its somewhere around 400-600m until separation before can start pulling and because it’s so fast this can mean only 1.5-2.0 seconds for you to adjust and lead the target. Granted then you could argue the FCS should be doing that for you. This means abeam shots particularly difficult, if the missile was slower you’d have a much easier time in close abeam shots.
This is where minimum engagement distances have alot of nuance and a flat 400m minimum will not apply to something moving abeam (angles greater than +30 degrees off head on) or hard manoeuvring (6-9G)
Not to mention they label it as a TD for spawn points, to really troll us. It has never been used in the anti-tank capacity in real life for the British army, but there you go.
It’s still utterly ridiculous as the moment. When you see footage of people using it the tracker is glued to the target. They don’t have to lead the missile an absurd amount to make the dartlets catch up and get on target.
I know it’s not your fault, but I’m pretty confident this stuff will never get addressed. Saying you see hundreds of fixed bugs doesn’t account for much if there is an order of magnitude more that are unactioned.
But it’s based purely off the name? I highly doubt it’s intended to ever be deployed as an anti-tank system by Canada either, it just has that name because it’s capable of defending itself.
No, like…The ADATS project was a multi-role missile platform capable of performing both Anti-Tank and Anti-Air missions in one vehicle. The MIM-146 is a proximity triggered Anti-Tank missile, essentially.
The ADATS (M113) we see in the British Tree is a Canadian Army operated platform. They served right up until 2011 when they were withdrawn from service.
It’s fair to call ADATS a tank destroyer as it…well, is a tank destroyer. It would also be fair to call it an SPAA as it’s an Air Defence vehicle.
I personally think ADATS fits more as an Anti-Tank vehicle than an air defence vehicle. Much like the Khrizantema of Russia. It can perform Anti-Aircraft duties pretty well, but Anti-Tank is where it’s better especially after the recent flight model changes to missiles.
Britian realistically should have Thales LMM missiles on Stormer HVM, Tracked Rapier, Sky Ceptor, Warrior VERDI, Stormer AD, or some other air defence vehicle to fill the top-tier area. ADATS isn’t it.
If spaa has ability to be used as TD, most people will use it as a TD, as tank kills give more than planes kills. That is the reason Pantsir got added. People were using tunguska more as an ifv rather than spaa, so stats were gimped and gaijin used it to justificate pantsir additon. And then they nerfed 2s6
You would be a sniper with no alternative playstyle at all. So what the CR2 is now, but you would at least be good at it (looks at current 27, the slowest and the worst penning top tier round).
Not too mention the fact they’ve been heavily redesigning GRB to delete any and all forms of long range combat, which heavily favours the Soviet-type tanks and heavily gimps many NATO type tanks
Hasn’t Gaijin just gone over to their standardised DeMarre equation for everything to do with dart rounds?
If so - there’s your answer. We’ve been buggered by the dodgy spreadsheet formula (again).
Given that L27 CHARM 3 was designed expressly to mallet all known Russian amour and heavy-ERA as of 1999 - I do think it should be at least on a par with the stronger US/USSR rounds of similar vintage.
