HSTV-L VS. the 2S38 (BR)

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
49

2S38 has slightly more mobility than Strf 9040C, its closest analogue.
HSTVL has more mobility than every MBT in the game, which some of them, like Leopard 2K, have more mobility than all other light vehicles in the game.
83kph top speed, and a power to weight of over 25HP per ton.

Dual-purpose doesn’t increase BRs, it never has, otherwise ZTZ-57-2 would be 8.3 with the PT-76-57.

@SlowHandClap
2S38 has the SPAA capabilities of 9.3, OTOMATIC has a search radar and a bigger round which makes its SPAA capabilities superior to that of 2S38 around 9.7 - 10.0, its DM33 equivalent APFSDS round sadly has been used too effectively by players leading to its over-BR of 11.3.

2 Likes
55

Still feel like the HSTV-L would do so much better in the 10.7-10.3 range as opposed to where it is currently ar.

1 Like
56

Well, the gun is massively underperforming at the moment. I’d rather they kept it at this BR and ungimped it, but it’s in the wrong tech tree for that treatment.

Currently it’s handicapped compared to real life by:
26 rounds instead of the 60 full capacity
Having much less penetration
Having a much slower rate of fire
Having less variety of ammunition (irl had access to proxy and flechette rounds).

2 Likes
57

And its sad to think that they probably wont fix it ever because of how old the vehicles is

58

That seems like a you problem buddy. I’ve played some HSTV-L and it can easily work, especially against tanks that have 3 crew.

But your point of it being easy to kill with overpressure works for 2S38 as well. Someone that keeps spamming darts to your turret won’t be able to kill HSTV-L because commander doesn’t replenish, but 2S38 can be ammo racked through the turret as well.
As I said above, both of those are really good hull down going against darts, but overpressure easily defeats them both, so I’d have to say both of those have pretty similar hull down performance.

1 Like
59

But the person I replied to said the hstv-l has incredible hull down survivability specifically compared to the 2S38.

2 Likes
60

He isn’t that wrong though.
You can ammo rack 2S38 from the turret shot, but HSTV-L’s turret is just empty space and can’t be killed by repeatedly throwing darts at it.

1 Like
61

The primary MBT that the 2s38 faces is the Abrams (which has very weak armor)… It doesn’t just “bounce rounds faster”

62

This isn’t just a problem with the 2S38. There are plenty of SPAA in the game which need to have their AP rounds removed.

63

Whose weakspots are “tiny” to quote BVM defenders.
2S38 also isn’t SPAA.

64

I didn’t say the 2S38 was SPAA, did I?

This doesn’t make enough sense for me to respond to.

1 Like
65

Contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. Generation 3 thermal imagers vs Generation 1 is an advantage in optics. HSTV-L also has lesser zoom on the optics. Lower generation thermals do not benefit from the increased FoV in low zoom mode either. 2S38 has objectively superior optics.

66

There is no contradiction in my post.
You even quoted it perfectly proving no contradiction.
Thermals aren’t the optics, they’re a type of imagery.
And no, 2S38 doesn’t have 2x zoom, which makes them inferior.

67

Oh this is one of those “razorvon decides to define things differently and incorrectly for no reason” moments isn’t it.

Thermals are a part of the optics suite for a tank. Therefore, classed alongside the optics.

Neither HSTV-L nor 2S38 have 1x zoom optics. Everyone has 1x zoom in third person. HSTV-L has 2x default zoom.

2 Likes
68

I stated optics, which means the glass and its characteristics.
You know… the literal definition of optics as per dictionaries. Good to know you accuse dictionaries of being incorrect though.
Thermals augment the optics, but are not themselves the optics. The term you’re looking for is FCS, which 2S38 has a superior only cause its newer, but FCS doesn’t do anything in WT ground right now.

1 Like
69

Optics, as defined by Merriam-Webster: “a science that deals with the genesis and propagation of light, the changes that it undergoes and produces, and other phenomena closely associated with it”

Thermal imagers deal with light in a non-visible spectrum. Therefore, a thermal imager is very closely related to optics. Do note how the definition has zero mention of glass or any specific light spectrum. It only mentions light.

Brittanica specifically mentions how modern optical science now deals with light in the entire electromagnetic spectrum. This ranges from radio waves, microwaves, X-ray waves, IR light, ultraviolet light and visible light. Again, no specific mention of glass for modern optical science.

You are; once again, proven incorrect.

Perhaps if this discussion ocurred in the 12th century when optics solely referred to visible light, your definition would be correct. However; we are in the 21st century, and optics refers to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

70

Thanks for proving my post’s point correct.
A thermal imager isn’t the entire system, it’s the imager… the sensor array.
And thermal imagers have their own optics to feed them the photons.
Most obvious of this is T-80U:

image
image1053×669 82.2 KB

Other vehicles combine them into one housing.
Screenshot 2024-02-07 143458

1 Like
71

This is some advanced mental gymnastics you’re performing in order to think that my post proves anything you said is right.

Let’s go over what was said. You claim HSTV-L has superior “optics” to 2S38. While admitting the thermal imager is inferior.

I refute that, citing inferior zoom levels and inferior thermal imagers on HSTV-L. For vehicles relying on visible light spectrum for enemy detection, higher zoom is generally superior. For vehicles with thermal imagers, lower zoom is preferable only when coupled to a high definition imager.

Therefore, 2S38 is superior in optics, proving a contradiction in your original statement.

You claim a thermal imager is not an optic, citing a definition of optics that is literally an entire millennium out of date.

No mention of inferior maximum zoom on HSTV-L, and only a passing mention of lower minimum zoom for HSTV-L, ignoring how low resolution thermal imagers are detrimental when in low zoom mode. Higher thermal resolution is superior for low zoom battlefield scanning.

Once again, 2S38 proves superior in most comparisons. Your original contradiction remains.

I provide modern definition of optics, decisively proving that thermal imagers are in fact, optics.

Now, please do keep on topic of how 2S38 does have superior optics in both visible and invisible light spectrums when compared to HSTV-L. The only point the HSTV-L has in its corner for optics is a larger FoV for minimum zoom.

An advantage “on paper”, as thermal imagers are used for battlefield scanning for this BR. HSTV-L has to switch thermals off and zoom in order to better identify targets. 2S38 can just shoot after identifying a target in low zoom mode with high resolution thermals.

8 Likes
72

Dude, everything I stated from the initial post you quoted to present is identical.
Nothing has changed.
All I did was clarify things you had difficulties understanding; and you insult me for helping you…
And now you’re claiming 2024 is out of date…

High FOV is a huge advantage and one of the reasons Arietes struggle due to their low FOV.

Gen 2 thermals only helps for longer ranges, which 2S38 doesn’t do against armor, otherwise it’s for air targeting which its BR is already higher than its 9.3 anti-air capabilities.

73

You are once again ignoring the point. I’ll ignore the victim complex for now, it is not relevant. Same with the mention of vehicles not relevant in this discussion.

Let’s go over this once again.

2S38 has 4.0x to 9.8x zoom and a generation 3 thermal imager. 19 degree FoV in low zoom mode.

HSTV-L has 2.0x to 8.0x zoom and a generation 1 thermal imager. 38 degree FoV in low zoom mode.

These are the facts.

For detection of targets on the battlefield in general, higher thermal resolution is superior. Point to 2S38.

For detection of targets without thermal imager use, higher FoV is superior. Point to HSTV-L.

For identification of targets in visible light wavelength, higher zoom is superior. Point to 2S38.

For identification of targets in high zoom, higher resolution is superior. Point to 2S38.

For detection of targets in high FoV mode while using thermal wavelength, higher resolution is preferable. Larger FoV with low resolution can provide false returns when looking at hot spots.

I’ll say this is a tie between the two vehicles, just for your sake.

1.5 points for HSTV-L, 3.5 points for 2S38 in comparison for optics. 2S38 is superior in comparison of optics. A contradiction in the original quote. “HSTV-L has superior optics”

Now, let’s go over your latest post.

2024 definition of optics, as I provided previously, deals in all light wavelengths. There is no mention of glass or mirrors. Brittanica and Merriam-Webster corroborate this.

Legacy (IE: before the discovery of invisible light) definition of optics, per Brittanica, deals solely with visible wavelengths. Once again, no mention of glass and mirrors.

You claimed optics only deals in visible light and specifically deals in glass and mirrors.

Your definition, per Brittanica, is out of date.

You claim low FoV for minimum zoom on C1 Ariete is a large reason behind the poor performance of the vehicle.

While this is irrelevant to this thread, the C1 has many more problems directly impacting in-game performance more than low FoV in minimum zoom. Low FoV doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt very much either.

6 Likes