Falcon (pre-production) - perhaps this one doesn't need to eat tanks?

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Introduction

General Falcon History

The Falcon self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system was developed in response to the need for a cost-effective, versatile air defence solution for low-flying aerial threats. Designed and built by Vickers-Armstrong, the system was built on a modified chassis of the Abbot self-propelled gun. The project emerged as an effort to provide a simpler, more affordable alternative to complex radar-equipped systems like the French twin 30mm or the German twin 35mm systems. The goal was to create a platform capable of engaging both aerial and ground targets without relying on sophisticated, unreliable, and potentially vulnerable technology, which would also come with cost savings for any potential customers.

The prototype, completed in 1970, used a Value Engineered Abbot chassis fitted with a turret housing twin Hispano Suiza HSS 831L 30mm guns, the firing the same ammunition as the British Rarden cannon. The Falcon’s design prioritized simplicity and reliability, with electric-powered gun operation, belt-fed ammunition, and manual fallback controls for emergency use, and the turret’s stabilisation allowed accurate fire on the move.

We’re all familiar with the Falcon. It’s in-game, it’s an absolute menace, it’s an early IFV masquerading as an SPAA, and because of its lethal effectiveness against against ground vehicles, from an anti-air perspective it’s pretty massively overtiered for a twin-30mm, no radar, no proxy system. It therefore finds itself at a BR where other vehicles in the same tech tree, namely the Chieftain Marksman and ZA-35, vastly outperform it in the anti-air role, while also opening up a significant gap in Britain’s SPAA line between 5.3 and 8.3.

So where does the Falcon (pre-production) come into this? Well, first, to be completely clear, only a single Falcon was actually completed, with the vehicle that is currently in-game representing the final appearance and full capabilities of the production standard Falcon system. The Falcon (pre-production) represents an earlier configuration, with the difference being an array of smoke grenades on the right-hand turret cheek, a slightly different turret geometry (see below), as well as some cosmetic differences with VICKERS branding being slapped all over it. But the real opportunity of this pre-production variant is to is to introduce a Falcon with essentially zero anti-ground capabilities, by reducing the ammunition selection, potentially only to High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) and High Explosive Incendiary - Tracer (HEI-T), meaning the system is essentially completely harmless to ground vehicles, except milk trucks.

By introducing a Falcon variant that isn’t capable of sending an IS-7 back to the hanger frontally, it would allow it to be placed at a BR representative of its anti-air capabilities, instead of its anti-ground capabilities, which would place it right around 7.7, which would go a long, long way in alleviating the current large SPAA gap in the British tree.

Specifications

Spoiler

image

Images

Spoiler


Proposed pre-production Falcon on the left (with differences circled in red), production-standard Falcon (currently in-game) on the right.

Sources

Spoiler

Vickers Falcon SPAAG - Tank Encyclopedia

British Defence Equipment Catalogue, 1979

Abbot FV433 Self-Propelled Gun, Chrisopher F. Foss

International Defence Review, September 1970 Volume 3

7 Likes

A menace to society

Perfect, just what is needed to fill the gap at 8.3 :P

another 8.3 spaa? count me in

I’d argue the Gap in the tree can be filled with proper decompression, imo most if not all 35mm SPAA systems in War Thunder are undertiered. Considering that just 1 Falcon was finished, I can’t really see Gaijin adding a second. Instead, add addational vehicles to fill the gap and decompress the game :D

Such as…

3 Likes

There are already several vehicles in-game, with 2 playable versions, that only had a single example produced IRL.

This is functionally a Ystervark with slightly improved firing angles, it would be fantastic to get, but it would belong at 4.7, maybe 5.0. Sure, if you gave it DM63 it could go to a higher BR, but that would be on account of its anti-ground capabilities, not its anti-air. It isn’t filling the anti-air gap if the vehicles being introduced just have inflated BRs due to their anti-ground capabilities.

Sure, this could be 7.0/7.3 (I’d argue even higher based on the XM800T), if it got 20mm APDS, which, once again, would just be inflating the BR of a supposed SPAA by giving it anti-ground lethality, and it wouldn’t be representative of its actual anti-air capabilities.

Without APDS, this would sit around 6.0, as it would have more-or-less equivalent performance to the R3 T20, and it would be a fantastic addition.

Funnily enough I am aware of this one, I wrote the suggestion. Again, this would be fantastic to see in game, but it would belong squarely somewhere between 6.3-6.7, maybe 7.0-7.3 at a push. Even with APDS there is nothing that warrants this system sitting at 8.0

2 Likes

And to reiterate - all of these would be fantastic additions and very welcome as gap fillers and/or unique domestic vehicles.

But there is really nothing that could offer what the Falcon can. The Falcon is quite literally the absolute peak of pure gunslinging SPAA. No radar, no proxy, no IRST, no tricks, just two high calibre, high fire rate, high velocity autocannons on an enclosed chassis with good gun handling and mobility.

Which is why its such a shame that the current Falcon sits a few BR brackets above where it belongs from an SPAA perspective. Don’t get me wrong, I love playing the current Falcon, and it can absolutely work as an anti-air against cocky jets and low flying helis, but it would be so good to get a Falcon that can slot into the 7.7/8.0 lineups without causing havoc against ground vehicles.

Excluding LRF and angular tracking