Proposed ground RB battle rating changes

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1 
Proposed Battle rating changes for ground:
**Working list**

USA:

T77E1 3.7 > 3.3 (it is purely a slightly better armored m16 GMC with 2 additional guns. Shouldn’t need a 1.0 br gap.)

M19a1 4.0 > 3.7 (better than the T77E1 if your aim is really good, but often isn’t a great SPAA.)

Skink 5.3 > 5.0 (good armor for an SPAA but the very limited belt size shouldnt set it at 5.3, 5.0 is optimal)

T20 6.3 > 6.0 (it’s by far a worse T25 at a higher br for some strange reason, and I don’t think a low speed vertical stabilizer is sufficient for a higher br.)

T92 7.0 > 7.3 (Tends to bounce or eat shells, fast, small, very easy to bush and hide, potent HEATFS)

T26E5 6.7 > 7.0 (7.3 quality armor at 6.7, with a good reload and good penetration being better than most 6.7s with ease)

T34 6.7 > 7.0 (spreading out the heavy tanks, getting better rewards, but good gun / armor. Able to pierce anything, while blocking many hits. 5.7s can hardly kill it, same as T26E5)

T30 6.7 > 7.0 (better T34 at the same BR, with a larger cannon, good pen, insane HE filler, able to overpressure many tanks easily.)

M551(76) 7.0 > 7.3 (stabilized very potent light tank, with a decent damage APDS, than can kill every 6.7-7.3 frontally with ease).

T29 7.0 > 7.3 (A go to, to bully tanks, great from 6.0 - 7.7, most 6.0-6.3 tanks hardly can kill these T34, T30 included, good reload and great penetration with APHE).

M50 6.7 > 7.3 (small size, quiet engine, ability to rapid fire 6 rounds, very easy to bush up).

Germany:

VK30.02 5.0 > 5.3 (should never have been able to see 4.0 tanks no matter how bad its turret traverse is. Also way too powerful of a gun for 4.0-4.7 with armor to match).

Panther D 5.3 > 5.7 (makes sense as a step up from the VK being 5.3, while having better armor).

2 Tiger pack OST/west 5.7 > 6.0 (preforming well, add on armor drastically increases survivability, with a good cannon).

Panther F 6.0 > 6.3 (three folders panthers at the same br doesn’t make a lot of sense, the turret armor is also somewhat better than the other panthers, with a harder to snipe barrel.)

Tiger II (H)s 6.7 > 7.0 (USA heavy dispersion happening, thus Germany gets it too, and the Tiger II is equal to the T34, and T30 in terms of performance).

Tiger II 10.5 CM 7.0 > 7.3 (devastatingly good gun, with a harder to hit turret face, due to bigger cannon breech)

Luchs 7.3 > 7.7 (better Wiesel but bigger with a 360 degree turret rotation.)

Pzh2000 7.7 > 8.0 (even with no thermal, by far the best arty in game with a 5.0 sec auto loader for the first 4 rounds, subsequent loads are 7.5 secs )

Df105 8.0 > 8.3 (10 shot HEAT mag, with a 5 sec load time, can bounce early APFSDS, and eats auto cannon rounds).

Raketenautomat 8.0 > 8.3 (massive magazine of devastating ammo, with great pen and low drop).

RakJPz 2 (HOT) 8.3 > 8.7 (being practically equal to the IT-1 in its ability to hide behind hills and not take damage, while having a better atgm for less armor.)

Gepard 8.3 > 9.0 (often used to zoom to a flank and wipe half a team due to great APHE, and it’s APDS can kill the heaviest of tanks, also way too good of an aa for just 8.3, it can easily down helicopters, and planes with ease).

Turm III 8.3 > 8.7 (very powerful medium tank with a 5.0 sec reload and auto cannon, and great gun depression, often it’s so open it will be hit with little to no damage).

Begleitpanzer 57 9.3 > 10.0 (pretty much a IRST lock-less 2s38, being faster and better armored at a whole br lower. This can often reduce all enemy CAS like it didn’t exist, especially helicopters, which makes it surprisingly under br’d still. The TOW is usable for long range hits, or as a back up weapon.)

Leopard 2A5 12.0 > 11.7 (other than the squadron vehicle and premium vehicle, there is no true 11.7 tank, making the TT leo2a5 better than purchasable and researched squadron vehicles, if it was moved to 11.7.)

Russia:

T-34 E STZ 4.0 > 4.3 (no need for two T-34s at the same br, the STZ also has a smaller turret).

KV-1(Zis-5) 4.7 > 4.3 (the Sweden one is 4.7 with a far better turret and same gun, making little sense why they are identical in BR placement.)

IS-3 7.3 > 7.0 (terrible reload, somewhat slow, bad gun depression, terrible performance, terrible shell unable to deal with many things at 8.3, 8.0, or 7.7, can deal with some 7.3s, heavies are a bit of a problem though).

IS-6 7.7 > 7.3 (terrible reload, bad gun depression, gunner optics are a big weak point aams as roof hatches, bad penetration, not equal to other 7.7s in performance, being typically equal to or slightly better than the IS-3, not enough to warrant a br difference).

T-54 (1947) 7.7 > 7.3 (absolutely terrible vehicle, other than armor, gun handling sucks, shell is okay, turret traverse is like a panther D. The cons make fighting vehicles with HEAT-FS a living hell, as your armor was made to stop AP, APHE, etc).

T-54 (1949) 8.0 > 7.7 (same as above)

T-64A (1971) 9.3 > 9.0 (has worse gun elevation degrees a second vs br 1.0 tanks, has armor that may stop early HEAT-FS, but will not stop APFSDS nearly at all. its pros are: good turret armor, pretty decent gun, and low profile. Cons: slow, slow reload, bad bull armor, easy to 1 hit kill.)

2s25 9.3 > 9.7 (speedy with a good gun, lacking thermals and survivability, spreads out the vehicles).

Krizantema-S 9.7 > 10.0 (ability to use radar to detect tanks, mostly sees 10.3 / 10.7 matches anyways. Has 2 good ATGMs, and gen 3 thermals. Lacks good survivability)

T-72B 10.3 > 10.0 (pretty much a T-72A but at a br where everyone fires APFSDS, absolutely terrible to play when you can’t rely on a single part of your tank like: speed, reload, armor. The only good thing is the gun).

2s38 10.3 > 10.7 (decent jack of all trades, lacks armor though, however it probably shouldn’t see 9.3s)

All T-80U, UM2, UE, UK, UD, BVM (T80U or newer) reload corrected to 6.0 seconds. (Historically accurate, cyclogram data literally even says 6.0 seconds.)

Britain:

Skink 5.3 > 5.0 (same reason as USA

G6 6.7 > 6.3 (locked turret that can only traverse roughly 20 degrees left or right of the center of the tank. It has little armor and is a massive target).

Fox 7.7 > 8.0 (insane mobility and lethality, able to cross an entire map in the span of 15-25 seconds, with a gun that can kill most tanks).

Conquerer 7.7 > 8.0 (excellent armor and gun)

ZA35 8.3 > 8.7 (faster gepard meaning quicker easier flanks).

TTD Reload buff given, top reload 6.7 → 6.0 seconds.

Japan:

Heavy tank no.6 6.0 > 5.7 (lacking add on armor, and smoke launchers, which are useless, block gun depression).

Type 61 6.7 > 7.0 (great penetration, all around a good tank, but poor armor).

ST-A3 6.7 > 7.0 (6.0 sec auto loader is too good for manually loaded tanks around).

Ho-Ri prototype 6.7 > 7.0 (extremely good armor for a 6.7, decent reload, good speed, and devastating cannon).

Type 60 SPRG 6.7 > 7.0 (rattier M56, easier to hide as well, as being .50 cal proof).

Type 99 7.3 > 7.7 (auto loaded arty with the biggest amount of HE filler in its shell, should’ve never been able to see 6.3s).

Ho-Ri production 7.3 > 7.7 (a better Ho Ri prototype, being able to bounce / take absurd amounts of damage rivaling the maus. Very good mobility, and a very good gun).

China:

CM-25 8.7 > 8.3 (there is literally no reason why it shouldn’t be the same br as the other M113A1s)

Object 122MT 8.7 > 9.0 (a far better T-62, boasting better armor, with enhanced mobility, and the ability to fire 4 ATGMs rapidly along side its main gun).

AFT09 9.0 > 9.3 (can launch 4 ATGMs in rapid succession and is decently fast).

Italy:

Pzh2000Hu 7.7 > 8.0 (same reason as German one)

Sidam 25 8.3 > 8.0 (absolutely terrible aa, worse than ZSU-23-4, Gepard, M163, etc).

Dardo 10.0 > 9.7 (fast firing auto cannon, but worse protection than the Bradley, very poor atgm storage leading to being hit in empty space and detonating. No IRST lock, very poor survivability, this and the Vcc80/30 are the same br. Moving this to 9.7 gives a decent 9.7 lineup for Italy).

KF41 11.0 > 10.7 (has an APS but is a worse puma in survivability)

Freccia (fix spike LR consistency vs tanks, and perhaps give it the option of a stock APDS belt)

Aubl 74 / HVG reload buff 6.0 secs > 3.5 secs (only logical If 120mm cannons can reload in 5.0 seconds, it doesn’t make sense how / why a 60mm cannon loads in 6.0 seconds. Lending itself to being one of the worst reloads for one of the worst cannons in the game).

M300 spall damage increased by 16% (this would help out both the Vcc80/60 and justify its 9.3 br change, and also help out the Aubl 74/ HVG)

France:

AMX 50 (TO/90) 8.0 > 7.7 (being slightly faster, with less armor and penetration than the somua, with a APHE round, it never made sense to move this to 8.0 after its battlepass ended, as 8.0 and up it struggles to fight a lot of vehicles if they’re stabilized, well armored, etc.)

Somua SM 7.7>8.0 (can go 3v1 easily in downtier, with a skinny gun, and all around being a jack of all trades with good pen.)

M4 (FL10) 5.0 > 5.3 (better than most Sherman’s, while having a 10 round magazine and a 5.0 sec load time, make this a nasty tank to encounter).

Sweden:

Bkan 6.7 > 7.0 (fast firing gun, Proxy)[

U-SH 405 8.0 > 8.3 (a much faster and quieter rakentenautomat).

Pbv 501 6.7 > 7.3 (should never be a BMP-1 below 7.3 regardless of not having an atgm, as the main gun is quite good.)

T-54 8.0 > 7.7 (same reason as Soviet one)

Pbv 302 (Bill) 8.7 > 8.3 (these atgm launcher systems are absolutely terrible to play / spade. It’d be easier to eat one’s own hands).

Itpsv Leopard 8.7 > 9.3 (being a better, and better armored Gepard, it’s strange it’s only been one br higher. 9.3 is a good fit for it though.)

LvKv 9040c 10.3 > 10.0 (long load times after all first stage ammo is fired, also stacking two AAs at the same br doesn’t help.)

Amended / added ones will be underlined.

Decompression questionnaire:
  • Yes to decompression
  • No to decompression
0 voters
Which nation do you think has the best vehicles at their current BRs?
  • USA
  • Germany
  • Russia
  • Great Britain
  • Japan
  • China
  • Italy
  • France
  • Sweden
  • Israel
0 voters
4 Likes
2

I do have some issues with your proposal.

You move the Ush up, but not the rakaten which is an equivalent/better tank.

You move the Amx-50 TO/90 down, but not the Char25t.

You can’t move the T26E5 up without also moving the Tiger II H up too.

Most of your US BR changes aren’t needed. The M56, T92, and T29 don’t need to go up higher, and the rest just makes the US worse for no reason.

I do find it funny that there are only a few non-Russian tanks that went down, but most Russian tanks listed are getting downtiers.

31 Likes
3

Yeah because Gaijin has made some bad moves let’s say like pushing the IS-3 to 7.3 to make BTR-80 more playble

1 Like
4

The USh and char are smaller than their counterparts, and it just my idea. I have no problem with the rakenten going up either.
The char seems to be fine as is.

Well, no not really the ease to play the T26E5 is a far easier tank to play, not to mention a lot of guns simply cannot kill it frontally / auto cannons cannot even kill it anywhere for the most part.
The T26e5 is also an experimental tank, but trying to flush out the heavies is a better idea then stacking 3-4 all in one spot. If you notice, I did the same thing for Russia.

It’s because USA is so overwhelming dominant in this BR. A decent squad of any of these tanks pretty much guarantees a win.
T92 has very trolly armor and can play in very good positions. It has good HEAT-FS, is fast, and very capable.
T29 needs to go higher in BR, because it is plenty efficient, and at one point the T29 and IS6 were the same BR. T29 is still a great tank even at 7.3, meanwhile the IS6 is terrible at 7.7
These are balancing changes, so there is a reason.

5

It was about 50/50 some that are very terrible tanks go moved down, and some were moved to make it so not everything is stuck at one br. Like the t72b. The b is far worse than the 1989 yet they’re at the same br.
The t72b and t90a I never see people play as their br placement is just terrible, moving them down just one fixes that to make them usable.

6

It’s pretty much a stabilized bulldog, which is 6.3. 7.0 is fine.

As long as Panther D goes to 5.7

Why? It’s a good ATGM on one of the worst possible chassis’ for a TD. Bad reverse, low gun depression, limited aiming arc

Why? Same BR as STB-3 which is just superior?

This tank is already overtiered lol, should be 6.3.

It’s a sidegrade of the M4A4 SA50, so no

Move the Raketenautomat up as well. USH is on a really bad chasis and is far less mobile than the Raketen, while having half the ammo.

9 Likes
7

A stabilized bull dog, but if the other get move up, it’ll fill out it’s br for USA there nicely. It’s also perfectly fine at 7.3 especially since it has a sub 6.0 sec load time, smoke, etc.

Panther D could go up to 5.7 yeah.

Well if I don’t nerf something in Russia, people will complain and cry. And it can effectively kill helis, and in some regards is better than the Krisentema. It’s also now at the same BR as the IT-1 or vice versa.

  • moving the cent up flushes out the tree more, stub could also use some moving, but I haven’t listed it.

  • M4(FL10) has a 10 round ready rack that reloads in 5 secs. It’s also only got slightly worse pen. Again, it fills out another br nicely, and higher br vehicles get better rewards.

  • USH is faster, smaller, and quieter. I dropped a nuke in it stock, although I agree the raketenautomat should also go up or get re balanced somehow, the USH is still the superior vehicle.

1 Like
8

I know it’s meant to be a modifiable listing but these two are in no way on the same level as each other

Same level as M1128 (T-72) and Leopard 2 (T-90A), no.

5 Likes
9

Actually believe it or not, the T26e5 and IS3 are on far more equal footing than you think.

Skilled shots are required to kill either or.
Where as the IS-3 has a bigger shell,
The T26e5 has the mobility and reload.
IS3 has the pen.
They are very equal.

The T-72B can be killed by the M1128, and the T-72B does not need to be the same BR as the T72B(1989)
Although the T-72 outpaces the m1128 in armor and reload, the striker has the mobility, hull down ability, and crewless turret.

The T-90A has a slower reload, and armor over the Leo, although it boasts higher pen, its like a maus vs a somua.

There are trade offs to make the T-90A a 10.7, not to mention seeing 12.0 tanks is insane, as it can barely help itself vs anything in 11.7.

Again, it’s reverse, forward speed are terrible, it’s locked in 7.1 sec loading time is terrible, it has good armor and a good gun. It lacks turret traverse as well.

1 Like
10

Most of these are needless or baffling in their own regard, but this one stands out.

Firstly, the Luchs is 7.3 in all gamemodes, but more importantly, it’s by arguably the least impressive of all the RH202 equipped vehicles at the tier. It doesn’t have the tiny size and high quality thermals of the Wiesel, the ATGM of the Marders, the stabilizer of the Type 87 (P) or any part of what makes the XM800T so strong. And you’re suggesting it should sit at the same BR as said XM800T.

It’s a giant box of a tank with poor agility, mediocre gun handling and thus little ability to get into situations where it can make the gun work. Even the mediocre BTRs have a slightly easier time since their guns aren’t nearly as weak.

Also, those are both Tiger Es, why are they being moved down into Tiger H1 BR while the base Tigers aren’t moving at all? And why the Tigris, which is the best Tiger 1 in game thanks to the addon track armor covering the frontal weakspots?

4 Likes
11

Because the Heavy tank no.6 is practically the same if not worse than the Tiger H1.

They just added a P2W pack of 2 tigers with all the add on armor you’d ever want, it’s fair whether or not you agree.

12

You noticed that did ya?

Bit curious that basically all be reductions are targeted at one nation as well.

3 Likes
13

Say what you will. I was fair in my choices. Anything doing very well, got put up in br, anything doing poorly was reduced.

14

It’s far closer to the Tiger E, lacking the exploitable cupola weakspot. It has the H1’s pointless mine launchers, but that’s a pretty minor disadvantage compared to the cupola that allows any gun it can fight to effortlessly cripple you at close range.

15

T26E5, which I’ll just call the Jumbo as per its name for speed sake, has easily hit weakspots, though all in range the skill matters. IS-3 has far stronger characteristics to the Jumbo. My big issue with this though is that moving the two to the same BR is implying that the two fair as though they should be in said BR, though the two shouldn’t. At most, IS-3 should be .3 higher than the Jumbo.
Striker doesn’t really have hull down (depending on position ofc) due to its high profile and good old 5* of depression. Striker has speed over the T-72 but the striker is significantly worse maneuverability wise due to being wheeled with only its four front moving. The crewless turret is really easily countered when you fire right in the center too, though it makes sense in your point.
T-90A doesn’t need to be facing 12.0 but it doesn’t need to be facing 9.7 either, albeit I can agree with it being lowered.
The true answer to these BR projections is not raising/lowering BR but rather, drumroll, BR Decompression! Gaijin literally gave ground a whopping +0.3BR Increase last update when in reality It was in severe need of +2 to be on par with air.

*For reference with my takes, I have only played the T26E5 and M1128 of the vehicles I have spoke of so far, though in relation with the 72 I have experience in the T-80 (Swedish SV specifically) so I know very minimal about most the vehicles I’m arguing against

16

Smoke is a great advantage. You cannot say it is equal to the 6.0 without it. Nor does it get the magical $$$ armor of the new 5.7s which, are extremely good.

17

I would say this br proposal is somewhat better than the other one lol IS-3 being one of the most pathetic vehicles I’ve ever faced, it has good armor but it’s overall performance being held back by stupidly long reload time and dogshit sight zoom on top of all the infamous Russian features, there is no way this thing is performing better than the T29.

Also, is TURM III really that good? I hadn’t tried to play it as an ambush vehicle but so far its hull down is bad because the tank blows up when the turret gets tickled, and lack of crews doesn’t help the situation and I find it’s overall survivability is quite ass. The 30mm comes in handy when you encounter pesky rats like fox, xm800t and ush405, overall it’s actually a light tank without the no-armor-best-armor perk.

2 Likes
18

I’d trade smoke grenades for a cupola that means I can’t brawl even in downtiers any day.

I’d also point out that neither of the two new premium Tigers get smoke grenades either, making the Tigris a straight upgrade to these (apparently) problematically strong new additions.

19

4 sec reload+stabilizer+30mm that shreds light tanks, all for only a 0.3 BR increase over a leopard 1.

4 Likes
20

The jumbo shouldn’t be able to bully 5.7s that’s literally insane as it’s the best 6.7 in the game.
Although yes the IS-3 could stay at its br, there is no reason for it to be able to fight stabilized 8.3 tanks where it’s armor is useless because HEAT-FS and HEAT is anywhere from 6.0+
The Jumbo has the reload which makes up for the lack of gun, making them equal.

The striker can play hull down and be extremely survivable.

But yes br decompressing would help, but may also increase the match finding time.

1 Like