This
2 Likes
GRB
ZTZ59A
8.0 → 8.3
literally a straight upgrade to both the type 59 and t-54
its quite literally P2W
1 Like
Vehicle: F-104G (China)
Gamemode: Air RB
Change: 10.7 → 10.3
Reason: It is the ONLY F-104G without countermeasures, and although it has good air-to-ground armament, it has worse air-to-air armament than the F-104J, which is sitting one BR step lower. Either give this aircraft countermeasures (doesn’t matter if it’s ahistorical, look at the F-5s), or lower it’s BR in air modes where it has a significant disadvantage.
2 Likes
having played the F-86K, it really does need to go down
I wouldn’t even call it better than the Hunter F.1, and thats 8.7
Vehicle: ME 262 “Jabo”
Gamemode: GRB
Change: 7.0 to 6.7
Reason: Poor CAS performance due only is capable of carrie a single bomb. Far from beast like A2D or another super props can carrie much lager and powerfull armament. More closer in characteristics to ME 262 A-2a (6.7).
1 Like
to be honest, the F-86K only has marginallly better nose authority, and thats because it has a rudder
that and the M24A1 cannon is the worst jet cannon of the BR (of which i’ve used) and i’ll stand by it,
and unlike the Scimi, the F-86K doesn’t have an extremely good engine
F-86K retains more, but it doesn’t get it back quickly, Honestly if you start dogfighting in the Scimitar you’re dead, its all energy. using its black hole engines to compensate for the poor airframe F-86K can just dogfight by slowly bleeding the enemy energy away over the course of 2 minutes just to have the enemy jink your shot due to your poor nose authority, or have the M24A1 cannons not do much
Seems that Warrior suffers from the same underestimations.
1 Like
How? There’s a slight decompression at the very top.
Certainly not where we want to be, but certainly better than before…
Falcon
Ground RB: 8.3 → 7.3
Why? Well with the decision to remove APDS.
THE SAP-I Shell only does 53ish mm of pen at 10m.
It’s slow, can’t reverse and no radar and you are taking away it’s best assets, it’s already been nerfed time and time again.
All other spaa at that br have API-T with 68mm of Pen!! With extremely better mobility and survivability.
Falcon is easily killed with 50 cals and there removal of APDS will cripple it’s ability against heavies and Russians with heavy machine guns.
Furthermore Brittain DESPERATELY need an spaa for there 7.3 - 7.7 lineups, not 3x spaa within .4 of each other at 8.3 and 8.7.
Not sure why gaijin are removing APDS at least let Brittain have some fun. If we want to go down the remove it cause it never used it pathway, many many vehicles would be impacted.
3 Likes
Based on a comprehensive analysis of its performance deficits and system flaws, I propose that the J-10C’s Battle Rating (BR) be adjusted to 14.0 for Air Realistic Battles and 12.3 for Ground Realistic Battles. This recommendation is grounded in its severe performance mismatch with top-tier competitors across both game modes.
Core Rationale for BR Reduction: Performance Discrepancy
The J-10C’s current BR is unjustified due to a foundational discrepancy between its paper specifications and its crippled in-game implementation. Its operational effectiveness is severely undermined by two categories of critical, documented flaws:
-
Crippled Flight Performance: The aircraft suffers from two debilitating design inaccuracies. First, its airframe exhibits an abnormally high drag coefficient for a medium-weight fighter, reportedly exceeding that of heavier contemporaries like the Su-27. Second, it is equipped with the underpowered AL-31F engine instead of its historically accurate and more powerful WS-10B counterpart. This flawed combination catastrophically degrades its energy retention: it struggles to accelerate at high speeds and bleeds energy excessively in maneuvers, nullifying its ability to execute core high-altitude, high-speed (Boom & Zoom) tactics essential for top-tier survival.
-
Incomplete and Outdated Systems: Its avionics and armament further compound its disadvantage. Despite minor fixes, its radar and cockpit systems remain unstable and feature-incomplete, compromising situational awareness and weapon employment. More critically, its missile arsenal is a generation behind: the lack of next-generation active radar missiles (e.g., PL-12A, PL-15) means its PL-12s are consistently outranged and outmaneuvered by peers wielding AIM-120C or R-77 missiles. Its Close Air Support (CAS) capability is virtually non-viable at top tier; precision-guided munitions like the “Leishi” glide bomb are highly vulnerable to interception, and its poor low-altitude flight characteristics make effective attack runs exceptionally difficult.
Mode-Specific Justification for Proposed BRs:
- Air RB (Proposed: 14.0): In pure aerial combat, the aforementioned flaws prevent the J-10C from competing reliably against true 12.7/14.7 BR aircraft. Its severely hampered energy fighting and inferior BVR (Beyond Visual Range) capability position it more appropriately against aircraft in the 14.0 bracket, where its strengths (like the PL-8 missile) can be relevant without being overwhelmingly disadvantaged.
- Ground RB (Proposed: 12.3): As a CAS platform, the J-10C is critically inefficient. Its vulnerability to ubiquitous top-tier Short-Range Air Defense (SPAAGs and SAMs) and poor suitability for ground attack do not warrant its inclusion at the maximum BR. A reduction to 12.3 would align it with ground forces where its CAS limitations are less disproportionately punished, better reflecting its actual utility in the combined arms environment.
Conclusion:
In summary, the J-10C’s compromised energy kinematics, unstable systems, and technologically obsolete weaponry create a significant gap between its nominal top-tier status and its practical combat effectiveness. A targeted BR adjustment to 14.0 in Air RB and 12.3 in Ground RB is a necessary and logical step to align its in-game ranking with its demonstrably underperforming capabilities, ensuring fairer matchmaking for all players.
Corrected version: The PL-12 is inferior to the R-77-1 and AIM-120C in beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat.
The VT5 Should Be Lowered to a Battle Rating of 11.0
It is reasonable and necessary to assign the VT5 a Battle Rating (BR) of 11.0 in Ground Realistic Battles. In a direct comparison with the M10 Booker at BR 10.7, the VT5 demonstrates no performance advantage in key areas that would justify a higher ranking:
- Firepower Disadvantage: The VT5’s main gun penetration (491mm) is lower than that of the M10 Booker (522mm).
- Comparable Mobility: Both are highly mobile light platforms, with the VT5 failing to establish a decisive mobility advantage.
- Protection Deficiency: The VT5 has extremely thin armor and poor survivability.
Conclusion: The VT5’s combined performance profile—“weaker firepower, comparable mobility, and significantly poorer protection”—provides no justification for any BR advantage over the M10 Booker. Therefore, its BR must be lowered to 11.0.
2 Likes
Javelin good, skimitar bad, taht people decide balance man…
It’s a soviet vehicles therefore things facing it in a full uptiers doesn’t apply as it doesn’t affect the soviet player. The only thing that matters is that the soviet vehicle can win in a full uptiers still
PL-12 outperforms 120C in all aspects that matter
I’m not arguing that the J-10C shouldn’t go down
But please be accurate when it comes to the information you use.
PL-12 is currently the 3rd best Fox-3 in the game.
Right behind R-77-1
(Third place is shared with R-77)
1 Like
I don’t think the PL-12 is better than the AIM-120B or 120C. The PL-12 tends to make erratic, jerky movements in flight, which wastes its kinetic energy. Its seeker performance may not be superior to that of the 120B or C either. Most importantly, because the performance of its carrier aircraft fails to provide the missile with sufficient initial velocity, it is clearly inferior to the 120B or C in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat.
Char 25t
Ground RB: 8.0 → 7.7
Reason, it only has 209mm max pen in a world vs auto canons, stabilisers and Super heavies. It is outclassed especially it full uptiers. This has been asked for by many people for a while
4s reload shouldn’t be it’s only justification for being at 8.0. The Lorraine 40t sits at 7.7 and so should the char.
1 Like
AMX-50 with the Char turret also sits at 8.0
french cant have anything good
I wish the Jabo has an AP belt. I see no problem with it going to 6.7. I mainly use it to HE open top vehicles and to shoot down enemy CAS and nuke bombers. It’s cheaper (in spawn points) to bring than the Horton with its APDS belt. Right now, it really is just a 262 with a bomb strapped to it, which is probably what it was IRL, lol.