Yeah, I can see that. Although, Russian HE (or even NATO HE) still works wonders against a hull-down HSTV-L.
Yeah, you can go over hills and snipe with relative ease, although you only get around -12 degrees of gun depression from the front. There’s only a fairly small window on both sides where you can get the true -17 degrees of gun depression.
The turret / breech is also very close to the hull, though, so there’s also a possibility of exposing the hull when you do try to use that extra -17 degrees of gun depression (happened to me quite a few times).
Yeah, it’s definitely faster than all Top Tier MBTs. Generally they go as fast as around 42 MPH.
Though, the acceleration difference is not too noticable imo.
32.5hp/ton compared to the average 25hp/ton MBT means you’re only really accelerating around 30% faster, which can make a deal on large hilly maps (especially with the top speed), but I don’t think it’s all too noticable in close range maps where you don’t move large distances all too often. Does help with reacting to events, though.
I really haven’t noticed a problem with a lack of gun depression.
And that hp difference is quite immense, even for smaller maps.
The turret profile / the hill profile give an extreme angle when hull down, meaning unless the hit the lip on the front of the turret, it really won’t will never have a problem.
Strange again. If we look at this - XM274 as said author. It looks very similar like on your photo from Stoner interview. 22 XM274 75mm Automatic Cannon
And this
And for me it HIMAG gun looks shorter than HSTV-L gun. This is of course a bad argument.
Spoiler
Of course, it’s difficult to argue, because in some documents and sources XM274 and HSTV-L are in the same sentence… Anyway, if gaijin want, it’ll be with XM274
It’s almost as if Warthunder doesn’t represent reality and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Of all people, I would expect you to know. For some reason whenever I criticize nato vehicles, you think I’m talking about it’s performance in real life?
That’s funny because last time I checked, it tended to be NATO mains in general that agree with me. You do realize doing quick profile searches disproves your claim
Still waiting for you to quote me tho. Looks like you have none.
@HondaCivici
For AGMs warhead matters most as the missile has a wider effective area to hit, guidance type matters a bit especially if you find a spot without SPAA coverage [laser wins over everything if there’s no SPAA coverage], and last speed.
And for HSTVL it remains the fastest tank in the tank with the 2nd best auto-cannon on a tracked chassis.
Here are some of my questions but first let me try to understand where you’re coming from so please correct me if I’m wrong.
My interpretation of your report:
The HSTV-L (along with the RDF/LT) never used the XM274 gun, but rather used the earlier 75mm ADMAG (Advanced Design Mobility and Agility) gun
Reasoning:
HSTV-L was delivered in 1979, while the XM274 only began testing in February 1983. Meaning that the HSTVL had to have used an earlier variant of the 75mm gun.
The XM274 was a later evolution of the ADMAG system, specifically designed for the MPGS program. This can be seen by longer chamber and redesigned house and barrel.
The reason why the two systems got mixed up was because they talked about these guns as if they were the same system. Rather, the XM274 was an entire new weapons systems and wasn’t a replacement/upgrade. This would’ve required a new turret due to the wider receiver and housing in order for the XM274 system to be used.
It’s a gross oversimplification, so please let me know if I’m missing anything else.
My questions:
Since the XM274 was introduced 4 years after the HSTV-L was introduced. What was the designation of the gun that the HSTVL used before 1983 (regardless if it did get the XM274 or not)
What was the capabilities of that gun. What rounds did it use , muzzle velocity, etc?
One of the requirements for the HSTVL was that it should be able to penetrate the T-72’s front armor. So when the HSTVL was first introduced, did it meet that requirement. If so, what round did it use?
what does it mean in game? How is the HSTV-L’s gun currently modeled, how it should be modeled, and how should the gun perform?
@AlvisWisla
I’m not gonna talk about the hellfire as we already had that discussion previously. The only reason why I brought it up was to give an example (as stated previously)
I did find this picture for the HIMAG in the Army RD&A magazine which would’ve been using the ADMAG gun. It’s slightly confusing because it’s dated 1979 and says it’s equal to M774. But according to the sources STGN showed only XM274 had that performance.
I answer the first question in the issue report. It should be called the “ADMAG” but I would be fine with “ARES” or “MC-AAAC” too.
Well the names of the rounds if they had any are not public. They are refered to as 75mm ARPA APFSDS and 75mm ARPA HE in some reports so that would be fine for me athough there was a HE round called “AAI FF”. The APFSDS round should be a 2.27 kg DU penetrator with either 1463 m/s or 1646 m/s. Another solution could be or maybe two rounds one for level 1 and one for level 4. The HE round should have a muzzel velocity of 1031 m/s.
When the requirements for the MC-AAAC were drawn up the US had severly underestimated the Armor of the T-64/T-72. It was first in 1979 they realised their mistake.
Notice it says XM774, the XM774 was originally a 28mm projectile but it was dowsized to 26mm which was a better balance of muzzle velocity and weight. The 26mm or actually 25.9mm projectile is what ended up in the M774 but I haven’t been able to find the nominal MV of the XM774 only the one used for Special Armor IFV armor estimation.
It’s 80% of Xm774 but there is a grey area in intepreting what that actually means.
And to the Yak-141 example, radar missiles are primarily a software connection you can get pretty much any fighter to fire any missile if you code it right. But you can’t shoot a round that needs a longer chamber in a gun with a shorter chamber, it simply will not close. So its an apple to oranges level of deviation from reality.
Truly, the project still has a little fog of mystery. The generals called the gun XM274, Janes writes about the XM885 and XM274 on HSTV-L. At the same time, the information that HSTV-L does not help, but only complicates everything.
I’d keep both HSTV-L and RDF at 11.7 and give them ammo boxes. In case of the former, this would result in total of 52 rounds which should be more than enough for 5-6-7 kills on average even if you take 10-12 HE-VTs for heli rushers.
I think this is more than enough unless someone’s an ammo waster, but that can be linked to skill issues.
I can confirm Challengers can and will get OHK through LFP by both vehicles in question.
Most light tanks at higher/top tier are niche because of their inability to outpace MBTs, where in some cases they’re outright slower which is absurd. One of the only outliers to this are AGS and HSTV-L, which actually have crazy mobility that will even outshine top tier MBTs.
2S38 on the other hand pales in comparison, with MBTs regularly outpacing it which is one of the bigger problems with the vehicle that’s keeping it down in BR.
This is why MBTs exist and are “meta” both IRL and in game especially as you don’t have people you have to carry in your IFVs.
In my opinion mobility is one of the most important things on such a vehicle, as that is it’s selling point basically and enables it to be played in the correct playstyle.
Something like a Centauro 120 is a piece of shit light, as it only has 20.7 HP/t and is also a wheeled boy. HSTV-L actually feels like a light tank, even when compared to BVM and other speedy MBTs.
If this early iteration of XM885 or some unnamed 75mm APFSDS actually had 25.9mm Diameter, then that would put this early version around 310.8x25.9mm because in 1975 we known early 75mm APFSDS had a 12:1 ratio.
RDF probably wouldn’t benefit from being given ammo boxes.
I’d definitely agree with the HSTV-L, though.
Unfortunately, I really don’t think it will ever get ammo boxes, as it’s only a mechanic for TDs and SPAAs at the moment. And if they do start thinking about giving ammo crates to light tanks, I doubt they will carry though that idea since I don’t think many light tanks need ammo boxes either.
The only way I think you can buff it is by lowering its BR to 11.3 (which might be more reasonable), changing its designation to a TD (like how the hellcat changed from TD to light tank, though it loses its scouting ability and recon drone), or give it its better round and move it up to 12.0.
Yes, I agree.
Yeah, 52 rounds should be enough to stay on the flanks and get the amount of kills you usually can get with MBTs.
Yeah, the Challengers (Chally 2E in particular) would be pretty good vehicles if it weren’t for their lack of safe ammo and decent round.
Yes, that is true.
However, I have had better luck with things like the Object 685, M18, Object 906, 2S25M etc… just because their differences in mobility can supplement the lack of armour to a large degree, unlike the HSTV-L in a lot of cases.
Stuff like BMD-4 and Object 685 can still be meta in competitive matches because of their unmatched firepower and mobility.
Yeah, the Centauro (and you could probably also include the CV90120 here) have pretty decent firepower (5.0s reload + M829A1) for 11.7, but they’re honestly not that fast for light tanks at top tier. They’re generally a worse 11.7 Abrams, and possibly a side-grade to the 11.3 M1A1 Abrams.
I could probably see both of them being fine at 11.3.
The problem is that their mobility is not that much better compared to other MBTs, especially light MBTs like Type 10s, ZTZ99s, T-80BVMs, and Leclercs.
Like I stated here:
Most MBTs around that range have around 26/27 hp/ton, whereas the 2S38 only has 23.3 hp/ton.
So yeah, it is somewhat difficult to get into a flanking position with it, and so that’s why you can say that it’s reasonable that it is able to face lightly armoured MBTs found plentiful in a full downtier (unlike the HSTV-L’s full downtier atm with the round it gets).
Though, I’m still not sure how balanced that is (in the 2S38’s case).
In my opinion RDF should go down before HSTV-L, as it trades much of the mobility for more rounds and 0.1s of reload. This especially would be the case if they got ammo boxes.
Some TDs (M56, M50, Type 60s, …) have scouting which is a mechanic for lights and AAs, so I guess some exceptions can be made if vehicles are deemed in need.
I liked BN for it’s really strong APS.
Yeah, light tanks are becoming worse and worse higher you go as MBTs start catching up mobility/firepower wise.
CV 90120 has 28.9 HP/t and is tracked, that thing is loads better than Centauro. I have no idea why they’re all at the same BR.
I agree with you, something like AIM will literally always be a better pick than Centauro especially.
Of course, but those two are at least holding onto some kind of mobility advantage, while the others have same pace (or are even slower) but have literally no armor in return, which is quite weird to be honest.
2S38 is in a weird spot as even in it’s name it says it’s AA, so it’s not really built for mega mobility if you know what I mean. I do believe it can go to 10.7 and be fine there, but anything else is pushing it in my opinion.
