The Falcon got buffed again on dev (more ammo, armour and gun handling)… it does NOT need to go to 8.0
It should remain at 8.3 and get its historical target tracking / lead indicator
You keep yapping about the same irrelevant points, yet for some reason you are more in favour of making a vehicle ahistorical than having it at a br where it is balanced. Yes there is an spaa gap. Yes this puts a country at a disadvantage, NO ONE was arguing against this so why even mention it?
And uuhhhhhh maybe read your own post again? You were comparing lower br spaa to each other. If you can’t find it feel free to ask and I’ll happily provide the quote.
Probably will not underperform at 8.0 if used as an spaa.
But I like how you ignored the part - in the same post - about dropping it to ~ 7.7 if the apds ammo was nerfed. Veak is at 7.7 and I don’t hear that it is overtiered.
yes? it will? what tools does it have under its belt to be a 8.0 spaa?
Cant fake nerf ammo, this isnt wot. Ammo has set in stone stats unless documents prove otherwise. Without apds its a 7.0
Falcon was just a one-unit prototype which wasn’t adopted. There are no service manuals and no historic data how it was used in the field.
So it would be entirely possible to just say its an SPAA and it doesn’t make sense to add this super high pen shell to any belt. Cause its main purpose is air defense. It could be done as design decision.
Without APDS its BR could be lowered to 7.7. Anti-air role vs. tank killer.
2 Likes
Yes, which is fine, but it would have to be as low as 7.0 for this to work, not 7.7 or 8.0
your entire post is talking about removing apds where as the comment you replied to is me talking about changing apds’s pen values btw
Lock up this guy for proposing this atrocious change
The Falcon was marketed by Vickers with the following ammunition, which does not include APDS;
2 Likes
then remove it at put it at 7.0
7.0 is definitely too low, but at the same time Falcon’s missing features probably justify 8.0 or higher.
- LRF
- Optical tracking
- Turret internal armour compartments
- Internal elements
why
Because regardless of its anti-tank performance, Falcon’s anti-air performance against super-props and first-generation jets is very good.
2 Likes
Why
Ok bud
I’m serious, why? What about it makes that true?
Fairly big 30mm rounds, decent and more importantly continuous rate of fire, plus very fast traverse and elevation. Primary targets are (doctrinally) helicopters and “low-flying aircraft” eg. CAS at low altitude. Recently got a buff to sight magnification. Average mobility, fairly low acceleration.
Yes, it’s a decent cold war VSHORAD.
1 Like
So what BR do you suggest without APDS specifically?
I’d prefer to set it back to 7.7 or 8.0 with APDS removed, I imagine the anti-tank performance can be mitigated through ammo belt composition even after the other elements are fixed. It should be compared against the ZSU-23-4M2, which is at 7.3.
What would justify its postion there? M163 is radar guided M61 at 7.3 and is effectively a superior spaa except for technically the m61 doesnt have quite the reach of the falcon’s guns, but with the obvious issue being the falcon isnt radar guided so you arent hitting at those ranges anyway unless you are pretty cracked
meaning what
Yes it would end up being similar, so why wouldn’t this also be 7.0-7.3?
1 Like
You know what, those are really good examples that I’d not put much thought into, the M163 in particular has clear advantages. Generally as a UK main I simply get used to and accept the tax.
Falcon to 7.3 with no APDS.
1 Like