Both the German PUMA IFV and Japanese Type 24, as examples, use IRST tracking and time-fuzed airburst rounds. However, in-game the fuse timing doesn’t compensate for target speed, causing rounds to detonate behind moving aircraft and drones rather than on target.
This makes both vehicles nearly useless against anything that isn’t static.
What Should Happen
Time-fuzed airburst systems require three calculations:
- Target range
- Target speed
- Shell velocity
Vehicles with proper fire control integration (sensors + muzzle programming hardware) can compute lead and program fuse timing accordingly. Both PUMA and Type 24 have this hardware in real life.
The Comparison
The Chinese PGZ09 suffers less from this issue not because of better fire control, but because:
- Larger caliber = wider fragmentation spread
- Higher fire rate = more chances to hit
This compensates for imprecise fuse timing. PUMA and Type 89 don’t have this luxury.
BR Inconsistency: Type 24 vs BMD-4 at 9.7
The Type 24 sits at 9.7 BR with a time-fuzed round that struggles to hit moving aircraft and drones due to lack of speed compensation.
The BMD-4 sits at the same 9.7 BR with:
- No time-fuzed round
- Faster and more reliable kills against drones and aircraft
- ATGM capability (Type 24 has none)
- Better overall versatility
A vehicle with supposedly superior anti-air technology (IRST + time-fuzed rounds) is outperformed against aerial targets by a vehicle without dedicated anti-air systems. Meanwhile the BMD-4 adds ATGM capability that the Type 24 completely lacks.
At identical BR, the Type 24’s supposed anti-air advantage is negated by broken fire control mechanics while the BMD-4 suffers no such limitations.
Is this “working as intended”, or is the fire control integration for time-fuzed rounds not fully modeled for these vehicles?