2S38 performance while stock… as I said, potent.
If you think the sad amount of damage displayed here:
and 4x as slow reload rate than the 2S38 is ‘potent’, then be my guest.
Poor shots are always plausible.
Also its primary targets aren’t 2S38s, they’re standard vehicles.
I don’t think this is a poor shot:
nor this one:
nor this one:
7 Likes
1- Roof armor.
2- Engine.
3- Rear half of crew compartment.
None of those are shots I would’ve made from that angle.
4-5 was too far left and high.
Sure, why don’t you show us how it’s done.
For such a broken vehicle, I assume you can get at least a 3 K/D, don’t you think?
1 Like
@Abyss_Revenant
There’s no need to gaslight people for making an incorrect statement.
Of course I haven’t read any posts claiming that Delta 6 is fiction.
292 did have an autoloader, and APFSDS was developed with the project that was used on later projects.
E100 is a real prototype.
Ho-Ri will be delisted in the future.
So your post’s [hopefully unintentional] whataboutism after the fact to praise Russia and trash on America is slightly annoying.
I don’t want a 12.3 HSTVL, beg for another version instead.
Why not move the current one to 12.3 and fix all its problems? It’d be better to have a solid top-tier lineup than an ok 11.7 one. Besides, the Sep 2 isn’t anything special at TT, so it’d be nice to have this; even if it doesn’t have great survivability, it’d still be amazing if it were closer to its real-life counterpart. I can understand Gaijin not fixing the RDF/LT because they don’t want a top-tier premium, but at least make the HSTV-L TT; there is no reason for either vehicle to be gimped or treated the same.
Except HSTVL is the best or 2nd best light tank in the game already.
It doesn’t need buffs from a balance or gameplay perspective, and the only round of its experimental rounds with ALL of the data for it is WHILE being balanced is the one we have.
Just as there’s no gameplay reason to buff 2S38, VCC-80/60, or Begleit.
The BR system is what makes all* vehicles playable. The asterisk is for off-topic vehicles.
But that removes a vehicle’s uniqueness. We could reduce Object 279 to 7.7 and give it a worse round, worse armor, and no stabilizer. But that would make it another boring heavy tank no different from other vehicles at its BR. It’d still be excellent in that state at 7.7 (and one of the best vehicles in the game), but it wouldn’t be as unique or fun of a vehicle as it is at 9.0 (It’s a 50s vehicle fighting 70s and 80s tanks. that’s pretty cool! The HSTV-L is a 70s tank that could hold up to modern equipment, that’s also pretty cool!). The admirable quality of WarThunder is that you can play vehicles you’d never be able to drive or even touch in real life. It’s nice when those vehicles are as reflective of the best IRL variants ever produced. Besides, WT does this with ships all the time anyway.
HSTVL is already unique and its uniqueness isn’t changing.
Same old culprit arguing against nato vehicle improvements lol hstvl has needed a buff for a while now, thst was extremely apparent after the 2s38s addition.
4 Likes
Real?
So real…
It was developed, but never installed.
We have only one photo 152mm APFSDS, but it was in Kharkiv, so it is most likely a projectile for Nota, boxer and other. Nobody can say that this APFSDS will fit into obj292’s autoloader. We still do not consider the parameters of apfsds.
I believe. But it is already in game.
What.
5 Likes
How did it substantiated your statement while it did the opposite with what @ileaveuptiers posted.? He gave sources along with his reasoning on why Delta 6 was intended and why it wasn’t deemed unusable due to barrel wear.
You have not
Just because you have a documents doesn’t mean you understand it. This was quite evident with your misunderstanding of Delta 3.
The burden is up to you to provide a counter point on why your statement is correct.
A screenshot of the document along with your reasoning will do however not doing so makes you look like a liar and people will take any statements from you heavily with a grain of salt.
Rather than denying any of these points (which you will most likely do), provide the counter points to @ileaveuptiers. Or do both, I don’t care
10 Likes
@HondaCivici
A source is provided in the post you replied to.
Way to call the US government liars though.
A source which you interpreted in a way to further your way of thinking or to simply push that you are “correct”. No one agrees with you as you are skewing what all of that content means.
8 Likes
If that’s so, why does the T-80U (and newer) still have a 6.5 sec reload, instead of the historically accurate 6.0 sec reload?
The Vcc 80/60 is hated in by gaijin, and those of us who own the Aubl 74 HVG will tell you it’s not better.
It’s a fact gaijin hates Italy. They won’t buff m300, and it has the spall of a 20mm cannon, meanwhile something like the fox is more akin to a nuclear bomb.
The Aubl 74 HVG needs a reload buff.
But both the Aubl and Vcc 80/60 need a spall buff.
Usually I can agree Alvis, but no, the m300 / 60mm cannon on the Aubl 74 HVG or the Vcc 80/60 could use a buff. It makes no sense the Fox (7.7) spalls more than the (8.0 or 9.3) tanks.
It’s a 30mm vs a 60mm
How does T-80U reload rate relevant to HSTV-L ammo here ?
As for reload rate I remember somebody in old forum mention that overall reload rate (from tank manual) as a whole also included stuff like gun auto-aligning for reloading the round as well as the time it take to re-aligning with FCS/Gunner sight in order to fire. and also the time it take to cycle the shell around. (Gaijin add this)
Not to mention most if not all vehicles also didn’t have maximum fastest fire rate available to them. with example being JGSDS Type90,Type10 . Or any vehicles with human loader that could do lap-loading technique.
1 Like