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.
1 Like
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.
7 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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)
1 Like
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:
1 Like
I thought about the Buc S2, but actually decided that 9.3 is mostly okay for it.
Reasons:
- It has a huge amount of thrust and is actually decently fast even with a full bomb load (Mach 0.9), just takes a little while to get there when fully loaded
- Actually handles fairly well now it doesnt rip instantly
- Very good bomb load
- Has the CM pods which not many have CMs at 9.3 (and I dont think any have at 9.0) and not just a few, 104 large calibre flares is a lot for the BR
Whilst it has no A2A performance and can have a hard time getting to bases in an uptier, it might be too strong at 9.0 for its base bombing abilities.
That having been said. It does need both its radar (the same one as the Buc S2B) and Napalm added. Thsoe buffs should serve it quite well at staying at 9.3 (I also want to research if it ever had anything better than 9Bs at some point. Even 9Ds would be more than enough)
Also possibly a forward AF spawn would help too
My planned suggestion for this thread, but decided not to post it
Vehicle: Buccaneer S.2
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 9.3 ----> 9.0
Reason: This is an incredibly hard aircraft to balance correctly and its BR is heavily dictated by what is considered the most important attributes.If the Buc S.2 is looked at with respect to its performance to engage and destroy other players, then it is incredibly weak for its BR. Armed with only 2x Aim-9Bs and no Cannons of any kind. This puts its performance well below that of aircraft such as the Scimitar F Mk.1 or Sea-Vixen F.A.W. Mk2. Whilst it handles fairly well, it is hard to justify it being any higher than 8.7, maybe even 8.3 if it wasn’t for its decent speed and acceleration.
If the Buc S.2 is looked at with respect to its performance to make it to a base and drop bombs onto it, then it performs much better, whilst it is no match for super-sonic aircraft such as the Q-5 (early) or the Jaguar Gr1 in terms of reaching a base quickly, it certainly can make a decent pace with a very large bomb load, able to destroy 3.8 bases in a single sortie. It is able to give up some of this bomb load to run external countermeasure pods which carry Large countermeasures. This gives the Buc S.2 a notable amount of survivability to actually make it to a base. I do not believe that bomb load should ever be factored into BR placement, but the CMs do need to be and it could be argued that 9.3 would be semi-reasonable for it.
But when taken as a whole, its ability to fight back (which is mutually exclusive with the ability to take CMs) and the fact that either are totally optional if you wish to maximise bomb load. I would propose a half way point of 9.0. This still leaves it at a BR where other, faster and more capable aircraft exists, but it creates further separation between the very strong set of aircraft currently found at 10.0 and 10.3, which betters it’s chance of making it to a base.
Alternative Solution: The Buccaneer S.2 is currently missing it’s Napalm bombs. The introduction of these bombs would increase the S.2s ground attack effectiveness by allowing it to kill as many bases whilst still running the CM pods, which justifies the 9.3 rating in my opinion.
Buc S1 though needs full airspawn, that thing is rather slow without hte upgraded engines and the Buc S2B could drop down to 10.3
1 Like
I’d rather have a slightly worse tank over one that is overpowered.
Obj 435 - 8.7 > 8.7 (No change)
Why on earth is a tank with pure RHA, a coincidence rangefinder and 3BM3 going to the same BR as the T-62M-1 (composite addons, 3BM28, LRF)!?
It makes zero sense.
Same thing with the T-55M too, it gets an amazing dart but compared to say, the ZTZ88, no hull composite, no HE-VT and it’s significantly slower.
Gaijin you need to decompress!!
4 Likes
Vehicle: Ayit
Proposed BR: 9.3>9.7
Reasoning: to low of a BR for its weapon kit. 18g missiles on a plane that has flares at 9.3 is too overpowered also considering it gets 4 of them and they have good range. The AV8A gets less missiles and a little bit better flight performance is 9.7 which doesn’t make much sense.
11 Likes
Mode: Realistic
Vehicle: Merkava Mk.2D
BR Change: 9.7 > 9.7 (No change)
Reasoning:
It has the same performance as the all other Merkavas Mk.2
2 Likes
We need to go up to 15.0 minimum :)
1 Like
Daily reminder the CLOVIS still sits at 8.0 and is blatantly P2W/OP.
Not surprised in the slightest to see it is completely absent from these changes…
Why would they dare touch a brokenly OP vehicle that earns them money???
7 Likes
t62m1 is much stronger than t55am1 and should go up to 9.3, but then 9.3 t72a/m1 & t64a are much stronger than it and those should go up too, but then theres the 9.7 t64b which is again significantly stronger than those two and it should go up too.
*t64b is basically a turms-t with no thermals: identical firepower, same era, very similar mobility and the armor under the era is not that different.
i dont get why those 2 are 2 br steps apart
1 Like
they dont want to raise turm III’s br so they cant put the clovis at the same br.
1 Like
Pzh2k and vidar to 8.7. zero reason 1980s laser range finder he slingers should be fighting ww2 vehicles.
plz-05 aswell.
2 Likes
Why is the T-55AMD-1 moving up in BR? Its already got a mediocre shell and this doesn’t do it any favours?
I do support the moving of the T-62 to be foldered with the T-55A.