As said from This post on the Dev Server Where i talked about the issues that would present themselfes when the change was made.
The recent penetration change to Sweden’s 20 mm cannon (42 mm → 38 mm), several vehicles across the BR 1.0–2.3 range now feels very misaligned with their current battle ratings and should be lowered in br so they arent useless to play.
Pvlvv m/42
1.7 → 1.3
As an SPAA, it sits at 1.7, but with only two crew members and an open-top design, it’s extremely vulnerable to both aircraft and ground fire. While it can engage aircraft, its effectiveness against ground vehicles has been significantly reduced by the ammunition changes.
A BR of 1.3 in all game-modes, would be much more appropriate. For comparison, the Italian AS 42 has 48 mm of penetration, a similar rate of fire, and is far more capable of engaging armored targets effectively. The Flakpanzer I is another example of a low-tier SPAA with stronger anti-tank performance that sits at a comparable BR.
If the penetration reduction is considered necessary for balance, then the Pvlvv m/42’s BR should be adjusted accordingly. Leaving it at 1.7 despite this nerf makes little sense.
Pbil m/40
2.0 → 1.3
Currently sits around 2.0 despite now having reduced effectiveness. With only 8–12 mm of armour, it offers very limited survivability, and its offensive capability has been further weakened by the ammo nerf. A reduction to around 1.3 would allow it to remain competitive in its intended role.
Pbv 301
2.3 → 2.0
The Pbv 301 should also receive a BR reduction following the penetration changes.
Although it’s classified as an SPAA, it functions much more like an IFV, relying on its 20 mm autocannon to engage lightly armored ground targets as much as aircraft. With the reduction in penetration, it has lost much of its effectiveness against the vehicles it regularly faces at its current BR.
Unlike the Pvlvkan m/40 or the Pvlvv m/42, however, the Pbv 301 is an enclosed, semi-armored vehicle with its gun mounted in an unmanned turret, giving it considerably better survivability. Because of that, lowering it all the way to 1.3 or 1.7 would likely be excessive.
A BR of 2.0 would be a reasonable compromise. It would better reflect the vehicle’s reduced offensive capability while still accounting for its improved survivability compared to the earlier Swedish 20 mm vehicles. Currently, it struggles to effectively engage many of the targets it encounters, making its existing BR difficult to justify after the ammunition nerf.
- Yes
- No