Self explanatory, which do you guys prefer
Personally I like the vulcans especially in deep woods
i've seen 2 vet 0 25 dollar vulcans turn back hordes of hinds and havocs if properly hidden and although their range is not amazing i tend to use them in a 3 pronged air defense with chaps covering the outside rolands for mid and vulcans for inner and it always seems to work very well but that just me

Me too I prefer Vulcans over Flakpanzers, for a few reasons :

1) The Flakpanzer M42A1 is a gas guzzler, whose only utility is to defend the FOB ; the basic M163 does this job as good if not better thanks to the impressive rate of fire.
2) The main AA I use is the M163A2, which is about as effective as the Gepard while trading the range for the rate of fire and a better fuel economy. I don't use the PIVADS a lot, but I suppose that once you have some spare points, it's clearly not bad with an accuracy of 8...

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !

I prefer Vulcans personally. They just shoot so fast!

_________________

Difficult question. When I look at their firing rates, it's 160 rpm vs. 1220 rpm and it makes me think "no comparison, Vulcans/Pivads all the way. But then real damage values, which are arguably just as important as rof, are not shown to us in the in-game unit stats. The Gepard, having 35mm guns, probably does twice as much damage, but it doesn't make up for it as Vulcans seems to kill much faster still. Also, the base model FLAKPANZER M42A1 shoots at 288 rpm, and has 40mm guns, so it probably has higher DPS than both the Gepard variants.

However, Gepards have 2.275k range as opposed to Vulcan's 1.75k range against flying targets (range against ground targets seems to be 1.5k for both), this combined with the fact that the Gerpard A1 has got a stabilizer, makes it a possible counter against helicopters shooting their rocket pods from maximum range whereas Vulcans can't too much about them. But then, Gepards, especially at their maximum range, damage helicopters quite slowly mainly due to their low rof. So when you're countering these helis with rocket pads with them, it's almost an even fight (mind you, the Gepard A1 costs a whooping 50 pts) and you don't want and even fight when you can almost instantly and reliably crush those Helis usings sams. At 50 pts, it's not a very good value when you consider what the 2K22 Tunguska does for 65 pts.

Yea, Vulcans/Pivads are teh winrar from my point of view as well. FlakPanzers are a good choice if you're planning on not using any sams at all, for some reason.

_________________

I always used the Flakpanzer for several reasons:

- The better range allows it to cause a threat to Helicopters.
- It still stuns rather fast
- For close range I can have a bad cheap version
- I have infantry to prevent helicopters from flying over forests.
- Much bigger ammo supplies

Because, basically, PIVADS & Co. are only good, due to their range, at ambushing enemies that approach to close to forests, and their ammo allows only two/three bursts. Sure, these bursts are almost sure kills, but you have to have an opponent stupid enough to approach, and if you are attacked on land you're pretty screwed.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

I use the vulcan due to the fact it's generally more viable than the Flakpanzers for general purpose use: the autocannons, having the same range against ground targets, have drastic differences in capability. The M136 can easily assist in clearing a forest, and it's cheap enough to be used as fodder whilst working to stun enemy tanks.

The PIVAD variant is basically like a Banshee screeching a 20mm death wail that kills anything unlucky enough to get close. It's not as good against air targets at range, but when they've closed in the vulcan going off is essentially game over for the helicopter. Against ground targets, it's deadly. In the first moments of the burst fire, if it's infantry, it's probably about to get stun locked and killed.

I think the Flakpanzer actually consumes less fuel than the M136, doesn't it? I'm used to these (Any M113) things being worse than the Abrams in regards to needing the fuel; the Abrams may suck it down a lot worse, but the M136 I swear needs more fuel (And more ammo!) than the Flakpanzer.

_________________

The M136 is the designation of the Swedish AT4 in the U.S. Army...

The Flakpanzer series has a horrible fuel economy, even compared to the M163 series based on the M113 series. The Flakpanzer Gepard and Gepard A1 are barely ok with a range of 600km while using 500 liters. The basic M163 has 300 km for 300l, while the improved versions can travel 500km with 350l.

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !

M163* Then, I rearranged two digits and completely forgot about the AT4.

As a whole, though, coupled with ammunition consumption, I think the M163 probably consumes more supplies over time, especially considering the rounds it brings with it are not nearly enough to last in a ground fight.

_________________

If you run into anything more than a few helicopters, you'll need to take steps to rearm th M163 the moment it starts firing. If you do, supplies will arrive at about the time the M163 runs out. It is a bit like the roland that way and unlike the chaparall. If you don't rearm the Chaparall the moment it starts firing, helicopters will just move past you, laughing.

_________________

That's an interesting question ; it would be good to know what's the number of hits on target necessary to bring down a 10 HP chopper in order to know what's the average number of choppers each system can shoot down, and at which speed.

According to the Big Chart, it takes 1183 liters of supplies to completely refill a M163A2.

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !