I get the need for AAs to be able to protect themselves to some extent, but can we stop giving AAs APHE and APDS, it is artificially making these tanks into tank destroyers. I see Gepards and many other AAs spawning in, putting their radar down and going to kill tanks all the time. The primary function of an AA is to kill aircraft. The APDS should flat out be removed, and the APHE turned into just a solid shot.
4 Likes
I don’t see why it would be necessary to remove shells that these vehicles actually carry. Some DCA in the game have also been used more often or have been designed as anti-tank or anti-infantry (notably the ZSU-57 and ZSU-23-4M2)
7 Likes
Didn’t you just get this post deleted?
4 Likes
Those are just ap rounds, and I think that is acceptable. But things getting APHE like the Gepards and stuff like that is just stupid. And they have no need for APDS.
Because its fun.
5 Likes
Indeed it was. It was taken down because apparently it was spam or an advertisement…
Do Russian low-Br tanks really need concrete-piercing shells or shrapnel shells? Do all British tanks need HESH shells? The answer is no, yet these vehicles had them as a loadout and I see no reason to remove them. If the carryouts were invented or completely fanciful I would be for the withdrawal but since it is a real carryout I do not see the problem.
2 Likes
Where are the ADATS APFSDS, and stabilizer? Gaijin is always very inconsistent. As well as the M163 had the ability to fire a APDS.
If the bug reports have been made and they are sufficiently well sourced then these modifications will arrive.
Apds: it is a shell with a very high muzzle velocity.
High muzzle velocity means you reach target faster.
Reaching target faster means you need to pull less lead to hit a plane going very fast.
It is a similar logic taken to an extreme as why it is easier to hit jets with m3 50 cals in the f84 and f86 over the german me262 guns and similar.
High muzzle velocity is also why you use mgable bosvark over the skink and why you might use hvap/ap rounds over hei or hef-i.
Even just a 100-200 km/h muzzle velocity difference can be a massive help.
This is kind of the problem with spaa. To hit fast moving planes you need very fast rounds. Very fast rounds have very high kinetic energy. Very high kinetic energy that is aerodynamic and made of a material not shattering on impact means it penstrates armour as well.
… What? Do you even play the game man? APDS was designed to defeat armor, and does very little against planes unless they get direct hits on components.
Why is the main munition used by the gepard 1a2 i real life apds then? Because it increases its effective range significantly.
It uses a special apds that is optimized for shattering in a desirable manner (frangible apds).
Why does the thunderjet in game win head ons with hef-i carriers? Because api has higher muzzle velocity thus range.
Edit:
Apparently towed anti-air also uses APDS:
https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/ZU-23-2_Russian_23mm_Towed_Anti-Aircraft_Gun
Edit2:
Apparently shipborne APS/Anti-air also uses APDS:
And these are not modeled like that, they are modeled like traditional anti-tank APDS, if they change it to that, fine. Otherwise, it is a insanely cheap SP cost tank destroyer. Even if we are going to go that way, where is the M163s APDS? AAs if they are using the APDS designed for hitting light air targets, they should NOT be able to shred through MBTs.
Also, General Dynamics is not a reliable source, Gaijin mods said this, so anything from them is invalid apparently. This applies to ODIN as well.
One is a literal arms manufacturer, and the other is is literally cited by the US army’s official TRADOC website.
1 Like
Take it up with the moderators. I was told they are not reliable sources by them.
Can you articulate how these are different, or how you think these are different from normal APFDS?
FAPDS has similar penetration as normal APDS, if slightly lower. However, it has significantly higher post-pen damage (it breaks apart/fragments after penetration).
I am aware. I am curious what he thinks the difference is/would be.
They are BR’d for their most effective round.
APDS is vastly superior to APHE.
Removing APHE wouldn’t change their BR, but removing APDS would reduce their BR to their ideal anti-air role.