it cant go past mach 1 on the deck lol
Vehicle: Harrier (GR3 & AV-8C)
Gamemode: All
Change: Improve stock loadout by adding small calibre bombs to the stock loadout.
Reason: It is unreasonable to expect a ground attack aircraft to operate within the Air or Ground theatre at this BR with only guns. They are designed for bombing targets and should get a minimum loadout within their primary role.
2 Likes
what if the mig 29 got the actual engine preformance.
1 Like
Mode: Ground RB
Vehicles: Pzh2000, PLZ05 (7.7 —> 8.3) / K9 Vidar (8.0 —> 8.7)
Reason: There should be no situation where 6.7 vehicles should be facing laser range finder oneshot nuke canons. Disregarding the fact that they can work in any BR up to 12.0, 6.7 vehicles should not face them as they don’t have the capability of countering them, and even less countering laser range finders AND thermals in the case of the VIDAR, albeit at 7.0. They’ll fend for themselves very well at 8.3 and 8.7 respectively, without preying on 6.7 tanks. Please consider.
8 Likes
Why does Gaijin like to ruin lineups??
Vehicle: F4F ICE
Gamemode: Air Simulator
Change: 13.0 —> 13.3
Reason: With the introduction of a 13.3 bracket, the F4F ICE should return to its correct BR of 13.3 as it massively outperforms all other ARH slingers and would be most comprable to aircraft such as the Tornado F3 Late or Mig-29SMT already at 13.3
1 Like
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Vehicle: Spitfire F Mk 22
BR Change: 6.7 → 6.3
The Spitfire F Mk 22 is another vehicle with strong manoeuvrability and firepower, but with an inflated battle rating. The performance of this vehicle is inferior to that of the Spitfire F Mk XIVe, a vehicle which is balaned at 5.7, in most categories. It is also a flat downgrade, and a sizeable one, from the Spitfire F Mk 24, due to the Mk 22s lack of 150 octane fuel. The Spitfire F Mk 24 was moved down in BR a while ago, and has for a while now been at the same BR as its little brother. Its time the Mk 22 was moved down too.
7 Likes
Vehicle: Hunter FGA9
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 9.3
Reason: Whilst it is stronger than Hunter F6 (France) as it has slightly better engine and the Aim-9Es, it is massively outperformed by the Hunter F6 (Britain) and there is very little reason to ever use the Hunter FGA9 currently. Given it is also a very rare premium these days. I do not believe it would cause any issues at 9.3. It is also especially weak vs the supersonic aircraft that are all currently located at 9.7.
Vehicle: Hunter F6 (France)
Gamemode: Air Simulator
BR Change: 9.0 —> 9.3
Reason: Currently at 9.0 is the Hunter F1 in the British TT which has both a weaker engine and an inferior wing design. It is inferior to the Hunter F6 in every respect. In addition to this the Hunter F6 has 2x Aim-9Bs where the F1 has none. The F6 also has drop tanks, and can use these to dump most of its weight when entering a fight. In the Swedish TT is a Hunter F4 with 2x Aim-9B called the J34, which is currently located at 9.3 within ASB. The Hunter F6 needs a BR increase to 9.3 at the bare minimum to match the BR of the J34. The J34 then likely needs a BR reduction to 9.0
Vehicle: J34
Gamemode: Air Simulator
BR Change: 9.3 ----> 9.0
Reason: The J34 is a Hunter F4 with 2x Aim-9Bs but this just means it has a larger internal fuel storage than the Hunter F1 and gains no meaningful flight performance improvement over the Hunter f1, whilst the 9Bs are incredibly valuable to have, they don’t warrant a BR increase at this time and if needs be, the Hunter F1 can simply go down to 8.7 where it likely needs to be anyway.
I think if a change has to happen, limit it to 34kmh, horsepower stays. It’s just a really heavy tank that can’t afford to lose 100hp. And yes, I would say that, on top of 100 issues regarding volumetric and many others (unecessary UI changes that you can’t even discuss, have a thread on etc), this is something that could’ve waited
1 Like
Char-25T: Move it from 8.0 to 7.7, or give it HEAT-FS shell that has been proposed. Its raw performance doesn’t make it fit at 8.0.
13 Likes
Vehicle: Hunter F6 (Britain)
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 -----> 9.3
Reason: The Hunter F6 has no advantage over the French equivalent that is currently at 9.3 except for the SRAAMs which are in an extremely poor state. Though unlike the Harrier Gr1, actually has a usable airframe. It is also weaker than the Hunter F58 which shares the same BR but has CMs and better AAMs
Preferred solution. Overhaul SRAAM (2km range and fix the buggy TVC at short range)
8 Likes
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Aircraft: F6F-5N, F6F-5N (France)
Change: 4.3 → 4.0
Reasoning: While equipped with two 20 mm cannons, the F6F-5N retains the same powerplant as the standard F6F-5 (BR 3.3). The additional weight of the cannons and the drag from the radar pod result in worse flight performance and energy retention.
9 Likes
Vehicle: Hunter F.58
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 10.0
Reason: This Hunter is much stronger than any other Hunter in game currently. with the best AAMs, RWR and 60 CMs. This puts it above its equals at 9.7 such as the Hunter FGA9 or F6 with no CMs and weaker AAMs. It already moved up to 10.0 in RB and should do the same in SB
I’ve done a post for each above, but just wanted to do a single post just outlying the rather stupid BRs of the Hunters at the moment in SB for the devs to seriously look at/consider.
1 Like
If prior BR change proposals are any indicator of what is to come, then Gaijin is going to ignore about 98.7% of all these proposals. They have effectively made up their mind and the feedback doesn’t matter. The 2S38 not going up despite being requested with every BR change post is all the proof you need.
1 Like
Please read this CMs
At 9.7:
Hunter F.58 with 2x Aim-9Ps and CMs
Hunter F6 with 4x SRAAM (would be fine if they fixed SRAAMs)
Hunter FGA9 with 2x Aim-9E
Hunter F58A (1971) with 2x Aim-9E
All 4 have the best engine
At 9.3:
J-34 with 2x 9Bs - This is just a Hunter F4 which only really gets more internal fuel over the Hunter F1 from what I can find
At 9.0:
Hunter F6 (France) with 2x Aim-9Bs - Unlike the J-34, the Hunter F6 gets a more powerful engine and the improved wing design, meaning it is superior to the J-34 in pretty much every respect. It also gets drop tanks which neither the J-34 or any of the British Hunters get.
Hunter F1 with no AAMs - Similar performance to the Hunter F4 (J34) but hasn’t got any AAMs at all. This could do with being at a lower BR compared to even the J-34, but being the same BR as the Hunter F6 is just insane.
Overall, the Hunter F58 needs to go up in BR. As does the Hunter F6 (France) with the J34 coming down in BR
1 Like
Leclerc MSC: Keep it at 10.7, the reduction in armor necessitated that it was kept at its current battle-rating where it performs fine.
7 Likes
Vehicle: HF-24 Marut
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: None
Change: Removal of Air-spawn / Move to Rank VI
Reason: It is a fighter aircraft with 4x 30mm ADENs and a high sub-sonic speed, comparable aircraft such as the Hunter F1 do not get air-spawn nor do significantly weaker aircraft such as the Buccaneer S.1 which has 0 A2A capabilities and is substantially slower than the Marut. There is 0 justification for the Marut to have air-spawn other than to make it better than all other options, if it’s air-spawn is to remain, then other aircraft, such as the Hunters should receive air-spawn.
1 Like
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FRS1 (SQV)
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 11.3 ----> 11.0
Reason: The Sea Harrier FRS1 currently holds a Battle Rating in Air Sim that is 0.3 higher than it is in RB and a BR 0.7 higher than equivalent 4x Aim-9L carriers such as the A-10A Late. The Sea Harrier’s main competition at 11.3 is the Mig-23ML/MLD which are superior in every single respect to the Sea Harrier.
In the future, this BR may be appropriate for the Sea Harrier FRS1 but in its current highly unfinished state, it lacks much of IRL capabilities and so needs a lower BR.
It should be noted the Sea Harriers currently do not have basic capabilities that are highly essential for Air Sim. Such as a gunsight modeled.
2 Likes