Putting the F-15CGE to 15.0, I would assume the F-15EX isn’t planned for this major either, but they’ve done dumb stuff before…
The Late F-104s have still not received any kind of compensation for the flight model nerfs (aimed at the early F-104s). They are very weak right now at their current Air RB BRs.
I propose:
F-104G (China): 10.7 → 10.3 (Air RB)
F-104G (Italy, Germany, France/Belgium): 11.0 → 10.7 (Air RB)
The F-104S and .ASA I think are usable at their BR with the buffed AIM-7s.
The MiG-23Ms are better in almost* every way compared to the F-104Gs, and they are moving down.
4 Likes
Buccaneer s2b
GBR 11.7>>11.3or11.0
It’s irrational to drag this plane to 11.7，When you are making adjustments to the Buccaneer s2b, can you consider the J22M1A aircraft?The J22M1A is also planned to be deployed on November 7th. It has a better airframe, a high-definition thermal imaging pod, and carries four HIT Lmissiles. The missile’s targeting scope has a much higher magnification than the AJ168 .AJ168 the optical scope of the aj168 has a magnification of only 3.53x.Even the targeting range of the AJ-168 missile is only 6 km, not 12 km.Given that the aircraft’s performance, missile quantity, missile yield, locking range, and targeting scope magnification are all inferior to those of the J-22M1A, how can you possibly believe that the Buccaneer S2B can achieve the same level of performance as the J-22M1A?
3 Likes
Base VT4 should NOT be the same Br as the ZTZ99A as it’s not even comparable. It should stay at its current 12.3
2 Likes
This thing’s so underwhelming I’d rather just jump into the Tornado GR4. The GR7 has zero advantages over the AV-8B+.
Gaijin is taking care of new players in his own way, even though this realistically harms the interests of veteran players.
2 Likes
Theres 2 things for the XM246 lol
Vehicle: BMPT / BMPT-72
Gamemode: Ground Realistic Battles
I believe the recent BR increase of the BMPT and BMPT-72 from 11.7 to 12.0 provides a strong reason to reconsider giving these vehicles access to APFSDS ammunition for their 30 mm autocannons.
When the BMPT was originally introduced, there were already requests from players asking for APFSDS.
At the time, Gaijin responded:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/cJSceSsBCAkK
“Ammunition choice on vehicles is considered a balancing factor. In case the vehicle will be underperforming or a BR change will be considered, ammunition choice can also be considered. The same rule applies for every vehicle, for example a Leopard 2A4: It can shoot DM53 rounds, but does not have access to them.”
I believe this was a reasonable position when the BMPT was originally introduced at BR 10.7. At that BR, giving the vehicle APFSDS in addition to its twin 30 mm autocannons and Ataka ATGMs could reasonably have been considered excessive. Against many of the vehicles it encountered at the time, substantially improving the penetration capability of its autocannons could have made an already unconventional and powerful vehicle unnecessarily difficult to balance.
However, that original balancing situation no longer exists.
The BMPT has since moved considerably upward in BR, and with the latest change it has now gone from 11.7 to 12.0. This is particularly relevant considering Gaijin’s own statement that ammunition selection can be reconsidered when a vehicle is underperforming or when its BR is changed.
At BR 12.0, the BMPT increasingly encounters modern top-tier MBTs with frontal armor that its current 30 mm ammunition cannot realistically defeat. Against these vehicles, the autocannons are primarily useful for damaging external components such as tracks, barrels and optics, rather than functioning as a reliable method of actually destroying the vehicle.
This leaves the Ataka missiles as the BMPT’s primary means of defeating heavily armored targets from the front. However, this solution is becoming increasingly unreliable as the vehicle moves further into the top-tier environment.
A growing number of vehicles at these BRs are equipped with hard-kill Active Protection Systems, which can intercept incoming ATGMs. Against these targets, the BMPT can therefore find itself in a situation where its autocannons cannot penetrate the target’s frontal armor while its primary anti-tank weapon can be intercepted by APS.
The 30 mm dispersion nerf makes this problem even more significant
Another important factor that should not be ignored is the increased dispersion of the BMPT’s 30 mm autocannons.
This matters considerably more at top tier than it might initially appear.
Top-tier Ground RB engagements frequently begin at medium to long distances, where accurate fire becomes increasingly important. The BMPT does not have the penetration necessary to simply fire into the frontal silhouette of a modern MBT and expect meaningful damage. Its autocannons depend heavily on accurately hitting relatively small vulnerable areas or external components.
Previously, the accuracy of the 30 mm autocannons at least gave the BMPT some ability to compensate for its limited penetration by carefully targeting weak points.
After the dispersion increase, however, this has become significantly less practical.
At medium and especially long ranges, even if the player correctly identifies a small weak point and places the crosshair on it, the dispersion of the autocannons can cause a substantial portion of the burst to land around the intended point of aim rather than directly on it. Against modern MBTs, where the difference between hitting a vulnerable area and hitting heavily protected armor can be extremely small, this is a major limitation.
In other words, the BMPT has not only been moved into an environment containing significantly better protected vehicles; its ability to compensate for insufficient penetration through precise weak-point shooting has also been substantially reduced.
This is particularly problematic because weak-point targeting is supposed to be one of the primary ways a low-caliber autocannon can remain relevant against much heavier vehicles.
If the weapon lacks sufficient penetration against the majority of a target’s frontal profile, then accuracy becomes essential. If accuracy is also reduced through dispersion, the practical effectiveness of the weapon against heavily armored targets falls dramatically.
This becomes even more apparent at BR 12.0, where many engagements do not occur at point-blank range. At several hundred meters or beyond, attempting to consistently hit a small breech area, turret ring, barrel, optics, or another vulnerable component with the current dispersion can be extremely unreliable.
Therefore, saying that APFSDS would automatically make the BMPT overpowered ignores an important part of the current weapon behavior.
APFSDS would improve penetration, but it would not remove the dispersion of the autocannons.
The player would still need to aim at appropriate areas of enemy vehicles, and the weapon would still become progressively less reliable at hitting small targets as distance increases. APFSDS would not suddenly turn the BMPT’s 30 mm autocannons into an MBT cannon capable of penetrating the strongest frontal armor of top-tier tanks.
Instead, it would give the BMPT a more credible kinetic option against appropriate weak points, side armor, lighter vehicles, and targets against which relying entirely on ATGMs is increasingly problematic.
The balance environment has fundamentally changed
This is why I believe the original argument for withholding APFSDS needs to be reconsidered.
At 10.7, the concern was understandable. The BMPT already possessed considerable firepower for that BR, and providing APFSDS could have made its autocannons excessively effective against the vehicles it commonly encountered.
At 12.0, the situation is very different.
The BMPT now has to deal with:
significantly better protected modern MBTs;
hard-kill APS capable of defeating its Ataka missiles;
engagements that commonly begin at medium or long range;
and increased 30 mm dispersion that has substantially reduced the reliability of precise weak-point shooting.
These factors compound each other.
Against an APS-equipped MBT from the front, the BMPT can potentially have its Ataka intercepted while simultaneously lacking both the penetration and, at realistic combat distances, the accuracy required to reliably engage small frontal weak points with its autocannons.
That is a very different balance environment from the one in which the decision to withhold APFSDS was originally made.
I am not arguing that the BMPT should receive every theoretically compatible ammunition type simply because it existed. Ammunition selection is a legitimate balancing tool, and I agree with Gaijin’s original reasoning that ammunition can be restricted when necessary for balance.
But that principle works in both directions.
If ammunition can be withheld because a vehicle would otherwise be too powerful at a particular BR, then ammunition should also be reconsidered when that vehicle is subsequently moved substantially higher and begins facing much stronger opponents.
Gaijin explicitly stated that:
“In case the vehicle will be underperforming or a BR change will be considered, ammunition choice can also be considered.”
The BMPT has now undergone exactly that kind of BR progression.
The question should therefore not be whether APFSDS would have been appropriate for the 10.7 BMPT. I think there was a reasonable argument that it was not.
The relevant question now is whether APFSDS is appropriate for the 12.0 BMPT, considering the armor, APS-equipped vehicles, engagement distances, and the current dispersion characteristics of its autocannons.
I believe the answer is yes.
Giving the BMPT and BMPT-72 APFSDS would not eliminate their fundamental limitations. It would not make their 30 mm autocannons capable of casually penetrating the strongest frontal armor of top-tier MBTs, it would not prevent APS from intercepting their missiles, and it would not remove the accuracy limitations created by the increased dispersion.
What it would do is provide these vehicles with a more credible kinetic option appropriate for the significantly more demanding environment they are now expected to fight in.
For these reasons, following the move from 11.7 to 12.0, I believe the ammunition selection of the BMPT and BMPT-72 should be formally reconsidered, and APFSDS should be added to their 30 mm autocannons.
The J-10C at 14.7 is disgraceful. It’s the equivalent of an F-16 pobit. or give it more fuel
yes the most overpowered and nearly invulnerable tank in game should recieve kill-everything shells because of decompression
just incase the kill almost everything shells and 4 ATGMs that can pen an abrams turret cheek werent enough
5 Likes
the A-10C was already dead tbh lol. its literaly only benefits over the A-10A are 9Ms.
gaijin needs to realize no matter how good of a weapon you give a plane speed is still meta at every single air BR (cough super hornets)
still possible since technically speaking iirc the golden eagle was in the same competition for the EX for the eagle modernization program.
realistically though the GE definitely doesnt deserve 15.0 unless the SM2, EFT, and Rafale get put to 15.3 or somethin
1 Like
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of the 2040C?
Calling the BMPT “nearly invulnerable” is a significant exaggeration, especially at this point in its life cycle.
When the vehicle was first introduced, a large part of its effectiveness came from players simply not knowing where to shoot it. That is no longer the case. By now, an average player who regularly plays these BRs should be familiar with its vulnerabilities. The driver’s area, the lower front plate, and even the frontal sections on either side of the hull around the grenade launchers are all viable targets. Hits to these areas can cause serious internal damage or fuel fires and can very quickly disable the vehicle.
In other words, its unusual layout can still punish poorly aimed center-mass shots, but that is not the same thing as being “nearly invulnerable.” Once you understand the armor layout and stop shooting the areas that are specifically designed to absorb damage, the BMPT becomes considerably easier to deal with. At this point, if someone consistently struggles to disable a BMPT simply because they keep shooting ineffective areas, that is arguably more of
" a skill issue " involving target knowledge and shot placement than evidence that the vehicle itself is nearly invulnerable.
The same exaggeration applies to describing 30 mm APFSDS as a “kill-everything shell.” Giving a 30 mm autocannon APFSDS does not magically turn it into a 120/125 mm MBT gun. It would still be limited by the penetration capabilities of a 30 mm projectile, and it would still have to deal with the recently worsened dispersion of the autocannons. At the medium-to-long engagement distances that are extremely common at top tier, reliably hitting small weak spots is already substantially more difficult than it used to be.
So yes, the BMPT can still be very survivable when the opponent shoots it poorly, but survivability caused by an opponent repeatedly choosing the wrong point of aim should not be confused with actual invulnerability. At some point, that distinction comes down to skill issue rather than balance issue.
game is officially dead, any cas plane in this game is unplayable now
none of these are reliable kills btw, being a volumetric hell and mostly countered by just hiding the hull
(also has void armor since theres like 4 actual components to damage)
the BMPT even in the current game can shred practically all NATO MBTs from the front without problem. the only tank that can somewhat sustain hits is the abrams with its volumetric buff, which would be countered by APFSDS
also where on earth did you get long ranges being common? the biggest issue in top tier right now is gaijin not knowing how to make a map that isnt tiny knife fights
2 Likes
CAS being fair =/= CAS being unusable
live server makes any CAS instantly shut down the entire match, ESPECIALLY russian CAS. all these changes do is atleast make it counterable to an extent
not to mention NATO SPAA all being uptiered
kfir canard Air RB
11.0 → 10.7
Its poor situational awareness, only two AIM-9G missiles, and only 36 countermeasures makes it unsuitable for an 11.3 or 11.0 BR.
3 Likes
Don’t you guys understand what balance means? A MiG-5L carrying two GB250s caused a heat signature to 11.0, and your Yak-1304 released an unguided bomb at 10.3 without any control? Are you kidding? This F5E piece of junk only has four Mavericks and no ballistic calculator, and it’s already reaching 11.3—isn’t that excessive?
Vehicle: AMX-10RC
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 8.7 —> 8.3
Reason: the AMX-10RC did NOT need to go up to 8.7, it’s already a mediocre at 8.3 and moving it up does not prevent the 35mm SPAAs from not seeing it, sure it fits the 8.7 lineup better now but the 10RC did NOT need to go up in BR.
Alternative solution: Add the AMX-10RCR, AMX-10RC Surblinde or the AMX-10RC TML-105 stabilized prototype to fit the higher BR matchmaking better which will also offer a proper techonologic edge over the AMX-10RC that already exists in game.
9 Likes