Nerfing just the FG-42 or nerfing the KT wouldn’t be for the sake of balance though, the FG is currently the worst select fire rifle and the KT is all the Germans have going for them. I really don’t understand what your point is.
As for BR3 the best thing they could do would be the decompress BR5.
Holy crap, what are you even talking about? Do you have any idea how quickly infantry gets wiped out without fire support when facing heavy weapons? Besides getting up close with Panzerfausts, what else can infantry rely on? The Soviet forces are strong now, but the AVT-40 was introduced less than a year ago. What about before that? Tanks and infantry are tied together—they’re the foundation! Do you not know that in WWII, infantry charges against enemy trenches could cost hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day? Now, replace heavy machine guns with 88mm cannons and MGs—do you think flesh and blood will fare any better than in WWI? The American BR has endless rocket strikes and bombs, giving them a massive advantage over Germany. You don’t want to buff the Soviets, and you completely ignore how the U.S. has leveraged its air power to a terrifying degree. You don’t talk about Germany needing similar rocket or air advantages, nor about nerfing American power—you only fixate on the Soviets. Are you just trying to shift the frustrations you face against the U.S. onto the Soviets? Soviet players have been waiting for their own tank for so long. Germany got the MG-42/100, Japan got their “coffin tank”—it’s time for a response. If you haven’t endured the struggles of Soviet players, don’t lecture from a German perspective. I play both Soviet BR 3 and German BR 3, so I sympathize with German BR 3 struggles. Do you even stand with Soviet players? I’ve bought six premium BR 3 squads for Germany—I have every right to demand better vehicles, reload times, and semi-auto handling for German BR 3. Your opposition to Soviet buffs is like a Soviet player telling German BR 3 that the KV is the best at BR 3 and no one needs anything to counter it. Would you accept that? Do you even understand this complete reversal of arguments between BR 3 and BR 5?
You—do you only play BR 5? The FG42-II used to have a safety mechanism because it was a paratrooper “machine gun,” which was historically accurate. Now, for the sake of gameplay, it’s been changed, and I support adding a bayonet to the FG. But I don’t like German players who, already benefiting from the FG, act as if they’re hard done by. It’s like when Soviet players in earlier updates had the Fedorov, AVS-36, and PPD-40, yet complained that the German MP40, STG, and ZH-29 were overpowered. Do you think the T20 is better than the FG? Can you please actually play Soviet BR 5 before making judgments? Don’t be like those War Thunder players who claim Chinese vehicles are too strong to be buffed without ever even touching the Chinese tech tree. The developers haven’t released player data precisely to protect people like you—those who question the data while still complaining about Germany.
You know what? There’s a compromise theory: if you want to open a window in a house, people might refuse. But if you start by threatening to tear off the roof, they might be a little more willing to allow the window.
Right now, at the very least, we need to propose the most extreme demands, so maybe they’ll be more lenient when introducing the T-44.
Dude I play every faction at every BR, I know what the state of things is like. I’ve “endured the struggle of Soviet players” cause whenever I play as the Soviets I get trash like you on my team.
Armor is such a non-issue for Russia at BR5 atm, mainly because most of the objectives are urban/indoors, the Tu-2s is imo the best attack aircraft in the game right now, and Soviet tanks are still fully capable of one shotting KT.
I don’t really understand this narrative of “Soviet BR5 is deprived of tanks”, the T-34-85 is GOATed and it’s the main reason I’d like to see the T-44-85 in the game. But if using an 85mm takes too much skill then the IS-2 is overhated, the reload sucks but you annihilate everything you hit. Though I would like to be able to use binoculars on it again.
Could you be a bit more coherent, otherwise I’ll just say skill issue and go play blackjack
The T-34-100 should have stayed at BR 4. It’s essentially just a T-34-85 with better penetration against the Tiger II’s front armor. Why should a higher penetration value automatically push it up a whole battle rating? Just because a Panzer IV can penetrate the front of a T-34-85 or an IS-1 doesn’t mean it should be bumped up to BR 4, right?
Everyone knows that armor and armor penetration are the only factors that matter in a tank
That’s a bit extreme, but there’s some truth to it. It really depends on the context. Currently, when the Soviet Union and the United States face Germany and Japan, the maps aren’t large enough, forcing players to rely on flanking. Look at maps like the Pacific, Berlin, or urban areas—tanks often end up facing each other head-on in frontal engagements. Take that bridge in Berlin, for example—tanks are essentially stuck on opposite banks, trading shots in a fixed position. Where’s the room to leverage mobility advantages?
Honestly, the way War Thunder designs these matchups, pitting tanks from entirely different tactical roles together, often leads to one-sided domination. Take the M18 Hellcat at 6.7, for instance—it’s powerful because it can move around freely. But look at current maps like Normandy or small towns—which of these really allows for fluid flanking? So, in this game, maps heavily nerf tanks like these. Only those that rely on stacking armor and firepower truly thrive.
Then there’s the discussion about the D shell. Some players argue it’s not historically accurate. But so what if it isn’t? The Super Bazooka, for example, is from the Cold War era and isn’t in the game either. My point is, this shell has a massive impact on the IS-2. In War Thunder, it’s partly why the IS-2 was pushed up to face the Tiger II, even though historically it fought Tigers and Panthers. In this game, the IS-2 doesn’t even get the benefit of this shell. The only real use for it would be against the Ferdinand, but even that’s limited because the Ferdinand sits at a higher battle rating, with the Tiger II above it. So now, the IS-2 is stuck without the shell and unfairly bumped up in rating. It really should be at BR 4. The Tiger II (P)’s true counterpart is the T-44.
Ideally, tanks at the same battle rating should have comparable weak points and penetration capabilities. In my opinion, a tank should at least be able to engage opponents one battle rating higher—or even one lower—and still secure kills, even if it’s difficult. The way I see it, the IS-1 and IS-2 are complementary but both flawed. One has inconsistent armor full of weak spots, while the other suffers from long reload times and struggles to effectively eliminate infantry. Historically, the Soviets could compensate for quality with quantity, but in this game, you don’t even have that numerical advantage. So now, it all comes down to quality.
Unless, of course, they implement historical balance—like allowing only one fully upgraded Tiger II per match, with any additional Tiger IIs automatically downgraded to the Henschel turret variant.
I think the IS-2 1944 should stay at BR5, the IS-2 1943 could be moved down to BR4 though. Back when you could use binoculars with the 1944 it was really good, the DSHK was really good for spraying down infantry between shots. But I think the main thing holding back the IS-2 is just the modeling of the junk scattered around maps.
It’s hard to wanna keep using something with a long reload when some random piece of debris completely eats your round even though it reasonably never should, especially when it doesn’t even load in on your screen.
But I don’t think the Soviets need something as good as the King Tiger, they have all they need to counter it. At BR5 you should be leveraging your advantage in infantry equipment instead of throwing a tantrum because German tanks are better than the Soviet ones.
Yeah the binocular function constantly not being fixed, or broken every patch is ***** 
its a Chi Se project that Japanese had but they never implemented it so it remained just a costal gun. But Chi Se was the prototypes they had in mind to put it on a tank. Its functional like the tank destroyer that we have since they had only turret never made the chassis. In World of Tanks they made the full tank.