It spells disaster for anything that doesn’t carry HE, especially Leopards, thing has this unmanned turret like the AGS when hull down you will not do significant damage with your apfsds.
The T-62 and T-54 has similar optic zoom level I think, but the T-62M1 has a really terrible ones like default 1x lol
One time I got Pradesh and after the range finder is set the lines on the crosshair are thicker than the enemy tank >1.5km away.
T-62 is bad for its lacking gun and reload, worse armour than T-54 and being heavier was the same engine.
Optics T-62M-1 uses is optic they use to guide ATGM, which is unlogical and it should be same sight they use as on T-62 but improved yet devs decided to go against logic.
They wont change it they denied several bug reports.
any 50cal mgs will destroy it, you dont even need to use your main gun
i have never destroyed a 2S38 with a 50 cal not even in the side due to the litte armor piece on the sides
5 Likes
2S38 should go to 11.7
3 Likes
Except the documents say 20-22g, and GJN just invented the 13g figure we have in game.
Funny how the Igla isn’t underperforming relative to the documents. What nation is that missile from again?..
2 Likes
Does the document say it’s peak or average ?
If the answer is no, you’re just guessing, just like Gaijin and at that point no one is in the right.
2 Likes
Neither. The documents I’ve seen have phrases like “manoeuvrability - 20g”.
So not only do they assume the western MANPADS are using the same “bang-bang” mechanism as the Igla (wrong), but they also only apply this bang-bang g correction to the documented overload of western missiles. Western sources claim the Igla is 10g, but GJN isn’t applying their “peak vs max g” penalisation for that one. What a coincidence.
It’s a pretty slam dunk case of RussianBias.
2 Likes
Because the Strf 9040 B/C can’t front pen a MBT unless it just lol-pens. Same for the Begleit, but it gets a HOT or TOW missile.
The data provided doesnt explicitly say average, but as the OP of the original main bug report points out in this thread:
It can be reasonably assumed to be average and not absolute peak G. It also falls in line with other available information about the Stinger and associated missiles.
So both you and Gaijin are just guessing and speculating what that document really tried to say.
Until one of the sides find a source that explicitly states it’s average/peak I won’t trust anyone’s guesswork and take sides.
Keyword here is assumed.
People are throwing dirt at Gaijin because they assumed things, meanwhile same people are doing just that on their own while thinking their assumptions are a holy grail and offer undeniable truth.
My assumptions are surely better than yours, me good, you bad.
You make an assumption ? bad, bad company
I make an assumption ? me good, me right
This is what I see right now and is honestly hilarious and sad at the same moment. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.
2 Likes
In every other circumstance, including with the Igla documents, whenever terms like “max overload, g, or manoeuvrability” are used, GJN has taken them to be the average g load in flight. The Western MANPADS specifically are the only time they’ve decided to implement this logic of “Oh surely they mean the peak g instantaneous g”. And as I said, it still doesn’t make sense that they apply that compensation for western MANPADS but not the Igla.
You keep ignoring the crux of the issue: that by definition they are introducing a double standard by assuming Western MANPADS documents talk about instantaneous g and Igla documents use average g. Neither you or GJN has provided any evidence for why there should be a distinction there.
If they want to assume it’s peak instantaneous g that’s fine. But be consistent, and nerf the Igla into the ground with the same logic. Quit with this “one rule for thee, another for me” rubbish.
You’re right, but not why you think…
5 Likes
2S38 cannot pen frontally except weakspots either, and those identical weakspots the CV9040C pens.
2 Likes
They also said why they don’t believe average load of 22G for those MANPADS isn’t possible.
This is one side’s belief against other side’s belief, I can’t really support no one here.
Then stop calling them out for assuming things and do that instead.
Constantly bashing them over making assumptions while you yourself are doing just that in order to disprove what they’ve said doesn’t look good.
All I could’ve seen in that thread was people latching on several keywords like “assume”, “think”, “believe”, etc. while throwing dirt at Gaijin for doing that. Being so aggressive over disputing things while you also have only assumptions to back up your claims is really bold.
Oh no, it is what I think.
People call out Gaijin for a specific action.
Same people proceed to do the exact same thing.
You wrong, me right.
They “believe” that the fin surface area is the only thing that matters, despite the Igla using the outdated and less efficient Bang-Bang controller for the fins, whereas the Stinger and Mistral use full PID. That isn’t a “belief” that is “sticking you head in the sand pretending there is no difference.”
8 Likes
Saying they can’t see how it pulls that many g is not valid justification. I have no idea how you’re trying to construe it that way.
Firstly, I literally call them out for their hypocrisy at every possible opportunity. Like how the 2S38 is undertiered because it’s a Russian premium. Secondly, the difference is the assumptions GJN are making are not reasonable. The only assumption I have made is that the Western documents haven’t lied about the missiles’ capabilities… Again, I have no idea how you can try construing that in any other way.
You insist we are making the same faulty assumptions as GJN, when we are not. Your argument is baseless.
3 Likes
I mean, if Gaijin can take Russian Companies documents as word, than surely they can take actual Government Documents, with information and data, as proof.
6 Likes
But that would make Western stuff much stronger (as they should) and russians would cry about that so nah. Gaijin have to hold russian bias.
By the looks of things both sides are just believing and taking guesses interpreting stuff how they seem fit.
As I said earlier, feel free to post any documents that are explicit in their claims, until then it’s basically an opinion vs opinion type of situation.
This is just your opinion, sorry.
Claiming something isn’t right and that it should be changed based on pure assumption isn’t a great idea.
That thing is decently balanced at 10.0.
Yes, it could go up by a notch but that’s the case with so many other vehicles in the game and is more of a compression issue than anything.
No one said they lied.
They just never mentioned if it’s peak or average load, meanwhile people here are taking that claim like it’s set in stone to be average load, which is simply a speculation.
Until you show me a document that states 22G is the average load you are making assumptions and are no better than Gaijin at finding sources.
I mean, your whole argument is based on something vague which you interpreted to suit your narrative. Are you by any chance a Gaijin employee lmao ?
1 Like