I don’t see anything.🧐
I never found the missile to be the issue, only the poor chassis of the Type 60. Yes the speed is poor, but the penetration and damage is as good as any other early ATGM. Combine that with the mobile chassis as the M24, and it should be somewhat easy to use on oblivious tanks you have flanked yet cannot quite kill with the 75mm.
1 Like
The missile causes the chassis to be the issue and the M24 won’t really fix that. It takes 10 seconds for it to cross just 850 meters, or 11.8 seconds to cross a kilometer, and is incapable of being used at close-range (i.e. within a few hundred meters) due to the launch angle. While the M24 would provide a cannon for it to be somewhat more useful, it would still suffer with the worst ATGMs in the game and, unlike the Type 60 ATM, would have to expose, at the least, its full turret for anywhere between 5 or 10 seconds at normal engagement ranges.
The closest analogue to it is the AMX 13 SS.11, but that has far better missiles and a far better gun at 7.0. The M24 ATM has a possibility of being placed even lower than the Type 60 ATM, since it would honestly probably be a worst ATGM platform, due to it having to expose more of itself, and its cannon would be pretty much useless at range that the Type 64 can actually be used.
The Type 60 ATM Kai would honestly probably be decent since the main problem with the Type 64 carriers is that none of them can withstand any punishment or hide well enough for the long time that it takes for the missile to reach anywhere, which is what the bushed monstrosity would fix lmao.
We need this!!! Any more pictures?
It’s one of the many things Mai_Waffentrager left us with that have yet to be answered, even a source was not provided.
5 Likes
I still disagree, but I won’t deny that the M24 ATM would be subpar at best. Not that I’m a super great player by most metrics, but I very often found that mobility was in fact my greatest enemy when playing the Type 60 ATM. Of course, there were many a frustrating moment with enemies moving behind cover, or noticing me when using the missile at long range, but generally I noticed that I simply wasn’t able to get to advantageous mid-range positions in the first place or reposition to engage even the slowest enemies.
I didn’t have that experience, because even if automotive function doesn’t get taken out, your mobility is often too poor to escape with unless the enemy is using a long reload weapon. Compare that to the SUB-I-II, and I was frequently able to eat shots and live to fight another day.
Again, the missile totally does suck in the speed category, but usually one or two poor characteristics in a vehicle are balanced out in other ways. The Type 60 ATM does not have that luxury, but the M24 ATM will.
The Type 60 ATM excels in being an ATGM carrier, out of all of the 6.7 carriers. It’s just that it is incredibly situational. The M24 ATM wouldn’t change that situation since the missiles would still be entirely unusable at close-range, while not being able to hull-down as effectively as the Type 60 ATM can due to the latter’s binocular scope arrangement.
The Type 60 ATM does have a better PWR than the M24, though. It just has a lower forward and reverse speed.
Unfortunately everything they posted has to be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, the picture looks real
Does it really? I primarily play AB so my opinion may vary but both the Zachlam Tager and Ratel 20 (even when just using the ATGM to engage targets) are leagues better IMO.
Perhaps people only use the Type 60 ATM in a hull down position specifically because it has no other redeeming factors.
The reverse speed is incredibly vital, so I would take that over better PWR any day. The M24 also has a turret, meanwhile the Type 60 doesn’t even have weapon traverse. These things add up, you know.
But nonetheless, M24 ATM is a pretty well known vehicle at this point, so I suppose we will just have to wait until it gets added one day and gauge live performance to know for sure.
I am still haunted by the Type 61 Skyranger and uparmored Chi-Nus lol
3 Likes
Does it really? I primarily play AB so my opinion may vary but both the Zachlam Tager and Ratel 20 (even when just using the ATGM to engage targets) are leagues better IMO.
Yeah, they’re better because they can actually be used at close-ranges. Both of their missiles fire almost flat from horizontal rather than being launched at an angle than as the Type 64 is. Both the Milan and the SS.11 are also a lot faster than the Type 64, so neither of them need to expose themselves anywhere near as long as the Type 60 ATM. Since AB provides automatic spotting, this makes the Type 60 ATM just a death trap in comparison.
I was referring more to RB. I wouldn’t even bother taking the Type 60 ATM out in AB for the the above reasons. The Tager is outright better than the Type 60 ATM as an ATGM carrier, except in regard in protecting against rifle-caliber strafing, but the Ratel is a bit more meh in comparison, albeit it still can peak over hills if the player using it knows to switch to the ATGM as their primary weapon to take advantage of its scope.
Right, but you were saying that the Type 60 ATM “excels” over the other 6.7 ATGM carriers. To me it seems like it might be one of the worst we could possibly get, seeing as how even the Canadian and American M113 SS.11 prototypes at least have direct launch angles and weapon traverse.
Well I wasn’t assuming you were talking about AB, and none of the M113 SS.11 are in-game so they’re irrelevant.
Bro you are aware that the M24 is so good of a LT that you can tier it up 3 whole levels and still do well in it. As for the Type-60 & the Type-64 No, the Type-60 ATM is not the worst of it’s kind, that dishonour goes to the HKP3C. I know that’s a heil and not an ATGM carrying APC but i still count it since they both use early MCLOS ATGM’s. The Type-60 is not the best either. I personally find the Zachlam Tager to be better out of the 3 mentioned even if it’s on a way worse chassis and lacks a 50.cal.
The Type-60 ATM is fine for what it is, you just have to be patient with it. The fact that the missile is not only incapable of firing directly forwards but also it’s delay is it’s biggest drawback. Outside of that the Type-64 is a potent ATGM. The M24 ATM will also be fine around the same BR as the Type-60 ATM since the 75mm can still do damage against most tanks that aren’t heavy tanks.
4 Likes
That would be an interesting vehicle. It’s much more low-profile
I usually only need one missile to destroy vehicles with the Type 60, even heavy tanks. I sometimes take it into higher BR matches because the MCLOS can’t be jammed
1 Like
Would, but ammo capacity will be even lower.
Now that the Pantsir can select mixed missile loadouts, here is an updated report so the Tan-SAM Kai can finally do it too. This was first reported nine months ago when Tan-SAM Kai was added, but we only got a stopgap “fix” that let you start a reload when switching missiles instead of making loadouts.
Tan-SAM normal loadout
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nMSPidg2BGEW
11 Likes
Might be implemented in four years with an uptier on fix release
7 Likes