so stingray sits at 9,3 same as the vfm5 and tam 2ip , but its slower, has a slower turret traverse (30 degrees per second but should be 40 degrees) and has a internal model with driver controls, fcs and the power system making it outright worse than the vfm5 and much worse than the tam2ip at the same br
Either it should get its top speed to 70/71km/h get its turret rotation to 40 degrees per second and get the driver controls power system and fcs models removed (to make it on par with the vfm5) or it should get its br lowered.
i dont get the point of adding it as it is, better of giving US the vfm5 instead of stingray at 9.3
1 Like
Actually the turret rotation at 30°/s is correct, at least according to the 1994 Textron brochure.
Anyways, I agree completely, it has ~4 hp/tonne LESS than the VFM-5, has less smoke grenades, has worse depression, worse top speed and the only thing that is better is the elevation speed.
They absolutely need to be different BRs or at the very least Stingray should have a 5 second reload.
1 Like
In this video they state that the speed is OVER 40mph (67kmh) and that the turret does a full rotation in 9 seconds which is 40 degrees per second.
The Stingray Light Tank is currently work in progress on the dev server. I’d say once it is fixed it can be a very good 9.3 vehicle.
MobilityThere is also a possiblity that the Thai version would have a 410kW (~557hp) engine instead, which was also advertised by Textron later, but due to lacking information besides internet articles that don’t list sources I decided to go for the more conservative 400kW instead.
Weight is not reported since sources vary strongly between ~19-22t, so it was not reported. Gaijin currently went for 21.2t, which lines up with the “gross vehicle weight” of the 1994 Textron spec sheet for the Stingray. Right now there is no reason to believe it is wrong, even if it’s not fully explained where the lower weight numbers would come from.
FirepowerThailand uses M426, not DM33. This would give it a better firepower to make up for the mobility difference to the VFM5. This isn’t reported yet
Misc.Not a performance issue, but a historical one. The gun mount is attached and blocking the drivers hatch, rather than either hanging forward or simply being removed like it is done on the real vehicle when not in use.
internal modules are the biggest problem, it having modeled driver controls, fcs and power system puts it at a disadvantage compared to vfm5 and tam2 ip, and dm63 and dm33 are very similar
It’s coming in at one of the best BRs in the game.
It’s the opposite of DOA.
2 Likes
Internal modules are not the problem, the fact some vehicles do have them whilst others enjoy the advantages of not having any is the problem. But no doubt this will change in future.
if vfm5 , tam 2ip and the rest of the vehicles arent getting internal modules the stingray shouldnt either
They will do, it’s just vehicles more recently added are being made to a higher standard i.e with modules already installed, older vehicles will be updated to a higher standard in time, the T72s for example now with a FCS on the dev server and the Tiger 2p getting recently updated along with things like the Begleitpanzer. Other light vehicles will definitely follow, sprut and CV90s will probably be next.
I fail to see how it could be any worse DoA than last major updates addition of the ‘Badger’.
1 Like
From the data available, it seems Gaijin, with the exception of minor engine details, did their job researching and have made an accurate representation.
The Stingray is just a cheaper version of a light tank similar to VFM-5 and TAM so it lags slightly behind in some stats. But it should perform similarly, not DOA.
It’s not really DoA, but it is significantly worse than the VFM-5 and TAM2IP, enough to warrant a different BR - it shouldn’t move down to 9.0, so the solution is for the VFM and TAM to move to 9.7, which should also entail moving the XM8 up.
1 Like
At 9.0 as well lol
1 Like