Your in an SPAA not a TD.
None of the SPAA should have APDS. They are anti aircraft not anti everything
I am sory but APDS is also an Anti-air ammunition due to the higher muzzle velocity.
The muzzle velocity increases the range that an Anti-Air gun can engage aircraft because the time between fire and impact is shorter so the plane has less time to manuvre.
The US tested APDS as AA ammo in the early-mid 1970ties and implemented it in the mid 1980ties on the PIVADS.
In addition self-defense of the AA was also standard requirement since the Gepard.
The DIVADs, the XM246 and M247 was intentionally designed to be fire support vehicles with a role to engage armored vehicles.
SPAA are anti-everything vehicles.
One of the main shells used by Gepard is FAPDS, Frangible Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot.
The shell is not yet in the game but depending on how its modeled should it be added itll act like APDS with more spall.
Spoiler
I think the point is that the Falcon was 8.3 because it could do decent damage. But now it struggles to do so, the 8.3 BR doesn’t make sense.
Should be 8.3 with APDS or not 8.3 without APDS.
The entire point of removing the APDS was so that it could sit at lower BR to the Marksman and Za35 but it didn’t move at all
this isn’t exactly new, the M247 used to have just solid AP, enough to go right through the side of T-72s, was a great tool to push back spawn campers, but they took it away and replaced it with the SAP-HE rounds which now is a gamble on how many rounds to over pressure the T-72 that’s looking right at you, don’t get me wrong, the SAPHE rounds still work on BMPs or even the proxy rounds can still kill the BMPs if you hit the turret as i found out my accident, but still, i still miss the solid AP rounds that thing had
They certainly aren’t tank destroyers, but often times, they were at least intended to be flexible. That’s why armor piercing rounds were developed and issued in the first place.
It makes more sense for SPAA to keep their AP rounds, than for those rounds to be arbitrarily removed in order to pigeonhole SPAA them into a very limited and unfun role.
I’m speaking broadly here of course since there certainly are some cases of SPAA receiving AP ammunition that they weren’t really intended to use, such as the Sdkfz.251/21, which I can get behind removing if it accompanies appropriate BR changes.
Yeah, it sky rocketed to 8.3 because it had the same APDS as the Fox but a far higher rate of fire.
Even the SAP is somewhat anachronistic, it was capable of being fired, but it’s not a listed round in the brochure nor secondary sources.
1 Like
Just mislabelled APHEI, which is very much listed in all OEM publications.
The in-game stats appear to match this one, but this isn’t a RARDEN round.
AFV Profile says it should be using RARDEN ammo. So this:
It’s most likely listed as HSS 831-L and RARDEN ammunition can technically be used in either gun, however the RARDEN ammunition achieves lower muzzle-velocities (1070m/s).
With the listed ammunition-types in primary sources however, it is clear that the HSS 831-L / Oerlikon Type KCB ammunition is intended.
Same is being shown by the 1976 BAEE catalogue;
Edit + Note:
Hispano Suiza (Suisse) essentially went bankrupt in the late 60s and was subsequently bought up/taken over by Werkzeugmaschinenfabrik Oerlikon-Bührle AG in 1971. Oerlikon thus also took over HSS subsidiaries, such as british MARC.
Hispano Suiza offerings (Ammunition & Guns mainly) were still being offered and sold by Oerlikon, albeit with sometimes slightly different specifications (The explosive filler in the HSS 831-L / Type KCB lineup was changed from TRINALITE to TORPEX (likely -2W) for example.)
Various cannons were also redesignated (HS 831 series → Type KCB, HS 820 → Type KAD and so on…)
1 Like
Same as for the OTOMATIC, it’s only a prototype. That’s why I’ve precised that ‘if’ it would have shot that APDS, it would be an anti-air and ground support.
It’s not a ‘try’ or any sort of. It wasn’t outrageous, it’s more or less an auto-canon with good pen at BR where the standard of tanks post WWII of less armor and more mobility.
The 1-4 ratio of APDS was often leading to death in some cases, when the first one fired was not penetrating or a miss, the enemy tank could use the time to move his hull, and get a shot on you. I’m not saying it was all the time; but it happened, especially when fighting T-54 and T-55’s, and when there was much more fully stabilized tanks at that BR (before The Great Decompression).
Now, the Falcon is for me the worst more or less radar SPAA; Guepard have a much better mobility, APDS, XM-246 have a terrbibly good survivability, Tunguska have a very good fire rate and dispertion, SIDAM… no SIDAM is worst. There is as well the PGZ-305 with the great HE-VT, …
If the ZSU-37-2 is at 7.7, I think the Falcon should be around that without APDS.
It’s the only one that never even shot one, even in the test phase. and ZSU-57-2 is far more different, it fights heavier tanks, it has no stab, a worst reload, and is terrbily not good at anti-air. the APHE is realistic.
It doesn’t mean it’s better, the caliber is higher (30vs 35mm), and those 40 APDS and slinged in 2.16 seconds from the 2 barrel of the Geprd, while the Falcon would take almost 8 seconds. Sending shells with such speed is good because you need to kill the tank before it can reacts, no matter how many shells won’t give significant damges; so a lower fire rate is actually wort in that case.
The part were the Falcon was better is it’s lower profile, and with a longer belt that could give you much more independancy from the battlefield and amo boxes. But in tem of cheer mobility and firepower, it wasn’t as good as a Gepard, or derivative. It was just a whole different gameplay, far from it’s original anti-air design.
If it was removed, it was because it was the paroxism of the irrealistic side of Wa Thunder that doesn’t care about doctrine, design, and all; so the one that was the best at it was the most hated. It was kind of the scapegoat.