R-13 would probably go hard on the draken
About enough difference to make it only just bearable.
Only on the outer pylons so you could technically carry 2x R13, then 2x RB28, then 2x RB24J
Panzer 4 J at same BR as H? It’s a firm downgrade and should not be 4.0. it’s more on par with the G which is going to 3.7
And of course Falcon remains at 8.3… SMH.
4 Likes
oh yeah well at that point i’d rather just carry the AIM-9s, only plane where having 3 AAM types is bearable are the flankers with their R-73s, R-27ETs and R-27ER / R-77
Eh I’m all for historical loadouts even if it’s not super helpful.
Vehicle: IKV 103
Gamemode: Ground Realistic & Ground Arcade
Change: Revert the removal of the Slpsgr m/65 HEAT-FS shell
Alt. Change: Revert the removal of the Slpsgr m/65 HEAT-FS shell and move it back to BR 4.0
Reason: There is not much in the way of a conceivable reason to remove the HEAT FS shell from the IKV 103, it is one of the few things this IKV actually has going for it.
The reload is bad for the damage output of both shells and it still dies the moment someone thinks to shoot at it, additionally at the lower BR it will face more, faster firing cannons and auto cannons compared to the medium and high calibre guns around 4.0.
You metrics might say that it is a bad tank and that it needs to go down in BR, but it wont help it. And taking away it’s only unique niche in the HEAT-FS people will not have a reason to research it, or play it.
7 Likes
this is true, AIM-9M for tomcat when?
1 Like
Subject: G.91 R/4 (Italy & Germany) - BR Inconsistency and Performance Deficit vs. G.91 R/3 -GRB.
The current state of the G.91 R/4 in the Italian and german tree at 8.7 BR is unjustifiable, especially when compared to its counterparts.
- Firepower Disparity:
The G.91 R/3 (Germany) sits at a similar/comparable BR but features 2x 30mm DEFA cannons, which are vastly superior for both Air-to-Air and Close Air Support (CAS). The Italian R/4 is stuck with 4x 12.7mm M3 Brownings. At 8.7, these machine guns lack the burst mass and kinetic energy to effectively deal with jet-age airframes or armored ground targets.
- Missile Meta vs. Flight Model:
While the R/4 can carry 4x AIM-9Bs, these missiles are easily dodged and do not compensate for the lack of consistent nose-mounted firepower. At 8.7, the R/4 constantly faces supersonic threats and jets with better energy retention, making its defensive and offensive capabilities with 12.7mm guns laughably obsolete.
- Proposed Solutions:
• Option A (Historical Accuracy): Provide the R/4 with its missing historical ordnance Community Bug Reporting System
• Option B (BR Adjustment): Move the G.91 R/4 to 8.3.
2 Likes
One Tornado is missing from the list: Tornado IDS MLU RET.8.
6 Likes
Subject: G.91 Pre-serie (Prototype) - Revision Needed (GRB/ARB)
The current positioning of the G.91 Pre-serie at 8.3 in both Air and Ground Realistic Battles is fundamentally flawed. It is currently tiered alongside legendary fighters like the MiG-15bis and F-86F series, which outclass it in every single performance metric.
- Performance Deficit (Engine & Speed)
The Pre-serie is a prototype for a reason. Its engine thrust is significantly lower than the production G.91 R/1 or R/3. Placing it at 8.3 means it lacks the energy retention and top speed to engage or disengage from the Sabres and MiGs it constantly faces. At this BR, it is a “prey” aircraft, not a competitor.
- Offensive Capabilities (The 12.7mm Problem)
At 8.3, 4x 12.7mm M3 Brownings are completely inadequate.
• Against Jets: You need sustained time-on-target to do any critical damage, which is impossible against high-speed opponents that can delete you with a single 23mm or 30mm shell.
• In GRB: It lacks the punch for strafing light targets compared to its peers.
- Lack of Advanced Ordnance
Unlike later versions at slightly higher BRs, the Pre-serie doesn’t have the ordnance versatility to justify an 8.3 rating in Ground RB. It is an early jet that struggles to maintain speed when carrying even a minimal loadout.
Proposed Change:
• Move the G.91 Pre-serie to 8.0. At 8.0, it would finally act as a bridge between the early “starter” jets and the high-tier subsonics. It would fit perfectly into the new Italian 8.0 lineup (with the OF-40 and the newly moved SIDAM 25), providing a balanced, domestic option for air superiority without being food for 9.3 supersonics in an uptier.
1 Like
CL-13 and F-86F-40 do fine with 12.7s at 9.0
I mean they could fix the ERA so it gets the 100mm against kinetic
But then they would probably push it to 9.0 lmao
La-5FN
3.7 (RB) → 4.0 (RB)
Reason:
- Same engine as La-7 at 4.7
- Faster than a Bf 109 F-4 (4.0) on the deck
- A single ShVAKs hits harder than a single MG 151/20 and it has two nose mounted
- Outperforms Fw 190s A-4/A-5 at basically every altitude other than top speed
Conclusion: It’s basically a Fw 190 with better guns at lower BR.
10 Likes
IMO the chinese F-5A should be same BR as USA F-5A/C for GRB, the diffrence between the Aim 9E and P dosnt matter alot for GRB. But at least the Chinese F-5A is going down a bit now (which I had suggested the last 2 BR updates)
they absolutely are 13.7 planes
Su-27SM should be 14.0
1 Like
Is M24(TL) planned to move to Rank III as well? Also, wasn’t AMX13(M24) at 3.7 already in AB? Will it be moved to Rank III as well as other chaffees?
G.91 R/1 (Italy) - BR 8.7 is illogical: Only 2 pylons, no missiles, no cannons.
The G.91 R/1 in the Italian tech tree is currently in a legacy state at 8.7 BR. It is fundamentally the weakest version of the “Gina” family, yet it is forced to share the same BR as objectively superior variants like the R/3 and R/4.
- Fatal Loadout Disparity (The “2 Pylons” Problem)
Unlike the G.91 R/3 (Germany) and the G.91 R/4 (Italy/Germany) which feature 4 underwing pylons, the R/1 is limited to only 2.
• In Ground RB, this effectively halves its Close Air Support (CAS) potential.
• Carrying a useful ground loadout on only 2 pylons cripples its flight performance without providing the offensive “punch” that justifies an 8.7 rating.
• 12.7mm machine guns lack the burst mass to compete with the 30mm DEFA cannons of the German R/3 or the 20mm/30mm cannons of its adversaries.
- Proposed Fixes:
• Option A: Down-tier to 8.0/8.3 (Preferred).
• Option B: Historical Upgrade (G.91 R/1B). If the R/1 must stay at 8.7, Gaijin must introduce the R/1B modification to provide the 4 underwing pylons. However, even with 4 pylons, it would still be inferior to the R/3 (cannons).
France still havent receive a new round for them the introduction of F1 and if we compare with the others vehicles in this same battle rating we can see theyre not currently fiting well there.
Mmmmm- love my missin/incorrect stuff
Hkp 3C is missing the FFV UNI-POD 0127 (12.7 mm FN M3P) Gunpod.
Strv m/38 Lacking Transmission barrier
Strv m/40L Lacking Transmission barrier
Strv m/41 S-II Engine deck armour incorrect.
Strv m/41 S-II has wrong top speed.
Strv m/41 S-II Engine exhaust faces the wrong direction
Pbv 301 has a manually cranked turret, not electrical
Strv m/42 EH is missing transmission Armour barrier,
Pvkv m/43 (1946) missing T barrier after Major update
40 mm lvakan m/48 uses unhistorical ammunition
Pvlvv fm/42 lacks 20mm “slbrandsgr m/ 51”
L-62 ANTI-II “40mm Lvakan m/36” rename to “40 ItK/35 Bofors”
Landsverk L62 ANTI-II Lacks Normal Ammunition belts
Sweden: Pvkv III Should have slpprj m/49 (57mm Pvkan m/43)
Missing APHEBC “Slpgr m/43” from the Ikv 103
Pbv 302 BILL missing 20 mm slbrhpgr 95
(all) 40mm muzzle flash is WAY bigger than it should be (Update)
3 Likes