Since the game provided an automatic fire-control aiming interface for radar SPAAs, the anti-air accuracy of cannon-based AAs has increased significantly, especially for the Gepard, Type 87, XM246, and other 35mm Oerlikon KDA cannon SPAAs. Their accuracy is also higher than that of other SPAAs at the same battle rating, and their shell muzzle velocity is faster as well (API-T 1175 m/s, APDS 1400 m/s). Their ground-attack capability is also overly strong. Therefore, should their BR be increased by 0.3–0.4 in the next update (only below 9.0), for example, 8.3 → 8.7 / 8.7 → 9.0?
The guns have worse dispersion than their counterparts, at <= 0.095° (~1.66mrad) , compared to <= 0.08° (~1.4mrad) on;
23mm 2A7 cannons (ZSU-23-4), 30mm HSS 831-A & HSS 831-L (AMX-30 DCA & Falcon), 25mm Oerlikon Type KBA (Sidam 25), 20mm M168 (Machbet)
or <= 0.085° (~1.48mrad) in case of PGZ04A
So that part is just straight up wrong.
The radar-view aiming is also downright worse than manually following the propaganda lead-indicator since it’ll drastically underlead the full-calibre shells.
APDS-T shells tend to be significantly more accurate when following the indicator, or using radar-screen but the limited quantity doesnt exactly allow for using them this way except for specific scenarios.
In any case, moving them up will literally do nothing but further incentivize people to use them for anti-tank purposes when their ability to deal with aerial targets is reduced further.
Too bad that only Gepard 1 A2 is capable of actually using these due to being the only one with improved V0 measuring coils that can reliably measure the the faster FAPDS shells due to having a higher upper limit for the V0 (and also dont wear out instantly).
Not even sure if the old coils are capable of measuring the mid to higher ends of the FAPDS muzzle-velocity range (which is 1400-1440m/s) to begin with.
Technically PGZ09 aswell but idk if china ever got FAPDS rounds, likely didnt given that they got PMD062 KETF and the associated programmers.
Also, TLD-038 APDS-T should be 1385m/s V0 but not like that matters much (or well 1390m/s but I still need someone to tell me which temperature the game uses for V0, since 1385m/s is for +15°C and 1390m/s for +21°C)
The most viable option is the 8.7, just like what was done with the XM246, which received this change and became balanced. The problem with the 8.3 is what they will face considering the ±1, such as bombers like the Tu-4 and B-29. On the ground, the 8.3 is well known for being a very high number of light tanks. But this will depend on the analysis of the Gaijin. But in my opinion, the 8.7 is the most viable for anti-everything.
Especially for the Russians, who in that range have tanks with a reload time of 19.0s. If they miss a shot on those anti-aircraft guns, they’ll get hit disproportionately. lol
The T-55 is also easy to kill. For some reason, they put a 22mm plate hidden between its tracks. And it also has that classic cupola. When I used Gepard it was very easy to neutralize them.
While this is true, it will only hit if they are flying straight. The effective range for these automatic fire-control are only up to ~800 meters if the target is actively manoeuvring/dodging, which is extremely short. CAS around 9.0 and above are starting to outrange guns-only SPAA already, there is no need for them to go higher
Honestly we should let all SPAAGs carry as much APDS, APCR, or whatever else their “special” ammo is provided their racks can physically fit the rounds. For all the 35mm Oerlikon vehicles I understand their main belts can be fitted with APDS given it and FAPDS are identical in size.
The rounds are the exact same size, and the onboard software already has the lead calculator for the APDS. All it takes is a minor programming update to be able to tell it “APDS is in the main belt now,” and the FAPDS the Gepards use in Ukraine has identical ballistics AFAIK. If that round fits in the main belt there’s little reason the standard APDS wouldn’t.
Doctrinal limits have no place in War Thunder unless they are applied equally to everybody. And with so many prototypes or in a few cases incomplete prototypes thrown into the game which had no doctrine due to not being accepted into service, artificially neutering others for “but doctrine” is laughable.
You can use full APDS belts if you want to, just that you’ll run into the issue of not being able to engage aircraft properly as the v0 measuring units are not designed for such velocities and would either fail to measure it, wear out instantly, or both. (that is considering that the fire-control computer could even handle them for lead-calculation in the first place, which may not be the case)
This would be applicable for every 35mm Type KDA user vehicle in the game, with the singular exception of Gepard 1 A2 (and potentially PGZ09)
Gepards in ukraine are all Gepard 1 A2’s, which feature the upgraded V0 measuring units and as such do no longer have these issues and can measure the higher muzzle-velocities.
However, the APDS-T used by all Type KDA users ingame (or atleast what it should be) is Oerlikon Type TLD-038, DM 23. This shell has a muzzle-velocity of 1385m/s to 1390m/s irl (ingame it’s 1400m/s, no clue where gaijin got that value from, every other value is identical to TLD-038), DM 33 FAPDS has a muzzle-velocity of 1400-1440m/s. The two shells are not ballistically matched.
(WTS Koblenz, Oerlikon 35 mm Automatic Cannon Type KDA)
The more modern versions of the APDS-T shell (idk if anyone actually uses these, maybe the dutch do but not sure) is TLD-049 (PMD 049), which has a MV of 1430-1440m/s.
I mean even the likes of Wikipedia states both rounds have identical ballistics, so the sources on there are probably where they get the numbers from.
Now my opinions on SPAAG are coming from the angle of “they have been repeatedly butchered in their tank killing ability for years, yet people still hunt tanks with them, therefore applying more dumb nerfs will not solve the problem, because as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t a problem anyway, while causing many SPAAG users to sit uselessly in their own spawns the moment they can’t hunt tanks at least in self-defense. Therefore, why not remove all the idiotic nerfing, flip the script on SPAAGs, and let people use the empowered tools to solve the CAS “problem” they claim is so game-breaking?”
Hell, I don’t even really see the Oerlikon APHE as that much of a problem. If anything the round is probably underperforming in penetration. A corrected armor penetration calculator I’ve been working on (using Gaijin’s as a basis but adding stuff to better model everything from solid AP to APCR to APDS) spits out approximately 80-90mm on the APHE and 60-65mm on the missing base-fused HE round for the guns. Also it spits out 210mm on the APDS…
Details matter; This might apply for TLD-049, which has a comparable MV, however it definitely does NOT apply to TLD-038 (DM 23).
I sent the page on TLD-038 earlier.
Well that’s definitely far beyond what these shells can achieve. Whether the shells actually over/underperform depends on what gaijin considers as RHA (as in; material properties; hardness, density, tensile-strength, yield-strength, etc.)
I mean my calculator deliberately ignores all shell shattering which would produce discrepancies like this. Because if you have shell shattering on some rounds but not others, you get a balancing nightmare, especially when different round types have different manufacturing quality.
Snail already models all tank armor as “in perfect condition,” so my calculator models all tank ammunition similarly.
