And what I posted was a 2A90
1 Like
I wouldn’t exactly call a 48% winrate with a 1.1 K/D and 1.2 K/M ratio ‘‘Dominating’’.
Gaijin cares about statistics, and the statistics for the 2S38 are dreadfully poor. I haven’t looked up the stats for the Harrier GR1 but I suspect they were significantly better.
2 Likes
- Nice you don´t understand the issue at all. Even Gajin states that the 2S38 is a “attempt to transform the platform into a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun” but classify the vehicle as a Light one. It`s the very same bullshit classifying a Wiesel 1A4 as SPAA.
- I must be more specific, the reload speed for the ready rack is in comparision to the 40mm system identical. Usually if the shell is bigger the reload speed for the ready rack is higher.
2S38 is a exception of that “rule”. Otomatic got 4 times longer reload for having a shelld twice the size. - The 2s38 should not be able to switch shells as quickly as a 2-belt-feed-system. Such a system could have the desired shell in the second belt ready for loading. A single-belt-system should have a bigger reload time, if you choose a different shell.
- You`re right.
- It does matter very well since PUMA has a similar HE-TF shell as well. 2S38 gets HE-VT instead, PUMA does not, so just plain russian bias.
- By Br0.7 too low… Lvkv should be Br. 10.3 - 2S38 Br10.7 - Otomatic Br11.3.
If the Otomatic overrated and should drop down to Br 10.7. But in the current stat the 2S38 is better than Lvkv and worse than Otomatic.
2 Likes
1- So why do you want to buff the 2S38 by labeling it a SPAA?
2- 2S38 isn’t anywhere close to an exception to the rule.
3- Leclerc says hi. It’s not unique.
5- Irrelevant since HEVT is 9.3 round.
6- The only reason why 2S38 would be 10.7 is if HSTVL goes to 11.7, Strf 9040C goes to 10.3, VCC-80/60 to 10.0, and Begleit to 9.7 in order for fairness.
1 Like
…Other than the multitude of arguments made.
Arguably an 8.0 round since the WZ305 has the exact same proxy shell.
2 Likes
The VCC-80/60 is abysmal even at 9.0 xD
It’s literally a 2S38 at 9.0 with a slightly lower first stage reload and inferior thermals.
3 Likes
i have to agree with sanguin here, 80/60 is probably the worst tank in that br range i have ever played. Not even in the same ballpark as 2s38.
1 Like
gimme gimme spaa classification less spawn points needed to spawn lmao
1 Like
Are you saying you want the 2S38 to be an SPAA?
And the Bagel Panzer is also an exception, I guess.
That’s what happens when you have light ammunition with modern systems.
That’s a great point! Single feed autocannons shouldn’t be able to switch ammo types freely.
Make a bug report.
The PUMA doesn’t have a proximity-fused HE shell. The 2S38 does, and IRL it has 3 different shells to choose from… One is a guided shell.
Russian bias, though, right?
The OTO I’d say would be perfect at 11.0, with the Lvkv at 10.0 and the 2S38 at 10.3.
1 Like
It’s a 2S38 with worse gen thermals, inferior survivability, 2s reload instead of a 0.5s reload, much worse gun elevation with no IRST, and much much lower ammunition pool. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
2 Likes
Also the darts don’t deal any post pen damage.
1 Like
Both seem to fail at dealing any post-pen damage, just that the 2S38 can fire 3 more shots while the VCC reloads.
@SanguineSerpent
Identical survivability, no armor for both.
2s is a bonus more than a negative.
It’s anti-tank, gun elevation and IRT is irrelevant.
Oh, I see you’re here to insult everyone and defend the 2S38.
1 Like
You’re completetly forgetting the crewless turret Alvis.
Fuel tank on the 2S38 explodes only half the time. Other times it shall just absorb shells completely or at least partially.
You’re saying that any additional features that make a vehicle better is irrelevant. This is completetly not true.
Something with IRST is ALWAYS better than the exact same thing without IRST.
The VCC has proxy, so IRST is very useful at making a vehicle like this into an actually decent SPAA for the BR.
Strawman argument.
2 Likes
In what world is having a longer reload a ‘bonus’ more than a negative?
If you’re going to say ‘so that you don’t run out of ammo nearly as quickly’, then that’s on the player for using the reload so recklessly. A faster reload is always better, as you have a greater option of how to use your ammo (whether it be in quick succession or slowly).
The VCC is easily more survivable than the 2S38. I’ll give you the rest, but the 2S38 is literally just an OHKO ammo carousel in the middle and all three crew up front. My most played BR is 10.0 and I one-shot them 99% of the time.
The VCC, on the other hand - has a heavily sloped UFP covering a large portion of its frontal projection, and a turret that will block 30mm APFSDS. From the side - it’ll also survive a front shot where there’s only the driver (and a frontally mounted engine - which also helps absorb 20-30mm autocannon shells from the front), while the 2S38 dies when shot almost anywhere in the side - considering the front of it is 3 crew perfectly lined up while the middle is a massive carousel that will kill it instantly.
The 2S38 even has a bit of ammunition stored in the turret and will die when shot there, as well:
I can’t believe I forgot to mention it when talking about how the unmanned turret is barely an advantage. It’s not just the horrible gun handling that will make it show its hull more often than not - but you CAN kill it through the turret, even. Jesus. No wonder I never found them very scary.
2 Likes
Happened to me maybe once, out of hundreds of times - that the fuel tank absorbed my shell entirely without doing any damage, and I had made a poor shot where my shell went at an angle to the other side of the vehicle, instead of the middle, where it would have hit the carousel and killed it.
Whenever I was using a vehicle with an autocannon - the 2S38 was also destroyed essentially instantly because the fuel tank was gone momentarily.
So, that’s unfounded.
I do agree that IRST is absolutely useful, especially considering the VCC also has proxy. So it is definitely relevant, I would say that you are correct on that.
And lastly, that’s not what a strawman is. He’s not explicitly changing the meaning of your post, he is implying that you’re making out the 2S38 to be a lot better than it actually is, which is true.
And I forgot about this. I don’t understand how anyone can even bring up the crewless turret at this point when it’s already been repeated multiple times that the advantage of the crewless turret has been completely neutered due to the poor design choices of the 2S38.
An example of a crewless turret that actually has merit would be the AGS, or the QN506, or the Vilkas, or the PUMA.
The reason why is because the QN506, Vilkas and PUMA all have built-in systems to save the vehicle in case of ammo explosion. The 2S38 dies instantly regardless. Along with all of the other arguments made surrounding it, such as the gun handling, height of the vehicle, ammunition stored in the turret… I would personally be ashamed to even mention it, yet here you are.
it could probably go up to 13.0 without anything changing much