Because the Puma VJTF is much easier to play and arguably considerably better overall.
please do tell when the hell you fight 6.0 at because theres almost no 6.0s that arent german your almost always 6.3/6.7 its a ghost br
It also has a game braking bug where its radar doesnt show up on rwr as long as its manoeuvring. Making it that much more aids to face.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rfGj39ZFzX0h
1 Like
btw when launched at mig 21 rwr picks it up
75mm jumbos really good when its at its BR and insane in a down tier sadly it cant go lower
We checked with multiple jets, mig 21 was just what we chose to use for the recordings. The f111 for example couldnt even pick up the r24r on maw half the time.
1 Like
T-34 (1940)
GRB
3.3 → 3.7
Good mobility, decent cannon, and really good armour for its BR, makes this very powerful. While there are tanks that can pen it when it faces them straight with its front, it is quickly able to turn its hull to make it near impossible for them to aim at any kind of weak spot. At the same time the increase in BR would also make it closer to the other T-34’s that was moved up in a previous BR change.
In regards to the argument, of its cannon might not be able to do much with a BR increase, there is the KV-1 (L-11) at the suggested BR of 3.7, and it does perfectly well at that BR. The T-34, probably have an advantage in the department, since it is able to flank its opponents, compared to the KV-1 (L-11).
You could probably see the KV-1 (L-11) and T-34 with the L-11 cannon, as sidegrades of each other, both a well armoured, have a good cannon, however one has even more armour, where the other has mobility.
8 Likes
T-34 (Prototype)
GRB
3.3 → 3.7
Good mobility, decent cannon, and really good armour for its BR, makes this very powerful. While there are tanks that can pen it when it faces them straight with its front, it is quickly able to turn its hull to make it near impossible for them to aim at any kind of weak spot. At the same time the increase in BR would also make it closer to the other T-34’s that was moved up in a previous BR change.
In regards to the argument, of its cannon might not be able to do much with a BR increase, there is the KV-1 (L-11) at the suggested BR of 3.7, and it does perfectly well at that BR. The T-34, probably have an advantage in the department, since it is able to flank its opponents, compared to the KV-1 (L-11).
You could probably see the KV-1 (L-11) and T-34 with the L-11 cannon, as sidegrades of each other, both a well armoured, have a good cannon, however one has even more armour, where the other has mobility.
10 Likes
Classic Gaijin/WarThunder… Tanks gettin moved up and down in BRs but no changes in the penetration value??
Why would you need changes in pen? The vehicles perform well enough that it warrants them being moved ip.
1 Like
This is not the time or place to discuss quantitative matchmaking. Look it up.
Feedback: Why the AUBL/74 HVG (60 mm) should be 7.3 BR
• No post-pen damage – zero spalling, even direct ammo or crew hits do nothing, making the gun feel broken.
• Inconsistent penetration – 60 mm APFSDS behaves worse than almost any other APFSDS, often failing to disable components.
• Over-tiered at 8.0 BR – always uptiered, gun and survivability cannot compete at this level.
• Slow reload (~7–8s) – far too long for a 60 mm gun that usually needs 2–3 shots to secure a kill.
• Worse post-pen than 30 mm APDS – 60 mm APFSDS does less internal damage than smaller caliber rounds, which makes no sense.
• Mobility and stabilizer don’t balance it – speed and 2-plane stabilizer are not enough to justify 8.0 when firepower is this weak.
Conclusion: BR 8.0 is not justified. BR 7.7 is still too high. The most reasonable placement is BR 7.3, where the vehicle would finally be balanced and usable.
7 Likes
And a reload buff.
1 Like
You can get pretty scummy with the Ratel 20 with the ATGMs sight, it’s almost perfectly just taller than a lot of common cover, e.g. the A cap monument on Advance to the Rhine, the windows of the buildings on Abandoned Factory, etc. You can basically play it like a budget M901 and just poke the Milan out. Id recommend giving it another go, Ive warmed to the 20 after figuring all that out
1 Like
It’s irrelevant if you can’t see the obvious link between player stats like K/S and efficiency/earnings. In GRB, killing someone is pretty much the main method of earning, alongside assists and caps.
So in order to mitigate the loss of earnings by having bad kill stats, one vehicle must be able to somehow cap the points and get assists much more frequently than contemporaries, which doesn’t seem all that realistic.
That said, SS has a “RP/SL per game” metric but I don’t know if it takes into account all useful actions.
If you ignore all other things, yes.
1 Like
so u tellin me that 480mm of penetration is “well enough” on 11.7 for a MBT ?? while other tanks on that BR and lower have more penetration… ?? makes sense when u say this…
What’s worse is the M60Ambt remains at 10.0 with better mobility, clear thermals, nearly the exact same pen and reload.
Its more survivable due to better armor (for an IFV) and gun depression, sure.
But its not like BMP-2M doesnt hold some advantages over PUMA VJTF (namely faster RoF and having much smaller missile deadzone).
Not saying BMP-2M should sit at the same BR as VJTF, but its far from one sided matchup.
2 Likes
Protection is only better against HEAT on the front, overall their armor is similar. Namer suffers from much worse mobility… while I’d say the Namer is better then the Puma, thats only because it doesn’t lose its tracks when its turret explodes (which is an old bug Gaijin still hasn’t fixed). Aside from that, they are pretty comparable.