Cs/sa5 ammo types

https://x.com/Nickatgreat1220/status/1569348296568893441

Clearly here using AHED ammo, and Also note the ROF is around 5000 RPM+ closer to naval CIWS vs the current 3000 RPM. sounds and looks RPM wise closer to the AK-630M1

2 Likes

@dotSHINI

They’ve fixed quite a few things with the latest update to the dev server, but not the ammo or ammo count

how much ammo is it supposed to get?

Not sure, but more. Somewhere between 800-1500

They did make one with 25, 30 and 35 mm AHEAD right next to 625E and Gaijin said ‘no, thou must not have AHEAD’.

3 Likes

Just gotta keep poking them with a stick

IDK what the report managers are doing RN, cause they are arguing with each other and sometimes with none sense.

Spoiler - the title of the video

That sounds about right

another one
image

Ping a suggestion mod with that

this one was passed, although needed an unnecessary amounts of explanation…

Yippee

Thats not the 30mm tho, the captions wrong, its a 25mm, you can tell from the longer barrel

Spoiler

30mm:

Spoiler

25mm:

Spoiler

image

The length of barrel is irrelevant to the vehicles calibre, both short and long have been spotted for the CS/SA5 and Type 625.

Long 30mm

Short 25mm

Flash suppressor. Similar ones found on the AK-630 funnily enough

Anyways relevant bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/5JfTh9mOq3xX

1 Like

Flash suppressor. Similar ones found on the AK-630 funnily enough

A flash suppressor does count to barrel length unless it’s not a permanent attachment and in which it does look to be one for this specific CS/SA5 (may be wrong however).

Anyways relevant bug report

Is this the bug report for the AHEAD (or whatever it is)?

Yes an AHEAD-like ammo

1 Like

The CS/SA5 does definitely need APFSDS and/or APDS as a defensive measure and especially at 12.0, if the Gepard gets this luxury at 8.3 then so should the CS/SA5 which sits at a vastly higher BR (12.0).

Same applies to AHEAD to counter incoming munition, especially as the CS/SA5 has TWS to enhance its interception capabilities, I doubt the IR missiles and that being the FB-10/A will be effective against said munition (as their IR signature wouldn’t be incredibly high).

The advanced armor-piercing shells of this gun should have been developed at the request of the navy. They need the close-in weapon system to have sufficient armor-piercing ability to destroy anti-ship missiles with semi-armor-piercing warheads.