What is the logic of grouping two completely different airframes together if there’s a better match?
Grouping Kurnass 2000 and F-15A Baz makes no sense at all, they don’t even have the same Battle Rating even if it would matter. All it does is make tech trees look less organized.
Grouping F-15A Baz with F-15C Baz Meshupar would make much more sense, as the latter one is basically the same thing, but upgraded.
Didn’t realise that. I thought it was similar to the AHS or AH-64DJP (the AHS having Hellfire Bs and the DJP lacking AMASE). The AH-64As are 11.7 as well though, so those would definitely have to go down in BR to 11.3, if the AH-64Ds went to 11.7.
Further, if the AH-64As go down to 11.3, the YAH-64 and Comanche have to go down to 11.0, other nations helis would probably also have to go down as a consequence.
Other than that, I believe 11.7 could be fine after looking at most other helis at that BR range.
Performance wise? No.
Based on the SPAAs at that BR range? Probably yes, but that’s a seperate issue.
Range difference. Atakas are limited to 6km, while Hellfires can reach 8km.
From my experience Hellfires aren’t unreliable at all and still work well up to almost 8km.
Sure, but unlike Hellfires, you can only guide a single missile at once, Hellfires (and SAL JAGMs) don’t have that limitation thanks to being laser guided.
I think you are underestimating the advantage of being able to sit outside of the older top tier SAMs (ItO, FlaRakRad, ADATS)
I don’t see any problem with moving the Ka-52 up in BR.
I understand what you are saying but it doesnt make sense research 2 vehicles and need almost 1M RP. We need economy and research changes and if its not coming with this BR changes I dont know why not folder them now.
They aren’t being foldered because foldering them would shorten the grind.
That’s the entire reason, nothing beyond that.
Having the F/A18C foldered before the F14 is crazy
Vehicle : Falcon
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 8.3 —> 7.7
Reason : I agree with removing the Falcon’s APDS. However, I cannot agree that the BR of this vehicle, which does not carry radar, should remain unchanged. 7.7 That seems like a reasonable BR.
Because what happens when the AESA one gets ASRAAM and/or Meteor.
Or Brimstones 2/3s
Or P4E upgrades.
Etc etc
It shouldn’t be foldered then unfoldeded.
It needs more, some… Seasoning to better separate it from the M-Scans, but it has the potential to be far more different than say the F3 and F3 late in the future also not foldered.
So sure, it was a bit annoying, but not too bad. And besides, air is stupidly easy to grind compared to ground…so could be worse
Vehicle : Chieftain Mk 3
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 8.7 —> 8.3
Reason : Chieftain Mk 3 is a vehicle with extremely poor mobility. Furthermore, it lacks a laser rangefinder and is unsuitable for long-range artillery fire. Considering that other nations’ BR 8.7 MBTs are equipped with laser rangefinders and some can even fire APFSDS rounds, a BR 8.3 rating is appropriate for Chieftain Mk 3.
Yet another nerf to a British vehicle. Probably destroyed to many Russian tanks/apcs so it’s got to be adjusted…
British RB Ground BR’s:
- A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse.
- SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kinda it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped.
- Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, etc.
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.0 - which is also wrong. It should have the 6-Pdr Mk III not the Mk V.
- Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)?
- Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow.
- Falcon: 8.3 down to 7.7. Now that we’ve finally removed the problematic belt can we move this down to a lineup that really needs an effective SPAA?
- Chieftain 900: Stay at 9.0 (or 9.3 with additional changes) Why is this even going up? If it’s overperforming and the vehicle is suppose to be the tech-demonstrator just remove the L23. APFSDS was an optional upgrade, the vehicle was based off a Chieftain 5/3P which doesn’t have APFSDS stowage. At 9.3 it is just a worse Khalid in nearly every way. If it must go up (emphasize on must) then at least do this Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #59 by Master_Teaz
- Chieftain 10: Stay at 9.0 (or 9.3 with additional changes) Same as the above, it’s been fine for a very long time. Now it has a backup vehicle it’s suddenly a problem? Again, if it must go up please consider this post Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #59 by Master_Teaz
Vehicle: B7A2 (Homare 23)
Gamemode: Air Realistic, Air Arcade
BR Change: 3.7 —> 5.7
Reason: This plane is completely broken. It outclimbs and outturns literally every single fighter at 3.7-4.7. Either its completely broken energy retention should be nerfed, or at least its BR should be adjusted to something reasonable for what this legal cheat is capable of.
I saw people who are doing 200 kills to 8 deaths in this thing; this is ridiculous.
I can tell you why it has such a high BR compared to other SPAAs at that BR range.
It has actual armor and it isn’t open top. The hull and turret can take quite a lot of gunfire from planes, unlike most other SPAAs at that BR range.
The israeli Ah-64A and 64D also has MAW but it’s integrated within the platform meaning that you could carry stingers.
In GRB, they rarely do. If a target is moving randomly, you lose LOS (point), or you switch target, Hellfires spend more energy over correcting which results in them over shooting or losing all it’s energy.
It’s why I prefer the ATAKAS over the hellfires. You get a 6km range where as with the hellfires, you’re playing dice.
You can guide multiple vihkrs at once, but only within a certain window after launching. Regardless, this tactic only works in very specific scenarios. it works well in PVE.
That can be said about any CAS aircraft but there’s a reason why you don’t see mavericks launcher >10km. They are extremely slow. This makes it easy to intercept or dodge (intentionally or unintentionally )
The issue is that it’ll be in the same BR as the CLAWS which can take out the Ka52 without have LOS. It’ll make the Ka52 near useless.
The only tangible thing the hellfire has is it’s damage potential but what’s the point if you can’t hit targets reliably.
Vehicle : Yak-9K & Yak-9UT
Gamemode : Ground RB
Change : 5.0 —> 5.0 & 6.0 —> 6.0(Remove APHE)
Reason : The APHE on the Yak-9K and Yak-9UT is breaking game balance. It’s common for just one of these planes to completely turn the tide of battle. The APHE should be removed immediately.
Vehicle: Type 81 (C)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 → 10.7
Reason: Lack of radar, and the missle range is not enough to counter most of the thing it met in current BR bracket.
It has the same armour as a Sherman, if you haven’t learned how to kill a Sherman with planes at 2.0 (where you’ll be uptiered into facing the M4A3 105) then that’s your problem. The Skink’s firepower is anemic.
move the puma to 10.0 or 9.7
Vehicle: Tan-SAM Kai
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 → 11.7
Reason: The radar is somehow broken and the missile range is not enough to counter most of the thing it met in current BR bracket.
I’m not talking from a CAS perspective, I’m talking from the perspective of the guy sitting in the Skink
The armour is a massive help and the weak firepower is only a problem against tanks. As a SPAA the Skink is fine at 5.3.
