We have not seen the true potential of SPAAGs

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

TLDR: Almost all of them are missing their best anti-armor rounds. Some that have all their best rounds shoot at the wrong velocity and thus have underperforming penetration. Some that have all their best rounds are still artificially neutered by either forced mixed belts or tiny 12-40 shot limits of their anti-armor rounds.

The only guns not from early WW2 which I cannot find any information on better rounds are the 20mm Oerlikons found on the Skink and the ZSU-37/2 Yenisei.

America:

Spoiler
  • M19 & M42 Duster: The Bofors L/60 is Swedish in origin, and they developed APDS for basically every gun they made after WW2. This round is similar to the one seen on their reserve tanks, and would penetrate around 110mm. Also there’s nothing stopping usage of the 40mm APHE Sweden has either.
  • Skink: I have no idea if the 20mm Oerlikons have any better AP rounds. My guess is its highly likely they had APCR at least.
  • M163: known to be missing APDS rounds with up to 60-65mm penetration, comparable to the other 20mm autocannons that have such munitions.
  • XM246: As discussed in the recent thread on it, there is nothing physically stopping this thing from loading NATO standard 35mm APDS.
  • M247: No reason why the 40mm guns on this, derived from standard Bofors L/70 cannons, cannot fire their standard AP-T rounds (94mm pen) and APDS (125mm pen on L/70 Bofors, otherwise same shell as on L/60s)
  • LAV-AD: It’s using the same HE rounds as Bradleys have at slightly lower velocity, which would imply that the same APDS and APFSDS used on Bradleys can also be fired by this.
  • ADATS: also missing the same APFSDS the other Bradley derivatives get.

Germany:

Spoiler
  • All APCR rounds currently ingame have below-historical levels of armor penetration, and overkill-neutered postpen damage.
  • 20mm WW2 autocannons (Whirbelwind for example) still stuck with forced 50/50 APCR/HE belts years after that nerf ceased to have any relevance to game balance.
  • 37mm Flak36/43/44: their APCR rounds are completely missing, a similar shell to but not the same as the one on the reserve tier 37mm gun for the Panzer III B/E.
  • 30mm MK103: still suffering from an overkill 16-fold nerf to the APCR round’s postpen in addition to how globally bad APCR already is from all the way back in 2016. Also the use of the lowest possible estimation in its penetration at 77mm. Also the forced mixed belt of 2/3 HE and 1/3 HVAP. None of these nerfs are relevant anymore and all should be reverted.
  • 20mm Rh202: Several platforms are lacking the APDS rounds for no justifiable reason anymore with the massive proliferation of light tanks. The Marder A1- and Leo2K are the examples in the German tree with this problem. Giving the Marder A1- a functioning gun would not necessitate it going up, since the 8.0 also has Thermals. The Wiesel, Luchs, and similarly light vehicles at the same or lower BRs get these rounds, so there’s no excuse here…
  • 35mm Oerlikons: All are stuck with tiny 40mm emergency-use APDS belts, even though there’s really nothing stopping them from loading more.
  • 57mm Begleitpanzer: Known to be missing APFSDS on its main gun for years despite 2S38 having comparable shell since its release.
  • 30mm on the Turm 3: As this is arguably undertiered for what it can do, it should be given the Falcon’s APDS and punted to 9.0.

Russia:

Spoiler
  • The 37mm on the ZiS-43 and ZUT-37 are missing the APCR belt seen on the ZSU-37. The ZiS-43 would not magically club with said shell as its still just a truck. The ZUT-37 is a known seal clubber, and giving it this shell would punt it up to where it belongs, alongside a global un-nerfing of APCR.
  • 23mm AA guns on the BTR-ZD and Shilkas are missing APDS.
  • ZSU-57/2 is missing its APCR rounds, which would pen the same as the round on the T-34/57 Mod’1943.
  • ZSU-37/2: I have no idea honestly if APCR was developed for this gun, but as it was on its immediate predecessor the ZSU-37, it would seem likely.
  • 30mm 2A38(M): Known to be missing APDS rounds on both platforms. The BMD series fires the same ammunition, so it likely would be the same performance as that gets.

Britain:

Spoiler
  • All Bofors L/60s are missing APDS, already detailed above. Crusader AA Mk.1.
  • Ystervark: Same gun specs as the Rh202, thus its highly likely this is missing the same APDS belt seen on other platforms with this gun.
  • Crusader AA Mk.2 and Skink: Again, no idea if better rounds for killing tanks existed on 20mm Oerlikons.
  • Bosvark: it’s using Russian 23mm guns, thus they’re missing the corresponding APDS rounds detailed above.
  • Falcon: It’s got all its rounds, but is shooting at the wrong velocity - similar story to what was corrected with the Coelian this update. It does not have the same gun as the Fox, it has a longer barrel and should have higher MV and thus penetration, approximately 145mm on APDS. The APHE belt should also likely penetrate considerably more for the same reason.
  • ZA-35: Also missing Oerlikon 35mm APDS like the XM246 for no justifiable reason.
  • Chieftain Marksman: stuck with insulting 40-round limit on its APDS long after that nerf ceased to be relevant.
  • Stormer AD: Another 25mm Bushmaster missing APDS and possibly APFSDS seen on other platforms with the same gun, for no reason other than “its an SPAA.”

Japan:

Spoiler
  • 20mm Type 98: No idea if better rounds existed for this gun.
  • M19, M42, M163: same issue as American copies regarding missing rounds.
  • Type 87 SPAAG: same 40-round artificial limit for APDS as on many other 35mm Oerlikons. Especially egregious considering the Type 89 IFV has the same round on the same gun in limitless quantities.

China:

Spoiler
  • M42 Duster has the same issues as the US copy.
  • 25mm PG87: Missing APDS on its main guns, affecting the ZSD-63 SPAAG, the ZSL-92 light tank/SPAAG hybrid, and the PGZ04A high BR SPAAG.
  • WZ305: missing same APCR the ZSU-57/2 lacks.
  • PGZ09: same 40-round limit on APDS seen for most 35mm Oerlikons

Italy:

Spoiler
  • M42 Contraereo, L6/40 & copy, AB41, AS42: suffering from the same APCR nerf globally as well as forced mixed belts like the Whirbelwind, despite never being a “problem” once in its ingame existence.
  • Leopard 40/70: All Bofors L/70 guns are missing APDS with 125mm pen, and there’s technically no reason they lack the same APHE the Swedes get either.
  • R3 T20 FA-HS: Same gun dimensions and specs as the Rh202, therefore there is more than a good case to give it the same APDS rounds most other platforms with it get, and un-nerf its stabilizer. Then punt it the hell out of WW2 BRs like was done with the twin 106mm version.
  • Italian ZSU-57/2, ZSU-23-4V: same story as Russian originals.
  • SIDAM 25 & Mistral: stuck with the same 40-round limit on APDS as the much-deadlier 35mm Oerlikons get for no good reason. M113 chassis is a box with limited mobility and no armor to speak of, a far cry from the Gepard (Leo 1 chassis), ItsPv (Leo 2 chassis), or even Marksman (Chieftain chassis). Several IFVs get the same ammo in as much as they want in the same tree.
  • Otomatic: still stuck with 12-shot limit on its darts, in addition to global postpen neutering of all smaller-caliber darts. Totally forgot this one.

France:

Spoiler
  • AMX-13 DCA40: Same story as other L/70 Bofors regarding APDS and APHE.
  • AMX-30 DCA: Same story as Falcon, as its using the same gun.
  • Many high BR tanks use 20mm autocannons derived from the Rh202, fire the same ammo, but lack APDS much as the Leo 2K does. No justifiable reason here.

Sweden:

Spoiler
  • Lvkv 42 and VEAK 40: both missing APDS developed for and used by both guns. It is also questionable that the AP and HE rounds see a noticeable velocity and pen increase but the SAPHEI does not - likely this is not correct if I had to guess.
  • USH 204 GK: same story as other Rh202 derivatives in lack of APDS for no justifiable reason.
  • ZSU-57/2: nothing new here, same as other copies.
  • ItPsV Leopard: Stuck with same 40-round limit on APDS as other 35mm Oerlikons long after that old nerf ceased to be relevant.
  • Pbv 302 BILL: I pity whoever can attempt to play anything with 48mm pen APCR at 8.7…

Israel: nothing unique here, nothing to mention not already covered elsewhere.

Note: I may have missed something, please correct me if I did and I’ll add it to the list.

4 Likes
2

Only… But… I have here is that this might result in BR increases where they are underpowered in their primary anti air role (some probably already are) and increase the voids we already have.

Essentially the falcon but for everyone. In terms of AA, it would probably be 7.3? But because of it’s AT, it’s 8.3, where it really doesn’t belong (in terms of AA)

As it stands. I’d kinda like nerfs for a few SPAAs or a second variant added with more limited loadouts so they could be at a lower BR and potentially fill gaps.

They need to be balanced. Good enough in self defence that they aren’t just a free kill for anyone flanking, but not so good they are the strongest AT vehicle at that BR resulting in BR increases.

As it stands, for example with the Stormer AD, I’d prefer a stinger buff over a gun buff at this time

4 Likes
3

Snail places too much emphasis on AA-TD ability in determining their BRs, and has listened too much to whiners in the past screeching any autocannon melting their sides is automatically “overpowered.”

Unfortunately if you do that, you run into the same problem as seen with other AA that lack anti-armor ability - people do not use them correctly at all and thus your team is still defenseless when you need to swat CAS.

The community’s definition of “overpowered” needs to have any mention of “SPAAG killed mah tonk!” forcibly ripped out while they’re kicking and screaming for it not to be. AA-TD mode must be fully normalized and accepted, by force if necessary.

Fixing actual bugs with how autocannons work and interact with volumetric armor should be done.

Both are needed, I merely included it because it was just one example of the blatant hypocrisy afflicting AAs.

1 Like
4

In fact, a better alternative to prevent the unnecessary uptiers of these AA while simultaneously allowing players to use better shells would be variable BRs…

Or, just don’t give any powerful AP shells to these SPAAGs whatsoever, but then add separate vehicles with the same guns to use said shells on. For example, the M42 can get APDS while the M19A1 will not, allowing for one AA and one TD role vehicle.

1 Like
5

Incorrect. The 3,7 cm Pak and guns use the 368g Pzgr.40, however the Flaks use the 405g H-Pzgr./ Pzgr.40 Flak with 1150/1170m/s.

1 Like
6

There is no such documentation to my knowlege.

1 Like
7

Neither were in US Service. To my knowlege.

Not by Russia.

2 Likes
8

Or force-feed AA Ersatz TDs to the whiny community until they choke on them and accept they aren’t going away any more than the autocannon light tank IFVs will. Copy-pasting the same machine without the better rounds only adds another worthless vehicle that cannot defend itself effectively and if it gets used at all, gets used very incorrectly, thereby being a waste of time to even model, let alone add.

Thank you for the corrections.

If the round exists, and its the same damn gun, and the round existed in the same time period, it should get the round.

While not an AA gun, I feel the exact same way regarding British 6-pounder cannons getting M86 APHE.

And those things have such horrifically bad pen and postpen that even at 8.0+ with all the light tanks running around they aren’t particularly threatening. Nevermind the Bosvark using the same guns.

The same argument could be made with the various ZSU-57s and its APCR, technically speaking. I care more about gameplay than historical accuracy in cases like this.

9

Yeah, it’s pretty dumb they screw over the Falcon because it has APDS. It’s an spaa with modest speed and armor compared to many opponents in the 8.3+ BR range.

Moving it from 8.0 to 8.3 really does nothing to impede it’s ability to kill tanks, and makes it more difficult to perform it’s core function - shooting down CAS.

It was never designed as an spg, it was supposed to have a modest ability to defend itself against ground targets. See excerpt below from details on the Falcon, along with link to source.

“With its high-velocity armor-piercing rounds, the Falcon would be more than capable of engaging light armored targets such as armored personnel carriers (APCs) or soft-skinned vehicles, as well as infantry. If nothing else, the high volume of ordnance spewing from these high-rate-of-fire guns would heavily suppress an enemy force.”

10

Most of these are not missing ammunition. Just because a gun theoretically could maybe fire a type of ammo doesn’t mean that it should be added when the user nation never owned nor operated it. On that matter, a number of vehicles have ammunition that they shouldn’t. The most egregious example in my opinion would be the XM800T which has APDS that was never used by the US and also didn’t exist at the time of the XM800T’s development.
And of course there’s the issue of the BR and gameplay impact of artificially buffing the anti-tank capabilities of anti-air vehicles.

11

I don’t think they should get high power AT ammo, we have enough mobile autocannons, we don’t need more that will make other proper tanks less relevant. They also shouldn’t gain added TD capability because it will result in BR increases that push them above their BR in the AA role, while also adding more gaps in TTs that won’t be fixed. Look at the Falcon, Kugelblitz, AMX-13 DCA, R3 or AMX-30DCA and you’ll see some examples of TD SPAA balancing negatively effecting the AA capability of a nation in a BR range.

Some AP ammo is always needed because you need to be able to defend yourself, but SPAA shouldn’t be better in an AT role than non autocannon tanks.

12

I did not say to copy paste the vehicle, but rather to provide an alternative with the same gun(s), meaning that there would at least be another option if the player wished to experience a weapon with specific anti-tank ammunition.

Also, I personally do not believe that an AA’s ability to defend itself against ground attackers should affect its placement in relation to anti-air duties. Of course there are many AA such as the M163 that could easily stay at its current BR even with new APDS shells, but this is not the case for every example you provided.

13

But the Falcon is undoubtedly fun to play in anti-tank roles at the same time, hence it’s notoriety. With one of the two changes I suggest, the Falcon would either:

A. Have two different battle ratings, dependent on whether or not one equips its APDS ammo.
B. Be complemented by a second Falcon (such as this version that presents notable differences and can be foldered underneath (or vice versa), or perhaps another vehicle fielding the HSS 831L (surely Britain or one of its subtrees can provide this).

14

Or just stop weighting TD ability of SPAAGs so heavily. It sure seems like it takes way less effectiveness to move an AA up in BR than it would any other type of vehicle.

As the game dispensed with timeline limits many years prior, it is better and fairer for everyone if "could the gun in question fire said shot, and did said round exist when said gun was made and/or used?

It is also HIGHLY hypocritical to allow light tanks with autocannons to do what they please but then punish SPAAGs when they so much as start to do even a fraction of what is normal for the light tanks with autocannons. As autocannon lights have only proliferated more and not been punished really at all, there is no right to punish SPAAGs for the same.

Something about the Snailgorithm weights SPAAG tankbusting too heavily. But as we do not have access to what its thresholds are, let alone the global stats its using to balance in the first place, we are unable to ever suggest it gets changed.

Part of me would want to see all these changes and intentionally not move the AAs much. To punish the whiners who got us in this mess until they cry themselves to sleep and grow a set.

It’s only been a few days since the Coelian’s change, and surprisingly there isn’t much in the way of complaining in actual matches about it. People are learning to shoot the damn turret. I firmly believe that while yes such stubborn [insert expletive of choice] will whine, it is essential for game health to intentionally ignore such people.

1 Like
15
  • Incorrect Ammunition in Game
    VEAK 40 and Lvkv m/42 currently use L/60 shells instead of the proper L/70 rounds.
    In-game muzzle velocity is 850 m/s, far below the historical 1000–1025 m/s.
  • Ahistorical Ammunition
    SAP-HEI rounds currently available on these vehicles are not historically accurate.

Bug report: Community Bug Reporting System

No record of it using APDS has been found.

nr1. Its not even classified as an Light Tank despite it being an IFV, somebody just slapped a RB 56 launcher on it. Therefore it doesent get scouting despite its armament being. sub-optimal.

nr2. It should have access to: APCR-HEI-T 20 mm slbrhpgr 95

Bug report: Community Bug Reporting System

3 Likes
16

Tbh the M163 could’ve greatly benefited from the APDS before it got downtiered to 7.3 since it offers a very significant range improvement (4.4km compared to 2km of the full caliber shells)

It is very weird that the Machbet still doesn’t have access to it though despite its gun being so low range it’s basically useless against anything above early jets

1 Like
17

This is you responding emotionally because you don’t like the idea that these SPAA can be used effectively as objective winning, fast moving, hard hitting vehicles that objectively can be some of the strongest vehicles at their BRs and only cost 80sp. I don’t see why else you would lash out at people who don’t like the current state of balance. Saying you think something isn’t balanced does not make you a “whiner”.

This sounds cringe not gonna lie, refer back to me saying you are responding emotionally.

Oh, so now it’s not whining if somebody points out that the SPAA are overperforming because of the problems with their small caliber aphe overperforming due to volumetric? (And while you didn’t mention it, overpressure?)

2 Likes
18

Cough, Cough Yak-9K Cough, Cough

3 Likes
19

Better idea, give them their missing anti air functions such as lead calculators/ gyro sights etc. so they can actually do their job of killing planes properly.
The last thing large caliber SPAAGs need is more uptiers due to their tank killing abilities, when they already struggle with planes at their BRs.

this would require the APDS belt being a selectable/de-selectable mod. to prevent people queuing with HE belts for lower BR then swapping back, but there are quite a few vehicles that would benefit from such a system.

4 Likes
20

Well that’s interesting. How much armor penetration would the rounds get?

Could any L/60 Bofors fire the shell, though? Did any L/70 Bofors fire the same shell with modified cartridge to fit the bigger gun?

Sometimes concessions must be made for gameplay - having a gun with postpen so abysmally low that you struggle to kill a single light tank makes for a vehicle which only gets used for memes. Or if its used as an “AA,” it gets used incorrectly for what WT demands (sitting in their own spawn rather uselessly).

Very interesting - so would this “APCRHEIT” functionally be some sort of APHE at the end of the day? Or is it more an APCR round with an HEI immediately behind it that follows the APCR into the same hole?

I never said that the SP cost could not go up, man. I have just realized over too many years of experience in this game that for any SPAAG to be remotely effective below radar tier, it HAS to be GOOD at tankbusting so it can reach useful locations on the map to then intercept CAS from.

An AA which sits in its own spawn signs its own death warrant as all CAS knows exactly where to look for it.

An AA with no good TD potential bothering to move outside of its own spawn also signs its own death warrant.

Do you not see the problem here? The way current gameplay is set up is demanding AAs do two polar opposite jobs, yet punishes the ones actually effective at both.

I see a blatant hypocritical double standard towards SPAAGs going on, yet Light Tanks with the same autocannons in some instances get a free pass.

Other than the Kugelblitz, Coelian, and Skink, all SPAAGs below radar tier are open-top. And other than a couple which currently have nearly-nonfunctional postpen on their guns, most SPAAGs do not have insane mobility relative to regular tanks at their BR range.

I’m sick of the default reaction to anything new or different seemingly being “its OP, nerf it!” Even if whatever such people complain about gets obliterated, they don’t suddenly stop complaining - they just blame something else when they die and claim whatever that was is automatically “overpowered.”

Most people think SPAAG killing their tanks is automatically overpowered simply because its an SPAAG. This is “whining.” The moment it would be “fixed” by either butchering the “offending” SPAAG or uptiering it to uselessness, the same people would go complain about something else and never stop. Repeat that nonsense enough times, and soon nothing works consistently anymore.

Bugs enabling said SPAAGs to penetrate stuff they shouldn’t are separate and legitimate issues. This is not “whining.”

I have seen too many things utterly destroyed that in some cases still haven’t recovered since being destroyed in years prior, and want to see that “nerf cycle” broken at its whiny source. For example, the Kugelblitz. Belt composition still neutered long after nerf was not relevant anymore. Penetration neutered to the lowest possible estimate for no good reason. Postpen of the APCR still artificially shafted to be identical to the much smaller 15mm APCR since May 2016 where it was nerfed 16-fold in response to whining about the Horton 229. Even after we got proper counters to jets like that in the form of radar AA and proxy HE shells - those old “balancing” nerfs were never reverted. Examples like THAT is why I automatically bristle at the mere idea of “nerfs for balance” alone.

I have proposed in other threads to make lead calculation on SPAAGs, Heavy AAs currently classed as TDs (88mm Flak Truck for instance), and SPHs with HE-VT rounds a Crew Skill feature. Stock crew gets a 1km max range lead marker when looking at a plane. This can be increased up to 1.5km with an aced crew.

Is this an arcadey “solution”? Yes it is, but the equally arcadey reasons SPAAGs without radar struggle to swat planes are so basal to the mode that they will never change (mouse aim and 3rd person camera benefitting planes far more than SPAAGs). SPAAGs also usually acted in groups to defend things and thus often had multiple emplacements firing at a single plane - ingame we have either one AA vs one plane or multiple planes vs one AA. It’s the same story as why Bombers in Air RB are so weak.

1 Like