On a serious note, I’m really happy to hear that! Thanks a lot!
Not only a nice elevation, you also get a 90°/sec traverse to go with it
1 Like
Me rn:
1 Like
Sounds very nice.
Does that mean for both horizontal and vertical, or only vertical/horizontal ?
I think the M114 would fit that role/BR better
It would be the US equivelent to the Japanese SUB I-II
2 Likes
Yes, both horizontal and vertical :D
Why? The XM800T is basically an R3 T20 with less mobility and scouting.
And a high speed stabilizer + APDS
The stabilizer alone drags this vehicle up to 7.0 at least
Edit: R3 also has stabilizer but only at low speed, meaning you can’t make use of its mobility as well as the XM800T could
What is the penetration? APDS means nothing unless it has high penetration.
(edit: especially if it’s placed at Rank V which is dominated by heavy tanks)
Also stabilized 20mms means absolutely nothing. Again- the R3-T20 basically comes with a stabilizer in practice
They might implement this one as SPAA one
A full stabilizer allows you to circle around the enemy while shooting accurately even at the highest speeds.
The combination of mobility + stab is incredibly strong, because then you don’t have to slow down and become vulnerable to get shots off.
I’m sorry, I edited my previous comment to correct this. The R3 does have a stab, but only a low speed one. It cuts off above 15 km/h IIRC? Or something like that. The difference between limited speed stab and full speed one is significant.
I also don’t neccesarily agree the XM800T is slower than R3. Tracked vehicles are generally superior in War Thunder due to consistent performance on the various terrain types. It also has a ludicrous HP/ton ratio and great top speed.
Also talking about BRs, the R3 is 6.0 right now. The XM800T is superior in almost any metric, and it just cannot be 5.7 without being severely gimped.
Again, I think the M114 fits the bill much better for a low to mid tier SPAA. It is less mobile and lacks stab so it would fit right into 5.7 without any compromises.
I like the XM800T as much as any of us, but we still have to be reasonable when discussing balance. If we suggest that a vehicle should be 1 to 2 BRs lower than it really deserves then people won’t take the discourse seriously.
Remember the Fv721 Fox drama? A 5.7 XM800T would be a repeat of that.
2 Likes
Thats amazing.
Type 87 RCV(P) is a stabilised 20mm with DM63 APDS and that is 7.7.
1 Like
And the XM800T gets a lazer rangefinder unlike the 20mm Type 87
I’m not ruling out the possibility that the RCV(p) might be slightly overtiered, but a good example nonetheless.
Very comparable vehicle
I think a good starting point for XM800T BR would be 7.3, and subject to go up or down from there
1 Like
Again… on a 20mm cannon. Play the R3. It doesnt perform well against medium/heavy tanks- and that’s good, it’s an SPAA. Even past the speeds that the R3’s stabilizer is supposed to work at the gun stays on target easily.
Maybe. At this point it’s speculation. However in my experience wheeled vehicles have better mobility on the majority of maps. As of now, the XM800T has a significantly lower top speed, and that’s assuming it ever reaches it which tracked vehicles often struggle to do.
How is it superior? The only thing it has over the R3 is that now it will get APDS, which they just never should have given it. Are we going to give the R3-T20 DM63 too and move it up to 7.7? That would suck… The SUB should just be a lower BR given its poor mobility. Again, a stabilizer on a 20mm cannon is absolutely meaningless.
Ok, I realise now that it’s been a while since I played the R3. I’ll see if I can get around to it, and then I’m open to change my mind.
It’s speculation, definitely. We’ll have to wait and see.
Though one drawback to tracked vehicles that comes to mind (and is specific to War Thunder) is the “R”-word. I’ll say it… here it comes…
Regenerative steering
The lack of it, that is. (I hope I didn’t spook any technical staff)
I can’t write a detailed comparison now, but there’s a few things that come to mind. I’ll get back to it later. (Hopefully)
Why not? its hardly the 1st time Gaijin has given a vehicle a weapon that it “could use” but historically didn’t, or not given one something it actually had in the name of balance, the F-4F Phantom getting AIM-9J and the F-4EJ KAI not getting AAM-3s for example. This things gun is a licensed copy of the 20mm Oerlikon KAD which fires a 20×139 mm round, identical to the round that the Rheinmetall Mk 20 Rh-202 uses.
Maybe they should, Its an SPAA and Italy has a gap in its SPAA line up from 6.0 to 8.0 (well there is the ZSU-57-2 at 7.0… but how many people use that thing to shoot anything but tanks?) so give it the reverse treatment of what they did with the VEAK-40 and its 40mm VT shells that it did not use, but would have used if its development wasn’t canceled a few years before they went into production, by removing them and dropping its BR they helped close the massive gap in Sweden’s SPAA tree from 4.3 to 8.7.
And frankly the only real difference between the weasel and the R3 is the APDS, otherwise its a matter of if you prefer thermals or a stabilizer on which one is better.
Oh and the R3 has an extra 15 deg of gun elevation making it a far better SPAA then the Weasel IMO.
1 Like
Sepv3 would be huge wth are you saying
Its apcr. Arguably worse than a 50cal