Vehicle: Panther A
Gamemode: GRB
Change: 6.0 to 5.7 and nerf to rank 3.
Reason: Is unnecesary put 3 Panthers in the same BR when G and F are performing much better and are clearly a improvement over the A variant. Is good to due Germany 5.7 is composed by just poor movility heavies and TD give them a boost to his movility and tactics.
Vehicle: M13/40 (II), M13/40 (III), M14/41
BR Change: 2.0 → 1.7 or 1.3 (all modes)
Reason: Listing these together due to how similar they are, the only real difference being the M14/41 has roughly 10% more HP/ton. At 2.0, these tanks seriously struggle as they are slower than most tanks already and cannot flank the opponent, yet they do not have the penetration to deal with most of their peers frontally either (much less the tanks they face in uptiers). Having only about 47mm of penetration in ideal circumstances is a major handicap at this BR and needs equally major advantages in other categories to make up for this. The AS 42/47 works just fine at this BR with the same gun because of its diminutive size and great mobility that allow you to pick your fights and flank. The M14/40s and M14/41 simply do not have the tools to work around their anemic firepower. 1.3 is likely too low for these tanks, but there are already a number of much more powerful tanks at 1.3.
The Pz III J at 1.3 outclasses these tanks in almost all ways, only having an inferior turret shape and slightly slower RoF setting it back.
In an ideal world, I would prefer to see rank 1 decompressed, but I question if there’s the playerbase in low tiers to support this. Additionally, with how cramped the tanks above this area are already, this would require moving practically every tank in the game up in BR. For now, just buffing the underpeforming tanks and nerfing the overperforming ones seems like the least bad option.
There’s not enough money being brought in from low tier for gaijin to put effort into it unfortunately.
Then I’ll bring up Challenger 3 (TD) again;
Currently, it’s configured with a 6 second reload, slower than all other Challengers, and placed at 12.0… where it has no lineup whatsoever.
To make it a more interesting tank and for it to actually have a lineup, I suggest two options:
1- With its 6 second reload, be placed at 11.7. There, its higher penetration will be a sidegrade offset by the slower reload and lack of spall liners.
2- Get a 5 second reload, even if it means going up to 12.7, where it would be a part of the top lineup and which would make sense, since this tank was initially meant to be the pinnacle of the British tree from the moment it was introduced.
Instead of nerfing it so it’s a lower BR, I believe it should be given the 5 second reload and placed at 12.3-12.7 so it’s more relevant at top tier.
At 12.0, it serves no purpose and fills no role at all.
Good changes all around. I was playing the M24DK the other night and it certainly felt like i needed to be 4.0, especially if the Sav is moving up. Turm III / BI going up, lol, love to see it.
Vehicle: M15/42
BR Change: 2.7 → 2.3 or 2.0 (all modes)
Reason: This tank is truly hopeless in an uptier. While it does have improved firepower and mobility compared to the M13/40 and M14/41, these are marginal improvements that allow it to penetrate 60mm of armor instead of 47mm or to have 12 HP/ton instead of 10 HP/ton. Its current peers all have significantly better armor, firepower, and mobility. 2.3 would be a good starting point, but I do not think this would be problematic at 2.0. The 3.3 decompression helps this tank for sure, but it needs a lot more help still.
The Pz III J1 at 2.7 is significantly better in all regards than the M15/42, its only disadvantage being its large cupola. The T-50 has pretty tough armor combined with blazing speed and a strong gun. Its notoriously slow turret isn’t all that much slower than the M15/42’s. The Chi-He is a fairly comfortable platform with a stabilizer that excels in supporting from hull down and moving to support the team. The M15/42 has no niche that it can carve out for itself against these.
I personally find the IS-2 harder to autocannon to death (in 341) than the IS-3, IS-4 and IS-6, lol. But yeah, you’d rather be in a KT than an IS-2 the majority of the time. That reload… zzzz.
I didn’t mention it in the original suggestion, but there’s also the option of the Comp.B filled version of M1 HE that would have around 3 kg TNT eqv. That would likely push the explosive penetration past 30 mm.
The M1 HE round was also compatible with the M78 fuze. That basically turns it into a SAP round with ~30 mm of KE penetration after running it through the DeMarre formula. That wouldn’t really change too much however, other than that it’s less likely to get absorbed by tracks and spaced armor, but would probably overpen a truck. The increased mass of the fuze might slightly improve the explosive penetration over distance at least, depending on how the game calculates that.
Vehicle: Sherman III/IV
BR Change: 3.7 → 4.0 or 4.3 (GRB)
Reason: It has the best Sherman hull and engine, yet sits at the same BR as the slower and weaker M4, M4A1s, and M4A4s. While BR 2.7 tanks still have a chance against the M4, M4A1, and M4A4 with their numerous frontal weakspots, they have no real options against a Sherman III/IV. It is much more comparable to the M4A2, but sacrificing the addon armor and .50 for a higher horsepower engine and wet ammo stowage.
The M4, M4A1, and M4A4 all have large weakspots on the hull that are easy to target in case the sherman is angling, but the III/IV is able to angle care-free. The III/IV also uniquely has the late type uparmored final drive housing, preventing the easy transmission kills that can be dealt to the other shermans at 3.7. The 500 horsepower engine provides a notable boost in mobility as well, giving the III/IV a decisive edge against the other shermans at this BR (especially the M4A4s and M4A1s).
The combination of stabilizer, powerful gun, good mobility, good ammo layout, and strong armor come together to make an extremely effective tank. It is much more comparable to the slower and tougher M4A2 or the M4A1 (75) W with its very nice turret and late-type cast hull.
If the M4 and M4A4 are moved to 4.0, the Sherman III/IV would be more at home at 4.3 think. If the other shermans remain 3.7, then this should not go passed 4.0.
Vehicle: M26, M26A1 (all nations)
BR Change: 6.7 → 6.3 (GRB)
Reason: While the 90mm is good, it struggles frontally vs many other 6.7 vehicles while also struggling to flank like a medium either due to its heavy-like mobility. It does not belong at the same BR as the T26E1-1, M26E1, and T26E5 that have the armor or firepower to compete at 6.7. The T-44 has the mobility and armor to force itself into positions to make the 85mm gun work while the Centurion Mk 2 has a full stabilizer(!) and APDS to work around. The Type 61 and ST-A3 have better mobility and HEAT-FS.
Compared to the ST-A1 and ST-A2 at 6.3, the M26 would have much stronger armor while the Japanese tanks would maintain their much better mobility and their HEAT-FS.
Vehicle: T25
BR Change: 6.3 → 6.0 (GRB)
Reason: Decent gun and reverse speed, but mediocre otherwise. It would be more appropriate at 6.0, giving space for the M26 Pershing to move down too.
This tank is quite comparable to the ST-A1 and ST-A2 as they use the same gun, have armor that’s only effective against underpowered guns, and having good reverse speeds and gun depression. The ST-A1 and ST-A2 are fine at 6.3 thanks to their greater mobility and HEAT-FS allowing them to be very adaptable. The T25 at 6.3 finds itself in a much more precarious position, not quite having the mobility to outmaneuver its foes nor enough armor to do much that its Japanese peers cannot. It would feel more at home at 6.0 alongside the M4/T26 and Tiger 1 E. The M4/T26 is slightly less sluggish and has a stronger turret to work with in exchange for worse speed limits and poor reverse speed. The Tiger 1 E would be very comparable to the T25. The T25 would have better depression and penetration while the Tiger has the brutal Pzgr. shell and better side armor.
The stats are fully accurate.
What is a comparable plane already found at 6.7
Vehicle: AS90
BR Change: 7.0 → 7.3 or 7.7 (GRB)
Reason: While this lacks the LRF of the PzH 2000, it still has the same incredibly oppressive fire rate paired with extremely high shell velocity. Both the shell velocity and reload rate set it apart from the other SPGs at this BR. Most of the others at this BR or the BRs above it have a 7.5 second reload at best. While its turret traverse is not exactly fast, it’s still slightly better than most of its peers.
This should only move up to 7.7 if the PzH 2000 is also moved up
Besides the massive amount (90% of the list) that are bad changes objectively.
Not only the 11.7 CR2s, but also the 3TD and 12.7 CR2s do not match the appropriate BR
Vehicle: PzH 2000 (all nations)
BR Change: 7.7 → 8.0 or 8.3 (GRB)
Reason: This is a menace of a SPG. Its combination of an insanely fast reload, LRF, massive damage, and high shell velocity allow it to completely shut down parts of a map. It’s just rough being in a slow WW2 relic trying to go up against a monster like this. It’s a more refined AS90 and is oppressive for all the same reasons and more.
This post here lays out a number of possible buffs that could be given to the PzH 2000 to ease its transition into a more suitable, higher battlerating.
Amx-30b2 brennus
8.7->9.0 grb
Update the model on it and fix the bugs on it.
The brenus era is missing it’s correct protection against KE and CE munitions:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Z0H3xuwhqEkH
The possibility to fire apds or maybe even apfsds projectiles from the 20mm autocannon:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VvHhjWeofCQS
Easier use of the 20mm coax:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4ROT29whTprT
Fix the mantlet armor.
Give it better apfsds to compensate for it being an unstabilized tank at 9.0
Germany RB BR’s:
This is a parallel to the M4A1/T-34 (1940)/Cromwell V and should be moved up.
Germany RB BR’s:
This is the parallel to the M4 and as seen in my comment above should be moved up with it.