Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026)

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

I literally outpulled his missile lmao
good example of why close range perf is more important

[Tristacomand]

@MiGoon_Fox-3

We have statistics and evidence as well

As Gaijin exemplify, evidence and statistics are worse than useless without the ability to correctly interpret them.

[PlayedStatue626-live]

Maybe Chi ri to 5.3/5.0? I miss using it with the Chi-to and Chi-to late

[WARTURTLE09]

@UniqueScorpions-live

They have APDS rounds that perform exceptionally well for their BR

Wow bigger pen number better round surely.
Also no nerf for obj605 ?

[CofCof]

I already said, I like both types of missiles. I play differently than you show, but again, opinions are opinions.

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

I’m simply following objective facts and what is meta currently

[UniqueScorpions-live]

@BACKRAGE44428-live

1 IS4 has similar if not worse armor protection than the IS6 while having worse mobility and slower reload
2 KV1E/B are the most abused op vehicles know to man and should not face any 3.3s
3 T54 1947 has No right facing 6.3 jumbos and the 1949 has NO RIGHT FACING 6.7s. the 1947s way more mobile than the tiger 2 with a larger gun
and the 1949 has 100MM sabot has no right being lower than lepoard 1 and m60 that its equal to

STRAIGHT COPEEEE

never cook again

1. No lol the Is-4 has decently better armor than the IS-6
2. KV-1B is better, as it doesn’t face the German high power guns, and the Russian ones can’t do much to their own tank.
3. If the T-54 can’t see 6.3s then why can M47s? Or m48s see 6.7? Logical fallacy.

@BACKRAGE44428-live

how it feels to read some of these peoples takes on some vehicles

Irony?

[CofCof]

I don’t agree with your view of the game, but I respect it.

[Busheedoh]

Why does the T-62 exist at 8.7?

Honestly, I’ve been wondering this for a while as well. In my opinion it should be the same BR. Because when you compare them analytically, the differences are so damn minute. So I’ve decided to observe both vehicles in-depth because of this post. Here’s a run down on my findings. (Sectioned off for easy reading!)

Gun handling and performance

APFSDS The only thing that really has over the T-55A is the gun, which fires it’s kinetic shells at 1615 m/s compared to the T-55A that fires it’s APFSDS…

They are very similar vehicles, they should be the same BR, and they should both go up to decompress the BR range.

Advantages of the T-55A

1. The tiny difference in mobility, around a ~2% increase in horsepower per ton in engine performance. Which will be noticed in acceleration.
2. A rather noticeable ~20% increase in protection regarding the turret all round.
3. The better reload, and increased ammo count in the ready rack, 2 more shells for the T-55A. A reload that can be 5 seconds faster than the T-62.
4. Access to more versatile ammunition, such as APHE and smoke shells. Giving the vehicle increased versatility.
5. Marginally better accuracy/dispersion. The T-55A has a dispersion cone of 1.55°, compared to the T-62’s 1.60°.

Quirks of the T-62

1. The marginally slower acceleration isn’t an issue at range. They still boast the same speed, and transmission.
2. Penetrative power and post-pen damage of it’s shells is greater than that of the T-55A. (~4% better APFSDS penetration)
3. The armor while weaker than that of the T-55A, is still pretty strong.
4. Gun handling is overall better than that of the T-55A, though very minute differences.
5. Greater muzzle velocity (~14% greater) makes the shells very easy to hit at a distance.
6. Increased gun depression works in it’s favour in hilly terrain, this coupled with a smaller profile and turret roof make the T-62; in theory the better option for this sort of hill combat at range.

[UniqueScorpions-live]

You mean the 685?

I don’t see why it needs a nerf. Did it get buffed?

[BACKRAGE44428-live]

you can believe that but your quite wrong

[Dontkev-psn]

The difference is, Gepard similar AAs habe 40x APDS, while Falcon comes to a lovely 170 APDS rounds and the DCA even 300 which are mixed over there entire Ammo pol
+they have a also higher firerate

[BACKRAGE44428-live]

m47s and M48s dont have 239mm pen 100mm cannons and have way worse armor atleast for the M47

your objectively wrong

IS4Ms drivers port weakspot is far bigger than the IS6s manlet weakspot

and again the IS6 is way more mobile and has a better reload

[Exe_Smells]

what did i do man

[AydanL44_Hunter]

Ngl I’m running out of popcorn with this thread
To clarify, for most debates I have no idea who is right, but this is genuinely funny to watch people lose their shii on this

[UniqueScorpions-live]

It doesn’t appear you’ve played either, opinion rejected.

Reason: no experience with either vehicle

[BACKRAGE44428-live]

which vehicle cause i guarntee you everyone here would say the the T54 1947 is objectively too good to be 7.7

also if thats your only argument your just proving me right

you genuinely are making worse takes than tiger 1 right now and hes not even here

[UniqueScorpions-live]

You haven’t played the t-54s, is-6/4 etc.

According to statshark you stopped at the IS-3, must’ve been a great tank to stop there.

[VolvoMadeInChina]

Air Realistic

Vehicle: F/A-18C

BR: 14.0 → 13.7

This plane is very slow, sluggish radar, weak energy retention and the only good thing is the big number of ARH missiles. At 13.7 will be a ARH missile bus same as the SU-27SM. And the finnish F-18C in the swedish tech tree needs to be folder-ed. As someone suggested, maybe limit the number or AIM-120s it can carry to 6. This jet doesn’t even have HMD or something special to offer. No reason to play at the same BR as the other F/A-18C late. The F-18C with 6 AIM-120s and no HMD will make a great 13.3 jet. Same BR as the export SU-30MK in the russian and chinese tech tree.

[BACKRAGE44428-live]

i literally have IS4M and have played it 80% spaded

and all your opinions are based on emotions rather than actual stats of the in game vehicles

and its very clear that a T54 1947 should not be only .3 higher than the T44 100