Addition of Su-30MK2 AMV, as well as its Chinese counterpart, left many people baffled.
Their kit wise, they are much closer to Su-27SM than to any 13.3 plane we currently have in game. Yes, there are differences to Su-27SM, such as weaker engines, being 1 tone heavier as well as not having access to double ARH pylons.
Despite being worse than Su-27SM, they can and will continue posing massive threat to any 12.3-13.0 lobby with their sheer missile count. The only planes that can match that number of missiles are Su-27s/Su-33s/J-11s, planes they have low likelyhood of running into; not to mention the fact that aforementioned planes do not carry ARHs.
This leaves both premium Su-30s run relatively uncontested, curbstomping any 12.3-13.0 lobby if played as fighters rather than bombers, and making relatively large portion of all tech trees obsolete.
The Falcon never firing APDS during its prototype testing is true, but that point doesn’t really support removing APDS from the vehicle in War Thunder. A huge portion of the game’s roster — easily half the vehicles across multiple nations — are prototypes, pre‑production testbeds, or machines that never reached full service. If Gaijin were to apply the “only ammunition physically tested on the prototype is allowed” rule consistently, dozens of vehicles across the tech trees would lose rounds, belts, missiles, and even core mechanics. The game has never been balanced that way.
Gaijin’s long‑standing approach is to equip prototype vehicles with ammunition they were designed to use, even if that ammunition was never fired during limited trials. The Falcon’s HSS‑831L cannons fall into that category. They were high‑velocity 30 mm weapons capable of firing modern kinetic ammunition, and APDS in War Thunder represents that intended capability rather than claiming the prototype actually used it. This is the same logic applied to many SPAAGs and IFVs that currently keep high‑penetration belts they never tested in real life.
Removing APDS wouldn’t make the Falcon more authentic in any meaningful way, but it would make it non‑functional at its BR. The vehicle is open‑top, lightly armoured, and lacks radar. Without APDS, it cannot defend itself against the light tanks, IFVs, and fast scout vehicles that dominate its matchmaking environment. It would effectively become a pure AA platform in a BR bracket where pure AA platforms are punished heavily by the ground meta. The only alternative would be dropping its BR significantly, which would create even worse balance issues for lower‑tier lineups.
In short, acknowledging the Falcon’s prototype status doesn’t change the practical reality: War Thunder relies on prototypes being balanced around intended capability, not strictly documented test ammunition. If Gaijin removed APDS from the Falcon on the basis of prototype purity, they would have to apply the same logic across the board — and the result would be a far less balanced and far less playable game.
So why break 1 or 2 spaas when the rest of the game should also be put correct
Vehicle: Cassiopea
Gamemode: Naval
BR Change: 3.7-3.3, OR Make it coastal spawnable, OR give it fire control system
Reason: The newest Italian coastal is a very useless, its slow, has only a single 76mm gun and its very easy to ammorack, this wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the fact it spawn on the destroyers spawn rather than coastal spawn and doesnt have a fire control system(despite being a very modern ship), this not only makes you waste your time trying to get close to aim better your gun, but also leaves your very vulranable on the first minutes when everybody is too far away for you to defend yourself.
Here I will explain the reasoning of each of the three options of improving the ship:
-3.7-3.3: BR reduction will make it more useful as it will drastically reduce the chance of fighting against DDs that totally outclass it
-chance spawn to coastal spawn: by being able to spawn in coastal area, the ship will be able to fight against ships more on its league, and since the ammorack of the ship is very easy to hit, most coastals will have a decent chance to ammorack it if the ship is not paying attention
-fire control system: Cassiopea is a a ship from the 1990s, yet it doesnt have a fire control system to help lead the gun, by implementing a fire control module to the ship, it will be able to use it gun more effectively at range
the AJS37 doesnt have launch warning, but is has gone down since then and the f-14 gone up
so that might be where i remember it from
still getting 6 fire and forget missles with massive range
where multipath still results in a 50/50 death chance is just kinda insane when the competition has 2 shitty radar missles and 4 ir missles (JA37D, MiG-29)
(R-27ERs are decent but the MiG-29 radar is quite poor which makes it so you cant take full advantage of the missle)
I don’t have Tu-4 and H-5 researched in Chinese tech tree, does that mean I will need to research them in order to start researching J-11 familiy? I don’t have any RP on them yet.
I got a question, why 2S38 would be put into 10.7 but 80UD was still at 10.3? I just wonder, at this Br, T80UD with 6’s reload (add some bush) it consider OP instead an 57mm autocannon (but it was spam xD)
The Terminator cannot use APFSDS due to its feed system, nor does it need it to be 12.3 minimum. I’ve been using it at 12.7 and have a 2KD in it while rushing like an idiot.
Falcon and AMX-30 S DCA doesn’t make sense to get rid of APDS… after that we are going to remove gepards variants APDS also? And put it higher battle rating. What’s the bigger picture here or the long game?
T-62 has 115mm gun while T-55 has 100mm one, that is big difference. What is more T-62 has better turret armor and a lot lower profile than T-55. I wouldn’t touch br’s of those vehicles and i guess Gaijin will not too, because they are good where they are for now.
