why add SPGs into the game like pz 2000, to be used as TDs? like realy gajin? Those ppl that added this vehicle dont know that SPGs are ment to fire shells at 20km away ? in this game SPGs are ment to be used as trol HE spammer vehicle?
4 Likes
Because they’re fun.
Which wouldn’t be fun.
2 Likes
Wait until he learns that the primary target of most tanks is infantry
17 Likes
True in WW2 - not so much on a peer battlefield today tho’ - the primary target is enemy tanks so teh infantry in their lighter vehicles can do their job without being bothered… only then do tanks provide infantry support.
No they aren’t.
And that is why they shouldn’t be in the game at all.
2 Likes
Oh yeah, they are so fun! You can one shot any tank and shoot down planes using proximity rounds
5 Likes
You might not find them fun, but a lot of players do.
See above.
So, you’d rather have these guys spam HE from 20km away, where you can do nothing to counter them, than have them spam HE from right in front of you where you can easily counter them?
2 Likes
And so is the M10 GMC(Gun Motor Carriage) and yet it was used in the Tank Destroyer Role.
SPGs are designed either to be a tank destroyer or an Artillery piece meaning. 1 role is prioritized in its design over the other. But that does not mean it cannot do that said role as PZH-2000 can still engage targets in a direct fire engagement. It’s just not a likelihood of doing so. Just something that could happen either out of desperation, or necessity.
That’s just not true- infantry have remained a primary target for tanks up until at least the 70s when ATGMs and composite armour became more prevalent, requiring mor specialized MBTs. Look at 73 easting for example, famously a major tank battle and relatively recent. The Abrams and Bradley still fired more shots at enemy infantry, soft-skinned vehicles, and gun positions than at enemy armour. Speaking of Bradleys, IFVs as a class of vehicle are designed to support and engage infantry- it’s why they’ve typically got an autocannon and/or gun/howitzer as a primary weapon with ATGMs as secondary. But even if we don’t say that tanks are still meant to fight infantry, it is certainly true that they are still meant to fight with infantry. Tanks are (or at least should be) part of a larger combined-arms force, which includes infantry.
So really no vehicles except maybe anti-aircraft (ironically, considering how many are used as anti-tank vehicles) are at all performing their intended role in War Thunder.
4 Likes
AuFL in urban exercice, infantery support, aka direct fire.
2 Likes
Even then the current ongoing war(being vague on purpose). Has proven that even what we consider outdated is starting to be effective when you adapt it to a new tactic or doctrine. Despite not being designed with it in mind. ->AMX-10RC’s.
And the PzH 2000
2 Likes
Considering how incredibly despised artillery pieces are/were in World of Tanks doing the same thing, I can very well imagine how unfun they would be if they did that in war thunder.
The fact that OP is complaining is a sign that the inclusion of Artillery is working.
War Thunder as a game thrives on being dynamic, as soon as battle become predictable, the meta goes stale and people stop playing. Artillery slinging HE for oneshots introduces a fun and dynamic playstyle for those willing to engage with it.
If this bothers you, you might need to rethink why you are playing war thunder.
6 Likes
No idea why people complain about these. They’re made of paper, massive, and until around 7.7 have quite long reloads. Not to mention they’re extremely wobbly so you usually get the shot on first.
2 Likes
It’s fun until the game is oversaturated with SPGs, which its easily getting to that point now. All gaijin knows how to do is copypaste endlessly and that’s what they’re doing with SPHs atm
Not really, its just another vehicle type, like MBT’s. There’s no “oversaturation”.
It’s not. They are gimmicks. It is not the same thing as adding “another tank destroyer”.
They’re fun vehicle classes.