I remember you. You weren’t a fair person. You even wanted to lower the weight of the 2S38. You pretended to be sarcastic, saying I was deliberately reducing the capabilities of Russian vehicles, but actually you were the one who most wanted Russian vehicles to gain an unreasonable advantage. You thought the AGM-65 and KH-38 were missiles of the same class.
You even commented on all my posts. You’re so petty. Maybe not playing this game would be a relief for you.
Not even the vehicles’ brochure lists APFSDS as an option btw.
And considering that you made up the entire “can shoot both guns at once” part, I doubt you have any reliable sources for the APFSDS either.
(There is a two-way switch for the selection of the cannon, as evident by interior footage aswell as pages from the manual, which can easily be found on public telegram or twitter posts - but as I doubt they should be on there, I am not going to share them in favour of the forum-mods sanity)
Give it the steel darts, anything at this point to raise its BR.
It has a very bright future based on how it’s destroying 9.3-10.3 right now.
Translation error. What I meant was that he lacks soul, has no distinctive characteristics, and is merely an overly rigid and crushing vehicle. He should appear on the battlefield with his ferocious firepower, moderate defense, and mobility.
Friend, why decide based on the manual? Just decide based on the type of player the game offers. BMPT has the capability; let it appear in a reasonable way. Besides, my sanity is always on point.
I see, no worries.
I’m ok with adding twin barrel firing if it gets the wobble. Imagine how many assists you can get firing at a crowd of tanks.
If Gaijin fixes the weak spots, then this tank will lose its unkillable status and make it more balanced.
I believe the mobility is fine as of now.
If you think his ability to fire steel needles is barely acceptable, that’s deceptive. Then consider the numerous malicious tweaks in the game, far more absurd than firing steel needles and dual-barrel fire—at most, it’s a matter of dispersion. But in this game, Soviet tanks and their counterparts like the BMP-2M and BMD-4, and the KA-50’s 2A42 autocannon, all have unrealistic dispersion. The key is to have fun; the crucial point is a reasonable balance. For example, the Bradley can fire steel needles at a high rate of fire, but in reality, the barrel is destroyed. Yet, he’s not the only tank in the game capable of high-speed steel needle firing; why is he the only one restricted?
Because he is an American vehicle！
There is no examples of the BMPT firing both barrels outside of testing. The purpose of the two barrels is to switch between firing two different ammunition types, rather than implementing a complex belt feed system that allows quick use of both, especially with the gun mounted outside of the turret where crew members could not manipulate ammunition loading in combat in the case of failure. This also adds redundancy, which is not hard to believe is intentional by design based on the vehicles ridiculous protection.
BMPT has only fired both barrels in testing, where it is obvious it causes significant accuracy problems with moth firing barrels.
All of the cited combat videos of “both” cannons firing in Ukraine, are actually an example of what I just described. If these videos are slowed down or paused, you can see that it is actually only one barrel firing, with the static barrel simply reacting to the muzzle blast of the other… the “wobbling” previously mentioned.
Also, as previously mentioned, public observation of the vehicle’s interior fire control system functions indicate it can only fire one barrel at once as well.
What I mean is, his powerful firepower is maintained, but his mobility and defense can be addressed simply by increasing his weight, preventing him from appearing as the fastest mobile and best defensively among his peers.
I see, thanks for clarifying.
obviously the russians barely use apds in the first place. a
Reality is reality, and a game is a game. In reality, to consider ammunition availability and mission difficulty, firing would be done for as long as possible while minimizing barrel damage—after all, lives are at stake. But this is a game; of course, simultaneous firing is allowed, because the economic and repair issues caused by wear and tear in reality don’t exist in a game, right?
He can certainly fire both cannons simultaneously, but in reality, this wouldn’t maximize the benefit. But this is a game, right? Wouldn’t it be better for everyone to just fire away together?
Of course, increasing the dispersion at long range is also an option, or increasing the dispersion at high rates of fire, since excessively high rates of fire are a major cause of accuracy problems.
I don’t think you understand the purpose of this conversation. It is not a matter of if it can or if it cannot. It physically is not able to fire both cannons at once. It can’t do it.
It’s possible. In reality, alternating firing is used to extend barrel life and reduce gun dispersion, but if the distance is close enough, like in a game, simultaneous firing is acceptable.
What we are saying is the fire control system does not even present an option for this to be done.
can only tell you it’s possible, but there are penalties in reality. As for the fire control system you mentioned, you should understand that they are two independent gun handles, not connected to a single loader. They only need to connect to the ammunition belt.
The 2A42 automatic cannon uses a dual-path ammunition belt feeding design, equipped with two independent metal ammunition belts.
Yeah making shit up aint gonna change much buddy
Not on BMPT.
Each gun only features a singular belt, one for HEI/F-T and the other AP-T/APDS.
As the cannons cannot be elevated independently, the FCS cannot compensate for/lead with two ammo-types (w/ vastly different Muzzle-Velocities) simultainously, when individual elevation/traverse is not possible.
so,now you have two gun and two independent metal ammunition belts.,you just let them shot !
Again, cannot be done. It’s not a matter or wear and tear, it is a matter of capability. The vehicle was not designed to do this.
