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 They served right up until 2011 when they were withdrawn from service.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.
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.
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.
The only way around it is to just say ‘sod it’ and accept that accurate figures are impossible for any modern vehicle post-1990. If a vehicle is struggling in performance - give it a bit more pen or bump the armour figures up a notch. Do the reverse if the vehicle is overperforming. After all, nobody can say (without breaking the Official Secrets Act) whether X or Y figure is definitely correct or incorrect so take advantage of those variables.
If those metrics are applied equally then all claims of bias or favouritism vanish overnight.
It’s a single plate, just that the side isn’t modeled, only the front and rear face of that single plate. You can see it on some other vehicles particularly old ones, that’s a visual issue.
The issue is the cent mk10 is missing it’s trunnion, known issue forever but gaijin doesn’t care I guess
