Better lock?What part are you talking about?
And you just ignoring that ozelot has a radar and a very good TVD
Most 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.3 and 6.7 vehicles are fine only the T 92 m56 m50 2s1 PT 76 German walker bulldog, should go up in br
Ka-50 is already 11.0, and Ka-52 is already 11.7. There is nothing to change.
279 is already 8.7, there is nothing to change until the next decompression.
Ka-52 & AH-64Ds can move up together at a later date if needed.
Strela’s missile is much better than any of the other early SAMs, it has higher speed, more explosive power and turns better. Not having a radar practically just means you don’t trigger RWR, missiles don’t need a radar anyways so you’d just keep it turned off most of the time anyways.
Thermals do make it easier to use missiles effectively but you do have missiles to spare so there’s nothing stopping you from just firing multiple
If char 25t is going to 7.7 (destroying the very good 7.3 lineup) it should also receive a HEAT shell to deal with heavy tanks and especially a certain event heavy tank that has been ravaging 8.7 for a while now.
2 Likes
That gun never had HEAT developed for it.
Getting a 4 second reload on a really good light tank is rather fine for it.
It very much can fire HEAT Char 25 T Wrong Gun - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
So give me a reason why the stabilized Object 906 can sit at just 0.3 br above it with superior aphe and a heat shell.
5 Likes
I’m not talking about missile firing capability. I’m talking about the ability to spot the enemy. Having a search radar and a TVD makes a huge difference in survivavility and attacking capability. Which can not be ignored as factor of deciding BR. And about the missiles, strela isn’t better in EVERY ASPECT. It doesn’t have any IRCCM so it is really easy to be flared out. On top of that, lock range really makes a huge difference. Like even a jet with A/B on, it can be locked like 2.5km away and talking about helis, theres no hope at all to kill them if they had IRCM, and even without IRCM, they can be locked for lower than 1km only. Also plz don’t forget that stingers has been buffed in like last last update and is way more flare resistant now. So Ozelot have a lot in advance imo.
CAS options are limited already even at 9.3 since France doesn’t have a PGM and flare carrying plane like the A-4E/N (USA / ISR), nor at 9.7 like the Hunter F.58 (GER). The best option for the current 9.3 line-up is either the 9.0 Etendard IVM (no flares), or the SA.342M Gazelle (9.3).
You would have to wait until 10.0 for the SEM, which would only go along with the Roland (FR), which features the worst elevation out of all Rolands for whatever reason (not fixed yet).
All commentary is regarding Realistic Battles.
A few preliminary notes.
-
The ZTZ59D1 nerfs.
The removal of the thermal sights and horizontal stabilizer are based on documentation. It is not simply an arbitrary nerf chosen by the Developers. The thermal sight specifically has had two separate reports, although the older one is no longer visible. -
Removal of Shrapnel and HE shells from Rank 1 vehicles.
While I understand the motivation for this change, I think it would be more appropriate if the tutorial did a better job of explaining the functionality of these shells to new players, rather than remove them for everyone. Admittedly, having an HE shell for such small caliber guns in War Thunder is not so important, but there are certainly some people who opt to use them. -
General commentary on BR changes in the 5.3-6.3 range of Ground Forces.
I strongly agree with the spirit of these changes. However, like with my comments last time, moving vehicles up to decompress certain BRs without raising all vehicles above it ultimately doesn’t eliminate the problem, but just shuffles it around. If the decompression of the 5.3-6.3, 7.7-8.7, and 9.0-10.0 range are to be done properly and in earnest, the progress of previous changes cannot be undone by successive ones.
With that said, on to the responses to this round of changes.
Planned Changes
SU-122
2.3 → 2.7
Good.
3-inch Gun Carrier
2.7 → 3.0
I understand this change, although I also don’t see it as one of the most critical.
M 42 Contraereo
3.3 → 3.7
No comment.
Ystervark
4.3 → 4.0
Not enough experience to comment.
ZSD63 (PG87)
4.3 → 4.7
No comment.
KV-1 (ZiS-5)
4.3 → 4.7
A good change. This vehicle is far too powerful to be facing 3.3 vehicles, and many 3.7 vehicles for that matter.
Crusader AA Mk. II
3.7 → 4.0
I do not see this as necessary. The firepower is equal to the AEC AA Mk. II, with the only advantage in ammunition count. Their BRs could be different, but they should not be so far apart.
Bosvark
3.7 → 4.0
Appropriate, considering other similarly-armed SPAA.
KV-85
4.7 → 5.0
An excellent change! One could even argue for BR 5.3, but this was a sorely needed change.
M4A1 (76) W
No comment.
Tiger H1 (all)
5.3 → 5.7
Good. Good all around.
Tiger E
5.7 → 6.0
Not quite as urgently needed as the Tiger H1, but I think it is still appropriate.
Skink
5.0 → 5.3
No comment.
Panther G/A (all)
5.7 → 6.0
Also a great change.
IS-2 (1943) (all)
I’m not sure how I feel about this one. The IS-2s are undoubtedly strong vehicles, but their main drawback in reload time and large weakspots makes 6.3 feel rather high for them.
IS-2 (1944) (all)
I harbor similar hesitation for this change as well. However, seeing as the frontal armor was improved with the recent remodel. I would suggest considering re-adding BR-471D to these vehicles if the change is undertaken, as against 7.7 opponents the basic shells of the D-25T become much more difficult to use.
M41A1 (all)
6.0 → 6.3
No comment.
Centurion Mk. II
No comment.
Tiger II (P)
6.3 → 6.7
While I agree it is strong at 6.3, it also should not be the same BR as the standard Tiger II. If this change is to make sense, most/all existing 6.7+ vehicles should also move up in BR.
leKPz M 41
6.3 → 6.7
No comment.
M26 (all) & M26A1
6.3 → 6.7
This probably one of the worst changes. The mobility at 6.3 is already quite lackluster, while the firepower is only barely adequate at-BR. Once the mantlet armor is fixed to historical values, it may be more comfortable at 6.3, but if it moves to 6.7, there is no reason to use the M26 compared to its heavy counterparts like the T26E5 or T26E4-1.
T92
6.7 → 7.0
No comment.
G6
7.0 → 6.7
I do not like this move either. These sorts of mobile howitzers are rather challenging to balance, but their relatively modern fire-controls compare to the contemporary tanks at the BR makes their quirks workable.
Char 25t
7.3 → 7.7
This area for French tanks needs to be fixed all around. Reload speeds need to be standardized.
AMX 50 (TO 90/930)
7.3 → 7.7
Ditto.
K9 VIDAR
7.7 → 8.0
It needs to go even higher.
87RCV
8.7 → 9.0
I don’t really see this as necessary.
ZTZ59D1
8.7 → 8.3
With the other changes to its NVD and stabilizer, this becomes more appropriate.
ZT3A2
8.7 → 8.3
No comment.
ZTZ88 (all)
8.7 → 9.0
A justified change.
T-69 IIG
8.7 → 9.0
Also understandable. However, it is inferior in protection to the ZTZ88 or the T-55AM/T-62M
89FV
8.7 → 9.0
This vehicle’s ATGM controls have been severely nerfed since the missile flight model update. I do not know if this change is necessary.
16MCV (Prototype & Premium)
9.0 → 9.3
Normally I would agree with moving up wheeled vehicles, but they are not significantly better than a comparable vehicle like the PTL02 or WMA301.
16MCV
9.3 → 9.7
Ditto.
Centauro I 105
9.0 → 9.3
This one I support more.
Centuaro I 105 R & VRCC
9.3 → 9.7
Ditto.
VBCI-2 (MCT-30)
9.3 → 9.7
No comment.
Lvrbv 701
10.0 → 9.3
This has been needed for a while, this vehicle is horribly underplayed and overtiered.
Hurricane Mk. IV
2.3 → 2.0
No comment.
MiG-3-34
2.3 → 2.7
No comment.
Ju 88 C-6
2.7 → 2.3
No comment.
Hs 129 B-2 (all)
2.7 → 2.3
No comment.
Ki 49-II Ko
3.3 → 3.0
Good. Many mid-rank bombers have been overtiered for years due to changes in the performance of aircraft guns.
Yer-2 (M-105)
3.7 → 3.3
Ditto. Other Yer-2s should move down too.
Pe-2-110 & Pe-2-205
4.0 → 3.7
Ditto.
J2M2
4.3 → 4.7
No comment.
J6K1
6.0 → 6.3
I haven’t seen this vehicle in a while, but I’m not certain about this.
MiG-21 SPS-K
10.0 → 9.7
I disagree with this change. This vehicle is equipped with both R-60s and flares, it should not be facing 8.7 aircraft and is already notably superior to existing 9.7 and 9.3 aircraft. I understand it has a hard time in uptiers, but this is just more evidence of decompression being necessary.
A-6E TRAM
10.0 → 10.3
Good.
AJS 37
11.3 → 11.0
No comment.
Su-25 “BM”
11.3 → 11.0
Understandable.
F-16A Netz
12.0 → 12.3
No comment.
A.109EOA-2
9.0 → 8.7
The nerf to the control of TOW-1 missiles can make this understandable, although I am still generally opposed to the lowering of Helicopter battle ratings.
Various other top-rank helicopters
10.0 → 10.3, 10.3 → 10.7, 10.7 → 11.0, 11.0 → 11.3, and 11.3 → 11.7
Good.
Suggested Changes
Most 8.0+ tanks
Current BR +0.3/0.4
The changes being introduced presently are going to undo some of the progress towards BR Decompression that were introduced in the August 2023 BR changes. Several late-WWII vehicles, such as IS-2, are once again moving into the realm of early Cold War tanks with high-penetrating subcaliber and shaped charge munitions. While I applaud the work towards decompression, the current course of action has simply revoked the benefits of BR decompression after only 2 short months.
Most 9.3+ tanks
Current BR +0.6/0.7
Similar to above, the August 2023 changes also reverted the progress of the changes made in April 2023. In many instances, vehicles which were separated by the April update have now been put back together as of August. If the past two episodes of decompression are to actually have a lasting and meaningful impact, they must be separated again.
M4A3E2 (76) W
6.3 → 6.0
Although part of the issue is BR compression, this vehicle is also just overtiered. The 76mm gun is not competitive at its BR, and it gets bullied extremely hard in uptiers. It should not have to regularly face tanks like the IS-3 or M47.
T32E1
7.7 → 7.3
Also a consequence of BR compression, the T32E1 should not be put at the same BR as the M103, which is just outright superior. The protection improvement compared to the regular T32 is just not significant enough to justify it facing 8.7 tanks, especially when most vehicles that can already penetrate the T32 will penetrate the T32E1 just as easily.
T95E1
8.3 → 8.0
This vehicle is also somewhat a symptom of BR compression. However, compared to contemporaries at 8.3, it is worse in just about every way. Against the M60A1 AOS, it is at a disadvantage in every regard except that its APFSDS has more flat penetration than the M60’s APDS. The lack of a stabilizer especially makes it very difficult to play, even with decent traverse rates.
M42 Duster (all)
4.3 → 4.0
It offers no tangible advantage compared to the M19A1, especially in the anti-aircraft role.
T28
6.3 → 6.7
This vehicle should not be facing 5.3 tanks, which it is practically invulnerable to. Even though it has weaker side armor compared to the T95, frontally it is still a 7.0 vehicle.
Pz. IV F2
3.3 → 3.7
The firepower is overkill for its BR. While its armor is suboptimal, the mobility and fire controls remain fairly strong for its tier. There is no need for 2.3 tanks to face a long 75 on a stable platform.
Pz. IV G
3.3 → 4.0
Like above, but the improved armor—especially with add-on tracks—makes it reasonably competitive at 4.0.
Pz. IV H
3.7 → 4.3
Ditto, but even stronger. The armor is approaching the effectiveness of a KV tank, although not with the same consistency.
Pz. IV J, Pz.Bfw. IV J, Pz. IV (Italy)
3.7 → 4.0
Ditto with Pz. IV G.
VK 30.02 (M)
5.0 → 5.3
Although certainly weaker than a normal Panther, its firepower makes it very dangerous, and against many 4.0 and 4.3 tanks it is still far too powerful. Most 75mm and 76mm guns from 4.0-4.7 cannot reliably fight it, while its armor and firepower can easily wipe the floor.
Panther D
5.3 → 5.7
With other Panthers moving up to 6.0, this tank should as well. It is more mobile than all of them, at the cost of turret traverse.
Sd.Kfz. 222 (all)
SPAA → Light Tank
In-game, the functionality is identical to the Sd.Kfz. 234/1, but it gets rewarded with a cheaper spawn cost simply due to its classification. There is an established precedent that tanks are classified in-game based on how they are played, not based on arbitrary or historical nomenclature.
Marder III
2.3 → 2.7
The level of firepower it possesses is unreasonable for 2.3, compared to a contemporary like the ZiS-30 it is superior in all but reload rate and some degree in mobility. It is comparable to the Marder III H and could arguably be the same BR.
Jagdpanther, Bfw. Jagdpanther
6.0 → 6.3
It has very powerful front armor and is impervious to basically all 5.0 and 5.3 tanks, except those with 122mm guns. It is a stronger vehicle than the SU-100. It shouldn’t be facing 5.0 tanks like up-armed Shermans or Chi-Ri II.
T-34-85 (D-5T)
5.3 → 5.7
Due to the remodel, the turret armor is actually stronger frontally compared to the standard T-34-85. The firepower performance is the same, and the only real disadvantage is the lack of a 5th crew member.
T-44
6.7 → 6.3
It is not competitive at 6.7, its firepower is far too weak compared to contemporary medium tanks. The turret is also a massive weakspot and is more comparable to the Panther F.
T-55A, TO-55
8.3 → 8.7
Compared to other 8.3 tanks, it has both the advantages of 2-plane gun stabilization and an APFSDS round. Against the T-62, while it may have less penetration, it also comes with a faster reload. Even then, the firepower is fairly comparable to the T-62, as is the mobility and fire-control system.
T-55AM-1, T-55AMD-1
8.7 → 9.0
In performance these vehicles are very similar to the ZTZ88B and A and should be considered a contemporary of the Leopard 1 A1 or Type 69-IIG, not to mention the gun-launched missile capability. Many vehicles at 8.0 and even some 8.3 vehicles struggle significantly to fight it. It also is another example of why the previous decompression changes need to be considered again.
IS-1
5.3 → 5.7
It has strong protection, both frontally and from the side, compared to other heavy tanks of a similar BR. Especially if the IS-2 family are moving up, the IS-1 can also be comfortable at 5.7.
KV-220
5.7 → 6.0
With other heavy tanks like the Tiger I going up, this vehicle could also be moved to 6.0 without issue. Although slightly weaker in firepower, the high mobility and extremely good protection of the KV-220 make it a strong candidate for moving up.
Ka-Chi
2.0 → 2.3
The Ka-Chi has very strong frontal armor, much stronger than the Chi-Ha Kai even. The large size makes it rather cumbersome to use, but it also means that, with its large crew count, makes it very survivable, especially against low-rank opponents.
M113A1 (TOW) (China)
Rank V → Rank VI
It should be placed at Rank VI, similar to the Italian version, and put in a folder with the CM25.
4 Likes
Indeed, thats is a good idea. Im also for the return of low rank He grenades, they can be effective especially after they had added overpressure.
1 Like
Why is the Netz going to 12.3? are they getting Pythons 4’s?
IRCCM is literally nonfunctional in the game, IR SAMs will always go for flares if any were launched no matter what missile we are talking about. Flares are also available to very few planes below 10.0, not completely unseen but at 9.3 we have what…4? total planes that have any countermeasures.
Also the missile has over 3km lock range for planes, sure that’s lower effective range than the common 35mm AA cannon but also can’t be dodged by pressing a button for half a second. It’s an absolute nightmare for the 8.3-8.7 aircraft that it will see quite often, and very effective even against 10.0s without flares. Having terrible lock range for helicopters is a general issue, only guns have any hope of hitting copters with 3.5km+ range ATGMs until SACLOS SAMs come to play
Easily? By just being able to pen the turret face and mg port yeah. Meanwhile the tiger can just click on 95% of the pershing and it dies.
You are insane if you think the tiger 2 H and base pershing are equal and should be at the same BR.
3 Likes
If thats the case then there wouldn’t be that many planes being shot down by IRSAMs at 12.3 ground RB.
That doesn’t mean it should bring down the BR of Ozelot. Either we bring all IRSAMs BR up or nothing.
Same with stingers
2km and 1km is really a big difference here. And you just ignored IRCM problem here
M48A2? M48A2 GA2? Or is that M60 level protection only “decent” when it applies to non German vehicles?
Seperat Softstat change suggestions:
Pz III Ausf. B-J turret speed to 14°/sec like the other Pz IIIs allready have, they are all hand traversed (so there arent any tests and its a soft stat by the human) they are all at low Br and even Reserve tanks. At the lower ranks mobility is key, pretty much every other tank has a much faster turret traverse as well as general mobility.
The Pz IIIs also have not much armor (14,5-30mm and the J 50mm) but are extremly limited by the turret traverse of 5.5°/sec (6.0°/sec for B) so they should be the same 14°/sec like the rest (which all have allmost the same traverse mechanism as well) And yes i allready made a bug report for the Traverse speed and it was forwarded/acknowleged.
M48A2 is fair. Technically not an MBT though.
Meanwhile, the GA2 is unstabilized hunk of junk at 8.3 with protection of a 7.7 (significantly lower than the M60A1, T-55, etc). Because of its firepower it can’t go any lower but it suffers like few other vehicles (AMX 30) do.
1 Like
People are just discussing the given BR changes. That isn’t wrong even if those changes don’t fit your limited point of view.
So what name calling will it be this time?
I think it would be too unbalanced for the M26 to have the same BR as the German Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and Ferdinand, as well as the American T34 heavy tank and Super Pershing. In reality, the M26 is said to be less powerful than the Tiger 2, and the T34 heavy tank and Super Pershing are advanced and enhanced versions of the M26. I think the difference in ability between these vehicles is huge even in the game.
4 Likes