wrong
1 Like
So why are people doing better now with the rate of fire increase?
They definitely aren’t ‘great’ yet, but they are now more reasonable at the BRs that they are at.
Before, the HSTV-L would’ve honestly been fine at 11.0, but with the ROF buff, it would be fine at 11.3.
If it gets Delta 6, it could be 11.7 or even the first 12.0 light tank, same with the RDF.
2 Likes
I can agree with 2S38 and Begleit, but not so much with the HSTV-L and RDF.
Started playing smarter?
HSTVL would’ve never been fine at 11.0, that’s like putting 2S38 at 9.7.
Delta 6 was never intended as a service projectile, and would increase its BR above that of the MBTs in the game.
1 Like
Delta 6 was intended as the service projectile IRL. Delta 3 was deemed too inefficient and was not able to penetrate NATO Triple heavy. Delta 6 with a 3Lb DU penetrator became the choice that they stuck with. Delta 6 was used on everything that the ARES cannon was mounted to, including the LAV chassis, RDFLT, HSTVL, HIMAG, and ELKE
Stated in this document
http://web.archive.org/web/20240715161726/https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1311932/20184880MNBT1036346793F351551I020.pdf
1 Like
You seriously think that after the update, people who were playing them magically started playing ‘smarter’?
No, they are different vehicles with different playstyles.
12.0 would be fine. Delta 6 could only be 350mm-430mm of peneration, and the spalling would just be a bit better.
If anything, BR decompression to 12.7 and make that and most other MBTs at that BR would be fine.
Once again, a hard no, I have yet to see an RDF get more than a single kill per death on my teams playing out my M1s.
There is no noticeable improvement to the players I am encountering or playing alongside.
This is another case of tanks getting a reload buff as a band aid that does not solve their actual issues, just like how the Merkavas recently got a reload buff that they did not need, as they needed their armor fixed, same with the M1s.
Nope, congrats it gets a 9.3 level round, what a massive change, it can penetrate a whole lot of nothing more now, it just reduces the chance that track BS happens.
What is “NATO Triple heavy”? Abrams, Leo and Ch2?
That document proves my point.
Delta 6 was deemed unusable due to barrel wear and thus expense.
There’s a reason 2S38 doesn’t have a higher penning round either.
The final tests were with the round we have in-game because of expense and they were determining if the gun platform was even serviceable within doctrine [it wasn’t].
So the entire project was later cancelled.
Welcome to the 76mm gun system project that tied into the HSTVL project.
Either way, Delta 6 isn’t coming to HSTVL because of two reasons: It’d make its BR 12.3, higher than that of MBTs, and no one knows which platform it was even tested on. Static emplacement, HSTVL, RDF… And the specific platform it was tested on would be the only one capable of getting it.
So yeah, stop begging for the original 2S38 to be buffed with a round no one knows it fired when its current round is already meta.
2S38, VCC-80/60, Begleit, HSTVL, RDF, and Strf 9040s all share the same exact playstyles.
And the fact you think 12.0 with Delta 6 would be fine, you must also be supporting 2S38 back to 10.0 or a lower BR right? Or do you have double standards?
“Rules for thee but not for me.” type nonsense.
Uh, thank you
A buff nonetheless. I think it definitely needed one, and I don’t see how it is a bad thing.
The Merkavas need the armour improvement, but the 5.0s reload does make it all the more competitive.
Well, it used to have an ~8.7 ish round, so that is a welcome improvement.
That 9.3 level round is also paired up with a decently mobile and fast-firing platform, so it definitely would be more than okay.
For reference, those 9.3 level rounds at 9.3 are being fired every 6.7 seconds at best.
1.0s reload, side on, would be great.
No, you completely don’t understand what I’m saying.
1 Like
Wrong, delta 6 was chosen.
They scrapped the program because it was too expensive to produce
"The ammunition costs are the costs to develop the
ammunition through development testing and to provide inventory for the
fielded system. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are self-explanatory.
The over-riding cost element for both systems is the cost of ammunition. The
cost to produce the 75mm cased telescoped ammunition is approximately 2.7
times greater than the cost of the conventional 105mm ammunition. The
RDT&E costs of the 75mm system is 10.9 times greater than the RDT&E costs
of the 105mm system. The total combined cost to develop and field the 75mm
system is 3 times greater than the total combined costs for the 105mm system.
The full-scale development of the 75mm cased telescoped ammunition and gun
system was terminated in 1988
5 Likes
Because its a cop out by gaijin, instead of solving the actual issues the vehicle has they choose to just improve the reload, when you can be lolpenned by functionally everything, a minor reload buff wont change anything, and funny that, with the M1s, it did change nothing, their WR continues to be terrible to this day, the Merkava change is recent and so far has done nothing as well.
So tell me, if you cannot penetrate anything else at your BR and the round has the exact same spall modifier as your preceding round, what does that round do for you.
This is a rhetorical question, it does nothing as there is no reason to use it over the existing round.
How do you know this?
Is it already modelled in-game?
And an extra ~200mm worth of penetration helps regardless whether or not it ‘opens up new weakspots’.
It would be easier to penetrate the side of Russian ERA, and it would be easier to penetrate the breech / LFP of things like the 2A7V.
This is before the document I just posted. They were talking about using the ares on the LAV chassis but ultimately it was defunct. Here it says it could pen up to 430mm
Anyone can argue balancing but historically they’d be wrong.
Furthermore once they finalized X(experimental) XM885. It became known as simply M885. There was no designation between delta 3 and delta 6 because it was still experimental. The finalized M885 IS Delta 6.
7 Likes
“In the response to Congress, the Army contended that
cased telescoped technology had achieved significant technological milestones.
One milestone indicated that the Marine Corps had type-classified the M885
cased telescoped ammunition. The Marine Corps has pursued a 75mm cased
telescoped ammunition and gun technology program. However, the program
did not yield a fieldable weapon system and, contrary to the statements the
Department of the Army made to Congress, the ammunition was not type
classified for introduction to the inventory.”
Finalized and called M885 after “significant technological milestones” AKA delta 6
There is no Delta 3 or Delta 6 variant. Simply finalized M885. If there was a different variant, it would have been M888 or they would have pushed the training ammo up and called the different variant m886
5 Likes