XM163 CS
Literally just an M163 without the radar, with HVAP rounds too and it still somehow isn’t ingame…
1 Like
Where did I claim that the ZSU-23-4M2 sucked? It’s not even in the game yet lmao 😂. The M163 absolutely does suck. The radar struggles to lock on to anything that’s not flying in a straight predictable line and the ammo is hit or miss for damaging aircraft. Why do you keep bringing up Japan? I don’t care since I don’t play it. If you want to cry about Japan’s SPAA gap find someone else.
1 Like
@capnlunch
You have zero evidence Gaijin’s working on no options.
In reality, American companies didn’t make many options that could fit for 5.7 IRL, and finding those options is tough.
And upon finding those options further research into them for modeling and programming is tougher than production vehicles like M163.
Prototypes always take longer than production vehicles to add to the game due to their inherent nature.
Do not attribute to malice what is adequately explained through ignorance… in this case the ignorance of the US military and manufacturers as they’re the reason USA doesn’t have a 5.7 option in War Thunder at this stage.
Gaijin could be working on the option they found as we speak, since a few were finally found within the last year or so.
Also, there is no such thing as vehicles replacing others in development.
Adding ZSU-23-4M2 does not replace an American option for 5.7.
That’s not how game development works.
It would also fill no gaps as there is no effective 7.3 US lineup.
1 Like
Implying an M163 with no radar would go as high as 7.3, lol
And you have none to present that they actually are despite several suggestions for filling the US SPAA gap being passed to the devs years ago for prototypes that were designed decades ago and for which specs are readily available in the public domain.
As for replacing others in development that wasn’t the point. It’s still the fact that they’re allocating resources for creating a SPAA in a BR gap that’s tiny and doesn’t really need filling while ignoring the giant one in the US.
Kugelblitz is 7.0, and the Vulcan on a 163 chassis is already superior to that.
Then you have Wiesel at 7.3 as well.
@capnlunch
Those “several suggestions” were all passed to dev within the last year.
And no, the specs need to be obtained through OEM manuals and other primary sources.
Also they’re not filling any gap with ZSU-23-4M2… it’s literally just a sidegrade to the ZSU-37-2.
They also aren’t ignoring USA.
Kugelblitz is an enclosed vehicle, with enough armor to resist most lower-caliber HE rounds and aircraft machine guns.
Vulcan is an open-top vehicle on the M113 chassis, without even the flotation it should have. The reason one has superior firepower would be to trade for the worse armor, smaller silhouette, and decreased vulnerability to HE and CAS machine guns of the other.
3 Likes
Except the Vulcan has an effective range of 2.2km without radar, and the Kugelblitz does not.
The aircraft doesn’t get close enough to you to shoot you when you have a Vulcan.
I should know as I use the M163 without the radar exclusively. It’s a hinderance in its current form.
I suspect many if not most players do as well, and the fact it’s 7.7 instead of 8.0 with ZSU-23 is potentially due to both radars being particularly eh with M163’s being just ever so worse.
Of course M163 use to be 8.0 and ZSU-23 use to be 8.3, both had vastly superior radar performance when they were those BRs.
So yeah, an M163 without a radar, which is effectively what we have currently, would be 7.3 - 7.7.
Just as this ZSU-23-4M2 is likely going to be 7.7, cause it’s effectively the radar one but the radar sucks anyway.
That and it only goes in the 7.7 lineup unless its BR somehow goes to 8.0 as there is no 7.3 lineup.
1 Like
As just one example the T77 has been requested as far back as 2015 and they added it to the suggestions list only this year. There isn’t a single suggestions entry for the ZSU-23-4M2 and yet here it is. No wait list of any kind. Imagine that. Kinda throws the whole malice thing out the window doesn’t it?
Yeah exactly so why even bother when the US tree has an actual lack of SPAA in an entire rank? As for OEM manuals and primary sources you honestly think those aren’t available on the public domain considering that the 4 to 7.7 gap will be filled by vehicles that would be decades old by now? You’re not doing yourself any favors by ignoring the obvious
3 Likes
@capnlunch
T77 is 6x 50 cals, that’s 4.3 at best. Which in Gaijin’s eyes is a pass for something more effective that could go to BR 5.X.
Not sure why you claim everyone saying there’s a gap in USA is wrong when we’re all obviously correct.
Correct, there is no malice. Glad you admit there is no malice.
Lmao I’ve been saying the opposite this whole time.
I used the T77 as just one example. It would also be far more effective than the M42. There’s also the T52 MGMC which could easily be at 5.0+ giving at least one option for rank IV. But no. russia desperately needs their umpteeth SPAA. I’m not wasting my time listing every single SPAA suggestion for the US ground tree. Look it up for yourself
Once again completely misunderstanding me when I was obviously correcting your false claim that there is no malice
1 Like
Then you agree with me that there’s a gap. Good.
T52 MGMC, 1 bofors [2.7] and 2x 50 cal [1.3].
That’s 3.7 - 4.0: France has this on a larger chassis. It use to be 2.7 or 3.0 until we fragged too many tanks with it then it went to 3.7.
This is why it’s valuable to know what all the tech trees have.
All 5.x anti-air vehicles have one thing in common: Fast traversing high velocity 20 - 30mm guns. And they work great in 6.7 lineups as well.
50 cal isn’t that.
Bofors obviously isn’t that, at least not the ones we see in USA currently.
I went through hours of research years ago and found nothing.
There was maybe 2 - 4 suggestions I saw on the new forum of valid options but I forgot their names.
M114A2. 20mm Hispano-Suiza like the SUB-I-II and AMX 10P. Easy 5.3-5.7, and the chassis is already partially ingame as the T114.
4 Likes
I never disagreed about this with you or anyone in the first place about this🤦🏻♂️
You want to put a SPAA with a Sherman chassis at 3.7 to 4.0 😂. Yeah that decision has sheer genius all over it. gaijin’s definitely gonna do that when the Skink is at 5.3 😂. Why not move the Gepard to 3.0 while you’re at it?
This isn’t a hard and fast rule. The point is that rank IV is empty and the rewards for using a lower rank SPAA aren’t worth it.
Well there you go. Yet another rank IV contender
Yes, that!
I skimmed too hard back in April.
Obviously I missed all the old forum posts, or most of them.
@capnlunch
Skink doesn’t use inferior single bofors + 2 50 cals, it uses 4x 20 mm high velocity cannons. Skink is also enclosed while T52 is not.
Weird of you to think Gepard is 3.0 worthy…
Glad you agree with Shermy and I later in your post.
Like I already mentioned the caliber alone shouldn’t be a contender. Putting a Sherman chassis SPAA at 3.7 to 4.0 is a terrible idea.
I see you’re new to this thing called sarcasm.
sarcasm
noun
*sar·casm ˈsär-ˌka-zəm *
1. sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
I agreed with Shermy. Never agreed to a single thing that you said
Oh?
So now you’re claiming Shermy and I are wrong about M114A2… weird.
You also say you disagree with my perspective that there’s a gap between 4.0 and 7.7? Weird, I could’ve sworn you agreed with me earlier that there was?
Buddy my original comment was about a gap in the 4 to 7.7 lineup. What’s weird is you thinking you can gaslight me into believing that this was my bone of contention with you all along when it was SO many other things you got wrong like saying there was no malice at gaijin reg US SPAAs, the T52 needing to be between 3.7 to 4.0, the M163 being good (that was a nice rib tickler, thanks for that) and thinking that it’d be hard to obtain primary sources for Cold War and late WW2 era vehicles for the 4 to 7.7 gap.
@capnlunch
No one is attempting to gaslight you.
I’m posting irritation because I’ve been saying there’s a gap of 4.0 to 7.7 USA for years and you claim to disagree with me after obviously being in agreement with me.
I NEVER STATED that you didn’t believe there was a gap; I questioned your statements of disagreement with someone that’s been posting there’s a gap this entire time.
spaa are always a good addition, but this one is only useful to fill in the gap from 7.0 to 7.7. there are massive gaps in spaa at lower tier that need to be adressed (mainly on the american line because they just don’t have any good spaa from the m16 until after the m163).