30MM bushmaster tanks over BR’d

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
21

Because this is intentional. It’s 100% intentional and the way Gaijin wants it to be. Same for other stuff such as why PARS, SPIKES and co constantly land bad hits. All of the ATGMs are using basically the same code. The only different is the lofting value. Which for LMUR and KH38 is almost 4x what it is for PARS. They could fix this almost instantly. They don’t want to.

So NATO auto cannons overheat faster than Russian ones, fire slower, and have the same or worse accuracy. Because Gaijin wants them to.

5 Likes
22

i havent seen nobody get to spawncamping position in 2 minutes, in fact i havent seen nobody get to spawncamping but flanking spots at most, and they have low enough fire rate to react to a first shot turn around and shoot em, dragoon for example suffers of this

the begleit its really good, but not overpowered, the atgm its atrocious to say the least but you can at least pen stuff like MBT70’s, the gun its good but its still an AP shell not even APHE just an average AP with horrendous angle penetration, muzzle velocity and precision, the survivability its just about the same as a light tank, CUZ ITS NOT AN MBT, its a LIGHT tank

24

Map dependent, but totally doable if the map isn’t just a flat open field.

Which is why you aim your damn shots and ideally pick your fights as well. Even a single shot of 30mm APDS to the side is pretty damn lethal to crew unless it happens to be a russian MBT that simply makes your shells disappear 75% of time.

Ain’t nothing wrong with the ITOW, it’s powerful enough to simply overpressure a lot of tanks (30mm HE pen) and the damage is fairly consistent.

Sure, the angle pen is not great which does hurt it a bit. Not so sure about the precision though, the 57mm can hit small targets like exposed guns just fine at 1km range if it’s not just unloading at 200rpm.

Similar to many light tanks with the engine on the front, it absorbs shots very effectively and people do know how to use this. But this abomination’s specialty is the huge ass gun that eats up damage all day, particularly annoying if you are shooting from above

25

Oh obviously. They also gimped non Russian ATGMs. On purpose. By giving them way too low lofting values. Something that they quadrupled for the LMUR and KH38MT. It’s not by accident, it’s deliberate.

4 Likes
26

They need to buff their performance. CT40 is missing 43mm of penetration it’s dart is 200mm. Same with Western APFSDS, when they give their penetration values that’s normally at 1500m or 2km not the 10m that gaijin nerf them to. Sabotaged so much.

2 Likes
27

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the EFV to be 8.3 and the Dragoon 8.7?

28

If you want to move the badger to be moved to 7.7-8.0, sure.

29

Lower BRs kinda stop helping at that point cause you start see more 6.7 and 7.0 heavies. The reason going from 9.3/7 to 8.3/7 would be helpful is cause alot of 10.0-7 MBTs are near unpennable from the side.

30

Tbf you get large maps around that point and you could technically snipe with APFSDS with your therms and laser range finder

32

image
This example feels really backwards, like what can the 9030 do that the TML or IKV can’t do? Slowly shoot HE at drones and aircraft?

33

Better question outside of pen from ammo what can the 9030 do that the BMP-2MD can’t do or Leo Marksman lol

1 Like
34

They also overheat much faster than they should despite the lower fire rate compared to Russian ones and have the same accuracy as Russian ones. It’s kind of absurd and means most of them even the SPIKE throwers are overtiered. Some to a ridiculous degree.

2 Likes
35

Honestly, I think the Dragoon is better than the EFV. The EFV has nothing special that actually benefits it, and the Dragoon is just better.

1 Like
36

Bushmaster are ass because it takes forever to kill barrels, tracks etc.
If a MBT knows what you are, he will just push you and you wont be able to do anything about it.

Now someone might arguing it’s not the role of light vehicles to kill MBT’s. But other auto cannons absolutely shred barrels and tracks, which makes them a lot more viable to play.

2 Likes
37

The BMPT should be firing wildly all over the palce

1 Like
38

Was just thinking about this : why on earth is the chinese QN506 10.0 ??!

4 F&F missiles, ERAs, 330 shots/min autocannon, 20 rockets, unmanned turret, very mobile, IRST

Compared to all the other NATO 10.7/11.0/11.3 Spike/MMP missile IFVs…

Did they completely forget about that vehicle ? Do they only change vehicles’ BR when performance stats change (and as it is an event vehicle, stats don’t move that much) ? Or is there a real favoritism towards Russia/China in this game, with the BMPT LMURs and all ?

39

Lmao, these 2 things don’t deserve to be in the same sentence.

As for why it’s 10.0? Because it’s just bad.

Look at top tier China air and you will quickly see how much Gaijin likes them lol. (hint: not a lot)

Hell just look at top tier China ground, Gaijin had to bail that lineup out by adding an M1A2 to it to compete with the top nations.

40

Because the QN is awful, an absolute stinker. Straight up one of the worst high tier vehicles in the game.

It gets left behind by all other light vehicles, is barely able to shoot on flat ground, the gun is basically a downgraded version of whatever BMP3 has, it has total 200 ammo with 100 APFSDS so it runs out real fast, single shot to the turret usually cooks all the ammo, including all the missiles (this used to also kill it but now it’s not guaranteed), the small missiles are nearly useless and can’t fly straight without guidance. Oh and also it is extra visible thanks to huge commander sight on the top, which can’t be used for launching the chinese spikes.

41

Those are literally +/- the exact same with all the other spike IFVs, but they’re all 10.7/11.0/11.3.

is barely able to shoot on flat ground

Majority of NATO IFVs also have bad depression (edit about that: compared to their respective MBTs at their respective BRs. The QN506 is still chinese, and as every russian/chinese vehicles, it has a bad gun depression. But the chinese/russian MBTs at 10.7/11.0/11.3 also have a bad gun depression, but it’s not a valid reason to lower them to 10.0. It’s just not a good argument to lower a chinese/russian MBT, as the BMPs have a bad gun depression but shouldn’t be lowered because of that neither. Russian and chinese vehicles just have a bad depression, and counterbalance that with other advantages)

the gun is basically a downgraded version of whatever BMP3 has

Several of NATO IFVs have the bushmaster, which is literally way, way worse (slower in terms of fire rate, way less accurate)

it has total 200 ammo with 100 APFSDS so it runs out real fast

True, but some NATO IFVs like the Jaguar or the sweedish IFVs have limited first-stage ammo racks, which is basically the equivalent of not having enough ammo

single shot to the turret usually cooks all the ammo

Literally happens to majority of NATO IFVs, especially the Namers/VBCIs/Pumas/Freccias

the small missiles are nearly useless and can’t fly straight without guidance

But the vehicle does have them and they’re usable. They’re like tiny ATGMs x20, it’s great. NATO IFVs don’t have anything but the spikes. So it’s a plus, it’s an advantage compared to them (you can actually overpressure light tanks and easily pen lightly armored tanks like the Leos at this BR)

Oh and also it is extra visible thanks to huge commander sight on the top

Literally the same with the big ass NATO IFVs, like the Namers, Jaguar, VBCIs, Pumas, sWaTrgInf/Boxer…

which can’t be used for launching the chinese spikes.

Only thing to give the 10.0 BR credit for

So I’m asking again : why is the QN506 10.0, while it sucks as much as every other NATO IFVs which are 10.7/11.0/11.3 ? Plus, it has advantages compared to them, such as the x20 additionnal missiles, the faster fire rate autocannon, the unmanned turret (some NATO IFVs don’t have it), the mobility on ground (compared to the mobility on roads for wheeled NATO IFVs).

Doesn’t seem fair to me. Again, NATO suffers by a shadow buffing, China side.

@_Renzo Same answer, but I do want to add the fact that the QN506 IS more mobile than the majority of wheeled NATO IFVs, especially on non-road terrains, and it also have more traction uphill (which wheeled NATO IFVs should have, but simply don’t for some reason. That’s the whole reason NATO invented those wheeled IFVs in the first place btw).

EDIT : oh and, the QN506 gunner sight has a 4.0x–12.0x zoom, which is pretty good compared to some NATO IFVs, like the Namers (3.0x-10.0x zoom), the Jaguar (2.0x–8.0x zoom) or the CV 90 Mk.IV (7.2x–8.0x zoom) for examples.

There is literally NO REASON why the QN506 is 10.0 while those are 10.7/11.0/11.3. Sounds like big favoritism to me.

42

Not true, it has a 17.3 HP/ton. Most wheeled NATO IFVs absolutely dominate it in mobility. Only exception I would say is the M1296.

The QN506 is barely more mobile than the T-55, which already isn’t that mobile at 8.3.