Its like they dont even play the game. There is no need to have an AMX13 be at the same BR as a T92 when the T92 has the same reload speed and doesnt suffer from an auto loader running out. Plus the same mobility and a 50 cal.
Ngl I’m amazed the Churchill VIII is still at 4.7, that thing has been the name of my existence today. And I realized pretty much there’s a lot of guns that cannot frontally pen it.
1 Like
It also has a worse gun than the KV-1E/B(75mm AP is pathetically bad), while also being less mobile (by a large margin).
You could argue that it could go down to 4.3.
1 Like
imagine genuinely thinking tigers are unbalanced when they have sod all armour and their gun (despite how overperforming APHE is) is pretty meh when its facing 17pdr and similar
Im with you on turm 3 tho but whining about USA heavies at tat BR is just funny
the 76mm one? nah its genuinely fine at 7.0, things like the M109, M44, Pzh2000 and all other spgs need moving the hell away from ww2 tho
Because most 5.0s and above turn that thing into food lol, T34-85 my beloved
1 Like
Grinding through British jets is just pure suffering… Could ya’ll buff some of these? Air RB is principally a game mode for air combat, not for strike aircraft. Unless some changes are made in that regard, British jets and strike aircraft are just a wall for players to struggle through if it doesn’t get them to quit. Relevant to Air RB:
- F-111C should be 11.0, down from 11.7
Though she has access to 6 Aim-9Ls and an incredible gun, they cannot be used effectively because the F-111C cannot get into position as a result of her flaws. She has terrible acceleration and energy retention, her max speed is also never tapped. She cannot go defensive without losing all her speed, making her easy pickings for follow-up attacks. At 11.0, she would be better served to utilize her few strengths.
- Tornado GR.1 should be 11.0, down from 11.7
She basically doesn’t have a radar implemented, only one for her gunsights. Her manoeuvrability is poor compared to aircraft like the F-4 or Mig-21, because she hasn’t gotten implemented her cobra button. She has poor acceleration compared to aircraft like the F-4 or Mig-21. Her guns are difficult to aim as a result of her sluggishness. Her maximum speed cannot be tapped into as a result of her flaws. At 11.0 her flaws would be lesser realized.
- Buccaneer S.2B should be 9.7, down from 10.7
She has 2 Aim-9Ls which greatly exceeds what most other aircraft get at 9.7, otherwise there is nothing else going for her. She literally has no guns. Her radar is nigh useless and only serves to expose her location. At 9.7 she would still have poor mobility, acceleration, energy retention, climb, and maximum speed.
- Buccaneer S.2 should be 8.3, down from 9.3
Instead of Aim-9Ls, this aircraft gets two Aim-9Bs. She compares very similarly to the SAAB105 which sits at 8.3. Except she gets no guns, her energy retention is worse, and her manoeuvrability is worse. She has better speed however, though not exceedingly so as to make her interception impossible by same-BR aircraft.
- Canberra Mk.2 and Mk.6 should both be 7.7 or 8.0, down from 8.3
At her current BR, she is terribly vulnerable to missiles and is also outperformed by numerous other aircraft. At 7.7 or 8.0 that wouldn’t be so much the case. At 7.7 or 8.0 she would be more difficult though still readily vulnerable to interception. Otherwise at that BR, the Mk.6 with guns might perform like a more manoeuvrable Meteor, that instead loses speed faster. She will not prove a powerful gunfighter at that 7.7 or 8.0.
- Jaguar GR.1A should be 10.0, down from 10.7
She is effectively just a 9.7 Jaguar GR.1 with countermeasures. At 10.7 her 2 Aim-9Gs are inadequate, her speed is too slow, her acceleration is too slow, her turn is too unimpressive, and she loves to lose energy. At 10.0 those deficiencies would be less noticed.
There are a number of other aircrafts that could otherwise do with some minor buffs too…
The Harrier GR.3 and Jaguar GR.1 would be better served at 9.3, down from 9.7
The Venom FB.4 should be 8.0 at most, she should not be 8.7
The Sea Hawk should be 7.7 at most, not 8.0
The Vampire FB5 should sit at 7.3, she is not terribly superior at all to the Meteor F Mk.3
This list is also not exhaustive. Other aircrafts including certain marketplace or premium aircraft, could also benefit greatly from being provided lower battle ratings without being too strong, and without terribly affecting the matchmaker. Doing so would certainly help bolster the British player count as well, currently those that play British jets are only the few that can tolerate it in their pursuit of top-tier.
Brit air main here (who also rather enjoys playing the mud movers), and I do have some issues with this
You have only talked about mud movers here, things that are meant to be bombing stuff and avoiding enemy fighters. To that end, a big part of this is that ARB sucks for mud movers. Its designed to be bad for them.Things like tiny maps, limited ground targets and markers which make stealth impossible. Play these aircraft in ASB and they are all very very good, and very fun. Sure most of them need buffs or something highly critical fixing, but they perform well. They also all suffer from uptiers which again, dont affect them in ASB.
But too the list
Really really no. Tornado IDS at 11.3 is maybe pushing it a little at times. F-111 with 6x Aim-9Ls would probably be too strong even in at 11.3 in a downtier and there is no way the F-111 and Tornados should be the same BR.
Yes, it should be 11.3 and it needs Mk103 engines, but 11.0 is probably too low at the moment, especially when the Tornado GR1 and other IDS have outstanding buffs too. Also why are you dogfighting in a mud mover, that isnt what its for
It has Aim-9Ls, it cant go down to 9.7. I do think there is an argument to be made for it to be 10.3, but again, its a mud mover, its great in gamemodes like ASB where they have a home
p.s I love the Blue Parrot radar
This is tricky, if you look at it purely as a fighter, then yes, 8.3 would probably be best, but again, its a mud mover, with 104 large calibre flares at a BR where a lot dont have any flares and as much as I hate it being mentioned, it does have a lot of bombs. 9.0 would probably be best for it, but would also rather see it get air spawn back and remain at 9.3. Could do with its Blue Parrot radar and Napalm as well.
They could go down a little, but for the most part I think they are fine except from compression
Eh… it also has better engines and a better loadout configuration. Definetly should be 10.3 not 10.7, but 10.0 would be too low for it. Should also get the Jaguar GR1B’s digital RWR as thats the only thing it doesnt have from the Jaguar GR1B, combined with the Phimat pod that would be awesome.
Its fine at 9.7, Harriers need buffs (and I mean a LOT of buffs to even get close to their IRL performance) and the GR3 should also get a Phimat pod but the biggest problem is the BR is terribly compressed, but the GR3 and AV-8C are the only 2 harriers at that BR which I think are actually fine at 9.7. GR1, AV-8A and AV-8S, should probably move
nah, again, compression sucks, but supersonic with 9Gs at 9.7 is already a lot.
Yeah. Some or all of these probably should have dropped down when the F-86s and Mig-15s did. But alas, what can you do.
So to sum up, especially with most of these aircraft, the aircraft themselves could get buffs (and where possible I think aircraft should get buffs instead of moving down) but most of these suffer from ARB’s strike aircraft tax, which every nations suffers from not just Britain.
Now most if not all of these aircraft you mentioned do have outstanding buffs and all have at least one major issue that needs to be resolved, but few if any need such radical BR drops
This is my current list of BR changes many of which are for Britain if you are interested:
Spoiler
Vehicle: Tornado F3 Late
Gamemode: Air Sim
Change: 13.3 —> 13.0
Reason: It moved down in RB. When the ICE moved down to 13.0 it moved down in both gamemodes. It is unplayable vs 14.0s and there doesn’t seem to be the new brackets expected this change to accommodate 14.0s properly into sim
With the introduction of 14.0. It should be possible to add new Sim Brackets that accommodate 12.3 and 13.3 properly within the sim brackets.
It is ridiculous this is another BR change with no proposed SIM changes and especially no new Sim brackets.
Here is my proposal for new Sim brackets to be introduced this update
Vehicle: Hunter FGA9
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 9.3
Reason: Whilst it is stronger than Hunter F6 (France) as it has slightly better engine and the Aim-9Es, it is massively outperformed by the Hunter F6 (Britain) and there is very little reason to ever use the Hunter FGA9 currently. Given it is also a very rare premium these days. I do not believe it would cause any issues at 9.3. It is also especially weak vs the supersonic aircraft that are all currently located at 9.7.
Vehicle: Hunter F6 (France)
Gamemode: Air Simulator
BR Change: 9.0 —> 9.3
Reason: Currently at 9.0 is the Hunter F1 in the British TT which has both a weaker engine and an inferior wing design. It is inferior to the Hunter F6 in every respect. In addition to this the Hunter F6 has 2x Aim-9Bs where the F1 has none. The F6 also has drop tanks, and can use these to dump most of its weight when entering a fight. In the Swedish TT is a Hunter F4 with 2x Aim-9B called the J34, which is currently located at 9.3 within ASB. The Hunter F6 needs a BR increase to 9.3 at the bare minimum to match the BR of the J34. The J34 then likely needs a BR reduction to 9.0
Vehicle: J34
Gamemode: Air Simulator
**BR Change:**9.3 ----> 9.0
Reason: The J34 is a Hunter F4 with 2x Aim-9Bs but this just means it has a larger internal fuel storage than the Hunter F1 and gains no meaningful flight performance improvement over the Hunter f1, whilst the 9Bs are incredibly valuable to have, they don’t warrant a BR increase at this time and if needs be, the Hunter F1 can simply go down to 8.7 where it likely needs to be anyway.
Vehicle: Hunter F1
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 9.0 → 8.7
Reason:
As per Stona:
this is a Korean Era aircraft, with no AAMs and limited flight performance these days. It should have gone down in BR with the others, but did not. It is stuck facing vastly superior late-cold war aircraft with better flight performance and capable AAMs with no advantage or strength. It should have gone down at the same time. When compared to the Hunter F6 at 9.0 it is hopelessly outclassed at the moment
Preferred solution. Overhaul SRAAM (2km range and fix the buggy TVC at short range)
Vehicle: Hunter F6 (Britain)
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 -----> 9.3
Reason: The Hunter F6 has no advantage over the French equivalent that is currently at 9.3 except for the SRAAMs which are in an extremely poor state. Though unlike the Harrier Gr1, actually has a usable airframe. It is also weaker than the Hunter F58 which shares the same BR but has CMs and better AAMs
Alternative solution: Fix SRAAM
Vehicle: Hunter F.58
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 10.0
Reason: This Hunter is much stronger than any other Hunter in game currently. with the best AAMs, RWR and 60 CMs. This puts it above its equals at 9.7 such as the Hunter FGA9 or F6 with no CMs and weaker AAMs. It already moved up to 10.0 in RB and should do the same in SB
I’ve done a post for each above, but just wanted to do a single post just outlying the rather stupid BRs of the Hunters at the moment in SB for the devs to seriously look at/consider.
Please read this CMs
At 9.7:
Hunter F.58 with 2x Aim-9Ps and CMs
Hunter F6 with 4x SRAAM (would be fine if they fixed SRAAMs)
Hunter FGA9 with 2x Aim-9E
At 9.3:
J-34with 2x 9Bs - This is just a Hunter F4 which only really gets more internal fuel over the Hunter F1 from what I can find
At 9.0:
Hunter F6 (France) with 2x Aim-9Bs - Unlike the J-34, the Hunter F6 gets a more powerful engine and the improved wing design, meaning it is superior to the J-34 in pretty much every respect. It also gets drop tanks which neither the J-34 or any of the British Hunters get.
Hunter F1 with no AAMs - Similar performance to the Hunter F4 (J34) but hasnt got any AAMs at all. This could do with being at a lower BR compared to even the J-34, but being the same BR as the Hutner F6 is just insane.
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FRS1 (SQV)
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 11.3 ----> 11.0
Reason: The Sea Harrier FRS1 currently holds a Battle Rating in Air Sim that is 0.3 higher than it is in RB and a BR 0.7 higher than equivalent 4x Aim-9L carriers such as the A-10A Late. The Sea Harrier’s main competition at 11.3 is the Mig-23ML/MLD which are superior in every single respect to the Sea Harrier.
In the future, this BR may be appropriate for the Sea Harrier FRS1 but in its current highly unfinished state, it lacks much of IRL capabilities and so needs a lower BR
(as a minor side note, please reclass the Sea Harrier’s to be naval fighters not strike aircraft as this would be a more accurate description of the Sea Harrier. Additionally, this would enable it to be used as a CAP without increasing the SP cost of far better CAS aircraft such as the Jaguar Gr1A or Buc S2B at the same BR in GRB)
Vehicle: Sea-Vixen F.A.W Mk.2
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 9.0 ----> 8.7
Reason: It has no guns and extremely easy to defeat rear-aspect only IR Missiles. Anything with flares renders it unplayable (not that you need flares to defeat the Red Tops, turning slightly is enough). Increasing its BR increases the number of aircraft with flares it can encounter and therefore it is rendered unplayable.
Alternative solution: Give Red Tops their missing All-aspect lock ability and add the Sea-Vixen’s Missing Napalm (2 year old bug report for those)
Vehicle: Tornado Gr1 (Britain)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is the weakest of all 6 Tornado IDS aircraft at that BR range with the much weaker MK101 engine, this severely impact the Tornado Gr1’s overall performance. This is partially mitigated by the fact it can carry Mk13 bombs instead of Mk83s, which do allow for slightly more damage per bomb run, but this is a minimal increase in output and only partially mitigates the weaker engines. Additional differences such as PGMs have no impact on performance within Air gamemodes and are rarely, if ever, used.
Compared to the 3x Tornado IDS already at 11.3 (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) there is no justification at all for this Tornado IDS to be at any higher of a BR and should be lowered to match their rating.
Mk101 engines are ahistorical and should be replaced with the Mk103 engines that all other Tornado IDS have. There is no justification for this nerf. Only area where this change could affect balance is in ground modes with the Tornado Gr1 have a notable advantage over its contemporaries (Tornado A200A and Tornado ASSTA1) then increase its Ground Realistic Battle Rating to 11.7. In no other aircraft is “balanced” achieved through engine nerfs
**Vehicle:**Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy)
**Gamemode:**Air Realistic and Air Sim
**BR Change:**11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It has identical performance to the earlier Tornado IDS aircraft (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) in every single respect and therefore has no justification for being a higher BR within air gamemodes
Vehicle: Tornado ASSTA1 (Germany)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It has identical performance to the earlier Tornado IDS aircraft (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) in every single respect and therefore has no justification for being a higher BR within air gamemodes
Vehicle: Tornado GR4
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 11.7
Mitigation: Increase the SP cost of Brimstones notably on the Tornado GR4
Reason: The Tornado GR4 doesn’t currently present a massive upgrade over other Tornado IDS at it 11.3 and its hard to justify it being 12.3. Lets break it down.
It has the identical flight performance to the other 6x Mk103 Tornado IDS, 3 of which are actually 10.0 in GRB and the other 3 are considered fairly weak 11.3s. It does have superior A2A performance with Aim-9M but this would fine at 11.7 given the performance of CAP at 11.7 such as the Mig-29 and is still far weaker than aircraft like the F4F ICE or Su-27/Su-33 at 12.0. It also has more CMs, but those are rarely a deciding factor and shouldn’t have a radical impact on BR placement. it does also gain MAWS but so do many other aircraft such as the A-10C and the A200C is also due to recieve MAWS and Im not expecting MAWS alone to move it from 11.3 to 12.3.
This leaves A2G performance, the GR4 has the same Targeting pod and if anything weaker GBU options to that found on the A200C (MLU) Tornado currently at 11.3, so those shouldn’t have an impact. The PGM-500/2000s whilst being the IR version and so an upgrade over the TV version found on the GR1 aren’t radically better either and at most justify a 0.3 BR increase, so in this case, to 11.7.
That leaves the Brimstones, which are in a massively nerfed state currently with no fire-and-forget capabilities. They also have extremely limited range when used on the Tornado, and so you are often within range of even the weakest SPAA when using them and they require you to remain well within range of those SPAA for them to be used. Their greatest usage on the GR4 is to simply decoy the Pantsir whilst your PGM-2000s do the actual killing. Much like GBU-39s do on other aircraft. But they have a potential to provide sustained CAS, but so does the Su-39 with 16x Vikhrs vs the A-10C
with 6x AGM-65Ds and the Su-39 is actually at the lower BR. So this shouldn’t be much of an issue either.
But that having been said, its the only reason I can think for the GR4 to be anything other than 11.7 in GRB. So if they are such an issue, increase their SP cost by notable amount. This total eliminates them being a major issue and balances them well.
As a final point of note. Lowering the GR4 to 11.7 allows it to be used in an 11.7 line-up. In its current 12.3 placement, it will be directly competing against the 13.0 multi-roles 99% of the time and as a result, has little to no value over other more capable aircraft such as the Harrier Gr7 and Typhoon FGR4.
Vehicle: Su-22M3/M4
Gamemode: Air Simulator Battles
BR Change: 11.0 ----> 11.3
**Reason:**It has very good handling and decent top speed and can be armed with 6x All-aspect IR missiles. When the average is 2 or maybe 4 all-aspect IR missiles on sub-sonic aircraft like the Sea Harrier or A-10 at this BR or supersonic aircraft like the Tornado IDS armed with only 2x Aim-9Ls at 11.3. It is insane to me that the Su-22M3 can operate with 6x All-aspect IR missiles at such a low BR. It’s low CM count might be why it is at this BR in Air Realistic, but in Air Sim, its just too OP.
.
Vehicle: Su-22UM3K
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Simulator Battles
BR Change: 11.0 ----> 11.3
**Reason:**It has very good handling and decent top speed and can be armed with 6x All-aspect IR missiles. When the average is 2 or maybe 4 all-aspect IR missiles on sub-sonic aircraft like the Sea Harrier or A-10 at this BR or supersonic aircraft like the Tornado IDS armed with only 2x Aim-9Ls at 11.3. It is insane to me that the Su-22M3 can operate with 6x All-aspect IR missiles at such a low BR. Unlike the other Su-22s, this airframe has no such CM issues and thus, should be a higher BR in both gamemodes and is on-par, if not superior to the SU-24 currently at 11.3.
Vehicle: Harrier Gr7
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 12.3 ----> 12.0
Reason: The Harrier Gr7 has no radar and sub-sonic flight performance. It is well equipped with a defensive loadout but has limited ability to survive against a smart and determined attacker. Its BR also renders it extremely hard to use it within its main role of A2G attack. Additionally, there is no 12.3 Bracket. So the Harrier Gr7 is always at a minimum fighting 12.7s and therefore has a Psuedo BR of 12.7 not 12.3. Lowering it to 12.0 would massively increases its playability.
In ARB, its now going to be directly facing aircraft like the F-16 on the regular with their BR reduction.
Alternative Solution: Give the Harrier Gr7 its native MAWS and not the C&P from the F-111A. Add the missing 2x Aim-9Ms and 2x AGM-65s . Fix the exhaust being sooty to reduce visibility. Fix the IR signature being so hot its nearly impossible to flare anything and overhaul BOL so that its modelled correctly and not at 1/4 strength
Vehicle: AMX A-1A
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 11.0 ----> 10.7
Reason: The AMX A-1A is identical in nearly every single respect to the tech-tree version the AMX, except it has the MAA-1 Piranha Air-to-air missiles. These are notably different to the Aim-9Ls that the standard AMX carries but comparable in overall performance and I don*t believe justify any reason for the AMX A-1A to be any higher at this time.
All Ground Attack aircraft are underperforming notably with Air Realistic at the moment, especially sub-sonic airframes that routinely encounter super-sonic ground attack aircraft. Such a higher BR guarantees that they will encounter aircraft such as the F-4S which routinely clear any and all bases long before the AMX can arrive.
The only gamemode that the AMX A-1A performs “well” in is Air Simulator, but even within this gamemode it is notably underpowered, given its the same BR as the Mig-23MLD and would be better suited at 10.7 alongside similar airframes such as the AMX and Buccaneer S2B. Whilst the MAA-1’s are little stronger with Air Sim due to their short burn time, making them harder to see, the lack of radar limits the AMX A-1A’s ability to ID targets at longer ranges.
The AMX and AMX A-1A are not strong dogfighters, with aircraft like the Sea Harrier FRS1e at 10.7 much more capable under most conditions and its hard to justify even 10.7 for the airframes if not for the on-going compression
Vehicle: Phantom FG1
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: It has one of the worst A2A weapon loadouts at that BR and is being carried by the fact it has decent engines and slightly more CMs than most. But VS equivalent F4s like the F4S, it stands no chance, let alone aircraft on its own tree like the Tornado F3 that is universally better in almost all respects at the same BR.
Vehicle: Phantom FGR2
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Simulator
BR Change: ARB: No change, ASB: 11.3 ----> 12.0
** Loadout Change:** Add Aim-9L
Reason: Unlike the Phantom FG1, the FGR2 actually used Aim-9L when it was in service with the RAF, this would give the FGR2 the performance it needs to operate at 12.0 alongside airframes such as the Tornado F3 and JAS37D . This change also helps differentiate between the FGR2 and FG1 which are currently Identical and gives a reason to own both airframes.
Vehicle: Phantom F-4J(UK)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Simulator
BR Change: ARB: 12.0 ----> 11.7 ASB: 12.0 —>11.3
Reason: It is an identical airframe to the F-4J(US) but unlike it does not have the Agile Eagle or HMD upgrades, lowering its performance notably. It is one of the weakest 12.0 aircraft in RB at the moment and doesnt belong at 12.0.
In Sim, its equivalent TT aircraft are currently at 11.3 and there is no justification for it to be at 12.0 given it is weaker than both with less CMs, weaker engines and a weaker RWR
Vehicle: Harrier Gr1
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 -----> 9.3
Reason: The Harrier Gr1 has no RWR and no CMs. It is extremely vulnerable to any and all attacks, especially by those with All-aspect IR missiles. The “issue” with all Harriers that make them unrealistically hot, means that the Harrier Gr1 has no chance of survival when it encounters one of these aircraft. SRAAM performance is also extremely limited at the moment and is one of the weakest IR missiles at that BR. When compared to aircraft even like the Harrier Gr3 which has 2x Aim-9Gs, RWR and 60CMs at the same BR, the Harrier Gr1 looses most of its value. Within sim, you are totally blind to what is going on around you and you are spottable cross map due to the incorrect sooty exhaust, in sim especially, it needs a BR drop
Alternative solution: Fix SRAAM (2km range and fix the buggy TVC at short range)
Vehicle: Buccaneer S.1
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: Air Realistic remain at 8.7. Air Sim 9.0 -----> 8.7.
Rank Change: Rank VI ----> Rank V
Reason: This change would enable the Buccaneer S1 to get its Air Spawn back. Unlike even later Bucs, it has a notably weaker flight performance and absolutely no A2A performance (No AAMs and no CMs). It is extremely vulnerable to any attack and rarely if ever can make it to a base to drop its bomb on target. Lowering its Rank to V would enable air spawn and fix a LOT of issues for the Buc S1
BR change in SIM is due to the lack of any sort of A2A. 9.0 places it above a lot of other aircraft when its closest equivalents are at 8.3
Vehicle: Challenger 2 (base)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
Vehicle: Challenger 2 TES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
But in addition to the base version, it is even heavier and slower due to the ERA, but the ERA provides no meaningful protection despite its weight and thickness, and only serves to weaken the Challenger 2 further
Vehicle: Challenger 2 OES
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
But in addition to the base version, it is even heavier and slower due to the ERA, but the ERA provides no meaningful protection despite its weight and thickness, and only serves to weaken the Challenger 2 further
Vehicle: Challenger 2F
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
Vehicle: Challenger 2 Black Night
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
Whilst the Black Night does have a number of notable upgrades over the earlier Challenger 2s, such as better optics, thermals and the APS. It is still lacking in all other respects. It deserves to be 0.3 higher than the base Challenger 2s, but does not warrant being at 12.0 alongside the meta tanks.
Vehicle: Challenger 2E
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 ----> 11.7
Reason: It is one of the weakest tanks at top tier currently. It is by far the slowest, has minimal armour, a relatively weak round, a huge profile and a heavily mitigated fire rate due to ahistorical ready rack size of only 4 rounds. There is no justification for it to be at its current BR and needs to be further separated from the tanks that outperform it so notably, such as the Abram Sep v2, Leopard 2A7 and T-80BVM
The Challenger 2E alone mitigates the Challenger 2s main weakness which is it’s exceptionally poor mobility, but it does not address any of the other weakness of the CR2 and thus, still does not warrant being at 12.0
Vehicle: HMS York
Gamemode: Naval Realistic
BR Change: 5.7 ----> 5.3
Reason: Unlike many other Heavy Cruisers at 5.7. The York only has 6x 8" guns and not 8 that most others have. This greatly limits its firepower vs most other ships. It also is severly lacking in armour vs many other Heavy Cruisers
Vehicle: HMS Tiger
Gamemode: Naval Realistic
BR Change: 5.7 -----> 5.3
Reason: Despite its high firerate, it actually has a weaker fire rate than that of other light cruisers like USS Atlanta or USS Helena, and unlike those ships, the Tiger has terrible medium range accuracy. Additional, it has almost no armour, making it extremely vulnerable to even destroyers. 5.3 is a more reasonable BR for it at this time.
Vehicle: Javelin F.(A.W) Mk.9
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: ARB: 8.3 → 8.0 ASB: 8.7 → 8.0
Reason: The Javelin is easily one of, if not maybe the weakest aircraft at its respective BRs. It is slower than most, turns worse than most and its weapon systems are hard to use. After its recent nerfs in Firebirds update, it has only gotten worse and really needs to be moved down in Battle Rating
Vehicle: Wyvern S4
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: None
**Change:**Remove air spawn.
Reason: The Wyvern on paper is not that capable of an A2A fighter, it has a number of limiations that mitgates its few strengths. The one thing it does have is air spawn, which means it can easily intercept many bombers and a large ammo count of 20mm Hispanos enables it shread those targets. Its BR should not change as its equal in overall performance to other airframes at the same BR, but removing air spawn removes its only real advantage and the only reason it is considered “OP”
Vehicle: Lightning F6 & Lightning F.53
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 → 9.7
Reason: It is supersonic at a BR that quite often faces sub-sonics. It’s BR should match the 9.3 F-104s, so if they move up, so should the Lightnings
BUT:
Red Tops are currently missing their all-aspect lock capabilies. With all-aspect Red Tops, it would quite comfortably sit at this higher BR without issue and maintain its current level of performance
(All-Aspect Red Tops would not be an issue at 9.7, or even at a lower BR like for the Sea-Vixen due to how easy they are to defeat kinematically)
Vehicle: Harrier GR.3
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 9.3
Reason: The Harrier Gr3 is rather lacking in terms of performance when it comes to CAS and Britain has very little in the way of 9.7 line-up for ground. The Harrier Gr3 is weaker than the Buccaneer S2 already at 9.3 for CAS but would provide a stronger option for a CAP Fighter, which is a little lacking at that BR, with the only meaningful option the Hunter F1 on the TT or Hunter FGA9 if you have the premium.
With the Tornado WTD61, Tornado MFG and Tornado A200 only 0.3 BR above as well, with notably better performance in every single respect, the need to lower the Harrier GR.3 is only increased further.
2 Likes
To be fair, M44 is a Korean War-era design that isn’t all that impressive. M109 is easy to deal with, aswell. The only issue is the PzH2K which should definitely be a higher BR - Up with the Vidar around 8.0-8.3BR.
Yeah they destroyed the line-up for the Super Etendard again. Honestly no idea how to fight a Pantsirs in a non afterburning jet without thermals - thats insane.
1 Like
Churchill has superior pen and is significantly more armored.
KV-1B (any KV-1, really) shooting Churchill VII with worst round:
KV-1B shooting Churchill VII with best round:
Churchill VII shooting KV-1B with worst round:
Churchill VII shooting KV-1B with best round:
1 Like
That looks about right, I’ve even taken out KV-1Bs using KV-1E’s MD-8 fuse round by hitting the turret in the correct manner.
Though usually I’m using M61 shot from 75mm guns when facing KV-1Es.
1 Like
The KV-1E has no problem killing Pz IVs and slow SPGs either.
The Pz IV has freaking 30mm of side armor compared to the 75mm + addon off the KV-1E and the KV-1E isn’t less mobile than a Pz IV, so it’s going to win a fight more often than a Pz IV.
The KV-1Es APHE will also one shot a Pz IV through the turret 80% of the time.
3 Likes
lets be honest, all the 12.0 SPAA will crush it xD
That’s the neat part - You’re not. You’re supposed to just die to it and pad it’s KDR that it doesn’t even deserve.
You’re legit biased at this point. Has higher pen, and it’s better armor does come at a bit of a mobility cost you are correct.
Still 5.0 material. Armor is too good. That’s all your arguments anyways.
Kinda funny a T-34-85 cannot frontally pen it, especially with the add on armor
No, my argument for the Kv-1E is that it’s armour is too good, while it’s mobility/firepower aren’t bad enough to justify it being 4.0 maybe if it had half the mobility and solid shot, the Kv-1E/B would be balanced at 4.0, but they don’t.
There’s also no way a Churchill is equal to the Vk3002, or M4A1 (76mm). Maybe I’d consider it better if it had APHE, but I won’t since it doesn’t.
The T-34-85 is also twice as mobile, with a twice as good gun.
2 Likes
KV-1E/B has almost 20mm less pen if not more, more frontal weak spots, a slower load time aced, and I do believe a slightly slower turret traverse.
I do agree the Vk-30.02 is vastly under tiered. It should be 5.7 and the rest of the panthers moved up 0.3-0.4 br.
Dude the T-34-57, 85, etc cannot frontally pen a 5.7… might have the mobility, but they’re glass cannons.
A tank a FULL br above cannot kill it unless it’s on the side, which is trolly.
So no, if you think the KV-1E is good at 4.3, then the Churchill VII is 5.0 worthy.
Just as the black prince is 6.3 worthy, it’s slow, but my god it makes up for the rest of it easily.
no
I still dont understand the change to the AMX-40. You moved it up, despite feedback saying don’t, and then raised the Vextra as well for some reason. But hey, at least it gets a new round that you have to research. The AMX-40 didnt need to go up. Not to mention the M26 now has nothing to build a line up with besides uptiering the few 5.7s.