Prove it.
Fire rate isn’t an indication of mechanical accuracy.
That’s at least primarily gas interference due to the barrel muzzles being incorrectly designed. They should fire up & down to prevent the massive interference they currently cause.
1 Like
it is, but you get nowhere with unsourced claims
that is stupid as hell lmao.
you do realize this has ALL to do with the design? youre making a MASSIVE generalization, there is no general appliable rule here, it has everything to do with the design, and guess what the 2a42 isnt accurate in its high ROF, now disregarding the mountain of video evidence, guess what its taught to bmp gunners? shoot on the low ROF to preserve ammo and accuracy.
1 Like
unsourced? this is quite literally objectively impossible. you dont need a source to point out a human doesnt have 3 legs.
The chatter of a random person (that’s you) on the internet is not proof.
Show me this infinite amount.
This is the shooting of the training group’s vehicles with their barrels shot out and the engine turned off (and accordingly the stabilizer is also turned off).
then nothing will be changed
No, it’s not, as the barrel heats up, it can vibrate and lose its shape, leading to less accuracy, the maintenance of the gun and size or shape of the shell have a much larger impact than fire rate
Well there are videos of it being inaccurate and even when reducing the ROF it was still a bit inaccurate.
One thing we don’t know is the factor that affected accuracy in those videos. was the gun stabilized, how it was targeted, ROF, etc. What we need is gun trial, live-fire exercise reports.
Though the accuracy of the 2a42 cannon mounted on the KA52 is absolutely insane. The ballistic computer still works at 6km
Do you know what sources Gaijin used to determine the accuracy of that cannon?
It’s mildly too accurate for high-rate fire, but it’s fine for low-rate firing.
I have a thread purely talking about the statistics of it if you’d like to look at it.
What causes the vibration of the barrel if you mind me asking?
I dont agree, calling the accuracy in full auto mildy to oaccurate is inane, as for the low rate of fire im skepticals as the 2a72 main point was to improve accuracy.
Its irrelevant ino, when every single piece of footage of the cannon shows it being inaccurate what causes it becomes less relevant. And imo there is no debating with my statement that the 2a42 shouldnt be as accurate as m242 and both high and low rof.
The conditions of the cannon is just an assumption on your part, and the disabling of the stabilizer shouldnt influence srastically the accuracy on a standstill.
Also:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuafXZD8XeA# whats wrong with these georgian bmp 2s?
autocannon accuracy in war thunder seems standardized and
It doesnt seem to make little senss, you can try most autocannons and they will have basically identical spread. I could have my beother send me footage of his namer or freccia and im fiarly sure they’d have nigh identical spread at range.
Rarden apds and sap accuracy seems identical too my m242 apds, and bmp2 apt, and im fairly sure i would see similar spread on the bmd4m 2a72.
For the higher caliber autocannons (puma, 2s38 etc…) ir seems the accuracy is significantly higher.
Main point of the 2A72 is because it’s mechanically simpler, and physically lighter.
Absolutely not
Same thing. Most likely the gunner forgot to turn on the stabilizer. Because as in the first video the gun is pulled to the left.
For example, in this video there is no such spread
1 Like
I would be fine with the accuracy of the 2a42 being so demonstrably ahistorical if nato cannons like the bushmaster 2 or Mauser mk-30 werent so ahistorically inaccurate
Another perfectly good example would be the difference between the M230 30mm cannon (AH-64’s Area Weapon System) and the M230-LF (M914) with the relevant difference being that the -LF is reduced from 600~650RPM down to 200RPM. For no apparent reason.