This is a strike aircraft with similar performance to a Mig-19 platform with 2 rear-aspect only missiles, no guided air-ground armaments, very limited unguided armaments compared to the competition, limited countermeasures and a bad gun.
It is planned to be set at same BR as A-10A late which gets double the amount of IR missiles with competitive g-overload and all aspect seeker, guided air to ground armaments, variety of unguided armaments, modern HUD for better experience in simulator battles, large amount of countermeasures and a godly gun to shred your enemies.
This BR placement doesn’t make any sense. Please cancel the plan to up-tier it to 10.7.
Vehicle: Challenger 2 TES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently and should not be 0.3 BR lower than the extremely powerful top tier MBTs such as the 2A7V, 122 and BVM. It does not have the performance to justify it. In addition, it is heavier and slower than all other Challenger 2s and has overall worse performance
Vehicle: Challenger 2 OES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently and should not be 0.3 BR lower than the extremely powerful top tier MBTs such as the 2A7V, 122 and BVM. It does not have the performance to justify it. In addition, it is heavier and slower than all other Challenger 2s and has overall worse performance
Vehicle: Challenger 2F
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently and should not be 0.3 BR lower than the extremely powerful top tier MBTs such as the 2A7V, 122 and BVM. It does not have the performance to justify it. In addition, it is heavier and slower than all other Challenger 2s and has overall worse performance
Each country’s main battle tank has received a 5-6.5 second increase in firing rate, while China’s main battle tanks still use a 7.1 second loading time and 577mm penetration depth steel spikes? How long has it been since the anti-fragmentation lining and ammunition loader enhancements for the 99 series tank were approved? Are they not ready for installation? The more modifications made to the 99A model, the larger the weaknesses in the frontal armor, isn’t it deliberately emptying the frontal armor? The driver’s thighs of the 99 series are sticking into their stomachs, and the waist angle is nearly 45 degrees, which is not a deliberate modification to empty the frontal armor? How can a normal human drive a vehicle in this sitting position? And now only the 99A model has been corrected, do the other 99 models not need correction?
The F-86F-2 is at 8.7 with vastly better armament instead of the longer wings with slats. It’s a worthy trade. Plus, the Sabres already see enough supersonics, no need to make it worse.
Hey Stona, first of all The Merkava/Ariete buffs are amazing news and top tier ground decompression is a really good step in the right direction.
However do you happen to know if the devs are aware of how oppressing it feels to fight the 2A7s and Strv 122s at top tier, and maybe if they have some plans in the pipeline to help remedy the situation?
Vehicle: Challenger 2 Black Night
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: Whilst the Black Night has a notable upgrade over the earlier Challenger 2s that justify it being 0.3 BR higher than them. It does not have the performance to match any of the top tier MBTs. It should be 0.3 BR lower than the 2A7V, 122 and BVM.
Vehicle: Challenger 2E
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: Whilst the 2E has a notable upgrade over the earlier Challenger 2s that justify it being 0.3 BR higher than them. It does not have the performance to match any of the top tier MBTs. It should be 0.3 BR lower than the 2A7V, 122 and BVM.