Because even if it could theoretically fire DM63, at 7.7 it will still be objectively worse as a light tank than the T92 and the M551(76) which sit almost a whole BR lower at 7.0 and can be up-tiered to 7.7 pretty effectively (i.e. that light tank gap doesn’t exist). However, the US actually has a massive SPAA gap that could be very effectively filled by this tank and complements SPAAs that other nations already have.
That’s a terrible idea. Gaps get filled by vehicles below the gap even if that gap technically exists. The R3 will perform just as well in an SPAA role at 7.0 without APDS as it will perform there with APDS. The only thing APDS would do is push the vehicle up in BR and give it marginally better tank killing capabilities. All you would be doing here is denying Italy a good low-tier SPAA in exchange for a light tank that would never get used.
If you’re salty about the weasel that’s fine. I’m okay with the weasel being lower in BR if they removed it’s APDS and thermals. The problem is that the weasel actually used DM63 and thermals which neither the R3 nor the XM800T actually did. Also Germany already has one of the most fleshed-out SPAA trees in the game and isn’t struggling between 5.0-7.0, so there isn’t a compelling reason to make that change.
LOL… I could not care less about the weasel, I just don’t like 1980s vehicles fighting early 1940s ones. gaps in SPAA at WW2 ranks are irrelevant as planes don’t significantly improve until they start to get CCRPs allowing them to accurately bomb at long range. Rather than adding modern SPAAs an lower ranks I would prefer to see the actual fire control systems and sights added to the heavier gun SPAAs to actually make them functional.
Except it was built as a tank, not an SPAA. In fact the part of the reason the project was scrapped is because it lacked sufficient anti-air to protect itself.
Do you know how broken the game would be if we went by date of service? That’s never been how Gaijin has balanced things.
What? There are massive differences both in terms of flight characteristics and secondary ordinance.
Completely irrelevant. Plenty of vehicles in game already have designations that they weren’t given IRL. The M18s are tank destroyers, not light tanks. This argument from realism makes even less sense since you insist that it be given ammunition it never used to justify its BR/role as a tank destroyer.
Edit: Plus, IRL designations are stupid. The F-117, for example, is designated as a “fighter” even though it was never intended to be used in a fighter role and its sole purpose was to be used as a strike aircraft.
I didn’t insist on anything, I provided my opinion, nothing more. and explained why I think that and gave examples of vehicles with historically in accurate weapons already in game.
But hey, you want to play the XM800T as a SPAA, go for it, let me know how that 20 degrees of vertical gun elevation works out for you. Like I already said its lack of ability to engage air targets is one of the reasons it never went into production.
I’m sure a tank that lacked the required anti air to be a scout vehicle will work great as a dedicated SPAA.
What is your source for this statement? I have found a variety of reasons that this didn’t make it: how expensive it was due to the turret, its limited transport capabilities, and limited cross-country capabilities, but not that.
Fair enough, but I will go with what’s in the game until it actually changes. the Maus in game STILL has has a turret rotation speed of 4.8 d/s while IRL it’s documented as “Capable of rotating a full 360 deg in only 16 seconds.” that’s 22.5 d/s.
Well, according to Hunnicutt the actual reason for it not being adopted was budget limitations. Other than that the XM800T performed well.
Secondly, if we assume the real deal-breaker was “lack of anti-aircraft” armament then that is self-contradictory. The source I posted earlier is from Jane’s themselves where they state a maximum elevation of 65 degrees, and traverse speed of 90 degrees per second.
If a stabilized 20mm cannon with over 1000rpm and excellent traverse isn’t sufficient “anti-air” for a scout vehicle, then IDK what is. Also, if we consider the other contestants in the ARSV program I don’t see what could’ve beaten it in this regard. One of them was a dune buggy with a TOW launcher, for crying out loud.
This is an external sight, commonly used for tracking fast targets such as aircraft.
Of the 4 companies in the program 2 didn’t even make it to the trials.
As the section I posted CLEARLY states “… did not happen for a number of reasons.” not “was rejected solely due to lack of AA”.
Its posable FMC bolted on an external sight to try to get the 20mm accepted as AA armament to try to get past that issue, but given that the pic you posted lacks an anti air grid I’m not convinced its anything more then an emergency back up. The prototype at Fort Knox lacks the external 20mm sight but has a grid sight on the 7.62 that the one you posted lacks.
Regardless this is all academic, Gaijin has already decided its going in as a light tank, what the US army thought about its AA abilities is irrelevant at this point, it will be able to shoot planes in game or it wont. As I already stated, if you want to play it as an SPAA in game and it works, go for it.
Maybe Gaijin will add the Lockheed XM800W as an SPAA later, who knows.
This one?
That would be pretty cool.
Also looking into it a bit deeper, while the XM800s didn’t get to continue development after its trials due to the reasons I mentioned, however it looks like both where accepted into a second round of testing along with a bunch of other stuff like a modified M551, the Scimitar etc. I had missed it as its only mentioned as a short note in the Janes book I have as it was published in Jan. 1976 and the testing wasn’t finished in mid 1975, so the final results hadn’t been announced when the book published.
So I guess your info is likely more up to date and there may well have been changes made to the design that didn’t make it into the reference I was using.
I knew Jane’s was not considered a valid primary source, but it not being a source at all is news to me.
That a scout vehicle should have good optics is not an outrageous claim either, so disregarding two different publications by seperate authors just because it was published under “Janes” does not seem fair.
I can’t find any sources about elevation limits, other than Jane’s, because there’s so little documentation available.
In that case, would you accept angle measurements of photographs as a source? Notably the photo of swimming XM800T. In that one you can visually see the gun is elevated more than 20°.
Ok this one is interesting. I actually found one source that claims it does, but most of the others I have seen don’t mention it at all, or just imply it.
The LRF was apparently integrated into the sight module on the right side of the turret. (source: “U.S. military tracked vehicles” (1992) Crismon, Fred. Page 262.
And in Hunnicutt’s “Bradley - A history of American fighting and support vehicles” it states that one of the requirements for the ARSV program was to have a laser rangefinder.
He never explicitly states that the XM800W or XM800T has or lacks this equipment. I think if the XM800T lacked LRF it would be listed as one of the reasons it wasn’t adopted.
