Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026)

[OrsonES]

Hey there everyone! Very soon, we’ll be introducing a new top-tier Battle Rating for aircraft, 14.7! Some time after this update, we’re planning a number of other changes, which we’re letting you know about today.

In the near future, we’ll be introducing the new Rank IX for aircraft, which will contain some of the current top-tier vehicles, as they will move. Some rank VIII aircraft will be grouped together as well. Other related changes are also planned too, for example some early Tornado aircraft will be moved to rank VII.

We’d like to mention separately the changes that will affect Chinese aircraft. With the introduction of rank IX, we plan to review the placement of top-tier aircraft, which are currently unevenly distributed between the branches in the research tree.

Planned changes (open spoiler):

Spoiler

For all the details, please check out the Battle Rating changes table.

Click here to see the table of Battle Rating changes

We’re announcing these upcoming changes in advance to give you the opportunity to strategically plan your in-game progression with a clear understanding of how aircraft research trees will look in the near future.

[Caernarvon02]

@OrsonES

14.7!

WOOOOOOOO

(this is still too low but a good start)

Please move BMPT to 12.0 and T58 to 8.7-9.0

2S38 moving to 10.7 is a good start but its still an 11.0+ vehicle

the chieftain changes are stupid as the Khalid is 9.3 and is very obviously much better, but is still only just a 9.3 tank.

this is punishment for decent players instead of OP vehicles, the 900 is literally just a mk5 with a little more mobility lmao

you better give chieftains a 5 second reload like challenger 1 to compensate as they will be unplayable

This thing will still be worse than the 8.3 warrior

HELL YES

Stop killing naval. britain is already shafted with the OP game ruiners that the soyuz and all the other fake russian ships are. I dont play it anymore is i cant stand it

finally. now move falcon to 7.7 as its main problem has been removed, it has no radar modelled so its more like a Shilka without the radar in performance now

MY PROPOSED CHANGES (REALISTIC MODE) it would be a lot longer if i went through all the vehicles i know from playing and squadding with as well as fighting

Theese are MY PERSONAL OPINIONS you do not need to agree. if you do im happy to discuss it in a fair manner

BMPT to 12.0
T58 to 9.0
Centurion AVRE to 6.7
FV4005 Centaur to 6.0
falcon to 7.7 as it has no more APDS
Chieftain mk3 to 8.3, its mobility is awful, no point it being same br as the same thing but faster
Chieftain mk5 give it its laser rangefinder, all mk5 have a TLS system
Fox back to 7.7
Turm 3 to 9.0 its too OP from a 105mm, coaxial falcon gun and godly mobility to see base centurions and similar
Hawk 200 recieve AGM 65D or moved to 10.0 for ground battles
Hawk 200 RDA given AGM 65D and moved to 10.7 for ground battles
Badger to 8.7, its useless
CRV block 2 move to 10.0, its a badger with non functional FnF missiles
AC.IV move to 5.0, it gets no APDS its not equal to challenger
Comet to 5.0 as its reload sucks and its gun is weaker than challenger
Caernarvon to 7.3 as its a heavy tank but placed at the same BR as the equally powerful mediums, its just a worse choice without artillery.
stormer AD to 9.7, its a worse LAV AD
Stormer HVM to 10.0, its a worse OSA
All soviet T-34s moved up by one BR notch, those things are baby mode to play. I quit playing USSR as it was too easy
Tiger 2 production (H) and SLA to 7.0
VK3002 and panther D to 5.7, the gun is too powerful on such platforms for 4.0-4.3 tanks to face
M53/59 to 7.0
BTR ZD to 6.7
ZSU 23 4 m2 to 7.7
ZSU 37 2 to 8.3 (RADAR SHOULDNT BE SEEING WW2 PLANES)
ZSU 23 4 to 8.7
ZSu 23 4m4 to 9.7
2s6 to 11.0
m24 chaffee to 4.3, why is a smaller faster sherman at the same BR as sherman?
XM246, Gepard, ITPSV leopard, type 87 and all other 35mm SPAAs to 9.0
PZH2000 to 8.7
VIDAR to 9.0
XM800T to 9.0
BMD4 (all variants) to 10.3
BMP3 to 10.0
ajax to 10.7
Pz 4 H&J to 4.3 as they are firefly equals with slightly worse turret traverse
Flakpanzer 341 to 7.7, its a heavy falcon now
Tiger 2 105 to 7.3
HO-RI removed from game for being fake
Ostwind 2 removed from game for being fake
Skink to 4.7, polsten 20mm are too slow velocity to combat the aircraft of 5.3-8.3 of which its forced to shoot at
ALL 4.7 USSR tanks to 5.3, Ive just done a 8 match rampage streak in them

AIR:
12.3 hornet to 12.7
12.7 premium hornets get aim-9M and moved to 13.0
harrier T10 and AV8 Na gets aim 9m, 4x BOL and moved to 12.0 air (ground stays at 11.7)
harrier GR7 moved to 12.0
all harrier 2 variants to be able to carry six A2A missiles
F-5 variants all are moved by 1+ BR
Vampire to 7.3
Venom to 8.0
GR1 harrier either gets the countermeasure pod or moved to 9.0
Sea harriers moved down to 10.3 and 10.7
attacker to 6.7
mk3 meteor to 7.0
mk4 meteor to 7.3
mk8 meteors (all versions) 7.7
MIG 25 to 11.7
BI to 8.7, its a Komet but better
OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS not my opinions but from replies to this comment

MIG 29 is stuck in compression limbo please give it some QOL to give it a chance against 9m and F15
MIG-15 BIS ISH to 8.3 crazy good fighter with perfect CAS capability with its ballistic computer
SU30 (MK2 AMV, MKK) 13.7. they let even mediocre CAS players to sealclub lobbies.
Buccaneer S.2B move to 10.3 in air battles. she struggles with the spam of premium baserushers

[UMBRAL_STALKER-psn]

Br changes finally here

[IHаteCAS]

Actually pretty good changes for once…
(For the most part)

[UMBRAL_STALKER-psn]

T-72B3 at 11.3? Cool

[Morvran]

Not too bad, missing loads though and why are the F-15As moving down? Just making terrible compression worse than making it better by moving everything at 13.0+ up

[exeisdefeatable]

F-18E at 14.7 :(

[Morvran]

And massive nerfs for Britains top tier naval, great. Why no Soyuz changes?

[БрИт4нСкUй_П0дС0С]

(GRB) Т58 8.3 > 8.7 (may be 9.0) - vehicle overperforming and too good for its current br

[Sebbo_the_Plebbo]

This is extremely unnecessary.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: HMS Tiger
Gamemode: Naval Arcade & Realistic
BR Change: 6.0 -----> 5.3
Reason:

On the surface, HMS Tiger looks like a strong ship, with 2x very high rate of fire 6" main guns and 3x Incredibly fast firing 3" secondary guns. But the reality is that HMS Tiger is far weaker than most light cruisers at 5.7 and especially 6.0.

HMS Tiger’s mains guns have 3s reload (80 rounds per minute), which sounds good on paper. However, this is actually pretty poor for the BR. This is marginally better than HMS Liverpool with 9x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (72 rounds per minute) but far lower than ships such as USS Atlanta’s 14x 5" guns with 2.8 second reload (300 rounds per minute) or Nurnberg with 9x 6" guns with 5 second reloads (108 rounds per minute)

Compared to 6.0 cruisers since her BR increase, directly compared to something like HMS Belfast with 12x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (96 rounds per minute) just makes matter even worse

On top of the fairly poor shells per minute of the main guns, they have massive shell spread, and will rarely all impact the target, Easily 25%-50% of shells fired miss the target due to shell spread. Even at shorter ranges. These guns are only good at taking down aircraft with HE-VT due to their spread, as they act like bird shot. In comparison. 95% of the rounds fired from HMS Liverpool will hit the target due to having a very tight grouping.

Based upon datamines. HMS Tiger’s main 6" guns have double the shell spread of all other British 6" guns in game and there is no justified reason for this increase. If anything, Tiger should be more accurate

Since Tusk Force, the ability to fire the secondary guns at the same time as the Primary guns has been removed. Due to the inherent weapon spread of secondary guns vs naval targets when AI controlled, this has removed them entirely as being an anti-ship weapon vs anything other than coastal boats. I cant see any reason to be firing them manually at a target instead of the 6” guns unless they have been disabled. So this change has eliminated more 50% of the Tigers firepower, especially vs destroyers, which I imagine is the reason for her BR increase to 6.0

As a final note, HMS Tiger also has very poor survivability and cannot withstand fire for very long. She loses crew incredibly fast and due to having so few guns, can be suppressed and disabled very easily. Let alone if ammo racked leaving one or more guns being disabled for an extended period of time.

HMS Tiger, was never a strong 5.7, the increase to 6.0 was already highly unnecessary with the ship in the state it was…… With the further nerfs it has recently received…. It is now impossible to justify being 5.7 and 5.3 would be a more appropriate BR for this air-defence light cruiser

[Bonrath]

14.7 isn’t enough.
None of the queue times will prolong if you go up to at least 15.0.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Hawk 200

Gamemode: Ground Realistic

BR Change: 10.7 —> 10.3

Reason: The Hawk 200 could be best compared to something like the A-10A in the US for CAS in GRB which currently resides at 10.3. Whilst the Hawk is faster, the A-10A compensates by having a far larger weapons load and defensive suite. In maximum A2G configurations, the A-10A can field 6x AGM-65B, in addition to other rockets or bombs, and still carry 2x Aim-9Ls and 480 CMs. The Hawk 200 on the other hand, currently at 10.7 could only carry 4x AGM-65B, a single unguided bomb, no AAMs and only 60 CMs, substantially weaker, especially if also compared to the A-10A Late which exchanges the AGM-65Bs for AGM-65Ds and 4x Aim-9Ls currently at 10.7.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Hawk 200 RDA
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.0 —> 10.7
Reason: First and foremost, the Hawk 200 RDA is currently placed at 11.0, which means to actually use the aircraft, you need to uptier the 10.7 line-up to 11.0 as we currently don’t have a single 11.0 ground vehicle. This in-itself should be enough to consider lowering it to 10.7, but when also compared to the A-10A Late at 10.7, which can field 6x AGM-65D, additional unguided A2G weapons, 4x Aim-9Ls, has a gun and 480 CMs, there is simply no competition. The A-10A Late is substantially stronger than the Hawk 200 RDAs 2x Aim-9Ls and 4x AGM-65Bs with only 60 CMs, it doesn’t even get a gun. Whilst the PD radar and Skyflash DFs are an advantage in A2A, the Phantom FGR2 which is supersonic and can carry twice as many Skyflash DFs is also only 10.7, that placement is likewise weirdly high.
Even Sweden is fielding the AJS37 with 4x RB75Ts at 10.7, which essentially trades being supersonic for a more restricted CM situation and rear-aspect IRs.

Additional change: Change the AGM-65Bs to AGM-65Ds to bring it directly on-par with the A-10A Late’s loadout.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Pantsir S.1

Gamemode: Ground Realistic

BR Change: 12.0 —> 12.3/12.7

Reason: The Pantsir is incredibly powerful at 12.0 and no 11.0-12.3 CAS has sufficient performance to do anything about it. It is able to intercept all munitions and outrange all CAS at this BR. When compared directly to other SPAA at and above 12.0, it outperforms them all considerably and would be on par with 12.7 SPAA such as the Spyder. It does not belong at 12.0.

[Metal_Bandit]

Another BR changes completely ignore the hell compression in lower and mid ranks.

Once again Gaijin confirm people dont care top tier we are Third class players.

No attetion, no money :)

[Morvran]

Vehicle: F-104.ASA
Gamemode: Air realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: ARB: 12.0 —> 11.7 (11.3 may be necessary) ASB: 11.7 —> 11.3
Reason: The F-104 has flat line speed. That is it. In all other respects it is highly limited, limited missile count, limited missile performance, has no turning ability, radar isn’t that good. Etc etc. Whilst it also a non-existant RWR, sure it tells you that something is looking at you with their radar, but that is it, no directional cues at all. Aircraft such as the Mig-23ML/MLD are apparently unable to be 12.0 due to the poor performance of SPO-10/15 but AN/ALQ-73 is far far worse.

Compared to other 12.0s such as the Tornado ADV and Phantoms, the F-104.ASA is totally outclassed.

[Bonrath]

Also I see what y’all did there.
MOVE BOTH the Su-30MKK and MKV2 UP.
12.3s and even 12.7s fighting that thing is HELL.

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Jaguar GR1A
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 10.7 —> 10.3/10.0
Reason: The Jaguar GR1A has long since been an extremely underpowered aircraft for the BR and whilst it has gotten a minor buff in the form of a Phimat Pod. It is still one of the weakest airframes for the BR. When directly compared to aircraft such as the Mirage 5F currently at 10.3, with both better missiles and better flight performance, it is impossible to justify the current rating of 10.7. It is especially hard pressed by aircraft such as the F-5C which outperforms the Jaguar GR1A in all respects, even in ground attack usually.

There is even a reasonable argument for the aircraft to be lowered down to 10.0 as it is largely similar to the Jaguar GR1 at 9.7 just with flares and a slightly more powerful engine, which could only warrant a 0.3 BR increase over the GR1.

This aircraft is meant to be a base bomber, but even in a full downtier, it can rarely beat subsonic airframes like the Harriers to a base due to its extremely woeful acceleration with any meaningful weight. In fact, it is difficult to describe the aircraft as supersonic when it is equipped with any bomb load thus could almost be considered on par with the Harriers if it wasn’t for the higher top speed after weapons release.

Alternative Solution: Add SRAAMs and the Jaguar GR1Bs digital RWR

[Morvran]

Vehicle: Buccaneer S.2
Gamemode: All
Change: Add 100 Gal. No.1 Mk.1 Fire Bombs (Napalm)
Reason: The Buccaneer S.2 is a 9.3 subsonic ground attacker with extremely limited (practically none) A2A performance, but has a moderately strong defensive suite that dictates the 9.3 battle rating. My proposal rather than any form of BR Change is to add the currently missing Napalm to the Buc S.2. This change would help minimise the necessary weight the Buc needs to carry and thus increase its ability to defend against incoming threats. These were reported more than 3 years ago and are directly referenced within the pilots manual.