Thats what the ZSU does and no one seems to fucking care
I think it would be fine if dropped to 8.0, to be honest. I am iffy on 7.7, and my gut tells me its a bad idea, but imo 8.0 would be perfectly fine.
The falcon is actually useful vs air, fires five times as fast, and is stabilized.
Stablizer doesnt make a difference for anti-air.
There’s no point to making it 8.0, Britain has 3 tanks at 8.0 and 6 tanks at 7.7 with more versatile options to actually make a line up.
Exactly. Driveby killing machine air and ground. If they’d remove the kinetic ammo, it could be much lower. But as long as it has that much pen it should be between 8-9 BR.
Deal. Give me a 7.0 Falcon with the 53mm SAP.
Disregard the last message, deals off.
The VEAK is 7.7, stablized, has about the same amount of pen, and while it fires a bit slower it also has fucking radar. Same goes for the ZSU-37
Falcon, as is, to 7.7. End of discussion.
As it stands now Britain has 3 SPAAs at 8.3. The Falcon, the Chieftain, and the ZA-35. That’s way too much SPAA saturation for one BR.
what do you mean by that
Right now it has 1 apds round/belt with two SAP shells/belt.
That was the point, a long old time ago the Falcon was 7.3 (7.0 even earlier) because it was being balanced off of its ability to AA. And then people started getting very upset because it could side pen you. Or if you were in an IFV with no meaningful armour, it could demolish you from anywhere. Now, of course, the reverse was true, since the Falcon had little other than structural steel, and all you had to do was not be in front of someone’s gun and ideally not run into Soviet heavies (14.5 argh)
As an AA it’s at the completely wrong BR, it’s nowhere near as good as a Marksman, even if the radar is ass on the Marksman. It should go down, no question. Personally I’d rather it at 7.7 as there’s a very good lineup there in need of an AA, rather than 8.0 that has… the Cent 10 and that’s kinda it (silly me, I forget, though in my experience i’ve found the Swingfire pretty dead, and the Vickers Mk.1 is… ehhhh)
5 Likes
Is that 2.44m including the muzzle brake? Because that doesn’t add velocity, as it’s not pushing the projectile through rifling or barrel.
- Lighter projectile - less drop off
- Stats do mean things, the Leo2a7v had a 17 kd for like its first month, highest I saw was a 23.4
- Go compare the barrel lengths between the two. The 2a72 definitely looks longer, which I believe the rardens length is considered by its muzzle brake.
- No, the Russian arms encyclopedia was for the 2a72.
No…?
F = MA
Generally the air resistance difference between the two rounds is about the same due to them being the same calibre, (Gravitational change is a constant 9.8m/s), and so they will deaccelerate at roughly the same speed.
When they impact a point, the one with the most mass (The Fox’s round) should pen more, because F = MA. The fox’s round is heavier and goes faster, ergo it should pen more.
Shrimple.
2 Likes
You said yourself:
That mass difference is negligible. So having that little change in mass compared to the velocities of the two makes no sense assuming all else is the same. Also, as I’ve pointed out previously, the RARDEN is behaving as realistically as we know it to be.
That’s purely academic. Unless you submitted every replay of that person in question, for all I know they could be in lobbies full of bots. Now, given I assume you play top tier to an extent (I do in a limited fashion), we both know that isn’t the case. But said player might’ve been coming across fundamentally worse players consistently. Maybe he found a spot on a particular map that enabled him to perform far better than the average Leo 2A7V player. The stats on their own mean nothing unless you contextualise it, hence my earlier comment.
To use an Air RB example, a high K/D could mean either:
- a genuinely good player
- someone who got lucky on one game and got a very high number of kills
- someone who runs to airfield, lands, Jed out the moment the fight wasn’t favourable to them
Barrel length has an influence on velocity, but the amount of propellant, type used, size of the breech block, dimensions/form of a sabot, etc etc. also do play into this. Again, I’ll happily admit I have little to no knowledge on the 2A72. But the fact the 2A72 has “a longer barrel” won’t instantly make it the faster round.
In which case disregard, I was mildly panicking for a min when I saw that 😂
Wasn’t clear to me because you’d replied to an earlier message (Morv’s) who was talking about the RARDEN APDS slug.
5 Likes
Classified submarine detected
3 Likes
one would suspect not seeing as they state barrel length and overall length separately but short of going and mesuring one its anyones guess.
I am inclined to think though that the mesurements given for barrel length do not take into account the muzzle brake.
The Germans swapped to the KwK 40 because they thought it looked cooler, and nothing more.
The BTR’s barrel looks longer because more of the barrel isn’t shrouded by the breech block whereas the L21A1 has a significant portion recessed into the breech.
I may be wrong, but generally from my knowledge barrel lengths are measured from the tip of the barrel to the bolt/breech (While in the Firing position).
Generally any muzzle devices don’t count for barrel length(Only if its removable) as those aren’t considered as part of the barrel. So the flash hider? of the Rarden shouldn’t be included in its measurement.
That is mass of the whole round, as someone else pointed out, the Rarden round is actually heavier, i don’t remember the exact value, but it was different enough to have an effect.
It’s like what we were saying earlier, the 62 grain 5.56 loses what, 200-300 fps at 100 yards, while the 55 grain 5.56 loses only 100-180 (don’t have the time to look back at exact values).
A longer barrel gives more time for the propellant to burn = higher velocity, again, I don’t know the powder types for the 2a72 and the Rarden.
As a note, I said it previously, Russian ammo typically has a higher powder charge compared to a lot of other nations ammo types, from small arms to larger calibers.
But these two guns should be operating very similarly (not exactly) so something is fishy here, with either (Rarden over performing, which many people don’t think it is, but I and a few others do), and now the other factor, (2a72 under preforming)
The main focus of the topic is the fox, but now the btr is in focus to a degree.
Yes, I agree, that’s how they measure barrel length. But this leads me to believe something is off, either on WT, or something else. I feel like it’s almost as if with Rarden, the measures to the back of the breech block to the tip of the flash hider.
Do shells eject from the Fox?