(Air realistic battles) F-104S/F-104S TAF 11.3 > 11.0
These aircraft have zero maneuverability, terrible radar, and utterly useless RWR. Six missiles of average effectiveness, combined with jet speed (which isn’t even the fastest for this BR), do not justify its inflated BR.
Vehicle: M44 (Great Britain)
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
Reason:
See also;
After the extremely disappointing announced BR Changes for August where, once again, there’s ZERO decompression, I figured it was a good time to post an improved version of my own decompression suggestion.
-DM53 was removed from the Arietes because the shell was only introduced as an emergency measure back when they were somehow the same BR as the Strv 122s in an attempt to make them more capable for Top BR. Since they would now be 2.0 BRs below Top Tier, there is no need for such an artificial and unhistorical yet negligible buff.
-DM53 was removed from the Strv 122s because it is as unnecessary as it is unhistorical.
-DM63 was added to the newest Leopards as a historical change that, gameplay wise, has only a small impact in increasing their survivability (DM63 is identical to DM53, except it doesn’t detonate when hit).
-SHARD has a penetration of 640mm at 0º and 0m from Leclerc’s gun, according to Lanz-Odermatt formula.
-3BM59 IS BETTER THAN 3BM60, by 10mm at point-blank, which isn’t a lot, but it’s something. The OFL F1/F2 case is NOT comparable, as the speed difference between 59/60 is MUCH lower (10 m/s) than it is between F1/F2 (50 m/s).
-M1A2 SEPv3, as the highest and top BR Abrams tank, received M829A4 as to have something to truly stand out compared to all other Abrams variants, since Gaijin actively refuses to give it the actually sensible hull armor improvement that was meant to achieve this.
-The suggested BRs take into account current vehicle modelling, not authentic one. A fixed Merkava Mk.4 or Type 10, for example, would be 13.7-14.0, not 13.0, etc.
Both items are very easily fixed. Give it a considerable nerf to its reload speed without sending it up in BR.
This will reduce the vehicle’s potential as a nuke farmer. I have lost count of how many experienced players I’ve seen who just play the T20 with no lineup, because their objective is to farm nukes and if they die once, they have no interest in respawning.
With a reload nerf the vehicle becomes more “normal” and eventually can perhaps even see a lower BR, with a more normal player base now buying it and giving you more accurate information about its strengths. Since Gaijin uses reload speed as a soft balancing factor, this is the obvious solution to the T20 problem. Make it less of a rat and the rest will fix itself.
They are giving reload buffs to vehicles they don’t know how else to help, since constantly sending them down in BR is not always a reasonable option. Most of the vehicles that have been getting reload buffs are tank destroyers (big shocker there, especially as maps get smaller and smaller they are completely outside the meta). The late Pz IVs are tank destroyers in all but name and it’s hardly shocking to see them get the same treatment as the M36 and (last time out) the M10s. The IS-1 is alright but it’s hardly tearing through lobbies and it is only 0.3 BR under much more competitive vehicles, so whatever, give it a bit of help.
Might as well cut to the chase and make the Zeros 8.0 already
That would be completely insane. The Sla is borderline 7.0 as it is. No, they’re only sending down the pre-series Tiger II with the 100mm turret weakspot. That’s fine esp. with the IS-2s moving down, although they also need to lower the M26 alongside them imho.
Hello! What is that? Did Italy acquire DM63 recently?
I see them all the time.
They will try to nerf it without sending it up in BR first, which is imho the correct solution. It’s not pure bred American mains that gravitate to the T20, it’s experienced players who understand that the combination of great mobility, low profile, great targeting speed, fast reload and APHE is one almost tailor made to get nukes.
It’s listed in a 2024 Ministry of Defense document, “List of material identifiers under the responsibility of the Land Armaments Directorate.” I don’t know when they were purchased (or even just for testing).
Vehicle: RN Corazziere
Gamemode: Naval Realistic
BR Change: 4.3 —> 4.0
Reason: Currently, RN Corazziere is completely overclassed at its battle rating. It has worse survivability(smaller size and crew), and armament compared to almost all 4.3 destroyers of other nations. It also lacks long range AA defense, and her torpedoes aren’t the best. The only improvements over 3.7 italian destroyers like RN Dardo and RN Vincenzo Gioberti is an additional main gun (5 vs 4), and slightly bigger crew count.
They obviously aren’t thinking
Vehicle: MB-326K
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 7.7 → 7.7
Reason: This plane is outclassed by almost all 8.0 fighters such as the F-86A-5, MIG-15 and Meteor Mk.8
Additionally the MB-326B, a premium copy of this aircraft with worse guns sits all the way down at 6.7!
I dont believe the addition of better armament is enough to warrant this high of a BR increase.
I think premium has worse engine
1630 kgf vs 1070 kgf thrust
Vehicle: OPLOT-T/M
Mode: GRB
Change: 12.3->11.7
Reason: the hull armor is bad for a Soviet school tank. Side duplet era is worse than kontakt-5, which makes it somewhere in between NERA and k-5 in effectiveness against KE. and with the recent addition of M829A3 the ufp armor is less effective. In the future we might see more anti-era mechanics on the same darts that we have in the game; dm53, 3bm60, l27a1 and potentially others for different nations.
It also has the worst gun depression of all 12.3/12.7 vehicles paired with bad vertical traverse speed.
To make the change fair, Gaijin can remove the BTA4 shell and keep the 3bm42 as its main shell.
All Tigers 2 (Nr1-50) , should they be at 6.3?
No
Small Correction on the DM63 part, it has slightly lower Velocity meaning its gonna have roughly 10mm less Penetration (Since Rheinmetall has stated that the DM63 has 1720m/s on the L55 and 1650m/s on the L44)
Most of the planned GRB BR changes shouldn’t be implemented
