I want to open a discussion on whether NATO trees, particularly the US, have a viable answer to the Pantsir-SM-SV when it comes to anti-munitions defense and saturation strikes.
Right now, single-vehicle platforms like the Pantsir-SM-SV dominate the anti-munitions meta because they pack quad-mounted TKB-1055 interceptors alongside dual autocannons. They carry enough missile volume to wipe out an entire incoming salvo of guided bombs or ATGMs and still retain plenty of ordnance to engage the launching aircraft.
On the US side, current options fail to address this gap:
- Multi-vehicle SAMs (NASAMS, CLAWS): While effective against long-range air threats, off-board multi-vehicle SAMs are clunky for close-in anti-munition defense in War Thunder. Using top-tier SAMs to shoot down individual incoming PGMs leaves you static, exposed, and quickly out of ammo.
- US ADATS (Bradley): While it features a secondary 25mm Bushmaster autocannon and 8 ready-to-fire MIM-146 missiles, it is capped at 8 total rounds with no reload. Furthermore, the 25mm cannon mechanically restricts optics elevation to 59 degrees, even though the missiles can elevate to 85 degrees. If an Su-34 dumps four to six Kh-38MTs at a high angle, you have to burn almost your entire missile loadout just to survive a single pass.
The core issue stems from doctrine: US doctrine relied on integrated networked air defense, whereas Soviet and Russian doctrine favored single-vehicle super-SPAAGs. Because paper concepts like the M1 AGDS were never physically prototyped, they face major hurdles under Gaijin’s vehicle addition rules.
How can Gaijin bridge this capability gap? Since single-vehicle platforms handle anti-munition duty better than long-range SAMs, what physically prototyped platforms (like M-SHORAD variants or Skyranger 30/35 on Boxer or Leopard chassis) or mechanics (such as automated CIWS radar targeting or off-board radar links) could give NATO a functional counter to heavy saturation strikes?
