The Falcon APDS removal feels like a massive double standard

[Pokrisen]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to talk about the recent nerf to the British Falcon. Completely removing its APDS belt honestly feels unfair, especially when we look at how other SPAAs are treated.

Right now, the Falcon is pretty much defenseless against any medium or heavy tank. With only 53mm of penetration left, you can barely scratch them. I understand that developers don’t want AA vehicles to act like tank destroyers, but then why does this rule apply only to a few select vehicles?

Look at the Gepard. It still keeps its APDS belt with a whopping 127mm of penetration. It can easily shred MBTs from the side without any issues. Why is it okay for the Gepard to destroy tanks, but too toxic for the Falcon?

Or take the ZSU-57-2 at its own Battle Rating. That thing does absolutely terrifying things to ground teams with its high-penetration AP rounds and massive explosive filler. It dominates tank battles, yet it remains untouched.

This creates a huge double standard. If we want a healthy game balance, the rules should be consistent for everyone.

I see two fair solutions here:

Option A: Bring the APDS belt back to the Falcon. If needed, just limit the number of sub-caliber shells per belt, or adjust its Battle Rating.
Option B: Be consistent. If the Falcon had to lose its anti-tank capability for the sake of “pure AA gameplay,” then all other similar SPAAs (like the Gepard and Type 87) should lose their high-pen sub-caliber rounds too.

Let’s make the game fair for all nations, not just a chosen few. What do you guys think?

[Circleati]

pretty sure they removed the apds so that they didnt have to put it up in BR even further or something

“[access to] shells are a primary balance means” or something

[_QAQ]

i think gaijin should move the Falcon back to 7.X and remove the Radar cuz it seems unrealistic?

[Circleati]

@_QAQ

remove the Radar cuz it seems unrealistic?

how does it ‘seem’ unrealistic?

[Beeschurger]

@Pokrisen

Right now, the Falcon is pretty much defenseless against any medium or heavy tank. With only 53mm of penetration left, you can barely scratch them. I understand that developers don’t want AA vehicles to act like tank destroyers, but then why does this rule apply only to a few select vehicles?

you still have APHE? pardon, SAP-I as it is named. just fire at enemy tank coupolas.

@Pokrisen

Look at the Gepard. It still keeps its APDS belt with a whopping 127mm of penetration. It can easily shred MBTs from the side without any issues. Why is it okay for the Gepard to destroy tanks, but too toxic for the Falcon?

see this is precisely why people know you have NO clue what you are talking about and you really shouldve spent 5 seconds thinking about it beyond “muh gepard has APDS but falcon doesnt”.

most gepard-esque 35mm oerlikon armed SPAAs do have APDS belt. Its a backup selfdefense belt with 20 rounds per gun.

just before its removal, APDS on falcon was part of the main belt (and correct me if im wrong but pre-2020 didnt falcon have full APDS belt at 6.7?). If every fourth round in falcons main belt was APDS, that brings us to 85 APDS rounds per gun.

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

@Pokrisen

Look at the Gepard. It still keeps its APDS belt with a whopping 127mm of penetration. It can easily shred MBTs from the side without any issues. Why is it okay for the Gepard to destroy tanks, but too toxic for the Falcon?

It had that IRL
For self-defense

Also, its aps is limited
Falcon had APDS, HE and APHE in the same belt

Not to mention apds isn’t what makes the Gepard op

[CodyBlues]

How is it a double standard? The Brit’s have their own version of the Gepard with APDS belts(which you only get 40 btw)

[Morvran]

I dont agree with the whole argument, but I fail to see why the Falcon is still at 8.3, and not more like 7.7.

Which would then help mitigate the void we have in the SPAA line.

[Thodin]

@Pokrisen

With only 53mm

Almost all German SPAAs except Kugel und Zerstorer are capped with 49 (most) to 64mm (Wiesel) pen. You will manage. Expecially at this BR range, alot light vehicles around.

Edit: Ofc Falcon BR should go down.

[Morvran]

Uh…

Kugel is 6.7
Kerstorer is 6.0

Falcon is 8.3

Not really a good comparison

[Thodin]

Main role is probably anti air. ZSU-57-2 is just 7.0 with terrifying 150mm pen APHE / double barrel. The ZSU-37 is 3.3 or something with 90ish mm penetration. There are many of these examples. Gajin doesn’t seem to balance SPAAs according to their ground pen. If you check TT, you will find very high pen SPAAs (some even around 100mm pen) at rather low BRs.

So anti ground doesn’t seem to be Gajins man concern when finding BRs for SPAAs.

[Morvran]

Except that is the only reason the Falcon is currently at 8.3 and not more like 7.3/7.7 alongside the M163

Stormer AD and LAV AD probably should be more like 9.3/9.7 if you factor only their anti-air ability. Alongside SPAA like the Gepard 1A2

To a certain degree, I think the Stormer HVM is still at 10.3 because of how effective the Starstreaks use to be at taking out light tanks.

Its also the only reason I can think of as to why the ADATS isnt more like 11.0

[Thodin]

Is the Falcon stabilized? Mobile? Flat and small silhouette?

Maybe thats why. According to the pen it should be lower, thats right. Maybe Wiesel-like BR. Monsters like the ZSU’s should be much higher. Also that Czech Flakbus Russians got. Frenchies also have 100mm pen SPAAs tormenting WW2 brackets. Many more. Examples. Falcon indeed seems to get similar treatment as alot German units got in the past. Alot community hate make Gajin to do irrational things. I really think its possible its current BR is as high cause of its dreadful reputation as tank killer. A thing from a past, but nonseless…seems to matter.

[Thodin]

@Morvran

M163

TBH, I think this thing should be 8.0 at least. You get a target point for air units and it just wrecks at 7.0. I often have matches where one M163 clears the sky of everything. 6.0 to 6.7 is WW2 BR range with lotsa props and conventional bombers. At 7.0 this thing is allready looming, brrrping everything out of the sky with that radar guidance. Its too low. Dunno what Gajin did there.

[Morvran]

@Thodin

Falcon stabilized?

Yes

@Thodin

Mobile?

Average for a tank around that BR, but slow for a light tank.

@Thodin

Flat and small silhouette?

Not really, smaller than stuff like the Gepard, but I think larger than the M163 and much larger than the Wiesel>

[AspectOfTheRAGE]

Falcon uses twin Hispano Suiza (Suisse) HS 831-L cannons (redesignated to Oerlikon Type KCB post aquisition), which are single-fed.
Thus, each gun only allows for one belt to feed it, unlike the 35mm automatic cannon type KDA, which is dual-fed (and all ingame vehicles using this cannon either have or should have [XM246] auxiliary belts for sub-calibre rounds)

Mixing sub-calibre ammunition with full-calibre ammunition will pretty much never work, as the ballistic differences are too great to achieve acceptable hit-/kill-probabilites (if you do 1:1 mix, then half of your shells will always be guaranteed to miss).

This aside, Falcon has never been specified with the ability to use the RARDEN 30x170 APDS-T shell, solely a APIC-T (Hispano Suiza Type RINT or Oerlikon Type HLC) was specified, which is essentially HVAP but with incendiary filler in the nose-cap.

Even here, it’s questionable as to whether it could be used in mixed belts. I do not have the muzzle-velocity figures for Oerlikon’s 30x170mm Type HLC & HKC shells, but the Hispano Suiza Type RINT shell has a muzzle-velocity of 1100m/s, higher than the 1080m/s of the other types.

However, since Hispano Suiza did not list ballistic-charts for the APIC-T shell, I cannot tell for certain as to whether the use in mixed belts would be plausible (even though it very likely isnt)

At the same time, the use in full-belts, while unlikely, may have been possible due to the presence of a 13g incendiary charge in the nose-cap.

(This is the only picture of Oerlikons’ version I could find. Another version, designated HKC-078 is listed in their 1987 standard targets publication but without further details.)

In any case, the presence of APDS on Falcon, especially in mixed belts, is significantly more ahistorical than its’ removal.

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

Given the nature of it, at 8.3 it warrants apds. If it dropped, removal of the ammo would be fine. Not good, but fine.

[Jarms]

Gotta love how the Falcon is now worse than the Chieftain Marksman in practically every way except size, but still has to share a BR with it.

[_Mr_Fahrenheit]

@Morvran

I dont agree with the whole argument, but I fail to see why the Falcon is still at 8.3, and not more like 7.7.

Exactly! Remove the radar, and push it back down. It’s not like Britain has a hole in that particular part of the BR thanks to Gaijin’s “bALaNce”.

[Der_Zerkquetscher]

the apds in the standard belt (and not limited to 40 rounds) simply was too strong vs russian medium and heavy tanks. cant have that. Especially not when its a british vehicle. A vehicle thats not high/top tier from the british tech tree with an actual usable shell type? can u imagine that? unthinkable. should have hesh for its 30 mils-gaijin, probably.

But, srsly, wasnt its strongest point vs most light and medium armored targets (and those with the glaring weakpoints like the m60s commander cupola) that arent russian in that br range the aphe rounds anyways? so taking the apds away hurts its effectiveness vs which vehicles the most? and which nation at that br range has most of these?