But makes sense, since the Gepard carried 40 APDS rounds.
On vehicles like the Falcon, which only has one continues belt, it makes no sense.
It’s an AA vehicle so it would use ammunition against air targets.
At best it would fire 25-50% AP rounds mixed in with the high explosive shells.
Same deal with the Kugelblitz.
Mixing APCR together on a 1:2 ratio with HE makes even less sense then the vehicle even carrying APCR.
The only way to justify them having APCR/APDS is to say because they could. Which then makes the realistic Gepard implementation pointless, since it might just carry only APDS as well.
Like in some scenario where the only stock of ammo available is APDS.
I can do more damage in an M42 then an M4A2, especially late game. I may intentionally choose the M42 late game because it can do significantly more damage then the M4A2 would.
I have received several (3) nukes just by playing Italian SPAAG. The Leo 70/40, R3 T20, and ZSU-57 are a hell of a nasty lineup and are insane for killing tanks.
These vehicles are incredibly strong in a TD role. They are at most decent in an AA role (I enjoy it, but it has taken significant practice to get to a state of comfort with aiming them). I’m not against AP- I just wish there was a bit better way to balance them (there isn’t). Just my two cents though.
People don’t want to believe that the US is amazing and adjusting their playstyle and would rather play how they want to and cry about their vehicle. I hated the XM803 and abrams before i changed to a more aggressive flank playstyle and now i love them. Fast tonks are my favorite kind because i can play way more aggressively and then scurry away when i sense danger with my fast reverse.
Entire belt of apds would be bad, i think 40 is enough personally, never stopped me from playing the type 87 as a TD since its a worse hull than the gepard. Positioning is key and patience
Slow fire rate, constant reload effectively kills any chance of hitting at distance compared to my ZSU-37-2. If the Veak had a full belt and didn’t have to constantly reload with its poor velocity id say it might actually be useful. The ZSU-37-2 is better in every way except pen but it doesn’t matter as both my ZSU-37-2 and Veak engage the same ground targets but since theres essentially no 7.7 lineup it gets played at 8.0 if gaijin would actually add the rounds they accepted years ago for the Veak whoch would give it a lot better velocity it might actually be worth using.
Thats just my opinion his may differ if its a playstyle thing but thats just my opinion. I think its a okay vehicle but ill never touch it again after playing it at 7.7 and 8.0 since its just worse than most options available at those BR’s
ZSU-37-2 is imo the most well rounded, the chassis leaves a bit of mobility to be desired but its got a great gun and being able to have a steady stream of bullets with a bit of deviation helps with spray since all the radar are wobbling constantly.
I agree in that the 23-4 is a better spaa, more bullets and fire rate help a lot in taking aircraft down but in the multi role function like that of the veak where you can engage in MBT’s the 37-2 is better than the 23-4, but its nice to have both which many nations dont have and even more so if you have the 7.3 23-4 but thats nore so a M163 equivalent imo
I must add that many modern AA like 20mm ciws have apds or APFSDS rounds as it has better range and ballistics, which is why I’m not really opposed to adding more of those rounds