2S38 to 11.0

Lack of stabiliser doesnt make it bad, talking from experience.
They also got nice sights with nice commander’s optics that i wish magnification for would keep on later T-series.
T-62 is bad tho.

Its pretty good but it sits overtiered, just like M26.

1 Like

Sure, exposing only turret is important. but it’s just as easy to hit the barrel and breach on both vehicles.
Hitting the regular part of turret in the CV9040C will disable crew, but that is “fixed” way faster than the barrel/breach.
So the only practical difference is that if you miss the barrel/breach, the 2S38 is unharmed and the CV9040C is stopped for about 1,5-2 seconds. In both scenarios they can fire back at you before you have time to reload and shoot again. If you are massively lucky you might kill the CV9040C if it has been hurt before and crew killed.

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

4 Likes

2S38 should go to 11.7

2 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?..

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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…

4 Likes

2S38 cannot pen frontally except weakspots either, and those identical weakspots the CV9040C pens.

1 Like

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.”

7 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.

1 Like

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.

5 Likes