They could’ve just given it 40mm VT shells and moved it to 7.7 where it would fit both aesthetically and practically but nah it needs to be 5.3. I’d take a jeep or something with a Bofors L/70 over this because then it wouldn’t look so out of place and vastly overperform (in engine power and maneuverability) everything that it faces.
Something like a Fiat 666N with AA or a post-war Alfa Romeo 430 with a Bofors on it would be better. Or the Fiat 727 with a Bofors gun (projected, not assembled). Or they could bite the bullet and add the 40M Nimrod finally. One more option is something, likely a truck, using the Cannone-Mitragliera da 37/54 (Breda).
Something as simple as “giving the M42 4 extra ammo boxes so it can reload where the assistant driver would’ve sat” would go a long way.
And truth be told, Italy doesn’t even need an AA at the 5.3 range because the R3 already exists there. That area is already covered, and the R3 is its own can of worms.
I would go even further for gameplay balance reasons and give the M42 Dusters, Leo 40/70, AMX-13 DCA, and any other similar-time-period Bofors cannon AAs the VT fuse rounds, as well as the aforementioned missing APDS. Sure, it would technically be a case of time-travelling like the IS-2 (1944) having BR-471D, but as soon as they uptiered that poor thing to 6.7 they gave it that round back for balance reasons so it could at least potentially kill a Maus (though I did manage to kill two of them with BR-471B… somehow… including one at 600m range).
gaijin, hire this person as advisor, this is a much more sensible approach then just dumping an autocannon on a leo 1 chassis into 5.3 and call it a day.
the AMX-13(FL11) has a top speed of 61km/h, so only 4km/h slower, but it has a worse transmission and power-to-weight ratio, not to mention a much worse turret rotation speed as well as gun elevation speed, while its AP shell has very very similar penetration performance and the AMX-13(FL11)'s only advantage in is the M61 shell it gets with a bit better penetration and HE filler.
but then we come to the aspects of fire rate, where the AMX-13(FL11) has a reload of 7.8 seconds and the Leopard 40/70 a firerate of 0.6 seconds.
then we add the differences in gun handling between the occilating turret AMX-13(FL11) and the leopard 40/70 with its high rate of turret rotation and gun elevation and the 1.0 BR difference between the two in ground RB becomes an obvious problem, especially since they can meet each other in battle and the AMX-13(FL11) doesnt have the armor to stand a chance against the leopard 40/70 and not only because the “no armor=best armor” meme.
heck, with the leopard 1’s suspension in combination with the gun handling and firerate, you can even somewhat reliably hit targets on the move, try that in an AMX-13(FL11).
that isnt a well balanced vehicle at all.
edit:
to point it out, we are comparing ground combat capabilities between a light tank and an SPAA here on top of everything mentioned above.
keep that in mind too.
edit 2:
yeah i just realized you meant the AMX-13 DCA 40, but well, i misread that so i made a mistake, i can only admit that.
in which case the gun handling because of the leopards suspension is still better then that of the DCA’s and its power-to-weight ration is too, same for a better transmission, giving it overall better mobility to utilize in flanks.
AMX-13 DCA my man. It’s even in the post here:
Leopard 40/70 you gain speed with less survivability over AMX-13 DCA.
And that speed increase is still enough for a 0.3 difference in BR.
So yea, the only way Leopard 40/70 is increasing is if AMX-13 DCA and the Swedish one increase alongside it.
This is a reminder that M42 is also cold war.
Maus is as cold war as M47.
whis would be totally fine as both perform almost too good at 5.0.
and in case of the M42, that isnt really performing as well, neither as SPAA nor as tank killer.
Some high pen SPAAs on modern chassis’ have far too low BRs. Remembers me on the Falcon issue from years ago. Leopard (its a LEOPARD^^) 40/70 with that crazy mobility and penetration should be above 7.0 BR. Just mind the 7.0 Kugelblitz. A Panzer IV derivative with less pen and far less mobility. Or the Zerstörer 45. No mobility, no protection, less pen, diluted AP belts…why is this higher BRed than the Leopard?
I’m sick of these un-immersive modern units zooming around between WW2 tanks. If they need SPAAs, just add a Lancia truck with Bofors mount. But no Leopard 1 (!) at 5.0 or something^^
Same for the AMX-13 SPAA and others. Put this modern stuff where it belongs. Highly mobile autocannon vehicles with that much pen wreck too much at these low BRs.
It doesn’t matter. With that gunhandling, speed and mobility you’re far above typical ww2 vehicles. Especially on these maze-like small maps. Bevor WW2 tanks react on you with slow gunhandling and ww2 like mobility, you already blasted it away with your almost 100mm penetration Bofors autocannon. Let me remind you typical ww2 SPAAs on that BR have around 50mm pen max and are Panzer IVs, slow halftracks and the likes.
If the 5.3 Leopard wouldn’t be op, ppl wouldn’t spam it as they currently do. No wounder, with that speed you’re king.
First, we need something built as a vehicle, not something “made in the air”. Second, even the smallest machine guns can kill a vehicle like the Leopard AA and you don’t know the number of times I’ve died or nearly died from a fighter catching me from behind or M2 Brownings shooting at me even from afar. or for simple HE rounds that exploded near me.
Okay?
Just cause you’re above Ostwind II in gun handling, doesn’t mean they should be higher.
Leopard 40/70 isn’t OP at all. Just keep your ears open for the loudest engine in War Thunder.
Op? Seriously? This tank does ZERO damage. + br was increased.
Thats why everyone is zooming around in them?