Vehicle: Hunter FGA9
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 9.0
Reason: It has almost identical performance to the Hunter F6 (France) and yet sits 0.7 BR higher. There is no justification for this BR increase and its BR should be lowered to match that of the French Hunter F6
11 Likes
Ground RB: Sea Harrier FRS.1 10.7 > 10.3
Reasoning - The aircraft is subsonic and only uses dumb bombs with CCIP (2 inch RP rockets dont generally have a use in GRB mode), most aircraft on this BR have smart weapons to engage enemy ground forces which are usually protected by SAM systems or at the least, rockets to keep some stand off range.
While it does have 4 aim 9Ls, other platforms at this BR also have access to all aspect/SARH which also have more expansive ground attack capabilities as well, and air to air capabilities are secondary as it is a strike role game mode, though allow the plane to perform some CAP support when ground forces lack AAA systems.
9 Likes
Vehicle: Wyvern S4
Gamemode: Air RB
BR Change: 4.3 ----> 5.0
Reason: Wyvern S4 is seriously over performing currently, due to its acceleration, top speed and overwhelming firepower, as well as its air spawn. It’s currently harassing all strike aircraft and bombers. It’s capable of BnZ all fighters at this br as well.
21 Likes
yep agree with all at 2000%
A-5C: 10.3 → No change. [Air RB]
A-5C is no longer what it once was. You see 11.3 quite often, the matchmaker is quite unfriendly. It can stay 10.3 instead of being totally irrelevant.
120 Likes
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FRS1 (SQV)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.3 ----> 11.0
Reason: Going from 2x Aim-9Ls to 4x Aim-9Ls does not justify a 0.7 BR increase. The Sea Harrier has extremely low performance currently and is fairly defenseless vs many other 11.3/11.7 aircraft, let alone those at 12.0+. The Sea Harrier FRS1e moved up only 0.3 BR and so should the Sea Harrier FRS1
Being 11.3 also places the Sea Harrier FRS1 at the same BR as the AV-8B(NA) which is universally superior to the Sea Harrier FRS1 in every respect except for the fact the FRS1 has a radar with IFF. It is unfair for these 2 aircraft to be the same BR when their respective performance is so different.
(Additional note: Both Sea Harriers are underperforming significantly due to missing features. Add radar gunsight, Replace placeholder HUD and fix the incorrect RWR on the SQV. Additionally, all Harriers have a sooty exhaust that needs to be removed and an IR signature that is 10x hotter than it should be)
(as a minor side note, please reclass the Sea Harrier’s to be naval fighters not strike aircraft as this would be a more accurate description of the Sea Harrier. Additionally, this would enable it to be used as a CAP without increasing the SP cost of far better CAS aircraft such as the Jaguar Gr1A or Buc S2B at the same BR in GRB)
29 Likes
F-8 Crusaders needs to go up aswell IMO
18 Likes
Ariete AMV 12.0-11.7
More of a sidegrade than an upgrade compared to the other top tier mbts
Thanks for the reload buff gaijin but still the Ariete AMV is not a 12.0 vehicle
10 Likes
Ground Realistic, AMD.35 (SA35). 1.7 > 1.0. The AMD.35 (SA35) is very similar to the reserve AMD.35 present in the tech tree, but has a number of disadvaantages compared to it, such as, a taller silhouette, smaller ammunition capacity and worse penetration on its solid shot round. The AMD.35 (SA35) lacks enough advantages to compensate for its increased battle rating compared to the AMD.35 present in the tech tree.
8 Likes
Game mode: GRB
Proposal: M833 for the ROCA M60A3.
Reasoning: The M735 as it stands is too weak for something that faces T-72s on a regular basis. Also I believe someone posted a report about a while ago stating that the ROCA never imported the M735 to begin with.
8 Likes
for air sim battles:
Su-11 (the premium, 1946 one) should go to 8.0.
It’s better than all non-premium planes on that BR in all key aspects: climb, speed, acceleration and at least equal (often better) in others.
Much worse sibling (su-9) shares the same BR
Su-11’s perforamance is comparable to many 7.7-8.0 planes in tech trees
4 Likes
Would be fine if they gave it those and moved it to 10.7 in one go
3 Likes
Not really as everything that was 1br below and above it, went up by 0.3br aswell so its still in the same place
1 Like
if nato tanks are getting reload buffs why the hell is loader fatigue not a thing yet
3 Likes
Air RB, Wyvern S4, 4.3 > 4.7
I love this plane. It is my most played aircraft in WT. BUT, it is too easily abused as an air superiority fighter at its current BR despite being a strike aircraft. The speed and climb rate are far beyond the fighters and interceptors at 4.3.
While there is no rule in WT against playing strike aircraft as fighters, when you consider the historical context of a jet-age turboprop fighting mid-WW2 planes and getting used in a role that it wasn’t intended, it doesn’t seem very fair.
Yes, it would be harder to kill a base if it were raised in BR, but the Wyvern still has a ton of 20 mm ammo to kill ground targets and defend itself. This would also encourage more cooperation between Wyvern players who would have to team up to kill a base rather than compete for limited resources.
15 Likes
As Smin said above, the most effective way to make our opnions here heard is to upvote posts of similar opinion. I would encourage you to search “F8U” and upvote the previous 2 that already have a few (if you haven’t) just to give them more support; as imo this is one of the most important changes that could be made this update.
4 Likes
Vehicle: Sea-Vixen F.A.W Mk.2
Gamemode: Air RB
BR Change: 9.0 ----> 8.7
Reason: It has no guns and extremely easy to defeat rear-aspect only IR Missiles. Anything with flares renders it unplayable (not that you need flares to defeat the Red Tops, turning slightly is enough). Increasing its BR increases the number of aircraft with flares it can encounter and therefore it is rendered unplayable.
Alternative solution: Give Red Tops their missing All-aspect lock ability and add the Sea-Vixen’s Missing Napalm (2 year old bug report for those)
13 Likes
8.7 is way too high.
7.7 would be fine.
Ground RB, M26. 6.7 > 6.3
I propose a revert to the M26’s former BR of 6.3
-
It is directly outclassed by other US vehicles at 6.7, such as T26E5 and T26E1-1. These are more heavily armored and/or better armed variants of the M26. They are obviously different and shouldn’t share a BR.
-
It is comparable with tanks such as Panther A and Tiger 1E, which sit at a BR of 6.0, a whopping two BR steps lower. The tanks are roughly comparable in Armor and firepower, but I will concede the M26 is slightly better than either. That’s why I advocate for 6.3 BR, a difference of 0.3 from these vehicles.
54 Likes
Then we don’t need MiG-21 bis to go down,…
Be serious for a second ^^