+1
Doesn’t need it. Should just be removed from the game.
bmp3 has better atgm,can fire the atgm on the move,has gen2 thermals,is more mobile, has as a smaller profile. Even if it was worse tha the begleit he said that begleit is better than both the bmp3 and bmd4 which is just false.
ON THE TIGER 2 SPEED CHANGES:
Submitting duplicate responses across multiple platforms so I can try and get my voice heard.
This is my ticket exactly as i wrote in:
`
Proposed changes to tiger II will change top speed to 34 km/h. This is incorrect.
Page 6 of “Tiger Ausführung B Handbuch für den panzerfahrer” from the Bundeswehr archive
the engine power is stated in this as 600, at 2500 rpm.
however, the top speed is stated as 38 km/h in the original documentation
Edit: page 52 was posted in another report, stating 34 km/h in 8th gear. The discrepancy between the two stated speeds is likely max speed in terms of power production, and max speed in terms of what the vehicle and drivetrain was actually rated to handle without failure.
Page 6 states the top speed of 38km/h as “on streets”, implying ideal conditions. A downhill grade could permit such speeds in ideal conditions.
Edit 2: The list on page 52 of the same publication was later (presumed incorrectly) used as a power output chart in “Germany’s Tiger Tanks: D.W. to Tiger I by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Louis Doyle”. I had assumed that was the same chart in page 52 of the tiger II manual. However, the paragraph preceding the list of gears and associated speeds states that these are the minimum speeds to safely enter these gears.
The paragraph in question through Google translate: “Pre-selecting and shifting are two independent processes. When engaging the shift, press the selector lever down until a sudden counterpressure is felt. Depending on the terrain and driving resistance, individual or multiple gears can be skipped. However, only shift once the vehicle has reached the corresponding speed by braking, coasting, or accelerating. The speeds at an engine speed of 2500 rpm are”
“only shift once the vehicle has reached the corresponding speed”, implying that the stated 34 km/h was the lower end of 8th gear.
`
I also have a thread on reddit for the same topic.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZaIs31OyCWS0
thus far the ticket is accepted/open as of 8/18
9 Likes
What do you mean?
Ratel and ZSL-92 are my top for getting APDS. Ratel becasue APCR fucking sucks, ZSL because it never had AP as far as I’m aware
3 Likes
What do you feel to be different between the AIM-9L and AIM-9P-4 (that would affect flare resistance)?
I have a problem and think Gaijin have made this mistake consistently accross all BRs but it is light tanks and IFVS being able to striaght up just murder any tanks at their respective BRs.
I personally think a light tank/IFV should have to flank and not just be able to one tap an MBT.
However with Gaijin so intent to remove flanking from the game and forcing us all to fight face to face it and others should get the higher tier rounds.
1 Like
It also has much longer reload speed for the missile, worse shells and gun handling.
ZSU-23-4M2
GRB
7.3 → 7.7
It have extremely effective anti aircraft guns, mounted on a mobile platform with a lot of turret traverse, meaning that it tear apart any planes that it faces. The plane it faces doesn’t even have a chance against it, since most of them are WW2 or just post war planes, with low manoeuvrability. Even without a radar, because of its high traverse speed, and high velocity ammo, it has no major problem engaging faster moving targets at close range, or planes further away within reasonable distance.
7 Likes
F-20 Tigershark
ARB
12.3 to 12.0
This plane has no business seeing advanced Fox-1/3 missiles while only having Aim7-F’s and Aim9L’s.
2 Likes
The missiles aren’t just “not as good as the 9Ls”, they’re significantly worse. The missiles are worse than the R-60M too. They have WAY less range than the AIM-9L, slightly less range than the R-60M, but significantly less pull.
The AIM-9Ls launched from an A-10A can hit a target running away from 2km+, the AIM-9P-4 from the Alpha Jet can’t hit a target running away from 1.5km. The motors are very different, giving the AIM-9Ls more range, while having better performance, even if it is fired from an A-10A.
I said that part a bit badly, but compare it to any other 10.3 or 10.7.
J-7D? Better in everything.
A-10A Late? Better weaponry and avionics, can actually do ground striking in sim without getting sniped by AA as well.
MiG-21SMT? Better in everything.
Su-25? Yet again, better in everything, except maybe flight performance.
1 Like
Love people bringing up their personal stats like it brings weight to their argument, while they dismiss gaijin’s changes which are also based on statistics (but from the whole playing group).
3 Likes
The topic is too big, has anyone already mentioned the absence of a 12.7 bracket in Air Sim? At the moment, 13 aircraft in the game have a BR of 12.7, including 4 recently added premium ones. Sorry for the bother, @Smin1080p_WT, but in my opinion, it would be unreasonable to deprive them of their own bracket in Sim.
3 Likes
???
That seems tad bit harsh for 11.0s.
If Mirage F1 can sit at 12.0 with tons of countermeasures and IRCCM missiles I’m sure F-20’s will be fine.
4 Likes
Yea but F1s are defined by their Magic 2s and CMs, everything else sucks. FM, Radar, RWR, even the radar missiles is where the F-20 holds advantage.
Im just sligthly concerned how it will affectr downtiers thats all.
F20’s radar and RWR is also not that advanced, tho it’s certainly better than F1
F-20’s flight performance only shines when you have no ordinance, otherwise it’s pretty ok for its br.
They can give Aim-9M and bump up to 12.7 but current Br is too harsh with Aim-9L and Aim-7F’s.
1 Like
Vehicle: M41A3 CN
Gamemode: GAB
BR Change: stay at 5.3
For arcades, the up br change is very questionable imo (however, 5.7 in RB is fine).
M41A3 does NOT have the flexibility and kill efficiency of other light tanks at the same br, M18 hellcat is a great example.
M18 gets overall better mobility. Namely acceleration and reverse speed, which is very important for a light tank to survive in arcades.
The bulldog gets solid AP shell and limited first ammo rack, where M18 gets APHE and no first order ammo rack limit, thus overall better kill efficiency.
Some advantages are: more survivable to HE damage, higher optics zoom and dual control. These are much like sidegrade and only helpful if you get large maps.
In short, m18 works better for the most part.
I don’t see any real performance related reason behind this change tbh.
US bulldog is only 0.3 BR higher but with APDS to fight heavier opponents, which are very common at this br btw.
1 Like
Luchs A2 & Wiesel 1A4
Ground Realistic
Should be lowered from 7.3 to 6.7 or 6.3
Reason:
- Insufficient Firepower and Protection:
- The main armament, the 20mm DM63, cannot effectively penetrate common U.S. and Soviet medium tanks at 6.7 and 6.3.
- It is unable to penetrate any medium or heavy tanks from the front, while the vehicles themselves have extremely poor protection. The Wiesel can even be penetrated by a .50 cal from the front, and the Luchs’s transmission is easily destroyed.
- Tactical Imbalance:
- Germany lacks high-mobility vehicles after 6.3, which prevents its slow heavy tanks from reaching the front line effectively. This leaves them vulnerable to crossfire from fast enemy light tanks, ultimately leading to the collapse of the front line.
- Lowering the Luchs and Wiesel’s BR would fill Germany’s tactical gap for high-mobility vehicles, providing the team with much-needed scouting and flanking support.
- Ammunition Performance Mismatch:
- Currently, SPAAGs at BR 5.3 are already equipped with the 20mm DM63 round.
- Given this precedent, placing the Luchs and Wiesel, which use the same round, at 6.7 or 6.3 would be more consistent with the BR logic of existing vehicles.
4 Likes