Falcon has ZERO business moving up again after you stripped its AP round ahistorically from its belt. XM-1s should be given 774 for going up as well.
F4U-1C
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.7 → 4.3
- Give F4U-1C its missing bombs (Bug Report)
Reasoning: As it stands, the F4U-1C is the worst-performing F4U-1 variant in terms of flight performance compared to the F4U-1A , F4U-1A (USMC), and F4U-1D Corsairs. Reminder: all F4U-1 series, including the F4U-1C, use the identical engine, so the F4U-1C has objectively inferior flight performance and is easily outclassed by other aircraft at 4.7 BR, particularly due to its very poor climb rate. Simply put, its flight characteristics are closer to those of a 3.0 aircraft.
The 4.7 BR placement appears to be a harsh response to its fairly powerful 4 x 20 mm armament with a high ammunition count, which is understandable from a game design perspective in Air RB. However, I believe moving it down to 4.3 would be a fairer adjustment rather than placing it at 3.0 alongside the F4U-1A and F4U-1D.
6 Likes
How are you coming to the conclusion that the Su30SM2 is a crappy platform?
That is an assumption, and not true for every engagement
The airframe is subpar compared to a lot of the competition, and the defensive kit is pretty below average.
Vehicle: Merkava Mk4M
Game Mode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 13.3 > 13.0
This vehicle does not hold a significant advantage over the Abrams Trophy HV, which is in the same tier and has similar performance.
Despite having the highest ground clearance, the lower part of its turret is thin enough to be penetrated by the 120mm DM23, and there are even areas on the upper part that can be penetrated by the 3BM42.
The hull is easily sliced open by the DM23 and 3BM42, rendering it as flimsy as a sheet of paper.
While its firepower and reload speed are on par with the Abrams, its shell performance is inferior, putting it at a disadvantage.
Although their mobility is similar, the Merkava is at a slight disadvantage in terms of acceleration and other factors.
1 Like
P-47M-1-RE, P-47M-1-RE (Poland)
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: Keep at 5.7 as it is
- Give P-47M-1-RE its 100/150 octane fuel, further improving the flight performance (Bug Report).
Reasoning: As it stands, the P-47M-1-RE Thunderbolt does not offer a meaningful difference in flight or engine performance compared to the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt at 5.0, since the P-47M-1-RE’s engine was nerfed. Although the P-47M-1-RE is lighter, it produces less horsepower and has a lower top speed at low altitude compared to the P-47D-28.
I believe the P-47M-1-RE could be improved in its current state of engine performance so that it better justifies its 5.7 BR placement.
It has been reported that the P-47M-1-RE historically operated with 100/150 octane fuel. In-game, however, the P-47D-28 already uses 100/150 octane, while the P-47M-1-RE is modeled with 100/130 octane and could potentially be upgraded to 100/150.
If equipped with 100/150 octane fuel, the P-47M-1-RE’s engine power and top speed would improve further, surpassing the P-47D-28 even when it also uses 100/150 octane. This would create a clearer performance distinction and help justify its 5.7 BR placement.
The related bug report was accepted but later closed as “Not a Bug,” citing that the performance change from 100/150 octane fuel could impact the aircraft’s battle rating.
3 Likes
XP-55
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.0
- Removal of 2 x 20 mm cannons and replacement with two .50-cal machine guns (Bug Report).
Reasoning: Historically, the XP-55 Ascender was never armed with two 20 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns. The report I created cites a source stating that the XP-55 was equipped only with four .50-cal machine guns during construction. Along with another report already correcting its engine performance, this warrants a reduction of one BR step by replacing the 20 mm cannons with .50-cal machine guns.
4 Likes
F9F-2
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 8.0 → 7.7
Reasoning: As it stands, the F9F-2 Panther does not offer any meaningful advantage over the F9F-5 Panther, which shares the same 8.0 BR. The F9F-5 is objectively better, while the F9F-2 has performance closer to the F2H-2 Banshee at 7.3, albeit slightly lighter and faster.
There is little to no reason to choose the F9F-2 when the F9F-5 occupies the same BR and offers superior flight characteristics. Moving the F9F-2 to 7.7 would be a more logical placement and would serve as a smoother progression between the F2H-2 (7.3) and F9F-5 (8.0), creating a more linear Banshee–Panther progression at 7.3, 7.7, 8.0, and 8.3.
4 Likes
The airframe is mediocre compared to peers.
It’s fat, not incredibly agile and the speed is ok.
but it’s able to get within notch and leave it well enough and the offensive kit more than makes up for that problem.
Very clear proof that offensive kit is the most important aspect of a vehicle.
And those wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t for the missile kit.
Even IF everything else about it was the best thing in the game, it would not be a very good plane due to the terrible missile kit
Hell, Euro vs Rafale:
Rafale only has the better offensive kit over euro
but rafale will steamroll the euro in every relevant scenario simply because the missile kit is better
1 Like
F-84F Family
- F-84F (USA)
- F-84F (Germany)
- F-84F (Italy)
- F-84F (France)
- F-84F (Israel)
- F-84F IAF
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 8.3 → 8.0
- Give an airspawn to the F-84F Thunderstreak in non-US tech trees.
Reasoning: The F-84F Thunderstreak at 8.3 is not comparable to other 8.3 aircraft such as the F-86F Sabre and MiG-15bis, as it has worse maneuverability, acceleration, and energy retention.
Since aircraft like the B-52H Stratofortress and Tu-95 at Rank VI are exceptions that receive airspawns while other attackers and bombers do not, the same exception should be applied to F-84Fs in non-US tech trees. This would bring a fairer situation, as the F-84F in the US tree sits at a lower rank and is currently the only variant in the family with access to an airspawn.
As it stands, it is inconsistent that only one F-84F variant benefits from this mechanic while others at a higher rank do not.
9 Likes
i was going to say that you should suggest lowering them to rank 5 because that’s where strikers/bombers get airspawn but then i remembered that gaijin doesn’t care about that anymore since they gave airspawn to rank 6 b52 and tu95
Indeed
Should the Type 90 (B) stay at BR 11.7 or be moved to a lower BR?
I’ve played 118 battles in the Type 90 (B), and I’m interested in hearing what other players think about its current BR and the proposed increase to 12.0.
The Type 90 (B) has clear strengths, especially its 4-second autoloader and mobility. However, I don’t think these advantages fully compensate for its weaknesses in actual battles.
My main concerns are:
- Firepower: Its JM33 APFSDS has around 481 mm of penetration at point-blank range, making frontal engagements against heavily armored MBTs like the T-90M and T-80BVM difficult.
- Survivability: It has only three crew members and limited protection against APFSDS. A single penetrating shot can easily knock it out of the fight.
- Weak spots: Russian MBTs with ERA can be difficult opponents. Although their lower front plates can be vulnerable, accurately hitting these weak spots under fire is not always practical. Taking too long to aim can give the enemy enough time to destroy you first.
- Thermals: Its Gen 1 thermal sights put it at a disadvantage against vehicles with better-generation thermals, especially when spotting enemies at longer ranges.
The 4-second reload and mobility are valuable, but they don’t guarantee an advantage in every engagement. If the first shot fails to destroy or disable the enemy, the Type 90 (B) can be destroyed before it gets another chance to fire.
I’m not saying the Type 90 (B) is a bad tank. I simply feel that its mobility and reload speed may be weighted too heavily compared with its firepower, protection, and overall performance in actual battles.
Personally, I think the Type 90 (B) should either remain at BR 11.7 or be moved to a slightly lower BR, rather than being increased to 12.0.
What do you think is the most appropriate BR for the Type 90 (B)? Should it stay at 11.7, move down to a lower BR, or is 12.0 justified? I’d especially like to hear from players who regularly use the Type 90 series or fight against it.
Jaguar A
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles BR: No Change
- Make the Matra R550 Magic 1 immediately available in the loadout, rather than requiring it to be unlocked through a Tier IV modification.
Reasoning: I do not think I need to say much. The direct British counterpart, the Jaguar GR.1A, has the AIM-9G available without the need for research. The same applies to the Jaguar IS, which already has the Magic II available without research.
The Jaguar A sits at a BR where missile engagements are more common, and it is frustrating to grind for the missile modification at Tier IV when the Jaguar A is already outclassed by fighters at 10.7 and above. It has to rely on securing third-party air kills to make meaningful progress in modification research.
8 Likes
Jaguar E
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles BR: No Change
- Make the Matra R550 Magic 1 immediately available in the loadout, rather than requiring it to be unlocked through a Tier IV modification.
Reasoning: Like Jaguar A, I don’t need to say much. The direct British counterpart, the Jaguar GR.1A, has the AIM-9G available without the need for research. The same applies to the Jaguar IS, which already has the Magic II available without research.
The Jaguar E sits at a BR where missile engagements are more common, and it is frustrating to grind for the missile modification at Tier IV when the Jaguar E is already outclassed by fighters at 10.7 and above. It has to rely on securing third-party air kills to make meaningful progress in modification research.
7 Likes
Q-5L
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles BR: May need to warrant an increase in BR
- Give Q-5L its missing PL-5 air-to-air missiles (Bug Report)
- Increase countermeasure count from 18 → 64 (Bug Report)
Reasoning: As it stands, the Q-5L offers little over the Q-5A in air battles, aside from expanded CAS weaponry and smart bomb capability, while both share the same BR and nearly identical flight performance. A bug report has indicated that the Q-5L may be capable of carrying two PL-5 air-to-air missiles.
I recommend giving the Q-5L its missing PL-5 air-to-air missiles to better differentiate it from the Q-5A (Late).
6 Likes
Lvrbv701 definitely should not go 10.0
1 Like
Eremin’s Yak-3(e)
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.7
Reasoning: Since Yak-3 has moved to 4.7, and the Yak-3 (e) should be moved there as well. The Yak-3 (e) shares the same engine and 99.9% identical flight performance as the Yak-3, although it is slightly lighter and has marginally better maneuverability. It also retains strong 20 mm cannon ballistics, which make securing clean kills relatively easy.
As a result, it greatly benefits from the current Air RB meta, where most engagements occur around 3,000 meters, an altitude range in which the Yak-3(e) already excels, allowing it to perform effectively and help conclude matches more quickly.
Moving it to 4.7 would still leave it comfortably balanced at that BR.
6 Likes
Yak-9U
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.7 → 5.0
Reasoning: Yak-9 is similar to the Yak-3, but with a more powerful engine, improved overall performance, and better structural limits at higher speeds. Although it is slightly heavier, it still maintains a higher top speed, along with solid acceleration, climb rate, and maneuverability.
As a result, it greatly benefits from the current Air RB meta, where most engagements occur around 3,000 meters, an altitude range in which the Yak-9U already excels, allowing it to perform effectively and help conclude matches more quickly.
Moving it to 5.0 would still leave it comfortably balanced at that BR.
4 Likes
Yak-3U
Changes:
- Air Realistic Battles: 5.7 → 6.0
Reasoning: Like the Yak-3, the Yak-3U is significantly stronger at 5.7 thanks to its lighter airframe and more powerful engine. It offers superior climb rate, maneuverability, energy retention, and acceleration, allowing it to outperform most of its peers. It is a particularly lethal opponent at low altitudes. Its only drawback is subpar high-altitude performance. However, with strong 20 mm cannon ballistics, it benefits greatly from the current Air RB meta, where most engagements occur around 3,000 meters, an altitude range in which the Yak-3U excels, enabling it to perform effectively and help conclude matches more quickly.
6 Likes
before that the yak3e and the yak3 used to be 4.0 and 4.3 respectively