
BR: Unchanged
Other changes: reload from 5.0s to 4.0s
More of a realistic reload thing given at 11.0, the only other cannon-based light tank this would compare to are the B1 120 and CV90120, both with same reload yet with incredible pen. VT5 is at a lower BR of course, but the extra rate of fire would be great for a rather mediocre round at 11.0.
3 Likes
Suggestion
Mode: Realistic Battles NF
Fremantle class Patrol Boat HMAS Fremantle FCPB 203
3.0 to 2.7
It’s basically a fatter Attack class Patrol Boat but at 3.0, now with the Bundemarine minesweeper Schütze also at 3.0 it’s confusing that it’s the same BR yet packing a more powerful 40 mm/70 Model 1948 autocannon, while it only has HET shells the HE-VT ammunition is were it becomes clear how much better it is ntm the higher RoF autocannon
1 Like
Wellington Mk Ic/L (Britain - Air RB): 2.7 → 2.3
This aircraft is functionally identical to the BR 2.3 Wellington Mk Ic. They have the same flight performance and the same suspended armament, the only difference is that the Ic/L has different machine guns (of the same 7.7mm calibre) and more ammunition for 2 of its guns. This makes no real difference in actual battles. The 7.7mm Brownings are not in any meaningful way better than the Vickers K they replace, and the increased ammunition is irrelevant given that the Wellington is unlikely to survive long enough to fire more than the smaller ammo load carried by the Ic anyway.
There is no justification for the two Ic variants being different BRs, and frankly it’s unclear why the game needed two almost identical vehicles in the first place. The higher BR simply makes the Ic/L a worse plane than the Ic, as it fights superior opponents without being any faster or better at defending itself than the previous version. These should be the same BR.
3 Likes
Once again, I want to ask which not very smart person makes combat ratings? Don’t touch the AMX 13!!!
It’s the SAM-1C missile. The missile is available with both lightwave (visible light imaging and backup IR) and active radar homing seekers. Both seekers are still used with the same missile apart from that and used exclusively on the Type 81 (C) launcher vehicle.
SAM-1B is just the same missile as the SAM-1 (using basic IR tracking and an earlier missile body), but serviced by the JASDF on the Type 81 (B) instead of the JGSDT Type 81.
Type 81 (C) is compatible with the older missiles, but they are not in game.
4 Likes
T34 has an obscenely long reload to compensate for its large SOLID shot.
Its turret armour is great, but it has a forehead weakness even the Panther can exploit.
The hull is okay, but parts of it can still be penned even when fully angled.
The T29 has a much more usable reload, as well as a great APHE round.
This one needs to be moved up to 7.3.
1 Like
Vehicle: T-55AMD-1 in all gamemodes
BR: 9.0 unchanged, stay foldered with the T-55A
Other changes: none
Not really neccessary to move the AMD around if its 1.0 higher than the base T-55A.
1 Like
Suggestion
Mode: Realistic Battles NF
Attack class PB HMAS Arrow P80
BR 2.7 to 2.3
I’ve always thought it strange that it was added at 2.7 BR for what’s equivalent to the SC-497 subchaser, the vessel is also Rank IV that makes research quite hard imho for what’s just a vessel with a 40 mm/60 & a M2 HMG (maybe bump it down to Rank III).
1 Like
But then it did happen, yes?
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Aircraft: JH-7A
Change: 12.3 → 11.7 or 12.0
Reasoning: This is basically the Chinese version of the Tornado IDS, with slightly better maneuverability. However, its air-to-air weapon loadout is clearly insufficient for 12.3. The four all-aspect IR missiles are noticeably weaker than those on other aircraft at the same tier, and they lack IRCCM.JH-7A top speed is also underwhelming. Therefore, I believe it deserves to be placed at least at 12.0 or even 11.7.
4 Likes
Vehicle: wyvern S4 in ARB
BR: remain at 4.3
Other changes: removed airspawn
The wyvern is not particularly exceptional fighter-wise, it is considered great in energy management with its powerful engine and high top speed, but bleeds them quickly. Airspawn gives the wyvern an advantage to abuse the high energy cap and mitigate partly the slow accelration and speed bleed.
This would also give actual bomber aircrafts an opportunity to drop their bombs over ground targets and bases, usually otherwise taken by the wyverns.
2 Likes
Type 81 (C): 11.3 → 11.3 (no change)
The Type 81 is severely limited in its use by the lack of radar, and the lock range of 8km in perfect conditions, with an average War Thunder match putting it closer to 6km. The current contrast-based seeker mechanics based on the Strela SAM also prevent it from locking low flying targets such as helicopters completely outside of IR ranges between 2-3km. Currently it is completely unable to fire without a lock, so this can’t be worked around in any way.
Compared to other 11.7 SAM such as the VT1 platforms, that’s simply not viable.
10 Likes
I was kinda like the original idea that nerf Wyvern to 4.7
But this idea sounds better.
Removing the air spawn of Wyvern will make other attackers/bombers worthwhile, and don’t let them abuse the energy advantage of being air-spawn. XD
Take my +1
Wellington Mk III (Britain - Air RB): 3.0 → 2.7
All of the Wellington series except the Mk Ic are higher than they should be. It seems that the developers chose to arbitrarily make each one a BR notch higher than the last one, with no real consideration for the planes’ actual strengths. The Mk Ic/L should be 2.3 like the Mk Ic, since they are almost identical, which then leaves room for the Mk III to be 2.7 where it should always have been.
The Mk III has a slightly improved number of defensive guns over the two Mk Ic versions, but these are still 7.7mm British machine guns, which are very weak armament by BR 3.0 where the Mk III currently sits. It lacks the volume of fire to make up for the weak damage, and the guns quickly lose effectiveness over distance. Other than the guns, the Mk III is also slightly faster and has a 500m higher max ceiling.
A moderate performance increase and 2x additional 7.7mms is not worth a BR difference of 0.7 over the Mk Ic. The Mk III should be lowered to BR 2.7 instead.
1 Like
I see you are uptiering the AMX M4 to 7.0. I’m not against that (it’s a good tank) but please note it will have now the same BR in Arcade ground as the Lorraine 40t and AMX 50 100, both far superior to it (much better shell and reload).
They both should be raised to 7.3 or even 7.7, in line with the Somua SM and their BR in Realistic battles.
Personally I never understood why they always remained at 7.0, as they are excellent tanks. I use them in my 7.7 line-up anyway.
Vehicle: strela 10-M2(USSR/UK)
BR: 10.7 to 11.0
Other changes: granted thermal imager, renamed to strela-10M3
A little variation is a way for that tiny bit of diversity being squeezed out, the strela-10M3 features a thermal giving them difference to the GER/ITA legacy cold-war equivilants.
1 Like
Type 90 and TKX (P) should really be the same BR as the Leclercs, Arietes, and Challies.
Their reload, mobility, and versatility more than makes up for their mostly inadequate round.
With the TKX(P), you forgot to mention that its lower UFP is worth around 600mm in some spots, and around ~570mm in others.
It also has much better outer turret cheek armour than the Type 90.
27 HP/Ton is still great, and is still faster than practically any MBT at top tier other than the first Leclerc.