Updated Planned Battle Rating Changes (April 2026)

The Jaguar bleeds speed so fast its turn rate drops after the first turn. SU25 tends to keep its speed up more reliably.

And for the record Phantoms curb stomp the Jaguar in turn rate.

Bumping this in addition to my own post. These helicopters should 100% receive stock ATGMs.

i’ve got quite a few games on the Jaguar IS, i’ve never particularly had any energy retention issues.

and as for the turnrate, yeah, i know, but atleast you can end the fight before it starts right off the merge by feeding the phantom a magic 2 or cutting into his first turn and blowing a bomb-sized hole in his fuselage if the british 30mm is benevolent that day. as for the Su-25, phantom would just extend and come back whenever he feels like it

Su-27SM IS 13.7 plane with vectors and extra 2 arrams
Su-30MKK/MK2 is not 13.7 plane, not even close to 27SM

Jaguar IS has the best engines of any Jaguar.
I was specifically talking about the Jaguar GR1A

You do know that it only has the one cannon because the guidance system for the Falcon was placed into the left hand gun area right?

That’s the whole reason it’s missing a gun is to use falcons.

Now it can also use R13s but that’s besides the point.

1 Like

oh, i didn’t know about the upgraded engines. how significant is the difference?

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.

4 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

image

One Tornado is missing from the list: Tornado IDS MLU RET.8.
image

4 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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