I highly doubt it would be OP with how bad the radar is. If it is, giving the M42 proxy and moving it up could be a good filler.
WZ305 has no radar but proxy and is 8.0 so…
But it also has extremely strong 150mm pen APHE shells, more ammo, better ballistics, and same firerate. it has more than double the M42’s AP-T pen.
Tbf it all depends on gaijins decision. Id like to see it but gaijin makes the final decision
They will probably just ignore this all
Maybe, maybe not whos to say
I don’t think the Mk.149 has been used for anything other than ground based SPAA
I’d prefer it if the radar on it just worked tbh
Ngl Gajin could do both. It could be a good 8.3 SPAA with APDS and useful radar, and an M42 with proxy could take its place at 7.7 or 7.3
I don’t think the M42 ever had proxy. There was a prototype with a tracking radar but it would be pretty bad since it didn’t even have automatic target lead
1 Like
I’ve seen people talking about it getting proxy irl, however info on M42 prototypes is very hard to come by. I’m not aware of any proxy shells made that would fit its chamber either.
If they did experiment with proxy then Gajin would probably be able to find info on it.
Finally, unless zsu-37-2 and veak40 move to 8.0, m163 should get any buff if it has.
Yeah Gajin putting ZSU-34 as equal with the M163 is absolutely insane. Gajin has some insane unexplained beef with America’s SPAA line.
Yes, Gaijin always believe the US can use air force to cover the ground, but they forget that 7.3-8.0 is the worst BR for US air force, not only on the ground.
1 Like
I believe the Mk.149 was only used on the M163 PIVADS and not the VADS we have in game. Don’t know what else was changed on the PIVADS though, but I’m surprised they haven’t added it yet.
1 Like
For the M197 it has the caveat of having to have the gun locked forward I think. (Tbh, I can see them ignoring that for gameplay it wouldn’t be too much of a big deal.)
The GPU-2/A is the gunpod, right? Iirc it is not cleared for use on any jet-powered fixed wing aircraft (and tbh may not be cleared for use on fixed wing aircraft in general) since the sabot petals would cause a lot of FOD on the aircraft firing.
2 Likes
I’d say 3.7-6.7 is far worse as all of America’s WW2 fighters are high altitude high speed BnZs that work pretty poorly for low alt dogfighting. The F-80 is a very competent dogfighter even against some prop planes.
Yes, it also uses the M197 gun as a light weight M61A1 variant.
It was cleared for the AH-1, A-4E / -F and OV-10 among others that it was tested on.
Specifies compatibility with all M61 and M197 gun systems, as the video states above the GPU-2/A uses the M197, and if you can fire them from the chin turret why not a wing station? The trajectory isn’t that different so sabot patterns should be similar.
Referring back to the tactical manual excerpt I’m not exactly sure what the GTK-4A/A would be referring to, it obviously can load the Mk. 149 as specified so must be chambered in 20 x102mm NATO / USAF (which rules out the Mk 4 Mod 0 gunpod since that uses 20 x110mm NAVY). I’d assume it’s since you wouldn’t want to shoot the gun barrel off the turret system. So if it was a gunpod it would make sense to also require the turret to be locked forward.
1 Like
My bad then, I was going off of information I had read and haven’t really looked into this kind of thing much. Thanks for clearing it up.