The M60A1 Rise absolutely doesn’t need to be 9.3 lmao. That thing is a perfectly textbook 8.7 MBT.
Because it’s easily one of the best 10.7 MBTs in game.
You really aren’t helping yourself from the skill issue German main accusations lol.
2 Likes
all of american 8.7 is absolutely an exaggeration but something needs to happen to the unholy trinity of the T58 and the 2 XM SPAAs
2 Likes
“Germany suffers”
1 Like
America 8.7 is genuinely the most random lineup to complain about. It’s not even a particularly good lineup.
You mean the unstabilized heavy tank with no ERA or composite, the fat Gepard with massive ammo belts in the turret sides, and the 9.0 that has no AP rounds?
XM800 with 60mm pen at 9.3?
Well, I can’t think of any gun vehicle in-game that can’t shoot on the move, even if it’s unstabilized.
I don’t think Gaijin would implement this as a result.
If they just fixed ammo not detonating on such vehicles, and nerf <=40mm APHE, I can’t see why it couldn’t just stay at 8.7 to be honest.
There are already direct counters for it from aircraft at 8.0 / 8.3 / 8.7, and a lot more at 9.0.
Not only that, they already moved down a lot of 7.7-10.7 planes down for GRB.
Well, other than with non-overpressure APHE rounds, I don’t think its armour is really anything impressive at 8.7.
It’s just its survivability that is really strange in some instances… either because of the modules absorbing spalling before the round enters the turret crew compartment, shooting the ammo just for it to disappear and not kill the vehicle, or shooting the hull armour just to only get driver, engine, and maybe the turret basket.
It’s fine at 6.3. If anything, it could honestly go back down to 6.0 – especially the tech tree variant.
If you genuinely want to move most HEAT slingers up (moving all HEAT slingers out of the ‘WW2’ BR range would be near impossible because of how bad some of them are in War Thunder), you’d need to move up most / every 7.0+ HEAT slinger up, and buff HEAT’s post pen damage.
2 Likes
Iirc, the turret is locked forward when driving since the driver is located in the turret and can’t move the vehicle otherwise. There’s no reason we can’t apply M901 logic.
1 Like
I mean, you’re right. Though we’ll see how long that would take to be implemented.
I’m also wondering if they’d only give the Veak 40 a limited number of APDS rounds too.
@Fourche7 implementing that would literally kill the vehicle, nobody would ever play a vehicle that can’t fight and move especially for an SPAA, gaijin tends to give artificial buffs to vehicles that need it cough cough Radkampfwagon (no drivers port to see out of and the turret couldn’t move, for realism if in 3rd person you shouldn’t see anything, and the tank turret shouldn’t move at all. Seems fun right?)
1 Like
Didn’t you post this exact post earlier in this thread?
Or are you repeating it from another thread?
Basing the M51 BR solely on pen alone makes no sense.
2 Likes
I disagree with the notion of killing the vehicle, since most of the time, there is somewhere a vehicle can be placed where it’s at least viable, if not interesting, without significantly compromising historical accuracy.
While there is a precedence for artificial buffs (which I often find disagreeable anyways), there is also already a precedence for vehicles needing to stop to set-up their armaments. This limitation is something the vehicle be feasibly balanced around. Even if this precedence didn’t exist, I still believe there is no issue with challenging the current status quo of vehicle balance and artificial buffs/nerfs.
I feel that limiting it to firing from a standstill, but with access to higher penetration APDS than most other SPAA get would actually make it more stand-out gameplay-wise. Worst case scenario, it can also be moved down too.
1 Like
If it loses its HEFI and APHE, its stabilizer, and ability to aim and shoot on the move, but gets access to 40mm APDS, it might be fair to put it at 7.3, though I’m not sure if it would be very fair against 6.3 aircraft since it has a decent search & track radar, as well as good range because of the 40mm caliber (unlike the M163’s / ZSU-23-4M2’s 20mm and 23mms). Though it would have to setup and wouldn’t get guns on target very easily after moving as a significant trade-off.
I will admit, it does sound like it would be an interesting vehicle. Probably underpowered in some situations, but overpowered in others.
And need I remind you we are going 5+ years with no change in ammo for swedish SPAA? Realistically your want for a nerf comes with no benefits, or did we not learn from the 3 years of no tracers when gaijin stated those aircraft would get their targeting computers to make up for lack of tracers.
Additionally you are missing the picture. The vehicle needs to come to a stop, with the turret locked forward. In its current BR it can fight vehicles with CCIP of which if you need to shoot at something like a helicopter or the Albatross, not being able to move and fire puts you into prime position to just die instantly.
Additionally your proposal for APDS makes the vehicle another ZSU-57-2 and thus the tree loses its only SPAA which currently already has a pretty atrocious record.
This change hurts the small 7.7 lineup and the early 8.0 lineup both of which lack effective fighters to make up for the poor SPAA. Your suggestion all in all once more pushes Sweden into having no SPAA from 5.3 (if you can’t a scout car that’s a trash SPAA as a SPAA) until 8.7, we don’t need more TDs on Sweden given that’s already the roles they move into because gaijin refuses to correct their ammo. You’re only causing more problems, your suggestion literally makes no sense as it’s a general nerf to the tree
I also don’t see it going down in BR, you’re asking for a fairly strong 40mm APDS that can be spammed (well as good as the Veak can) what ends up happening is it just goes back up in BR and further becomes redundant. I’m being entirely honest when I say I don’t think you thought about this at all. I think you have no idea how much of a net negative this would be. You’ve essentially just said no I don’t care about the tree having a SPAA and want the next SPAA to be a glorified TD like every single Swedish SPAA below it but I also want it to be terrible because it can’t move and shoot. I also don’t want it to be an SPAA so let’s get rid of any of its ammo as an SPAA.
If it loses its SPAA rounds then why keep it as an SPAA? It’s a nerf to a already mediocre vehicle. Now if this game had devs that cared about fixing gaps you could argue we could fill the role with the Tridon but this is the same dev team that insisted Sweden needs both the worst and second worst 12.0 SPAA for a lineup of which only 1 other actual fighting tank exists.
Direct counters?
A-4E and the Yak-130 are as far as I know the only possible counters… but that’s also if your brain dead in an xm246.
If you just turn the radar off you can track a target very accurately.
Biggest thing is the modules, it makes them neigh unlikable. Played the Ush recently and spammed the 81mm rockets to get nothing, it simply at them and deleted me.
The vehicle is also weirdly volumetric esq on the turret. The vehicle in all would get balanced better if gaijin overhauled the module system.
I’ve had APHE shells from the Ho Ri when playing in an uptier with my Type 87 RCV (P) just get eaten by the modules.
Just to clarify, it would still have an HE round, just not the current one.
1 Like
Pretty much any aircraft with relatively fast MCLOS AGMs (bullpups, RB05As, AS-30s, AS-20s, Kh-23M) can kill them rather easily. The reason I know this is because it has already been tried and tested in squadron battles, where 35mm SPAA (like the XM246) are proven to not be effective against them.
MCLOS AGM aircraft appear as early as 2.3 (with the Ki-48-II), but you start properly seeing them (as in, they have more than just one or two fast MCLOS AGMs and are pretty capable at killing other aircraft in the process) at 8.0, 8.3, 8.7, and especially at the BRs of 9.0 and above.
1 Like