Why? I do pretty well with the HSTVL, just give me better spall, better pen would definitely send it up in BR
The HSVT-L is mostly worse then the 2S38
LOL no, maybe before it’s autoloader got modeled. But yeah just no. The 9040Cs easily have better survivability.
1 Like
A little more than just " usable " at the time.
So could the F-20 Tigershark, already ingame:
Is already in the game files:
I don’t think the F-5A(G) had anything to do w/ testing of new guidance principles really. The gap between in becoming usable ingame and the release of next update is far too short for any serious lessons or rebalancing to occur - look to the multi-year gap between the April Fools event where FnF ATGM 's were tested for tanks and their actual implementation for a more reasonable timeframe.
If the Norwegian F-5 was a tease of incoming new capabilities, which would have been worked on for a significant length of time and are now pending imminent introduction regardless of what event vehicles appear in the meantime, that might be a more realistic take.
Still I doubt that ARH or LOAL AShM 's would come as usable against ground vehicles, the extremely limited moving-target-track capability which has been given to AGM-119( instead of Lock-On After Launch ), is not convincing in this regard.
There was a significant bit of screwery done to the launch sequence of AS.34 Kormoran, specifically to restrict it from being usable in tracking or dumbfire at land despite the missile itself not having any code to prevent that. And the GCS -kit bombs could have come when they appeared in the files alongside the EJ Kai, they’re functional already, but instead they were locked in CDK jail the whole time that JPN wanting for toptier guided CAS was a hot topic, and keeping it restricted from use was/is expected to continue to the point that GJN was forced to make up a Japanese F-16 " AJ " * to carry AGM-65 Maverick, as found in other techtrees.
*actually just a Blk 10, but given the SARH loadouts found on the Blk 15 ADF 's ingame.
1 Like
Crewless turret vs Crewed Turret automatically gives the 2S38 the better survivability. Both will get one shot if hit in the body, but its nearly impossible to kill a 2S38 in a hull down position where you can only see the turret
because the xm885(delta 6) have the almost if not same pen as m774 historically
1 Like
Eh, id say the same if i didn’t always nuke the 9040C in my TKX, the 2S38 can take normally 1-2 shots which its pretty bad if i didn’t knock out its gun. I can’t think of the last time i failed to kill a CV90 in one shot.
Yup, never once had an issue one shotting any other IFV except the 2S38 which seems to often take 2 or 3 rounds
uhhh no
Because for
1 - The 2S38s “crewless turret” can still result in the tank dying, because unlike the Puma, VBCI, Boxers. The 2S38s ammo if hit will explode and kill the tank.
2 - Hull shots the the 2S38 are almost always guaranteed to either kill the tank instantly or render it inoperable. The 9040Cs with their spall liner actively have good chances to eat multiple back to back MBT shots without a care in the world.
3 Likes
2s38 is much more lethal hull down, and faster
do me the favor and watch this video, btw this is not a “one time occurrence” this is commonplace when playing these things.
why do people keep saying “2S38 hull down” you are aware it can easily be killed while hull down right? regardless of its unmanned turret, its ammo doesn’t have a blowout rack like the nato unmanned turrets?
not sure what you mean by faster either, same top speed, slightly slower accel on the 9040s, but more than double the reverse speed.
Me when I non pen a leopards LFP because he’s slightly angled
if you load heat then yes you kill ok?
uh no, if you load a dart and hit the ammo you kill it too
Eh, spall liners on the 9040C’s means nothing when they dont have a spall liner covering the engine meaning only side shots will be affected. Of which the turret has none and will lead to instant death. If the spall liner covered the thing generating all the spall maybe it might be a valid argument.
9040’s are also bigger and have much easier weakspots when flick shotting
It’s conceivable to me that the FJ-4B wasn’t a test, but predated general availability of PGMs for some other reason, but I do believe that F-5A(G) falls into whatever category FJ-4B VMF-232 fell into, and that it does predate these weapons F-18 and F-2 are capable of.
The F-20 Tigershark cannot carry the advanced Harpoon variants I’m talking about with land attack capabilities. Irrelevant.
I am aware GBU-53/B is in the game files, as are aircraft that can carry it. It will be incredibly powerful once it is added.
GBU-39 is already usable without terminal homing. If it had terminal homing, it’d turn situations where you’re missing by 20 meters and don’t even get a hit into kills. A lot of kills, depending on how well you choose your GPS points. GBU-53/B will be a monster if implemented at full capability.
no it’s still a valid argument regardless?
The 2S38 has a better gun, the 2S38 doesn’t have the weaknesses of reloading its belt, the 2S38 is far better at anti air.
But the one thing it definitely does not have over the 9040Cs, is survivability. That is IRREFUTABLE
The 9040s due to their spall liners, hull composites, and empty space literally eat hits like it’s breakfast.
The 2S38 ever since the autoloader got modeled, cant do that. The unmanned turret isn’t an argument either because unlike all other unmanned turrets, the 2S38 can be killed while hull down by hitting its ammo.
As for the comment on the lvkv’s ammo belt being “sub par for anti-tank” that’s also not true, it can handle most of the tanks at its br frontally with ease, and most of the ones it can’t, the regular 9040C would struggle with too frontally
1 Like
If you fail to kill a 9040 in one shot thats a issue on you. The vehicle is literally a free SL piñata if you hit either the turret or the chassis. The only vehicle with somewhat survivability is the LVKV because of the 2 extra crew in the chassis, unfortunately most shots to the engine cause the ammo to ignite killing the vehicle instantly.
MiG-29SMT can carry 2 Kh-29TD F&F with 4 AAMs (2 R73, 2 R77 or 4 R77), or 2 Kh-29TD+2 KAB-500Kr-E+2 AAM
Su-27SM can carry 4 Kh-29TD or KAB-500Kr-E simultaneously with 4 R77 + 4 R73, for a total of 4 F&F AGMs and 8 AAMs. USSR definitely counts. It can also carry a KAB-1500Kr in place of 2 R77s, for a total of 4 F&F AGM, 1 F&F bomb, 2 R77, 4 R73