Proposed ground RB battle rating changes

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
368

You need to aim better. It always dies in one hit for me.

They’re fine where they are. Especially the T30, it’s very easily killed. All the T34-alikes have long reloads and are countered by anyone with HEATFS or a good angle on their left turret ammo rack.

It’s fine at 7.0 BR.

It’s fine where it is.

You’re hitting it with a sledgehammer when it’s fine at 6.7. This seems like a personal vendetta.

They’re both fine where they sit, the only change is to remove the uprated engine from the Tiger 2 105.

It’s fine where it sits. There are better vehicles at 8.0 in the same niche.

This one also seems personal. If you’re going to throw it up to 9.0 then you have to give it F-APDS ammo to compensate. Full F-APDS belts, as those completely replaced DM13 and DM11 mixed belts for anti-aircraft work (according to the gepard enthusiasts I have spoken to).

It’s fine where it is. If you want it higher, then have the multiple missing features and later TOW models added.

It’s fine where it is. 6.0 tanks (IE: Black Prince) have literally no chance.

Like the T32E1 to base T32 it’s fine where it sits. It’s comparable to IS-3 but with better armor, and a faster reload.

All of them are fine where they sit. The armor and speed for T-54 variants is oppressive for 6.7 BR tanks. Shturm-S trades survivability and protection for thermals, different missiles and a low profile. IT-1 is a different niche.

They are fine where they are. Sprut has a good gun but isn’t particularly fast or small. T-72B(89) is the one that should go up, as it has outright better armor and the same BR as T-72B.

It’s perfectly fine where it is.

Gaijin has said multiple times this reload is both accurate and balanced. They have primary source cyclograms of the fastest practical rate of fire for the automatic loading system. If you start messing with this, then Type 10 gets a 1 second reload, Strv 103 gets 2.5s reload, and more carefully balanced vehicles get changed without need.

Then give it the prototype 30x170 APFSDS developed for the gun.

Unnecessary changes and wrong descriptions of the vehicles you want changed. Type 61 is manually loaded. STA-3 is autoloaded and for 6.7 BR is fine. The autoloader is just a different feature of a functionally identical tank to the Type 61. Both aren’t fast, small or competitive in 8.0 BR games.

The armor on both these isn’t as good as you claim. Type 60 resists 7.62 AP but is easily destroyed by .50 AP or API-c (as I expect you are more used to, from the 12.7 DShk).

Ho-Ri prototype has about average protection for a 6.7 heavy TD. Ferdinand is similar, jtiger is a lot better, Obj 268 is better, Su-122-54 is a little worse.

Then it gets modern thermals. The only reason it gets gen 1 is because of the old CN consultant trying to screw with things.

M163 is worse because it has much worse range. Shilka has bad dispersion, Gepard is only better due to APDS belts and range. Move outliers up instead of average performers down.

These seem personally motivated. The Aubl 74 HVG turret is very cramped, and the HVG ammo is decently cumbersome for the space given. These aren’t 40mm bofors rounds. Comparable ammo in mass and dimension are soviet 76.2mm F-32 APCR rounds. Even there, the smallest turret the F-32 was fitted in has more internal volume compared to the HVG turret.

M300 getting buffed means 75mm XM884 also gets buffed. And the 76.2mm APFSDS on OTOmatic/Rooikat. M41(CN) with APFSDS also gets buffed.

Char 25t is also afflicted by the same issues. Both deserve the change if you change one.

It trades a stabilizer, survivability and protection for an autoloader. It’s fine at 5.0 next to the US 76mm Shermans.

Just replace it with the T-55 Marksman. A modern MBT hull at this BR is obscene even if only allowed to use a 20mm firing APFSDS.

These are the suggestions I disagree with the most, but most of them are unnecessary. What needs to happen is decompression.

6 Likes
369

I thought of a suggestion.

Turm III…from 8.3 to 8.7 or 9.0 that thing is stupidly powerful

1 Like
370

Many of your counter arguments are just “no” make something a bit more valid.

Also, the T92 can eat 105mm shells as well as 122mms and only receive damage to the engine and transmission, but thanks for saying “skill issue”

Your not constructive in the slightest, and go figure, all the similar characters liked your post, as isn’t a surprise.
As you are leaving egregiously OP tanks where they are, and not buffing tanks that are preforming badly.

371

Although I agree. I think 8.7 is the first logical step for it.

372

So can the AMX-13 or BMPs, but you don’t see anyone calling those OP.

Their arguments also aren’t wrong.

2 Likes
373

The bmps and amxs both taller, and louder.

And unless your talking about the sweden one, the T92 is the only one of these that has HEAT FS at 7.0

I provided pretty good reasons why these tanks should be moved.
Efficiency included

374

T29, T30 and T34 are one of the hardest things to kill in a hull down position, even the long 88mm couldn’t go through it in most angles, only the 128mm PaK44 from Jagdtiger or Maus has a slightly easier time, HEATFS pens everything in that br so it’s not the T29’s specific weakness, even the side of the turret when angled slightly will bounce the soviet 100mm, most of the time I camped hull down I can only be killed by CAS.

2 Likes
375

It is a skill issue. I don’t have problems with reversing IS tanks or Merkavas, with guns weaker than the 122mm gun for their BR. T92 has terrible protection if you have decent aim. Stop shooting his lower plate with HE or whatever.

Egregiously OP tanks such as the Shturm and T30, with obvious weaknesses and deficiencies a good player can take advantage of in order to counter them. Yeah, sure.

The IS-3, IS-6, and the like are definitely not bad. They’re average performers and balanced at their tier. You buff them unnecessarily and they become I-win-by-rolling-face-on-keyboard tanks.

You don’t have access to gaijin’s internal “efficiency” statistic either, so you can’t claim that’s a valid argument for anything here. The best you have is thunderskill and the like, which are skewed samples. Bad statistics are worse than no statistics.

That is by intention and their strongest ability. IS-3, IS-6, King Tiger, etc all have stronger hull armor so they don’t need to use terrain to hide their hull all the time. If you find a T29 or one of her sisters hull down, shoot center mass and you should kill her gun or gun breech through the 203mm mantlet exterior. High powered guns like the 128mm have a decent chance of taking the turret crew out through the mantlet too. 100mm Soviet has good enough performance to reliably kill the gun or breech frontally. And beyond a 20 degree angle off the direct front of the turret, the sides become weak enough for it to be penetrated by that same gun.

1 Like
376

We usually won’t find IS-3 and IS-6 enter those areas and still find themselves useful because they will have trouble lowering their weapon should they hit a slight bumpy surface, outside of cities with flat surfaces the IS-series has features that disadvantage them. Also we need to take sight zoom into account when it comes to hitting the weak spots of a hull down T29, IS-3 and IS-6 have one of the worst zoom in that respective br, any further than 700m is pixel hunt, which increases the aim time and affects shot accuracy. For zoom factor only the IS-4M and T-10A can match the T29 in that area.

One forced to brawl in order to be useful, another one can choose not to brawl head-on if the maps weren’t advance to the rhine or sun city lol it will make more sense if we br vehicles base on map type

1 Like
377

It’s not. Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right. It makes your argument look worse. Upper plating / lower playing with these rounds can often be eaten by the engine.
It’s very flat, small, quiet, has exceptional pen, it has great gun depression and survivability for a light tank.

No the Shturm isn’t all the OP, but it doesn’t need to be the same br as the It-1, if you move any tank up in br, they’ll get better rewards.
If I also couldn’t find viable Russian nerfs, people would say I’m biased. You also did that very thing, as you already pulled my stat card to see what I mained.

The T30 has excellent pen, and excellent HE filler leading to easy over pressures. It’s a 6.7, and if reload was the sole defining characteristic as you say, then that only aids my point with the IS3-6s. Combine that with the all around worse attributes.

The T26e5, T34, T30, and T29 all are hold W for a win tanks. These have very wonky volumetric armor, especially the machine gun port.
The gun breech is also the same way, often shot trapping. It’s possible to score a kill, but unlikely.
You’d be better off at hurting the flat piece of the turret face just behind the gun mantle.

No I don’t, but commonly I see the tanks I have mentioned doing well, doing well. And the ones doing poorly, doing poorly.
Yes the Soviet 100mm is the only reliable use against those tanks or the German 128

1 Like
378

With the APHE changes, even if you fire into the transmission your ammo’s nose should still penetrate like solid shot and kill the crew. It’s not that good of a tank. Tier for tier the M41A1 (before gaijin turned the tank into a M41) is better. Even if you can’t hit his turret ring or MG tumors, APHE to his upper plate will reliably now one-shot unless you are using the most anemic ammo at the tier. The advantage of the T92 is being small and fast. It shares the exact same engine sound with the M41A1 too. Their volume is identical. It’s not a T-80 with a stealth gas turbine.

Now where did I do that? You wanna point it out?

The T30 isn’t that good. It’s the ammo of an M109 in an armored turret, with a minimum
30 second reload as compensation. IS-3 can shoot more than twice for every one T30 shot. IS-6 can hit three shots per T30 shot. Both of them are faster and have trollier hull and turret armor. A slow reload is relative, and only the FV4005/Sturmtiger have reload rates slower than the T30. IS-3 and IS-6 fire much faster in comparison.

Hold W to win and immediately get punished for exposing side armor /weak hull armor. Or shoot once, bounce/kill/disable once and die to his friend. That’s literally every heavy tank in a good matchup. KV-1 Zis is guilty of that. IS-1 is guilty. Tiger 2 is guilty of that.

T29 and her sisters are easily destroyed if they overpush, the tanks are sluggish and have slow turret traverse with bad hull armor and punishable reload times (especially true for the T30.)

Wumbo Pershing is a meme because it pretends to be a trash medium and then it bounces your ammo. It’s just a Super Pershing with a tankier hull in exchange for worse firepower. You can non-penetration overpressure it frontally with the 122mm gun and 128mm gun. The 88mm gun can penetrate the mantlet frontally. Only the anemic 85mm gun has to resort to APCR or side armor shots to hurt it.

And I see the majority of them doing just fine. Playing them lets me see not all is sunshine and rainbows and each vehicle has their own specific strengths and weaknesses that make them fine at their current BR.

2 Likes
379

You seem to take any dissent with your opinions as non-constructive. He gave entirely reasonable and thought out justifications on why he thought those changes were wrong, which is by definition constructive.

It’s also not his job to justify refusals. You’re the one making the claim, you have to give evidence as to why they should. It’s totally reasonable for someone to look at the 1-2 sentence justification for each change and think that it’s not enough justification to move it up. Hence, it’s “needless”.

This is a very funny thing to write at the start of a comment which flatly dismisses 39 seperate arguments and provides justifications for exactly 1 of them.

3 Likes
380

The cyclogram test states 6.0 secs reload for the T80U and newer,
(From both primary and secondary sources) considering the recent USA buffs with super speedy reloads, Russia has the slowest reloads at top tier. doesn’t seem rightfully fair.
And yes, the abrams has a far quicker reload in game, than irl.

381

Most of the changes should be self explanatory if you had played any of them.

382

And then imagine how you’d feel when a squad of Type 10/TKX are allowed to roll around with their WAR capacity reload, completely invalidates the 0.5 decrease in BVM reload

383

Firstly, I have played most of them. Secondly, it’s a “begging the question” fallacy to assume the justifications are self evident, since in order for them to be self evident the premise must already be true.

It’s entirely possible for someone to look at your justification for, say, the Tiger II 105 (“devastatingly good gun”), and decide that either A) It’s not true (Most would consider it a sidegrade from the long 88), or that B) It is true, but is insufficent reason to move it up.

3 Likes
384

The hstvl just got buffed to a historical level did it not?

Thus meaning, either gaijin should actually stick to their word, or make historical vehicles sets at their correct brs

385

That thread literally went and provided effective word of god on M1A1/A2 reload rates being fine and accurate to reality. Someone who can’t load the gun in 6s or less will end up getting trained to be a different crew member or get familiar with a different vehicle.

The tanks that should be complaining about everyone being handed 5s reloads are the Leclerc, Type 10 and Type 90 drivers. Their advantage has been a fast reload rate and these buffs directly eat into their advantage.

Cyclograms from primary sources give a variable reload time for soviet autoloaders and 6.5s is on the faster side of average. Again, if you demand faster reload rates for soviet autoloaders then the door is unlocked for multiple other high performance autoloaders to receive significantly faster loading times. Type 10 and Strv 103 being the two biggest winners in that area. Do you really want to fight a NATO style MBT that can dispense their entire autoloader in less than 40 seconds? Or fight a cheese wedge with a 105mm machine gun that fires every ~2.5 seconds, giving you basically zero reaction time to even start moving your tank to counter fire.

1 Like
386

These are post trainee videos, watch the ones I have posted.
Read the posts before this too.

The “average” reload is above 6.0 secs. Ace crews shouldn’t be better than what I said previously.

In absolutely ideal conditions you may have a quicker reload. But in game, the tankers wear all but NBC gear. Nor is tank movement accounted for, in manual loaders, or fatigue.

The fastest data I saw for the T-80s was 5.5 seconds, 6.5 being the slowest. 6.0 is the actual and, the average, and what it is set to in production.
Therefore, it should be 6.0 secs.
They have no NATO nobility in reverse to get out of situations, and often cannot take a hit since weakpoints are easy hits in WT.

Then BR Placement would be considered for the faster firing tanks.

The cherry picking of what is and isn’t allowed, is annoying. Considering 90% of the nerfs are against Russia. It has turned me off of playing Russia anymore. I played USA and Italy all day. Yes I’d rather play Italy, and get the Leo-2a7V(HU) and have a good and fun time. Not a struggle to do anything.

387

which?

not really, only difference is having HEAT which you never fire