Remove APDS belts from SPAA

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1

Personally, its just not fair that certain vehicles ahem Gepard, DCA, ISTPV ahem get APDS belts when the US(?) and the USSR don’t. AP-T does just fine, and this change will nerf those vehicles a tiny bit. Nothing major.

12 Likes
2

Most of them have their BRs because of the Anti-tank ability. So it would drop their BR notably. Falcon for example who probably drop to about 7.3

2 Likes
3

So, the ZSU-23-4 shouldn’t be at 8.0 then? It has extremely limited anti-tank capabilities…

4

Gaypards only get 40 rds of APDS. It’s not that big of deal.

6 Likes
5

Something like the Falcon has no radar at all and yet is the same BR as those with radar because of its ability to kill tanks. It has good guns, good mobility and a small profile. But is incredibly weak for the BR for actually shooting down planes

Something the ZSU-23-4 is more than likely at its BR because of its SPAA ability. Equivalent radar guided SPAAGs like the Cheiftain Marksman or Gepard are 8.3. So they have a more minor BR increase due to the pressnece of APDS and would likely be 8.0 without

2 Likes
6

Sir…

(Hyperbolically)
Do you think that [some features which are not on ‘Big Two’ need to be dealt with] because it is unfair?

13 Likes
7

Yes

8

Ok, the Falcon is fine then, because it doesn’t have radar, sure. I can’t really argue with any of your points either.

9

LAV-AD should get m919, lose the stingers, and go to Gepard BR

3 Likes
10

Also, the BMP-2 should get partial APDS stock, since the Bradley and other equivalents do.

1 Like
11

Not to mention SLAP missing on every US .50 cal from 80’s or later

5 Likes
12

yeah

13

They should also give every ifv the 2s28 treatment and fill it with modules to break, like they did to the BMP2 so its now useless

14

Yeah I’m all for more accurate and detailed modeling of vehicles

1 Like
15

I am not against ‘we also need that feature’

Yes. it is unfair that someone can while others can’t.
I also don’t like damn Gaijin’s double standard shits about weapon balancing.

  • giving F-5C(USAF) ahistorical CM pod is completely legit because export partners got that upgrade
  • while Giving JAS39C(SAAF) AIM-120 is completely illegal because SAAF never bought AIM-120. (While other foreign Gripen partners are having AIM-120)

can be other examples.

but
‘remove things from minors because we Big-Two are not having it, and it is unfair’ claim seems like a diabolical take to me.

5 Likes
16

Sure

17

well F-5C vs SAAF Gripen is a bit different since for the F-5C, its an American jet getting American CM pod, sure, wasnt used operationally by USAF F-5C, but the USAF did have the CM pods iirc

while SAAF gripen AIM-120 is asking for a Swedish jet in SAAF service to get an American missile which they did not have

1 Like
18

Fair.

I think I should’ve proposed
M61 APCBC for 75mm M3 equivalents
or M86 APCBC for 57mm 6pdr
or no APDS for Sherman Firefly on the British branch.
as example

rather than F-5C and JAS39C problem :/

2 Likes
19

Or Tornado Gr1 not getting the Mk103 engines it did actually have because we got the Tornado Gr4 instead for the Mk103 engine (legitamately the reason they’ve given) and yet all other Tornado IDS at that BR have Mk103 engines

1 Like
20

wdym by 75mm M3 equivalents?
agree with 57mm apcbc
for firefly i think it is for having it at a more reasonable BR