Please add a French SPAA & US between 6.0 to 8.7

[Sigma boy]

Please add a French SPAA between 6.0 to 8.7. US also needs one but they have more CAS than France does.

[Chaoslink]

Originally posted by Cop Unit 12:

Originally posted by Toblm:

That a lot of words talking around the fact that none of the vehicles substantially fill the BR gap. You gave a list of side-grades.

Let me do a shorter more direct reply then. The USA during and shortly after ww2 only really experimented with the M45 quad mount or the M33 twin mount or 40mm bofors or the m2 browning. The ONLY thing the USA has currently ingame are super exposed, highly vulnerable that have ZERO protection for the crew AND ammo with either m2 brownings or slow firing 40mm bofors. There is NOTHING else that would be a 100% fit for a 5.7 SPAA that everyone is scrambling over because of the Radar or missile systems on Vietnam prototypes - vehicles.

US doctrine revolved and still does around controlling the skies via fighters. Static AA - towed was considered the fallback thus SPAA's were considered sufficient during ww2 and Korea due to lack of hostile air over ground units.

So with all that the BEST thing to "FIX" the gap is to add more options for players and see how it goes. This is why I view the T52 MGMC and T77e1 to be what would fix this issue the best. YES they are using the same weapons as what is currently being used BUT they have the advantage of being enclosed which in war thunder is a massive boon to SPAA's.

It's a no win situation with a DIRECT 5.7 spaa but a enlcosed 4.7 or 4.0 spaa is better then a super exposed and or poorly armed SPAA for 3 br's.

Yeah, that’s the thing, Gaijin isn’t in the business of making new vehicles from scratch. They try to use things that actually existed, even if they were just ideas on paper or never got past the prototype stage.

US doctrine was always about air superiority. Since we often had such, there wasn’t a need for anti aircraft vehicles much since any aircraft that did exist had to face aircraft designed to counter them. There just aren’t many options to consider really and the ones that did exist are already in game. There is nothing to full the 4.0-7.7 gap as nothing was ever developed to fit in there. Same concept as why there aren’t many WWII era heavy tanks for USA, they just never needed them.

So, there’s nothing that existed to fill the gap, meaning there will always be that gap. Fight aircraft the way the US did, by spawning aircraft of your own. It’s really the only option aside from what we already have in game.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by Cop Unit 12:

Originally posted by Toblm:

That a lot of words talking around the fact that none of the vehicles substantially fill the BR gap. You gave a list of side-grades.

Let me do a shorter more direct reply then. The USA during and shortly after ww2 only really experimented with the M45 quad mount or the M33 twin mount or 40mm bofors or the m2 browning. The ONLY thing the USA has currently ingame are super exposed, highly vulnerable that have ZERO protection for the crew AND ammo with either m2 brownings or slow firing 40mm bofors. There is NOTHING else that would be a 100% fit for a 5.7 SPAA that everyone is scrambling over because of the Radar or missile systems on Vietnam prototypes - vehicles.

US doctrine revolved and still does around controlling the skies via fighters. Static AA - towed was considered the fallback thus SPAA's were considered sufficient during ww2 and Korea due to lack of hostile air over ground units.

So with all that the BEST thing to "FIX" the gap is to add more options for players and see how it goes. This is why I view the T52 MGMC and T77e1 to be what would fix this issue the best. YES they are using the same weapons as what is currently being used BUT they have the advantage of being enclosed which in war thunder is a massive boon to SPAA's.

It's a no win situation with a DIRECT 5.7 spaa but a enlcosed 4.7 or 4.0 spaa is better then a super exposed and or poorly armed SPAA for 3 br's.

Edit: To add to this, these are made prototypes. They are not 100% fake like the tiger 105 or panther 2. So outside of a fake vehicle or allowing the T249 Vigilante with it's ground ROF and advance radar to be at 6.3 there is practically nothing. Perhaps a towed aa gun but even then.

Don't need a TLDR. I read it. I am absolutely aware of why the US SPAA gap exists.

The listed vehicles dont fill the gap. And being enclosed while a mild advantage isnt worth being placed 2 or 3 BRs above the effectiveness of their weapon systems. Particularly when the enclosed turret is often based on light tanks such as the M24. Being .50 cal proof doesnt count for anything at a BRs where all useful CAS planes have cannons.

[nuke]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by Miles "Tails" Prower:

For USA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T249_Vigilante

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46_Mauler

Neither of which really fall in the SPAA gap.

Mauler is radar guided missiles. If the radar and the missles function it cannot be lower than the 7.3 M163. If either the radar or the missles are not effective, its of no value at any BR.

The Vigilante is radar guided 37mm rotary cannon. The 7.3 M163 is a 20mm radar guided SPAA.

Lowest they could feasibly be placed at is 7.3. Doing exactly zero to close the US' SPAA gap.

the vigilante has like 4 seconds of fire

[Toblm]

Originally posted by nuke france:

Originally posted by Toblm:

Neither of which really fall in the SPAA gap.

Mauler is radar guided missiles. If the radar and the missles function it cannot be lower than the 7.3 M163. If either the radar or the missles are not effective, its of no value at any BR.

The Vigilante is radar guided 37mm rotary cannon. The 7.3 M163 is a 20mm radar guided SPAA.

Lowest they could feasibly be placed at is 7.3. Doing exactly zero to close the US' SPAA gap.

the vigilante has like 4 seconds of fire

And? Its not really anything about the mag size that dictates the BR in the Vigilante's case its the radar guidance and the caliber. If you need more than 200 round to drop a plane (guided or not) you opened up too early or are leading very poorly.

Its functionally a Marksmen/Gepard. It would not be below the M163 in BR. It might be equal, but not below.

[Chaoslink]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by nuke france:

the vigilante has like 4 seconds of fire

And? Its not really anything about the mag size that dictates the BR in the Vigilante's case its the radar guidance and the caliber. If you need more than 200 round to drop a plane (guided or not) you opened up too early or are leading very poorly.

Its functionally a Marksmen/Gepard. It would not be below the M163 in BR. It might be equal, but not below.

Just like with planes, I often only need about 20-60 rounds to shoot down an aircraft and that’s usually dependent on how many guns the vehicle has. I think my best was 7 in one reload of the M16. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve had just 150 or so rounds left in a fighter and shot down at least 4 planes before running out. You don’t need much.

For SPAA, if you need more ammo than what you get in a single reload, you need to work on your aim. The only exception might be the high caliber stuff as they’re a bit harder to use for closer range aircraft, but they’re designed for shooting level bombers typically, not fighters flying fast and low.