GRB, Radkampfwagen90. 9.7-9.3. Reasoning: only had the DM33, which did not contain the thermal imaging device, while the Rooikat MTTD containing the low-clear thermal imaging device and DM33 was 9.0
3 Likes
Vehicle: T-44
Gamemode: Ground RB
BR Change: 6.7 ----> 6.3
Reason: T-44 is equipped with an outdated 85mm cannon, not able to penetrate any medium or heavy tank from front at this br------not even M26, which is trash at 6.7. It’s suspension performs poorly.
13 Likes
My bad. Was just trying to help in case of typo. Because all of our voices deserve to be heard.
someone write about T25 plz
3 Likes
Vehicle: AMX A-1A
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: ARB: 11.3 -----> 11.0. ASB: 11.3 → 10.7
Reason: The AMX A-1A has a similar flight performance to that of the Sea Harrier FRS1e and has a similar A2A loadout. It does hold an advantage of higher CM count and better AAMs, but this does not justify being 0.7 BR higher. 11.0 would be more reasonable for now.
10.7 for Air Realistic is possibly needed, it really comes down to the relative performance between Aim-9Ls and the MAA-1 Piranha’s and whether the 120 CMs and MAA-1s are better suited at 11.0
Air Sim should get a lower BR as the lack of radar greatly impacts aircraft with All-aspect AAMs to use them in all-aspect, and any advantage over the Aim-9Ls the AAMs on the AMX might have is mitigated by this fact and should share a BR with the Sea Harrier FRS1e
21 Likes
why do these tanks still have to be in the same BR as T80BVM, strv122, and Leo A7? their performance is only worth 11.0. unless gaijin provides them with a reasonable buff.
demonstration:
the slowest loading speed(7.1), the worst shell penetration(577) , have some, but very poor armor.
compared to the T90A/ZTZ99-2/3, their only advantage is mobility. but the defense is worse. this offset the advantage of maneuverability.
The overall performance has not improved at all, but the BR has increased by 1.0.
The armor and weaknesses of M1A1AIM are similar to them. but M1A1AIM is superior to them anywhere except for armor. 5-second loading speed, with a penetration of nearly 600mm.now it has also obtained M829A2.
due to not have hull ammunition racks and the presence of four crew members. M1 can often survive even after being penetrated. and 99A/1001/VT4 will immediately die after being penetrated.
they are not worth 12.0 at all, they are only worth 11.0.
but Gaijin was completely unaware of this issue. this is really rotten.
why don’t you put T3476 and Tiger in the same BR?
@Stona_WT
According to various sources, The length of DTC10 should be at least 635mm (without tail fins)
When carrying the tail wing, it is 675mm . Maximum penetration force 680mm.
And the loading speed in the video is faster.
But Gaijin has been looking for various reasons and excuses to refuse to use this evidence.
And intentionally made a toxic 577mm . Using the T72 loader structure as a reason to limit the loading speed of China MBTs.
Until now, they have never attempted to make any improvements.
If gaijin still wants to place them in top tier competitions. Then they should at least shorten the loading time to 6.5. And change the penetration force of DTC10 to 635-680mm.
These all have sources, but Gaijin is unwilling to admit them.
as you said. Gaijin does not accept undisclosed information. so we will not release any further reports on shells. but this cannot be used as a reason for you to refuse to enhance the penetration power of the shells.
I can clearly tell you that the length of DTC10 is at least 635mm (with a tail wing of 675mm). Also including high initial velocity. Special materials such as tungsten alloy. The tail has a built-in combination structure. These factors bring more penetration power. It will far exceed 635 and 3BM60.
Instead of creating 580-3 based on russian biased stereotypes.
Spoiler
If according to the user manual and official media’s public information, it should be (2000m 680mm)
whether you believe it or not, this is currently the most authoritative source that can be publicly disclosed.
more and more vehicles are now receiving M829A2 and DM53, and achieve faster loading speed.
so DTC10 should also be revised to the official media reported 635-680mm.
and increase the loading speed of these 3 MBTs to 6.5 seconds.
only in this way can make up for the poor survivability and firepower.
gain competitiveness comparable to T80BVM, strv122, and leo2A7.
262 Likes
Sholef (V1) Reload Speed 12.0 sec → 6.5 Seconds
With this report accepted, Community Bug Reporting System
The sholef could get variable reload speed, similar to the object 279.
I propose that its reload speed with an ace crew becomes 6.5 seconds to compensate for how horrible the vehicle is (ive played it, i hate it).
16 Likes
Air Realistic Battle. F-104S TAF 11.3 > 11.0
Most aircraft from 11.3 are lowered to 11.0 (including MiG-23M/MF, 21bis, Lazur), but have you forgotten the Starfighters? In the latest update, his maneuverability was nerfed, making him unable to dodge even a missile like aim 9E, not to mention the aim 7F, 24R/T or R-60. The speed of this aircraft at 11.3 is no longer interesting to anyone, and all sorts of Lazur or MiG-23 fly even faster. Yes, of course he has as many as 6 missiles, but what’s the point? You can almost never get on the enemy’s tail, and you also cannot adequately reach the enemy to kill him from the gun (thanks to the nerf maneuverability). I don’t even want to talk about any kind of maneuverable combat, everything is already clear there.
10 Likes
I disagree with that opinion. The poor Vetronics and,
armor, which is not particularly superior to other tanks, are not worth changing the current relative combat rating of the Type 90 tank, even taking into account its firepower.
2 Likes
maybe it should be moved to 10.7
Mode, vehicle name. 8.0 > 8.3. Reasoning
Ground Realistic Battles, A.C.IV 5.3>4.7
The A.C. IV at 5.3 has decent armor and can handle smaller targets easily, but when you get into a 6.3 match and fight against King Tigers and other heavier targets with Solid AP, it is no match. I believe it should be moved down to 4.7 to facilitate a better lineup and survivability.
3 Likes
Try to play at 8.7 lineup. I really had more kills than on it’s 7.3
1 Like
This is the place to post you suggestions. Please remember - one comment, one vehicle rule.
Naval RB
Non-applique British CA: HMS Norfolk, HMS Kent, HMS York
BR: 5.7>5.3
The lack of armor belts in the boiler rooms meant that any vollies to any compartment of the ship may cause a sharp drop of crew counts. Although other British cruisers suffer from the issue of badly place compartments as well, they were significantly reinforced with the WW2 modification around the boiler rooms and compensated with good close range guns.
The earlier British CA should see a BR drop to highlight their lack of survivability.
6 Likes
GRB, Leopard 2K. 9.7>9.7. Reasoning: It had only weak armor, the 20mm gun was extremely poor at damage, and lacked the thermal imaging equipment that most vehicles of its BR already had
5 Likes
Its tricky… does have 120 CMs and a fairly cold airframe (I think) and apparently the AAMs are a notable upgrade over Aim-9Ls?
I was thinking 10.7 because on paper its basically a Sea Harrier FRS1e with GBUs and no radar. But… Its the missile performance that is the unknown for me. At least 11.0 is a step in the right direction for now.
ARB, F-4C, 10.7 > 10.0.
Frankly, everything about this whole plane can be summarized into one word BAD. The F-4C NEEDS to go down to 10.0 at least, because as it is currently it will still regularly face all-aspects from fighter platforms (MIG-21BIS), and the F-5s are ONE BR step above it.
In all honesty the F-4C isn’t salvageable, so I just propose that the F-4C is replaced by the F-4D, which at least has access to countermeasures and better weapons.
11 Likes
Its a horrible vehicle either way
1 Like
It’s even worse than both M109
1 Like
Please make these changes for ARB also apply to air sim. I would love to play the j-11/su27 at 13.0 in air sim
1 Like