Then we will never see the mach with apds, gaijin only takes info of paper prototypes or service action, machbeth its no longer in service so its over.
1 Like
Its not too late I think, there were some scattered reports that the Machbets and even Hovets are being considered to be overhauled for anti-drone use (after reports of drone usage by Hamas). Maybe someday we could see it happening especially over in Syria. Maybe a 20mm derivative of AHEAD rounds could be developed for it.
To be honest there is no real need for documents to add APDS to the M163 in general.
We know the round fits, we know the same gun on other chassis uses them, so it is only up to Gaijin and their idea of balance.
I have my doubts the Machbet ever used APDS outside tests, since using those kind of rounds in small areas like Israel (especially near urban areas) leads to serious collateral damage.
There is still room for improvement but it’s mainly up to them.
2 Likes
This. What ammunition a vehicle used IRL has mattered less and less as the years have gone by. It still plays a role, sure, but Gaijin has proven time and time again they’re not opposed to the “If I fits, I sits” approach. DM23 for the Type 16s is the most recent example in my memory.
1 Like
I kinda hope it’s the base M163 model, and not this upgraded one. The only reason is because then Japan gets to have an SPAA at 7.3. With the addition of the IRST tracking, it will no doubt have a higher BR than the base M163 model with the shitass tracking radar.
Doesnt have a radar but an IRT camera, it could actually sit at 7.3 personally but I see it being rated at 7.7 - 8.0 but not 8.3 because otherwise that defeats the point and its way too uptiered to be 8.3 when it doesnt have a radar.
Ideally though, we would get the truck-mounted M61 at 7.3 instead, thus allowing the Thai M163 to shine in its upgraded configuration without the use of another copy paste.
The truck mounted M61 doesn’t have any tracking device.
So it’s remotely controlled but aimed completely manually without any FCS help? I can’t help but think that would be ineffective right?
inb4 its a copy paste US 163 and it takes like a year for it to be properly modeled
That means it can go go 7.0!
They accepted it (granted this is the U.S. M163 which is identical to the Hovet) they just, in standard Gajin fashion, ignored it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QQO36LLyOCNy
1 Like