Intended or not doesn’t matter. Gaijin has explicitly said that they go by what is theoretically possible, not what was actually in use.
1 Like
Could you show that?
Just wondering.
1 Like
Almost if not all incomplete prototypes are without their maximum alleged-intended loadouts.
Also have fun proving the HSTVL we have in-game is production configuration.
Also @rainy2000 thank you for reminding me to get 500kg bombs for the IAR-93 so I can use it with the VCC-80/60 and terrorize ground players with two hilariously powerful vehicles.
1 Like
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.
3 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.
4 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
9 Likes
@HondaCivici
A source is provided in the post you replied to.
Way to call the US government liars though.