Fairly obvious, the overpressure value.
In my 450+ games in the ZA-35, the most prevalent feature was the ability to absolutely cripple any tank frontally by aiming at their cupola/driver port and allowing DM13 to overpressure and then HE fuse into their hull
So its the same why Coelian was good - because bugged mechanics?
Not bugged, just poor APHE modelling, that the community voted on and allows btw
Doubt that they voted to get the 30mm APHE penetrate the 200mm steel plates tho. I still believe its just a bugged mechanic by definition, as they managed to fix that with higher caliber ammunition and small caliber HE overpressure
Also also want to point out that new “explsion” mechanic was not on vote, they implemented it when most of the community voted against any changes :/
Thats typical gaijin for you
That is not true the one with Stingers is a one off.
There were 140 Gepard 1A2 alone in the Bundeswehr.
Gepard 1A2 was a regular service vehicle in the BW from the NDV to 1A2 in 1996 until being retired in 2016. ( Gepard 1A2’s are now being used in ukraine)
The missile system was a proposed/offered attachment for Gepard (not limited to 1A2) by KMW, it was a “plug-and-fire” device and could be used without notable modifications as it was literally just fitted to the gun-housing, i.e. attaching it to both housings simultaniously is easily doable…
The 1A2 from KMW’s ad is also not the only gepard turret this attachment was fitted to;
Gepard 1A2 turret:
CA-1 turret:
Gepard, pre-1A2 turret: (see: V0 measuring coils)
It’s giving the players the possibility. No one will load a tank entirely with smoke shells trying to fight against other tanks, yet many people do it for fun in the game.
1 Like
smoke shells don’t have double the penetration of the standard ones do they
Gepard 1A2 was normal service vehicle.
Hence it’s a balancing choice, not a technicality:
Technically it’s possible to load up on full APDS shells, just like you can fully load a tank with smoke shells.
In the game, overpressure mechanic only exists if there’s at least ~170g of TNT in the round. The 35mm DM13 only have around 30g.
You aren’t really killing them via overpressure (at least in most cases unless you cause the game to bug out), but rather just the ability to spam a ton of 30g TNT equivalent shells into the crew compartment via cupolas, etc…
It’s really not unreasonable for me to state that something that has never been tested, never been planned, never even be considered by operator nations shouldn’t come to the game.
We don’t know if it’s technically possible because it’s never been planned and never been tested on a real vehicle
the APFSDS of the Bradley does. And the APFSDS of any other machine do. But the only machines that lack full-ammorack load of APFSDS are USSR BMPs and the OTOMATIC. Hence the question: its a balance feature then?
May i suggestt that you imply that APDS shells are somehow bigger/have some differences with regular shells that made germans design separate ammorack, belts, different feed system for the cannon?
I may be not that smart but that sounds totally ridiculous. Especially when you can easilly have that compartment of 40 shots be filled with APHE. Making it look to me that no mechanical feature of APDS makes it impossible to load an entire rack with them.
The Bradley isn’t an SPAAG is it, once again this entire argument boils down to the fact that no dedicated SPAAG should receieve full belts of APDS, maybe partial ones like the Falcon, but there should still be a semblance of skill in terms of destroying tanks in SPAAGs, APDS makes that trivial when it’s not limited
They are the same size cartridge, however they are also different shells, the reason I state that no military/defense company has tested APDS only ammo racks is because it’s not the intended shell for use in SPAAGs, therefore we don’t know of any limitations (that they would find through testing) like decreased barrel life/heat building that could occur.
Plus it would be purely fictional, which I am opposed to, just get better with the API-T and be done with this debate
