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
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
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’.
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.
That sounds about right
Ping a suggestion mod with that
Yippee
Thats not the 30mm tho, the captions wrong, its a 25mm, you can tell from the longer barrel
30mm:
25mm:
The length of barrel is irrelevant to the vehicles calibre, both short and long have been spotted for the CS/SA5 and Type 625.
Flash suppressor. Similar ones found on the AK-630 funnily enough
Anyways relevant bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/5JfTh9mOq3xX
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
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.