I wouldnt mind bringing it down (Though I admittedly dont have it), probably to 8.0- in exchange for the AP belt maybe going to 2/3 APDS.
In the end I dont know though :/
(Also like wtf no dont bring it to 7.0)
Bringing it to 7.0 would be an answer to the ZSU menace.
Explain to me how the Falcon is 1.3 BRs more effective than the ZSU-57.
…except its got a massively higher RoF, is far more accurate, and is not open-topped.
Like I cannot stress the inaccuracy of the ZSU,that thing’s accuracy is dogshit.
The Falcon is also stabilized, while the ZSU is not.
all of that accounts for a .7 BR difference, which would place the Falcon at 7.7 and provide my 7.7 line up with an on BR anti air.
It definitely should not be sharing a BR with the Chieftain, thats just stupid.
I would argue it makes a 1.0 difference given how bad the ZSU’s accuracy is + the Stab being so powerful at that BR, but I can at least agree it doesnt make much sense at 8.3.
There is no real 8.0 line up for Britain but there is a very solid 7.7 line up.
Also the ZSU’s lack of accuracy is offset by its own fire rate and the effectiveness of its larger caliber APHE which is in a pure belt, unlike the Falcon which has no pure belt.
The firerate in comparison to the falcon is over five times worse, sooo…
I would say drop it to 8.0, see how it does, and if necessary/possible, drop to 7.7.
(Also dont y’all have the Cent Mk. 10 at 8.0?)
The line up at 7.7 is much more fleshed out with multiple heavy tanks, light tanks, etc. It deserves and Anti-Air
and the Falcon has smaller caliber guns and no pure belt.
It belongs at 7.7.
We already had the Falcon at lower BRs. Result was like Falcons roaming around everywhere lolkilling everything on the ground and air.
1 Like
Thats what the ZSU does and no one seems to fucking care
I think it would be fine if dropped to 8.0, to be honest. I am iffy on 7.7, and my gut tells me its a bad idea, but imo 8.0 would be perfectly fine.
The falcon is actually useful vs air, fires five times as fast, and is stabilized.
Stablizer doesnt make a difference for anti-air.
There’s no point to making it 8.0, Britain has 3 tanks at 8.0 and 6 tanks at 7.7 with more versatile options to actually make a line up.
Exactly. Driveby killing machine air and ground. If they’d remove the kinetic ammo, it could be much lower. But as long as it has that much pen it should be between 8-9 BR.
Deal. Give me a 7.0 Falcon with the 53mm SAP.
Disregard the last message, deals off.
The VEAK is 7.7, stablized, has about the same amount of pen, and while it fires a bit slower it also has fucking radar. Same goes for the ZSU-37
Falcon, as is, to 7.7. End of discussion.
As it stands now Britain has 3 SPAAs at 8.3. The Falcon, the Chieftain, and the ZA-35. That’s way too much SPAA saturation for one BR.
what do you mean by that
Right now it has 1 apds round/belt with two SAP shells/belt.
That was the point, a long old time ago the Falcon was 7.3 (7.0 even earlier) because it was being balanced off of its ability to AA. And then people started getting very upset because it could side pen you. Or if you were in an IFV with no meaningful armour, it could demolish you from anywhere. Now, of course, the reverse was true, since the Falcon had little other than structural steel, and all you had to do was not be in front of someone’s gun and ideally not run into Soviet heavies (14.5 argh)
As an AA it’s at the completely wrong BR, it’s nowhere near as good as a Marksman, even if the radar is ass on the Marksman. It should go down, no question. Personally I’d rather it at 7.7 as there’s a very good lineup there in need of an AA, rather than 8.0 that has… the Cent 10 and that’s kinda it (silly me, I forget, though in my experience i’ve found the Swingfire pretty dead, and the Vickers Mk.1 is… ehhhh)
5 Likes
Is that 2.44m including the muzzle brake? Because that doesn’t add velocity, as it’s not pushing the projectile through rifling or barrel.
- Lighter projectile - less drop off
- Stats do mean things, the Leo2a7v had a 17 kd for like its first month, highest I saw was a 23.4
- Go compare the barrel lengths between the two. The 2a72 definitely looks longer, which I believe the rardens length is considered by its muzzle brake.
- No, the Russian arms encyclopedia was for the 2a72.