Why is the AMX-30 S DCA 8.7?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1

With the same guns and ammo selection as the stabilised 8.3 Falcon and less pen than the 8.3 Chieftain Marksman (which also has a radar and a full APDS belt) whilst also being a higher BR than comparable radar-equipped SPAA (most of which are 8.3), why is the AMX-30 DCA at a higher BR of 8.7. Is it more capable in any way (e.g. radar) than similar vehicles like the Gepard?

The other posts about this topic contain a fair amount of anger/take a far more aggressive tone and don’t really get answers as a result (understandable when they all cry “gaijin hates us”), so if anyone could clear this up I’d very much appreciate it.

2

This should explain it:
image
Thats a total of 300 rounds of APDS in belts combined with SAP-I

1 Like
3

I think because it combines the best of both worlds

It has high pen, and it has a radar (falcon doesn’t)

Compared to marksman it has APHE and not APDS, so dealing with a soft target is also more efficient i’d say

4

I’m not very experienced with using mid-tier SPAA for anti-tank roles so can you please clarify how that’s better than the Falcon or Marksman when both have dedicated APDS belts that don’t include SAP-I? (Sorry if this is dense, but all of my prior anti-tank experience has been in the DCA 40 at a much lower BR)

5

Well compared to the Falcon you have radar which gives you much better situational awareness against aircraft and with the reason SPAA changes you can now do automatic lead compensation from the radar view. Compared to the Marksman you have much more APDS, the Marksman only has around 40 rounds and you have to switch between this secondary belt and the main belt which takes you a second and your guns are much closer together which makes it easier to aim for weak spots.
Compared to the DCA 40 you should have better mobility; quicker side shot kills due to APHE and three times the fire rate and of course the radar.
The combined APDS plus APHE belt makes you more lethal against more tanks (Soviet) from the side.

6
  1. The DCA is significantly faster than both
  2. The APDS belt on the Oerlikon 35s is limited to 40 rounds, it can help but its not even the most effective round for AT work (which is why you can find Za-35s running around despite not having APDS)
7

I love Falcon and DCA, but the .3 is worth it for the radar over Falcon. The closeness of the barrels and the rounds available (aka not relying on ammo boxes to reload your measly 40 rounds of APDS belt multiple times during a battle), are worth the .3 over ZA-35, Chieftain Marksman, etc. Additionally, while the Falcon is nice and compact and much easier to hide than the DCA, the DCA much more mobile than the Falcon.

Overall, it’s fine at 8.7. It’s also worth using in your lineup at 9.3 even when you have Santal in there (since some situations you’ll benefit from the anti-everything-autocannons over trash-tier anti-air-missiles).

1 Like
8

I see, thanks. At the risk of getting annoying, can I ask why the ZA-35 is a lower BR than the AMX? (because it doesn’t get APDS?)

9

Probably

1 Like
10

And yeah, this is key. This is all of us really spitballing why there is the .3 difference. Gaijin sees something in the statistics to warrant the .3. Though, I know a lot of French players would love a mention of the ‘French tax’, how French players are so good that they get taxed in BR ratings.

One thing I’ll say about the ZA-35 - much better SPAA than Falcon, but oh boy… that radar is the size of 10 football fields. Trying to hide that thing is a mission. Sometimes you’ll get nuked just by someone loading HE and lobbing it at your exposed radar. Otherwise, yeah, it’s very mobile (wheeled) and on a light chasis.

1 Like