Churchill Crocodile is going to be 5.0 anyway, but yeah, OP should correct his BR proposal.
Vehicle: F-2A ADTW
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 11.7
Reason: The lack of fire-and-forget weapon, AA missiles are no better than the F/A-18C/CF-188 on 12.0.
AAM-3s
I see it going down to 12.0 minimum
not 11.7
3 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
Vehicle: Churchill VII
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 4.7 → BR 4.7
This vehicle sacrifices every other metric for armor, and armor performance relative to BR is its defining quality and the only reason to play it. Remove APHE ammo if you have to, but it must stay at 4.7.
4 Likes
Statistics don’t lie, it would be evenly matched against them if it were to move down to 13.0. Please also read the rest of the conversation before commenting on the matter again to avoid repetition.
/s
I like this, finally not a single vehicle for UK12.0
1 Like
Ju 87 D-5 (Ground, not shure About air) 3.0 (currently Planned) → 2.3 While it has an aquivalent bomb loadout to the D-3 (2.0), the flightperformance doesnt change and the very aquivalent plane, the Il 2 Mod. 1941 with 2x 20mm Shvak and 2x Shkas is at 2.3 (while also having a wider arrangement of explosives, such as Bombs and rockets). And even the mod 1942 sits at 3.0 which has 23mm guns, with high penetration. While the D-5s only change is that it has 2x Mg 151/20 (and options for more gun at the cost of most bombs)
Switch the Ju 87 D-3 and D-5 folder with the Hs 129 B folder, to have all Ju 87s in a row.
2 Likes
Statistics are unfortunately not a reliable source of information regarding vehicle capability
IRIAF for example is one of of the best performing 13.3s
Is it a good plane?
Fuck no
Same for the zero
2 Likes
It’s hard to figure out the effective range because it varies on the person who uses it. The biggest strength the BA-9 has is it’s sustainer engine. It can turn on a dime which makes it very effective in environments where clear LOS, constant laze, predictable targets is not possible.
My biggest gripe with hellfires is that as the missile start going farther, the more of a boat the missile turns into hitting targets that is unpredictable and loosing the occasional laze, unreliable. It’s the same reason why I’d take the JAGM(SAL) over the hellfires at any range.
I personally think hit probability matters more than stat card performance. Top tier hellfire platforms have always been over-brd imo and it’s good seeing that they are coming down in BR.
Comparing the platforms, I don’t know if a 64A is better than a Z-19. it’s a much more nimble and stable platform, and it comes with a MAW. I’m unsure if the cost of having no cannon is worth it though.
I don’t need to read the rest of the conversation to make fun of the idea of the Su-30MK2 AMV going down to THE SAME BR as the Su-27
1 Like
was that something he suggested?
1 Like
1 Like
wait
WHAT
AMRAAM? Meta-defining?
1 Like
The Su-30MK2 and MKK are the same plane
There are no real differences between the two
Suggesting you put the Su-30MK2 (One of the best 13.3s, which should be 13.7) at 13.0 is completely delusional and idiotic
I hope to god that’s a meme suggestion and not genuine
3 Likes
Why is there still a 0.7 BR difference with the Challenger and Charioteer Mk VII?
The Challenger has:
- Better reload (5.1s instead of 6.3s)
- Better frontal turret armour (~80mm-100mm instead of ~30mm)
- Better turret side armour (~40mm instead of ~20mm)
- More crew (5 crew members instead of 3)
- Smoke mortar w/ 30 smoke grenades (instead of just two pops of 6 smoke grenades)
- Better turret rotation speed (33 degrees per second instead of 20 degrees per second)
- Better gun depression (-10 degrees instead of -5 degrees)
So with all those benefits the Challenger has at 5.3, what does the Charioteer get that warrants a 0.7 BR difference?
- Slightly better forward top speed (57km/h instead of 52km/h)
- Slightly better side armour (46mm instead of 28mm)
- Slightly better acceleration (20 hp/ton instead of 19 hp/ton)
- Better AP and APDS round (50mm more penetration for the AP round (slightly more post-pen damage and now enough penetration to UFP the Panther), and 25mm more pen APDS at 60 degrees ( again, slightly more post-pen damage and now enough to UFP the Tiger II if it is unangled)).
I could understand (at most) it being a 0.3 BR difference, but I’d even argue they should be the same BR of 5.7 / 6.0.
Gaijin seems unwilling to fix British tanks even when there is historical evidence supporting the changes, especially when these fixes would be relatively simple to implement.
1 Like
Vehicle: chi-nu Ⅱ
Gamemode: Ground RB
Br: 4.3 ----> 3.7 or 4.3 → 4.0 with reload reduce to 5.0s
Reason:
The overall performance of this vehicle is merely that of an ordinary late‑model Panzer IV, and its armour protection is actually worse than that of the Panzer IV H. Moreover, in the next update, the reload time for all late‑model Panzer IVs will be uniformly reduced to 5 seconds, which will further widen the performance gap of this tank. Therefore, its BR should be lowered to 3.7 to match the Panzer IV F2 – where one has slightly better protection while the other has a faster reload. Alternatively, its BR could be lowered to 4.0 while also reducing its reload time to 5 seconds, bringing it in line with the Panzer IV H.
5 Likes
This is a bullshit argument
Su-30MK2 gets R-27ER as well.
???
PL-12 is straight up worse than the R-77 and possible even AMRAAM after the nerfs it got.
Neither of these are meta-defining
2 Likes
To be fair, the MKK does get PL-8Bs and PL-12s
Not saying he is right at all, just trying to correct that