3inch M5 AT GUN USA
8.8cm Pak43 Axis
85mm D-44 Soviet
Type 92 10cm Japan
On the top end we can really go strong/ premium potentially:
105mm T8 AT Gun USA
12.8cm Pak44 Axis
100mm BS-3 Soviet
10.5cm Experimental AT Gun, Japan
6 Likes
Id say we wouldn’t need those explicitly for T4/5. The British QF 17 pounder was in use in Tunisia and the American M5 shortly after
Plus they could add Heavy AA guns like the Flak 8,8 which were in use even in the early war that act as high velocity AT guns. Having these available no matter what BR would more dynamics to even early battles. For example, if they tweak BRs to be a bit more historical such as the KV 1 and 2 being early war, then it would give enemy teams another tactic of dealing with them.
2 Likes
Yeah those also work, either as interm designs or premium, event squads.
Generally with addition of more vehicles (APC/IFVs) and further heavy tanks Id like infantry answers that done exclusively rely on air/armor answers.
The 2nd pic really radiates the smug energy of “look how puny their guns are compared to ours”. I love it.
1 Like
Pak43 doesn’t belong to this category, the 3 inch M5 and 85mm D-44 only has penetration comparable to Pak40.
The Type 92 10cm has penetration of 175mm at 100m in real life. But I don’t know the penetration when using War Thunder penetration calculator. I don’t think dev will add a cannon that are not implemented in War Thunder.
Pak43 will fit in this category better than Pak44 since it has similar penetration compare to others.
1 Like
Adding heavy aa gun in every br may cause heavy aa gun spam.
Why even bother to use low br tank with tiny cannon and at cannon when you can build heavy aa gun with giant cannon that can easily smash enemy tank and infantry to pieces?
You will see heavy aa gun all over the place obliterating anything.
I would love Germans to be able to make Flak 88 emplacements instead of the AT gun and have the Flakvierling 38 instead of the current AA they have.
Flak 88 AA/AT gun.
Flakvierling 38 AA/AI gun. (AI - Anti Infantry)
I disagree
With now practically completely full matches and teams battles are more dynamic and chaotic. A heavy AA gun can only survive as long as it takes for you to piss off enough of the enemy to single you out, and even then revenge is usually instant. It’s only a matter of time
Different roles. A light tank can still perform its duties even with a Heavy AA around. And Heavy AA wouldn’t be shielded so you could easily take them out. It’s my job to kill the enemy, and the enemy’s to kill me. I’m never discouraged or demoralized. It’s like some would say why bother playing as a tank if there’s 100 different ways you can get blown up
With full matches I have seen more AT and AA guns than before, but even then I think we’d only see small handfuls of Heavy AA guns since it takes dedication and time to sit in the back and marginally affect the frontline. Plus you still need to have the majority of the team defending or attacking the point. At best maybe you’d have 1 around at any given time
Eventhen just like anything else they are not the end all be all of a match, they are just a piece. You could be the best tanker or AT gunner but your kills mean nothing if your infantry can’t defend the point, and people always say that well you can just lob HE at a point but I think they are overestimating their effectiveness. All it takes is a few waves of infantry to take a point
1 Like
As an engineer buildable, you can easily set it up again unlike vehicles.
Lol so you didn’t even understand my sentence. I am saying why would you use light tank when you have heavy aa gun that performs better than the light tank.
Lol remember people spamming light aa gun before? People are gonna spam it.
Because it is? Unless the point is big or else spamming HE is very effective. Moreover you are making a wild assumption that you always get shit teammates. In reality, spamming HE on point can compensate for their ineffectiveness most of the time.
You can easily control the amount of heavy AT/AA, make them cost 20 pts, for example.
THeyre also not mobile, so I have no idea how u compare that to a light tank, whose whole point is armored mobility.
Being lightly armored targets, now with trucks/APCs entering theater service, more soft targets will be avail for aircraft/artillery.
You can just use another squad if you run out of engineer resources.
How many people use light tank because of mobility? They use light tank because they have no other choice on low BR. People mostly use light tank for fire support like other medium or heavy tank.
You can easily lock heavy AT/AA like armor or aircraft behind a max cap.
Right now these assets are locked per player. This is simple to control IF even needed. To date no one seriously considers AA/AT to be a problem.
Re LT - good, so no point comparing them to static emplacements.
Bettter AT guns are needed for countersniping spawn camper heavy tanks at T5. Thats the chief goal of them.
Read what that guy said. He wants to add heavy aa on every br so he can use it to counter heavy tank like KV1 and 2 on low br. If limiting the number of it cannot achieve that purpose.
AT gun has limited arc of fire and often being glitchy. AA gun had already been nerfed by adding overheat and limit the depression.
I am not talking about this.
Great, nothing to add then.