Indeed. It’s why I never use it. It requires a campy snipy playstyle. Any attempt at using it as some frontline tank will see it quickly deleted by the numerous autocannon spammers at those BR.
Indeed, Falcons with these armor piercing horror belts are toxic for early MBT gameplay.
Its not even a real service unit. Just a single prototype existed and this thing is ruining the whole early MBT gameplay. Its one of these additions where I lose my belief in WT devs. Why did they decide to ruin their own game around this BR bracket? Just because of this single unit prototype which hardcounters all existing service gen1 MBTs and IFVs? Gamefun removal tool = Falcon. They could have at least limited the AP shells like they did with all Gepard derivatives. But even after years of lol killing, Falcons still have a continuous belt containing high pen shells.
Map sizes and average line of sight make them undefeatable. brrrp. Leopard 1 teams vs. russian ZSU or Falcon ones are DOA.
The Falcon could fill the gap between the British SPAAs, which is between 5.3 and 8.3, and could easily be a 6.7 or 7.0, but the developers had to give it APDS that I never used and that absurd Br. They should remove the APDS and leave it at Br 7.0 as a pure SPAA.
The Leopard 1 is a tank for quickly reaching a point on a map and staying put for most of the match. If you go on the assault with the Leopard 1, you’re in trouble due to the lack of stabilizer, which is why it should be used with more patience than other tanks.The Falcon could fill the gap between the British SPAAs, which is between 5.3 and 8.3, being perfectly fine a 6.7 or 7.0, but the developers had to give it APDS that I never used and that absurd Br. They should remove the APDS and leave it at Br 7.0 as a pure SPAA.
The Leopard 1 is a tank to quickly reach a point on a map and not move for almost the entire game. If you go to the assault with the Leopard 1, you’re in trouble due to the lack of stabilizer, which is why it should be used with more patience than others. Aside from that, small maps and CQC also don’t help the Leopard 1 and all similar designs, which were based on being quick to reach a point and then defending from that position, retreating, taking another position, and doing the same thing again.
30 hispano at 7.0? That’s pure slaughter…
1 Like
Without APDS. We have an M53/59 with twin 30mm in 6.3, with APCR with 90mm penetration and great effectiveness as a SPAA. The Falcon would have the advantage of not having the problem of the front cabin and little else.
80/40deg vs 34/28deg horizontal/vertical traverse?
Whole chain vs 50 per mag?
Nah not comparable. Think about how zsu234m2 does, and upgrade to the 30mm’s trajectory. Oh our Falcon even have mobility, frontal guidance and that SAP with nuke afterpen!
That’s why the M53/59 is 6.3, and the Falcon could be 7.0 or 7.3.
Compared to 7.3 234m2 it’s 7.7 worthy, which will lead us to the 7.7 line up… good enough but I really like that apds :D
My example was the Falcon, but it obviously isn’t the only auto-cannon spammer at 8.3 (and soon to be 8.7 for ZA-35) that makes short work of unstabilised light armoured MBTs like the Leopard. I don’t advocate for any change to the Falcon, but I am obviously biased in that regard. I’d rather Leo go to 7.7.