Play the Fox and stay happy
Seal clubbing is quite boring, if I enjoyed it, I’d play my KW-IC (the German KV-1), or the T14 for America.
Don’t get me wrong, I like I good flank & spank tank, but if it can absolutely wreck an entire enemy team at the start of the match, what was the point in playing that match to begin with? It’s a predetermined loss at that point, which leaves to more people 1 life leaving.
So then should the BMP 2 go back to 8.3? You don’t have the mobility, you get a smaller main gun but it’s stabilized, and I’m pretty sure you get the same atgm.
They leave because of these factors:
- full uptier
- grind
- spading
- team Blue is in real team Red
1 Like
Not how that works, but okay.
Well, no. If the fox doesn’t get nerfed, then the BTR should be buffed. As I’ve said “THEY ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR GUNS” yes, the fox has a minimally bigger powder charge I’m sure (depending on how full they pack the case, Russians usually pack the case super full). And barrel length is, less than 1/3 of a meter longer than the BTR, but I think they’re accounting for the muzzle brake or flash hider on the fox as apart of the barrel.
I generally do way better in full uptiers for some reason, and in full downtiers I swear I’m out of the match asap, especially when little things like a fox can hide in a corner of a building on a city map, after I’ve driven for 45secs, then he’ll kill my driver / engine / gunner, or straight up kill me in one hit.
Leaving early for the “grind” doesn’t make sense, you get better rewards the longer your in no?
Spading requires kills, caps, assists, etc… so they should stay in the game longer. They should have backups.
If the Fox is truly OP, you’ll do better in it than all your other armored cars with autocannons.
If not, you won’t.
It’s how I can say Jagdpanzer IV is OP; if anyone fact-checks me they’ll see my performance in it is above and beyond all other casemates I’ve played.
APDS stands for Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot.
It is not a bullet
2 Likes
Sigh… it is a bullet, scaled up. It doesn’t change no matter what kind of bullet. A battleship fires a “shell” which is a bullet no?
It uses powder charges / etc to fire them, just like a bullet…
For example, shotguns shells have various types, one being Flechette, which can be a bunch of little darts, or a bunch of little APFSDS like projectiles, but it’s not called a cannon :)
Nearly 500 posts debating if the Fox is OP when the real problem is German/Russian SPAAs with APDS and APHE rounds they never actually used IRL.
2 Likes
I mean, you aren’t wrong in that aspect either, like the ITpsv being at 8.7
but but… you aren’t trying to nerf a british vehicle into the ground!!!
no… it isn’t a bullet, nor is a shell fired from a battleship a bullet. what is wrong with you.
You’re completely missing the point. He’s not saying that lighter rounds don’t travel further he’s saying that a heavier round traveling faster will retain better energy and penetrate more compared to a lighter round traveling slower. Lighter rounds do generally lose more impact energy over distance than heavier rounds. I.E. why 62 gr 5.56 outperforms 55 gr at distance in terms of penetration and energy.
The Rarden is a heavier projectile traveling 200 m/s faster, it is definitely going to penetrate significantly more. This also isn’t surprising considering the Rarden has around 60 mpa higher chamber pressure than even NATO 30x173 cannons.
No. That is not correct at all, the heavier projectile will lose speed more rapidly, especially with the increased downward force by gravity X weight.
A heavy projectile, may (key word) have been close penetration, but based on the velocity, mass, shell makeup, etc, they should definitely be preforming rather closely to one another.
As I said before. The total difference is not large enough for an 28 pen difference, perhaps somewhere between 12-16 pen difference.
2a72: 94-98
Rarden: 110
At 0-100 meters
Which, the weight being higher for the rarden (according to that photo previously posted) means it should actually drop off more rapidly for pen. (I can’t see the In game stats right now).
I never mentioned velocity. ENERGY AND PENETRATION. It’s actually funny you responded with that table because the author of that table and article concludes what I am saying that the 62 gr projectile provides more energy.
“ While the averages were better for the 55-grain rounds, it’s safe to say that anyone who needs stronger energies from their .223 cartridges will be better suited with a 62-grain product.”
He also points out the only reason the 55 gr averages were better was because of a drastic outlier for 62 gr lowering the average.
You’re correct that it is a minimal difference but the heavier projectile on average still retains its energy better (not velocity). Scale this up to 30mm and add a 200 m/s (656 fps) advantage to the heavier projectile and the result is a much larger penetration and energy gap between the heavier and lighter round.
hey guys why does M111 not pen the same as M900 they’re both 105 shells /s
1 Like
That should mean anything with M900 should be moved to 11.7 and M111 should be buffed and not increased in BR.
Comparing Winchester to Winchester, the 55 grain is the faster projectile.
-yes the 62 grain will deal more damage within 100 yards,
-outside of that, the 62 starts to steadily decrease with the 55 minimally decreasing.
Also, it is not confirmed the Fox’s actual barrel length, because, I can only assume, the flash hider (muzzle device is being counted in that factor for previous estimates).
And, if you look at both, the BTR definitely looks to have the longer barrel.
Velocity / energy are inter-changeable.
Who has tested the Rarden other than the Brit’s?
As I have not been able to locate a source, other than the Brit’s which says the Rarden barrel length / velocity.
I have found many examples of the BTR however, which all have the same answeres but one. All say (960m/s with a 2.416m barrel length.)
The other thing to consider, is powder type & charge, most (not all) Russian ammo holds a higher pressure charge than other ammo kinds.
from memory
Belgium, Ukraine, Latvia, Honduras, Jordan and Nigeria all have or had Scimitars armed with the Rarden.
Malawi and Nigeria still have Fox’s afaik too
most seem to say 2.44m for the barrel length 3m plus for overhall length.
Basically, there is some material suggesting it has 90rpm, and there are clips of it firing at definitely more than 80rpm. Problem is, none of that’s documented. So we land up back in the same place our beloved Chally 2 is in: pretty sure something is the case, but unable to prove it by Snail’s standards.
Please also explain why the RARDEN has such an excessive dropoff in penetration compared to the APDS on the 2A72 while we’re on the matter.
This is like Cluedo, you can suspect all you like, except it’s not worth a damn if you’ve not got the evidence and paper to back it.
Oh dear christ how many times do I have to say:
STATS. MEAN. NOTHING.
The variance in individual players performance by vehicle, by condition is so vast you basically shouldn’t bring it up at all. You could be a god tier player with a 9 K/D in every mode, a 80%, but you could be going negative in the Fox because you’re not used to the ballistics, or you can’t drive it and keep flipping or something.
In case you didn’t notice, the APDS also goes 200m/s faster out of a RARDEN. How that happens, you be my guest to explain it. But it is a fact, and one that influences what a RARDEN will pen, as opposed to what the 2A72 won’t pen.
Hold on,
That’s your source for a BRITISH round? A Russian Arms encyclopedia?
For my sake, before I absolutely lose the contents of my ass… what year was that published?
Man I wish, Olifant goes hard
If you’re any good in French, might be worth seeing if the Belgians have anything. Off the top of my head they used Scimitars, which also mount the Rarden. Current operators are the Latvians and Ukrainians on the Scimitar.
4 Likes