Like, they are just the exact same thing down to the overall armament, but the only difference is the PT-565 has a researchable option for rockets while the 314 doesn’t.
Those rockets are situational at best, so does that really warrant the 565 being at 3.0 (and fighting Jaguars and Erich Steinbrincks at worst), compared to the 314’s 2.3?
And to drive that point home, here’s a physical (and statistical) comparison between the two:
*The PT-314 is faster because it has been spaded; the 565 would have a similar speed
1 Like
PT-565 has a rocket launcher modification, being a minor change or not, rockets does have a decent effectiveness against vessels, this difference is fair.
lmfao have you tried using the fixed forward barely traversing pt boat rocket? They’re borderline useless. It’s dumb. It’s nothing like the Russian coastals that get traversing rocket mounts that can literally do drive-by rocketing.
6 Likes
Boat BR doesn’t make sense. No one plays these underpowered boats that gets blasted by pr 206 and Marne so Gaijin have no data to balance it.
3 Likes
Which is why there are a decent battle rating difference from these to another. If said vehicles were the same battle rating your argument of one is stationary and other can be independently controlled, this would be a issue. I personally can’t get your point.
One thing you forgot to take into account is that rockets can depend in size, and the stability of the platform they’ve been placed on.
Like Riker said, the rockets on the 565 are barely usable since they can very barely move, and from experience using the PT-200, their aim is very shaky because of the boat’s poor handling even in slightly rough waters. Even against destroyers, you’re better off using your torpedoes. The rockets on the 565 have a worse explosive output than even the Pr.1204 Late’s side-mounted rockets (which are also hard to use), and as such you’ll only get a couple of hits at best with them.
On the other hand, something like the MPK.204 is a very stable platform even in rough waters thanks to it being far larger, and its rockets can be aimed more precisely being swivel- mounted. Moreover, they are obviously more destructive being the same ones found in the SKR-7. At least that corvete has a valid reason to be at its BR of 3.7, unlike the 565.
1 Like
Because PT-314 deserve a 3.0, just cause other nations got their double 40mm Bofors with lesser sail speed, while not having Oerlikons and quadruple Brownings on 3.0-3.3. You could vote for BR tune up in the next BR changes update.
2.7 for both, and folder the 565 with the 314. deal or no deal
1 Like
The vast majority of the US coastal tree feels overtiered, if only by maybe .3 BR per ship.
Save maybe the LCS(L)(3), USS Dealey, USS Asheville, USS Candid, PT-59, and PT-812. Similarly I think the PT-812 should be placed below the PT-810 despite its lack of torpedoes because it is notably more survivable which just generally matters more in the majority of engagements as opposed to the situational ability to maybe kill bluewater vessels.
Also, just for reference, the three differences between the PT-314 and the PT-565 are as follows:
(spaded PT-314 vs. spaded PT-565)
- Max Speed: 46.5mph/74.9kmh/40.4kt vs. 45.6mph/73.4kmh/39.6kt
- Displacement: 51t vs. 61t
- Armament: The PT-565’s x16 Mk.7 127mm rockets, which notably are 22.27kg HE w/ 0.79kg of TNT filler.
For comparison, here are rockets from similarly rated coastal boats of other nations:
- RGB-12: 71.5kg HE w/ 32kg TNT filler
- RBU-1200: 71.5kg HE w/ 32kg TNT filler
- RBU-6000: 113.5kg HE w/ 25.5kg TNT filler
It’s honestly disgusting how Gaijin continues to endlessly shaft US coastal and unsurprising that you see very few people playing it at mid-to-top tier outside of people using premiums when they seriously think that 12.64kg of total TNT is worth a .7 BR increase which forces it to fight boats like the Schutze and Arras/Amiens by default.
1 Like
