Changes:
Reasoning: Ryany is a premium sister ship of Besposhchadny of the same class, but it is at 4.3 while Besposhchadny is at 4.0, despite the fact that Ryany hasn’t received any significant changes. Therefore, there’s no reason for Ryany to remain at 4.3.
The most important aspect of a plane at top tier is offensive kit.
That is your opinion, but a generally strong kit doesn’t automatically make a strong plane.
The impact of a “strong kit” can be affected by the airframe, which is why it matters.
The Euro’s kit doesn’t suck because the airframe complements it well and fits it’s playstyle, but something like the F-16PoBIT sucks because it’s airframe doesn’t match it’s ideal playstyle.
Naval
Italian - RN Tiger & Aviere- remain 4.0 but significantly reduce repair times by ~6h, and repair cost by -1000sl.
Tiger - 3443sl, 12h 39m
Aviere - 2905sl, 12h 39m
Comparisons:
Vs Tech Tree equivalents
RN Leone (4.0, TII) - 1551sl, 51m
RN Corazierre (4.3, TII) - 1981sl, 3h 32m
And against other TIII premiums
IJN Yulikaze (4.3) - 1575sl, 6h 01m
IJN Suzutsuki (4.7)- 1881sl, 8h 41m
USS Frank Knox (5.0) - 4146, 9h 02m
Duguay-Truin (5.0) - 3089sl, 9h 30m
So not only are they penalised for premium and Tier III status vs their own fleet, they are far more costly to operate than other nations DDs, and even CLs at Tier III and with higher BRs.
No obviously not, the rest of the aircraft needs to be able to support it
Which the F-15C GE does.
I mean, literally look at the Su-30SM2
It has one of, if not the best offensive kits in the game, but is stuck on a crappy platform with a not-so great defensive kit.
Yet is considered one of the best top tier aircraft.
No, it objectively sucks because you will lose fights due to gimbal limitations.
No, the PooBIT sucks because the missile kit is trash and the rest of the vehicle isn’t god-tier to keep up with that limitation.
The airframe, radar and defensive kit are fine.
You’re just screwed because anyone and their mother has more missiles than you
Reasoning: This boat is performing poorly due to its limited gun traverse and its tendency to rock, throwing off the aim as a natural consequence of its low freeboard. In addition, it is an extremely slow boat that has a difficult time influencing the outcome of a match. Its limited gun elevation also makes it an easy target for CAS aircraft.
Changes:
Reasoning:
USS Flagstaff has received BR reduction two times, from 3.0 to 2.3 at this time
USS Tucumcari is essentially identical to the USS Flagstaff in terms of hull gameplay and armament, except that the Flagstaff can switch from a 40 mm gun to a 152 mm gun. The Flagstaff also has more armor, a larger crew, and a slightly smaller profile. USS Tucumcari lacks anti-destroyer capability and currently struggles against more advanced boats at BR 3.0-4.0 that outgun the Tucumcari
Therefore, the USS Tucumcari, like its sibling boat, must also be moved from 3.0 to 2.3.
Changes:
Reasoning: USS Hoquiam is the worst-performing frigate at her BR. She lacks torpedoes, is slower than most destroyers, and has weak main guns with large frontal dead zones. She cannot compete with destroyers in the 3.3-4.3 range and should be reduced in BR
Vehicle: AJS 37, AJS 37 (Early)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 —> 11.0
Reason: Only 4 slightly upgraded aim65b’s (Or 3 if you want flares and chaff) which can also get intercepted by Strelas (Which it will only be able to face in a full downtier) and the TV guidance starts working at 3-6 km at 11.7 is crazy. (Only aim 9 j’s for self defense if you want to carry rb75t’s) A pantsir will curb stomp this vehicle into the ground before you’ll even be able to use your missiles. Before this vehicle sat at 10.7 and I thought it was fine, SPAA’s still had some decent counterplay to this. At 11.0 the AJS 37 will be quite balanced as it will still be able to meet tor’s 2s6’s and roland’s.
Changes:
Reasoning: Ridiculously high survivability with strong armament and a detailed damage model. Far outperforms peers at 2.3.
Changes:
Reasoning: Ridiculously high survivability with strong armament and a detailed damage model. Far outperforms peers at 2.3.
Changes:
Reasoning: Freccia P-493 is currently suffering with its legacy BR back then when it had almost no opponents that matched it except the Pr. 206 and some others. It frequently faces destroyers that it cannot hurt more than coastal vessels found in the 4.7 BR range. It particularly doesn’t have a stronger survivability to justify its current BR against its typical opponents.
It’s funny because the Japanese AH-64D is 11.3 rn and the only difference to the AH MK.1 are the starstreaks. American AH-64D has the “advantage” of APKWS which the AH MK.1 also lacks
Changes:
Reasoning: I do not understand why the PT-811 is at 3.7 while the PT-810 is at 3.3. Sure, the PT-811 has different modeled armor and is slightly faster, with a lower-profile helm, but both the PT-811 and PT-810 have exactly the same armament, including the same type of torpedoes. This means there is no significant difference in gameplay. See the comparison below for reference.
Are the differences in characteristics significant enough to warrant the PT-811 being 0.3 BR higher than the PT-810? I would answer “No” on this.
Changes:
Reasoning: Extremely good survivability and armament allow it to wipe out motor boats with ease thanks to its 75 mm gun. It has highly efficient statistics because of this, and 1.0-1.3 boats struggle against her.
It should not have started at 1.7 BR. It’s the PC-451 situation all over again. It has the same armament as the PC-451, more or less, and should be moved up to 2.3, just like the PC-451.
Changes:
Reasoning: One of the best Cold War versatile boats that’s currently overperforming due to rapid-firing 30mm cannons and powerful torpedoes. They can shred WWII-era coastal boats with little effort and should be moved up.
Mode: Air Realistic Battles / Ground Realistic Battles
Vehicles: MiG-29M / MiG-29KR, Yak-130, Yak-9UT
Proposed Change: Revert these BR increases.
Reasoning:
I am writing to express severe concerns regarding the October 2026 BR changes, specifically regarding BR compression and the failure to account for actual vehicle capabilities (countermeasures, RWR, and missile performance) versus raw server statistics.
1. MiG-29M / MiG-29KR (Moving to 14.0)
Moving these aircraft to 14.0 creates a permanent, unsolvable bottom-tier experience due to the new 15.0 ceiling.
2. Yak-130 (Moving to 10.3 in GRB)
Pushing this subsonic trainer to 10.3 is entirely unplayable.
3. Yak-9UT (Moving from 6.7 to 7.0)
This is a clear example of the balancing algorithm punishing a plane for the mistakes of bad players.
Conclusion:
These BR changes represent a severe compression issue where aircraft are being pushed into brackets where they are mechanically obsolete. I urge the developers to evaluate the actual technical specifications (RWR capabilities, countermeasure counts, and missile kinematics) rather than relying purely on flawed automated win-rate statistics.
Changes:
Reasoning: Compared to the F4F-3 Wildcat, the F4F-4 Wildcat has an identical engine and similar performance. The main differences are additional internal armor in the fuselage (up to 8 mm protection) and two extra .50-cal machine guns. As a result, the F4F-4 has a worse flight model due to a lower power-to-weight ratio. Overall, it suffers from a super-poor climb rate while having two BR steps higher than the F4F-3.
There is no reason for it to be at 3.0, sharing the same BR as the F4U-1A Corsair (USMC), which has significantly better flight performance along with six .50-cal machine guns. The F4F-4 is not comparable to the F4U-1A or other fighters at 3.0, and it is often outclassed in engagements.
Personally, I would place it at 2.3, as the F4F-4 is essentially a side-grade to the F4F-3, but it may perform better due to the increased firepower, particularly in head-on engagements, at the cost of worsened flight performance.
Additional note: Her compartments are packed tighter than Kowloon Walled City, even a poorly aimed salvo essentially halves her crew count
Changes:
Reasoning: This is a similar case regarding the BR placements of the F4F-3 and F4F-4 Wildcats. Compared to the standard F6F-5, the F6F-5N Hellcat has the same engine and similar performance. The primary differences are two 20 mm cannons in place of two .50-cal machine guns and the addition of airborne radar. Consequently, its flight performance is worse due to the increased weight and drag, significantly reducing the power-to-weight ratio.
I do not see how the increased firepower and the addition of airborne radar justify a full 1.0 BR increase over the standard F6F-5. At 4.3, the F6F-5N is often outclassed by other fighters at the same BR, particularly in climb rate and energy retention.
Changes:
Reasoning: Currently, both the P-47D-22 (Razorback) Thunderbolt and P-47D-25 (Bubbletop) Thunderbolt have nearly identical engine performance, both operating at 56" Hg and producing around 2,300 bhp at War Emergency Power.
Relevant bug report proposed an increase in manifold pressure for the P-47D-25 to 64" Hg, as implemented historically. At 64" Hg, the engine would produce approximately 2,535 bhp instead of 2,300 bhp.
However, the report was accepted and then closed as “Not a Bug.” Here’s BRM’s comment in the bug report, stating reasoning for the “Not a Bug” classification:
The developers have reviewed it in full. Currently, there is no error here. No changes are required at this time. Increasing the boost pressure to 64 inches of mercury will change the aircraft’s performance, requiring an increase in the aircraft’s battle rating in the game. So this modification is not planned for now.
For this reason, I propose increasing the P-47D-25’s manifold pressure from 56" to 64" Hg. As it stands, both the P-47D-22 and P-47D-25 have nearly identical engine and flight performance. The main advantage of the D-25 is a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio due to differences in the turbocharger, while the D-22 retains a slightly better flight model due to its lighter airframe.
I disagree with the reasoning that adjusting the manifold pressure would necessitate a BR increase, especially considering the P-47D-25 is already at 4.3, while the P-47D-22 sits at 3.7 and can be considered superior in some aspects.
Therefore, the P-47D-25 should receive the historical 64" Hg manifold pressure at WEP to better differentiate its performance from the D-22.
Additionally, the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt already uses a 70" boost in-game. Modeling all three variants (D-22, D-25, and D-28) with their respective boost settings (56", 64", and 70") would create a clearer and more logical performance progression within the Thunderbolt series.
