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.
This I can excuse. ADATS literally stands for Air Defence Anti Tank System
It wasn’t british, but Canadian.
Sucks but that’s british tax
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 They served right up until 2011 when they were withdrawn from service.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.
It had that label before it was even added to the British tree.
It’s labeled in game is based on how it is used in game. Basically people we’re using the AT function than the AA function.
In that case, it needs to be moved to the other line and placed after the Striker and an actual 11+ SPAA system needs to be added.
You can say the same for many other SPAA in the game though. I don’t think I’ve ever used the Falcon explicitly for anti-air duties.
This. It doesn’t help that the Stormer HVM/starstreak is so badly gimped. It’s outranged by most CAS at top tier.
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).
Is there any justification as to why L27 is so bad? Is it like that IRL or is it gimped?
Maybe @Fireball_2020 would know
Pretty much yeah, it’s length limited, although I do suspect it’s mass and velocity are too low in game.
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
Battle of Kursk is just a free win for Soviet Khrizantema players tbh lmao
Its insane.
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.
Does L27 have the era defeating tip?
Understandably the UK MOD don’t go publicising the specifics of in-service ammunition. However…
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank 1987-2006 Simon Dunstan, page5
‘Charm 3 comprised a new DU APFSDS projectile, L271A1 with a new propellant charge L16A1 (later L17A1) that gave a 25 percent greater penetration capability than the L26 round, together with the necessary sighting racking and storage items for Challenger 2’.
It stands to reason that the greater penetrative force would counteract the X percentage reduction (whatever the latest Russian claim is) of ERA such as K5 and Relikt on older rounds such as L26*. The UK had already got it’s hands on a fairly modern T-80U by that point (1992) - so it isn’t a massive leap of imagination to suspect that they would have designed the new round to deal with it.
*E.g. a 10% reduction in penetration from Heavy ERA would be moot if the new round has 25% more penetration than the old round.
Edit - just realised I didn’t really answer your question! I don’t know if it has a redesigned ERA-defeating tip; finding public sourcing on this stuff is a bit vague.
Awesome! Thanks man, love reading about this stuff.
Strangely Gaijin seems to think that the UK and NATO have barely upgraded their systems over the past few years
I feel for GJN, because they are in a catch-22.
Typically, nations with an incentive to overhype their tech go bragging about specifications everywhere, like Russia and China. Unsurprisingly, their tech almost always fails to meet the advertised specs when combat tested. For Western countries the opposite is often true - they want to keep the performance of their tech secret to keep Russia/China in the dark about capabilities.
GJN can’t really take a “We are going to believe what western militaries say, but accept that Russia and China are probably lying” stance. The easiest option is to take everyone’s claims at face value. Unfortunately, this results in the game being a Soviet/Sino military fantasy where their vehicles actually work as they claim for once.