GRB, Su-17M4 11.0 > 10.7
Two TV guided missiles alongside two laser guided missiles is far weaker against ground targets than the A-10A Late at the same BR with six IR guided missiles. Alongside that, just .3 higher and you have the MiG-27K and Su-24M which are FAR more powerful.
Ground realistic
PUMA VJTF
11.0 > 10.7
Bad gun, only 4 spikes, not very fast (for a light tank), terrible survivability, and it’s a huge target. Crazy how the freccia is below this. Only way I can see it as a 11.0 vehicle is if it gets 8-12 spikes.
That I think it is very good, and undertiered. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
Ground attack capability shouldn’t matter as much in air RB as it does elsewhere. Right now, both the 21bis and Su-22s have the exact same missile loadout, and their BRs should reflect that. There’s no excuse for an Su-22 to be higher than the Mig-21bis while being worse in an ARB setting.
another br change with nothing for air sim. the F-4C and F-4E are the same BR, the standard SU-27 is forced to fight against Rafales, Eurofighters, and F-15Es, the F-16 BLK15s are still 13.0, the Netz is still 13.0. and i’ve probably forgotten a few more. why has sim not gotten any br changes for the last 2-3 br changes for RB?
Air Sim, Jaguar GR,1 10.0 > 9.7 The extra fuel and one extra bomb carried by the jaguar does not warrant it being .7 br higher than its peer the Harrier GR.3 at 10.0 I feel that a reduction of .3 or even .7 br for the jaguar would make it more competetive in its respective bracket.
Air RB, F-16A ADF 12.7 ‐> 13.3 (or 13.7). Give the plane weapons it used in the Italian service and move it higher in BR. The plane should receive its TWS mode and ability to carry AIM-120B + AIM-9L/I (or AIM-9L/I-1), AIM-7M should be removed.
The BR gap between F-16A ADF and F-104S.ASA can be later filled with other planes, for example F-104S.ASA-M equipped with AIM-9L/I and L/I-1.
Vehicle in question: KF41, GRB/GSB
BR: 11.0 to 10.7
No real distinguishable qualities compared to counterparts such as namer XC-30, vilkas, alternatively the puma VJTF, an already overtiered vehicle. In fact worth than the puma due to a manned turret layout and insignificance of the APS system.
Vehicle in question: M113A1(TOW)(Italy, China) in GRB
BR: 8.3 to 8.0
Worse than the ITV which gains access to thermals and twin tubes, and worse than the UDES 33 which has access to base TOW-2.
Vehicle in question: Sholef SPH in GRB/GSB
BR: 7.3 to 6.7
The merkava chassis barely provides anything. Does have decent mobility but also features a number of other issues. Does not feature an edge in comparison to contemporary SPH such as type 99 with very high MZV or AUF1.
GRB, 2S38. 10.3 > 11.0. It’s currently overperforming and would hold it’s own at 11.0, it would also make it a more enticing grinding vehicle
I 110% agree. Playing it has been rough.
Vehicle in question: HQ17 in GRB/GSB
BR: 11.3 to 12.0, with proper HQ17A SAM(20km range)
Little to none improvement for a 200k RP grind. There are worse SPAA at 11.3 cough cough OTOMATIC, so give them a bit of a seperation.
10.7 sure, 11.0 is over kill. You also never move a vehicle up two brs unless it’s grossly over preforming Puma being a great example
Vehicle in question: Strela-10(USSR, Britain)
BR: 10.7 to 11.3, access to gunner thermals, renamed to 9K37M3 Strela-10M3
If there are a lot of C&Ps might as well use some non-model based diversities. The strela-10 is above 10.7 standard but not quite 11.0. The Soviet/Russian and Indian version can be a bit different.
So why is the event FJ-4B with 5 bullpups and no flares going up in BR but the squadron A-4E with 5 bullpups, flares, and better flight performance staying at the same BR? To be clear, I am arguing to keep the FJ at the same BR, as opposed to moving both planes up in BR.
No.
It is better than the Mig-21F-13, and better than most 9.3 aircraft.
Air Simulator Battles, Mirage IIIE, 11.0 > 10.7, only has access to either 2 rear aspect heat seeker missiles missiles and a CW SARH missile, or 3 heat seeker missiles, the 2 non optional heat seekers are Magic 1 dogfight missiles with 35g pull, but short range, and the SARH or heat seeker is the Matra 530/E, with only 15g however much longer range. the Mirage IIIE only has access to a pulse radar, which is prone to losing track without countermeasures deployment below 2000m, and has no chaff or clutter rejection available. the RWR is a Sensor based unit, with only four sensors, one in the front, back and sides, and only has Pulse or CW notification, with no launch warning. Its engine is especially weak for its br with a afterburning thrust of 6110 kgf, compared to the MIG-21Bis’ engine which has a afterburning thrust of 7050 kgf or the J-7E’s afterburning thrust of 6460 kgf, or F-4E’s afterburning total thrust of 16020 kgf
The Mirage IIIE is notably less capable than its counterparts at its own br, with less missiles and a weaker engine than other fighters at its own BR, and is worse is most ways than the F-4E, which sits at 10.7. In addition, from my perspective, the Mirage IIIE suffers more in Simulator battles than Air Realistic due to the loss of markers showing enemy players and missiles, despite its higher BR in Simulator Battles.
Arcade, Sd.Kfz.222. 1.7 > 2. Pen too high, armor too good, too fast, gets used as a flanker instead of an SPAA
