Hello, I believe that the UH-1B should go from 8.7 to 8.3
My reasoning is that the UH-1B is not particularly strong at its BR, additionally the UH-1C is at the same BR and objectively better. America lacks an 8.3 helicopter, and also lacks 8.7 tanks so the UH-1B also lacks a lineup at its BR.
All this being said, there’s no reason it shouldn’t move to 8.3, and there’s plenty reason that it should.
But then it would be just so much better than the Alouettes and Mi-8s and similar vehicles at 8.3, being faster, better protected, and better armed.
No, more or less the UH-1C should go to 9.0/9.3, it has 6 I-TOW’s. It can’t be at the same BR as the Allouette with 2 extra missiles and much higher speed and maneuverability.
Just because it’s better than some 8.3 helicopters, doesn’t mean it belongs at 8.7 (nor does UH-1C belong at 9.0/3)
Bear in mind, the Alouette is more mobile than the Huey, smaller than the Huey, has a better optic (nearly 2x magnification), has machine guns (surprisingly effective for self defense), and doesn’t have a stock grind (its gets is ATGMs stock).
The 2 extra ATGMs that the Huey gets really isn’t enough to justify a higher BR with all the downsides, especially when America doesn’t even have an 8.3 helicopter.
“it’s worse than one 8.7, this is definitely reason for a lower BR. It’s a better than 11 8.3s, this is not reason to not go down in BR”
i thought the issue with hueys was their lack of protection?
Still better than the Alouettes, which have pure glass fronts and no armoured seats
idk thats a lot of glass i see on the front.
both arent holding up against rifle caliber fire though
Not at close ranges, no. But 6mm steel is superior to 1mm effective of glass. I never said the UH-1 had good protection, but it objectively has better protection than an Alouette.
Y’all latching on to armour because it’s the only category with a shadow of a doubt the UH-1 isn’t far superior. The UH-1 is also so much faster and more agile, with around 50% more HP/tonne, making it more survivable than “oh it’s a slightly smaller target”
That’s literally the most useless upside imaginable. If that’s your justification for it being higher than Alouette, then you’re practically admitting the Huey is equal or worse.
You know you are so right. The Huey might have more missiles, a higher speed and climb rate, triple the engine power, and better protection, but clearly it’s worse because it’s slightly larger. I should have known better than to argue with the all-knowing, totally unbiased American Main. Let’s make it 7.0 actually!
XD this cope is golden.
That thing at the same BR as the HKP2? It’s better in like every way.
HKP2 is better in everything except for how many ATGMs it gets.
HKP2 (which is just a Swedish alouette without the machine guns) has better optics, airspawn, survivability, and manueverability.
With all that in mind, two extra ATGMs doesn’t justify a higher BR, especially when America doesn’t have any 8.3 choppers at the moment.
You are arguing with the same person that demands for cas to be able to always outrange spaa.
Good luck
I see you’re just here to be a clown (as always) and don’t care to add anything to the discussion. I urge you to read some more of Wallet’s replies, he get’s exceedingly schizo. Rambling on about helicopter armor and slight size difference and American bias and shit XD
Have you actually flown it? Ive flown Hueys and the HKP2 is one of the worst helicopters for mobility thanks to the silly pontoons that weigh it down. Its literally the worst version of the Alouette lol, if the UH-1B can be 8.3 than the HKP2 can be 8.0 but thats a bad idea. Instead both vehicles should stay at their BR’s.
So by your logic the HKP2 has no guns for self defense, only 4 missiles, and worse flight performance than the UH-1B as it weighs more than the standard Alouette and is a bigger target thanks to the big dumb pontoons. So in what world does it make sense for the UH-1B to be the same BR?
