I dont know why people are bringing up the guns+radar combo as being OP. its the exact same combo found on the 8.3 Gepard as far as I am aware. Just now has 4x Stingers.
The only reason the Gepard 1A2 isnt 8.3 is the 4x Stingers, which imo, are pretty bad.
as a santal regular, let’s just say it can be useful at times, especially against a heli hovering 2-3km away that can’t be locked because gaijin can’t be bothered with modelling seekers and IR signatures correctly
Edit : read that incorrectly, thought you meant gun + missile combo instead of gun + radar
Because you need to look at the full picture
Gepard 1A2 at 9.7
LAV-AD at 10.0
ZSU-23-4M4 at 9.3
Stormer AD at 10.0
so compared in that sense i think it is only fair the Gepard 1A2 is a slightly higher BR compared to the ZSU-23-4M4, it is just better in quite a few ways that matter, you may disagree with how much the BR increase is but to say it is on par or worse compared the the ZSU-23-4M4 is in my opinion based on nothing but vibes.
When you compare IR missile equipped SPAAGs to their missileless counterparts you see that universally they increase their BR by 4 BR steps so 1.3/1.4 BR
So you want Strela equivalents at 9.3 - 9.7 ?
LAV-AD has much better firerate and is way more consistent in hitting stuff.
Gepard only has 40 APDS split across 2 guns, LAV-AD can bring up to 2/3rds of its ammo as HVAP.
It also has many more Stingers which become very important when planes aren’t within the 2km that your guns work at.
Shilka’s missiles have thrust vectoring on launch, you don’t need to lead them.
According to you, it already is
Only thing that differs from the 8.3 is the missiles.
Also, good mobility? Really?
Leopard 1 hull is pretty decent mobility wise tbf
Compared to many other AAs it’s mobility is actually decent.
ZSU on the other hand has the mobility of a WW2 heavy.
yes according to me the current 0.3 difference between the ZSU-23-4M4 and Gepard 1A2 is fine because the Gepard 1A2 is just that little bit better, the guns are better, the radar is better, the chassis is in general better.
now if you want to make the case that most if not all IR missile AA is overtiered i am all here for that, they either need to be buffed in some capacity especially when it comes to targeting helicopters or they need to get some slight BR reductions across the board.
Also a gimballed seeker allows for some versatility beyond just the ability to lead the missile that a non-gimballed seeker just doesn’t offer even if the missiles vector out of the tube for example locking a target, engaging it with guns and then finishing it off with a missile when it is maneuvering to avoid the gun fire but granted this is a niche application. but being able to pick the angle of attack for your missile is in my opinion just as good if not better then having the missile pick its own vector immediatly.
In what universe does the gepard not have good mobility?
And yes the only difference between the Gepard and Gepard 1A2 is the missiles functionally for in game purposes. but what is the difference between the ZSU-23-4V and ZSU-23-4M4 beyond the missiles? and what is the difference between the SIDAM 25 and SIDAM 25 MISTRAL beyond the missiles?
All those vehicles get the same treatment, getting IR missiles ups the BR by 1.3/1.4
Now if you want to argue that is too big of a step up i am all here for it but the Gepard 1A2 is better then the ZSU-23-4M4 in most ways so it being a slightly higher BR is only natural.
still doesnt make them able to lob them over buildings, trees or to avoid hitting the ground agaisnt low flying aircraft, being caged is still a disadvantage, specially when it only really matters under 2km…
Because people keep saying it’s got good guns and radar and so should be 10.3
Those are irrelevant for it to be any higher than 8.3
Niche applications, move to a different position
yes… because every map have a better position where that doesnt matter…
maybe i’ve missed something but i have not seen anyone argue for it to be 10.3
9.7 is fine, it should be one step up from the ZSU-23-4M4 because it is a slight step up from it.
Like this guy.
It seems people keep fixating on the fact it has armour, guns, radar and “mobility” worthy of the 9.7 BR or higher, when in reality. All that is totally and completely irrelevant because that is all balanced at 8.3. The only thing that should be considered at 9.7 is the performance of the Stingers, which, imo, are useless 90% of the time, at least on the vehicles i’ve used them on. Even air launched ones such as ATAS from the Lynx. They just straight up miss a Su-25 barely turning at 4 or 5km away. Well within range
Yes. I remember when the Strela was 9.3… good times.
I’d say it was a bit too good times and this is coming from a guy that doesn’t like CAS.
Making Stingers on par or even better than 9M37M would push certain vehicles up to like 11.0 where they are going to be worse, relatively speaking, than they are at the moment.
People advocating for buffs don’t realize that would actually hurt them.
There just no way a stinger can perform as good as a full size missile. I mean kinematics sure, but overall?
I don’t know and can’t confirm anything.
I was just going off of reports from other people. They say Stingers should have 22G load with optical tracking and much better range against helicopters.