I understand that but it’s a radar nonetheless. It gives an objective advantage over any other SPAAG in that area. There is zero way this gets added at a BR lower than the Kugelblitz, Weisel 1A4, or M53/59. The absolute lowest I can see this going is 7.0 or maybe 6.7 if the guns somehow suck. It would still help close the 4.3 - 7.7 gap, just not by too much. At least 2 more SPAAGs will be needed to fully close it and there are several examples to choose from in spite of what some say or think.
4 Likes
Honestly, I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade because I do want to see this in the game, but I can’t really see this being any lower than 7.7 if we take the radar into account. This isn’t just an M163 radar, if we assume this is the T9 tracker radar like the post says then it’s a search/track radar which can scan 360 degrees with a theoretical max range of ~22 km and a tracking range of ~19.2 km (source). Obviously this is 50’s tech so we can’t expect that it will be perfect every time, but that’s still pretty good. I think it’s worth noting that the ZSU-23-4 has a significantly worse radar set by every conceivable metric at 8.0, so the only thing keeping the T100 at 7.7 would be the less effective .60 caliber machine guns with their relatively low fire rate and worse damage. All this said, I still support the addition of this vehicle and I would take it over the M163 in a heartbeat. But I would expect it to be a contemporary rather than filling a gap.
4 Likes
Agreed. There are several other candidates for 4.3 - 7.7 gap fillers. The most expedient measure would to just add the M163 (1968), which had a dummy radar, or a Vietnam M163, which very commonly had their radars outright removed because there weren’t too many aircraft to shoot at. While it would be copypaste, it would allow for a gap-filler right this instant, with more appealing and unique vehicles coming later on down the line.
2 Likes
Can you find a picture of one? Sounds interesting
I don’t see this being very low either unless gaijin just goes completely ahistorical and removes the radar - something I wouldn’t like to see. I’d say 7.3 minimum for the T100.
As for other possible spaa to add in this gap…
3 Likes
Sure thing.
Spoiler
What would this be called? M163/E or something like that? Maybe M163 (1969)?
(E for Early - its a tangent but I think the word “early” looks worse than what they used to do with the /E or /L for early and late)
While that is ultimately up to Gaijin, I would personally call it M163 FM (Field Modification) or M163 IFV (since that’s what they were ultimately used as). I remind you that the radar-less M163 is not an official modification but rather a field modification done by specific crews so a name like M163 Early wouldn’t be entirely accurate.
That being said, if we still want a radar-less M163 gap-filler but with a more official name and origin, we can turn to the M163 (1968), which was a series of 6 vehicles sent to Vietnam in 1968 for what I assume to be frontline trials or troop familiarization. These vehicles were sent and arrived in Vietnam before the actual tracking suite was available and thus only had dummy radars, making them functionally identical to field modified M163s. These early M163s can be identified by the numbers 1 through 6 painted on the hull side.
Spoiler
The below video is of a demonstration involving these vehicles. You’ll notice that vehicle 4 appears with a radar in this video, yet can be seen without it in the first picture in my previous comment. You may also notice that, in the entire 22 minute runtime, not ONCE do these vehicles actually engage a simulated air target, instead opting to shoot at ground targets.
The only real issue I have with this specific candidate is that it would be completely copypaste, whereas the field modified M163 at least lacks the radar, giving it some very slight visual distinction.
4 Likes
+1
But I prefer the Soviet T-100 as tech tree equivilent of SMK.
I dont play US tree, but I think a mid tier AA is needed to make them Americans happy.
Thanks, that’s really cool! Maybe at 7.0? though that might be too optimistic.
Would you mind if I made this into a suggestion?
2 Likes
Were there any field mods to armor up the turret or similar on it?
Since it was used as a fire support vehicle on occasion you would think people might want to up-armor it as you often see with other vehicles.
Go for it. I’ve been meaning to make one for a while but I don’t have any time.
Not to my knowledge. Against small arms and rifle fire, the M113 is actually pretty alright in terms of protection. Plus, with an armament like this, they were likely used as a sort of “sweeping” weapon as opposed to direct fire support, though I’m sure they were used that way too.
7.3 at least I think. 15.2mm gun with high fire rate can be deadly.
1 Like
Yea for real, after USA sweden definetly could use some ww2 or early cold war SPAA
2 Likes
Can be, but range is definitely lacking. A little like the german triplet 15mm halftrack SPAA - very deadly up close, lacks damage and range further away.
1 Like
What’s that truck vehicle called?
I’ve never seen a name for it specifically, but it’s a halftrack (same as M16 MGMC) but with the turret from an Elco PT boat. 2x .50cals + 4x 20mms.
Generally called M2 Elco B-6, a similar turret to the one in the picture can be found in the game on the PT-556 premium coastal vessel but without the .50 cals.
Found a link with some info, quite barebones though: Car, Half-Track, M2 (Elco B-6) | FirearmCentral Wiki | Fandom.
1 Like
+1, US needs SPAA between the Duster and M163