Are you high? Hahaha they flatten the Pershing.
The right ammo for Panthers is almost always the stock APHE, so there isn’t much to “learn” there. For Tigers, there is a tradeoff between the two different APHEs. As for aiming, if you use Panthers and Tigers at their current BRs and don’t know how to aim, you won’t go very far.
I don’t see how we could be able to factually determine this, especially because this game’s damage model has an ongoing, massive level of fuckery and issues as I’m sure you’ve also experienced. If you asked me for my anecdotal impression, I would say it’s Soviet tanks that always get the “get out of jail free” card when they do something stupid, and they’re also the tanks, out of those that I encounter, that seem to get more frequent instances of volumetric absurdity.
But I also notice when it happens to me. For instance, a few days ago at Cargo Port a T25 shot me twice (I was in the Waffentraeger) and it did absolutely zero damage to me. The rounds didn’t even overpen, they just… bounced off the UFP somehow? After killing him I legit typed in chat “sorry that volumetric screwed you” because I’ve been on the other side of that and I know what that feels like.
But anyway.
Only Gaijin has global data to know what’s going on, and that’s probably only one part of their decision process in settling these things. So we can’t know for sure. All we do have to go on are our personal experiences, and the imperfect data collection sites like TS and Data Project. For me personally, I never got the impression that any of these vehicles were performing in a way that significantly deviates from the average.
Of course. They’re hardly unstoppable juggernauts. And like I said, I’m not particularly bothered by H1 going to 5.7. What really bothers me is the E going to 6.0, and more broadly and gravely, this:
What difference does the fact that they’ve been “changed a long time ago” make?
Russian helicopters are still absolutely ridiculous. Their BRs should ALWAYS be higher than their other-nation counterparts as long as they’re overperforming, which they absolutely are. The YAH-64 is by no means equivalent to the 50s, 52s and 28s.
It should not be at a lower br than the Merkava mk3
Suggestion 1:
AIR RB BR 11.0 to 11.7 planes are absolutely unplayable at the moment due to the constant uptiers. I suggest a uptier BR cap for these battle ratings so they can never be paired with 12.0’s and 12.3’s.
We had such a uptier cap before, let’s bring it back.
Suggestion 2:
I would like to plead for up- and downtiers in AIR RB to be no more than a 0.7 BR difference. With the
increased player numbers now is the time.
I’m sure no one would mind waiting a couple extra moments for queue to pop for a matchmaker that is a lot more fair.
The T-90A was among the worst high tier tanks in the entire game, whilst the IPM1 and M1A1 and the Merk 3s at 10.7 were the literal best high tier tanks in the entire game.
- Reloads faster.
- Accelerates MUCH faster.
- Has nearly twice the turret traverse rate.
- Better penetration.
- Over double the gun depression.
- MASSIVELY better gun elevation speed.
- Safer ammo stowage.
- More crew.
- TEN TIMES faster reverse speed.
- Massively faster off roads.
- Faster hull traverse.
- Better upper glacis armour.
- Has neutral steering.
The T-90A is still barely 10.7 material and remains completely non meta till this day.
1 Like
and tanks which BR rises ridicoulos high will never be played again (except total cracks) and therefore stay forever where they are…
the br changes for ground vehicles are not that good , air either
I don’t play GER so I can’t say from first person experience but I do agree with late WW2 RU and odd bounces. All I see is GER teams at 5.7 range holding W and winning most of the time. Where the criteria is thats causing that I do not know as you said we don’t have enough of a scope to determine ourselves.
Human nature is selfish and everyone will want vehicles they like moved down and ones they don’t like facing moved up. All I can say for myself is the last change made 8.3-9.0 go from feeling like a great BR range to being misery (At least for Italy). So now I have to expect more of the same somewhere else with this change.
i agree
If the 0.7 max BR difference is not feasible across the board, please at least consider it for the higher ranks that really suffer from the compressed BR’s.
1 Like
I wonder, why doesn’t Gaijin show the statistical data they have?
I think it would be easier for them to show their understanding of BR Change if they would make their statistical data available to the public in some way.
3 Likes
I rarely see someone playing with a vehicle that has a FF missile. And I have never seen the BR of the vehicle changed. Apart from the massive changes last time. What I can say is that the vehicle feels too dependent on the type of map and target position. QN506, Freccia, KF41 are very difficult to play because of FF missile. other vehicles like 2s38, bmp2m and other ivf that don’t have FF missile are better than them. Lowering BR QN506 and Freccia to 9.3 or 9.7 and KF 41 to 10.0. I hope the gaijin team will take my information and I really appreciate it
3 Likes
Half these points don’t even count for the Merkava Mk.3s.
6.7 second aced for the Merkava Mk.3 vs 7.1 on the T-90A. So if not aced they have the same reload.
Actually some of the mobility stats of the T-90A are better than the Mk.3s.
34°/s vs 24°/s is better but not twice as fast.
Pretty similar
-7° vs -4° so I guess it’s slightly better.
Can’t find on phone.
Not really for the Merkava Mk.3s.
Fair.
-26 km/h vs -4 km/h, I’ll give the Merkava this one.
Not really sure.
Wish the Merkava had this lol.
Su22m3 and Su22m3k
10.7 -10.3
They’re strike aircraft with regular r60s fighting against F-4’s, F-14’s, J7 and 8’s and more which all have radar missile’s and all aspect missile’s.
They are also unable to outrun things like mig 21’s, Kfir’s and other aircraft at that br
10.7 also rarely gets downtiers and most games are uptiers so most of the time they are fighting 11.7
Moving them down to 11.3 can make it less punishing to use and encourage they’re use in air rb more
Please think again before changing the Italian tree this much. The 9.3 and 10.0 lineups both feel great and would both be severly nerfed by the centauro/vrcc and heli changes. Centauro and VRCC don’t offer much more than other vehicles in that BR or the advantages are balanced by other disadvantages. The Italian tree feels really fun to play since the update and shouldn’t be destroyed again.
On another note - the ZTZ59D1 change looks nice since it felt very off to have thermals on a vehicle this early and accessible.
Yes, even if the actual combat experience of FF missiles aside, every vehicle with FF missiles has serious shortcomings at present.
QN506, as a light tank, maneuvers too poorly, and the 30mm partition in its body does not block the fire caused by the ammunition rack. The KF41 is almost inferior to PUMA, with only 2 missiles, and APS has almost no effect, with a BR of up to 10.7. Freccia is probably the best one, but it’s not as good as Dardo
1 Like
Sounds like it is time to move KV-1E to 3.3 then.
Stop being facetious, the NA75 warrants comparison to the Sherman because the gun is the defining feature of the tank and what made it such a high BR. The KV-1E is a completely different vehicle, and regardless the 100mm+ RHA across most of the front and side, whilst actually retaining decent mobility, gives it an actual tangible advantage over T-34s despite trade-offs in speed and firepower. It earns the 4.0 BR whilst the NA75 does not.
It makes no difference if it is missing the vertical stabilizer or APCR ammunition.
This might be the first time in 10 years I’ve unironically heard someone dismiss the gargantuan advantage of the Sherman’s stabilizer. Yeah the NA75 is slow with a relatively stable gun but that still pales in comparison to an actual stab; The Sherman’s ability to fire first in almost any engagement is half the reason it’s so potent and the NA75 simply lacks that advantage. The APCR meanwhile gives an extra 20-30mm penetration over the APCBC at 0-30 degrees, which is an objectively massive improvement for this BR and especially for a vehicle too slow to flank almost any opponent in order for the APCBC’s pathetic penetration to work.
It is also not a Churchill III. The turret is significantly more resilient than the original Churchill III.
Churchill III has 89mm RHA all around the turret. NA75 has ~76-95mm CHA on the turret itself and 50-76mm CHA on the mantlet. NA75 loses almost 20mm on the sides, 10-20mm on the mantlet and ends up roughly on par with the Mk.III on the front cheeks, it’s only stronger in extremely specific spots where the modelling of curved armour gets weird so the thickness jumps up past 100mm, but this only works against the weaker guns at the tier and vehicles like the Pz.IV will still effortlessly penetrate the turret face at range.
Furthermore, how does it lack the survivability of Sherman? That tank is far more survivable than any Sherman.
It’s purely anecdotal but I find that with the NA75 I get my entire turret crew killed more often than in the Sherman owing to it being more cramped. Ammo rack placement seems to get the NA75 killed more often too.
2 Likes
once again wyvern not going up…
2 Likes
Merkava mk3
-
Reload stock 8.7 aced 6.7. 5 round first stage
-
Lower Hp/T 18.5 to 21.5 for the T90
-
Worse protection
-
-7-20 degress
-
Dont know about blowout ammo
-
4 Crew but still close together
-
-25 km/h
-
Lower hp/t so should be slower
-
Neutral steering
-
The hull is a massive weakspot
-
M322 Penetration is from 0 degress 10 meter 589 while 3BM60 is 580
So the merkava is in multiple places worse but only in a slight few places better
1 Like