Thats it
5 Likes
I second this, but am actually going to put in the effort to make a case. Metagross555.
Despite it’s intended effectiveness as both an antitank and an anti-air piece, the majority of maps simply do not allow it to fulfill the former purpose. In close quarters it is forced to either lay down to HMG fire or expend the entirety of it’s ammo load to hit a target it might not actually hit due to close range deviation. And, in modern war thunder, most maps are close quarters.
4 Likes
To extend this even farther.
The ADATS, although designed as a dual system, in game does not have the systems in place to function as one. Thanks to a variety of reasons, including the ones you mentioned, it is simply unable to perform the task it was designed for.
For one.
The missile is not Tandem. To my knowledge, it never was. Even if you hit your target, the odds you one shot it are incredibly low. Incredibly. Vehicles like the BMP-2M and M3A3 have more luck when it comes to taking out tanks. And they both have IRST as well. Did I forget the BMP-2Ms Proxy missiles? I think I did.
Two.
The ADATS is a giant, I stabilized monster. Anywhere you hit and it simply blows up. Centermass? Ammo. Top of the turret? Ammo. Bottom of the tank? Ammo. Simply put, it cannot survive period, where as a vehicle like the Pantsir, perhaps, I have seen survive 5-7 shots before being killed thanks to how spacious and empty it is.
Finally.
The role of a vehicle in game has never been required to be what it is IRL. Was the ADATS a dual system irl? Yes.
Was the R3 T20 also considered a light tank? Yes.
Was the M18 an SPG? Sure.
Was the M26 a heavy tank? Oh, absolutely.
Was the F-84(nonF variants) a fighter? 10000 times over.
In game? Well,
The R3 is a SPAAG
The M18 is a light tank
The M26 is a medium
The F-84 is a “strike aircraft”, or in other words, an Attacker.
Role is not designated necessarily by the role filled IRL, but the role it fills in game. It’s supposed to be a SPAAG, and People just so happened to also be using it as a TD. Does that mean we should rename the 2S6 as a TD? Or the M42? What about the M19? The ZSU-57? I don’t think so. It’s a poor double standard at best that does nothing but hurt top tier USA for especially now what is no good reason
1 Like
Having used the British ADATS recently. I don’t even understand why it’s classed as an ATGM Launcher in the first place. The accuracy is awful, you can barely hit something stationary. The missiles do no damage, you have to completely expose yourself to fire. You aren’t small, you aren’t nimble.
I’d actually class the Stormer HVM as a more effective ATGM launcher.
There really is no value to the classification other than to nerf and already rather weak 11.7 SPAA
Switching the ADATS to SPAA would be realistic.
Why because in Canada and Thailand(it’s a bit hard to use it was anything else when it can’t move)(the two nations that used it in service) it’s primary role was SPAA and that’s what Canada had bought them for.