Updated Planned Battle Rating Changes (April 2026)

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
227

Q-5L

  • Air Realistic Battles BR: May warrant an increase in BR
  • Give Q-5L its missing PL-5 air-to-air missiles (Bug Report)

Reasoning: As it stands, the Q-5L offers little over the Q-5A in air battles, aside from expanded CAS weaponry and smart bomb capability, while both share the same BR and nearly identical flight performance. A bug report has indicated that the Q-5L may be capable of carrying two PL-5 air-to-air missiles.

20 Likes
228

Mode:
Air RB

Vehicle:
B-29A-BN

BR Change:
7.0 → 6.7

Reasoning:

  1. The 12.7mm machine guns provide very poor defense against high-speed fighters. It’s impossible to maintain a burst long enough to shoot them down. Unlike 20mm cannons where a single hit can be enough, here you need at least triple the amount of hits to achieve the same result.
  2. 80% of attacks come from below and the front (early game). Only 4 x 12.7mm cover this zone, but due to the still unresolved turret convergence issue, only 2 x 12.7mm can effectively land hits. This firepower is on par with the B-17 at 4.7 BR. At such a critical moment as the intercept, you simply cannot stop the enemy before you get in their range. You can’t survive long enough for them to end up on your tail either.
  3. Insufficient maneuverability for basic evasive actions during intercepts.
  4. All enemies have cannons above 20mm that currently deal excessive damage.
14 Likes
229

this is true.

230

Am I reading this right?

Russia: 1 buff, 19 nerfs?

image
(This is sarcasm)

231

Still, it’s historically accurate and makes it stand out.

1 Like
232

seems like you did not read my last comment properly before. Even my Lim-5P (MiG 15 with afterburner at same BR with B-52H) already struggle just to climb and catch that bomber. And you want other subsonic jet without afterburner catch that bomber? Currently these bombers just turn then climb to high altitude before flying towards target.

233

I have to mention that a lot helis around BR 9.0 really suffer from PGZ09 and XM247

234

Vehicle: MSC
Mode: Ground realistic battles
BR change: 11.0-10.7

Reasoning: the MSC was already on the line between 10.7 and 11.0 and while it’s still an excellent tank the addition of the turret basket decreased the survivability of the MSC massively so I think putting it on the same level as the T80, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4 would be fine again.

13 Likes
235

@OrsonES

I see despite people asking for changes the Tu-95M, TU-4, and M1296 Dragoon are still the brs that they are.

Despite the dragoon being worse than the EFV.

And the TU95 being a side grade with lesser bomb load to the TU-4

2 Likes
236

No it shouldn’t. Thanks to the PL-12 nerf and having a radar from 1985 that doesn’t have functioning TWS.

237

F104 of china is also at 10.7 without countermeatures, count this on.
Sorry, I mean the Air RB

238

Kf41 (GRB) 11.0 → 10.7

239

Vehicle: Auf1

BR: 7.0 → 6.7

Reason: Terrible traverse, worse HP/T and a much worse HE-VT round then anything at 7.0 (see 2s19M2), it also takes longer to come to a stop and fire actually due to the weight balance.

3 Likes
240

The flight performance doesn’t have any improvements over the standard F6F-5.

1 Like
241

Would only support this when the j7d is getting moved back to 11.0 in air rb.

242

Not 4.3 worthy

243

Air Realistic / simulator

Vehicle: Tu-4 8.0 → 7.3

The B-29 is 6.7 or 7.0 now and the only true difference is defensive armament. Kinda silly this has been forgotten about.

244

Doesn’t matter when it has such a massive firepower increase

245

17396144895427291871388766857847

1 Like
246

It absolutely should. I have used the Su-30MK2 and PL12s seperately, a combination of both and in these quantities is beyond stupid even after the nerfs.

It’s incredibly impressive to go negative in either of the 30MKs, Even I as a ground player can easily maintain a 2 K/D in the MK2.

1 Like