What’s up with that?
1 Like
LOSAT is better, yes.
3 Likes
did you get killed by it?
4 Likes
Another OP discussion with just a question that isnt even formed properly.
Two completely different vehicles, one excels at speed and at penetration (LOSAT is KE penetrator now) and one excels at armour while having mediocre penetration at ATGMs at best (all while 9.7-10.3) MBTs eat them for breakfest.
2 Likes
Is it?
2 Likes
Yes they are both rather weak in the armor department ignoring the 775’s frontal hull armor, seems odd there’s a full 1.0+/- dispairty between the two though.
1 Like
No I’ve been shot at by the LOSAT but they managed to miss every missile doesn’t help the tank has no gun depression and the angle was from above was rather amusing though.
1 Like
10.3 is better than 9.3, yes.
2 Likes
Yes that’s why I’m confused at the LOSAT’s placement while the 775 manages 9.3
Again, LOSAT doesnt just have better pen, but its also a KE, meaning it doesnt have to fight CE protection which is on these BRs higher than KE protection. Plus LOSAT has thermals, much more ATGMs it can launch one after another and its a better ATGM speed.
The LOSAT’s missiles only gain better penetration at long range. War Thunder’s maps are CQC.
What relevance does this have?
The Brenus at 8.7 has thermals as well, what is your point?
The ATGM travel speed is so fast that it makes it impossible to engage targets at closer ranges. Yes it does have 12 ready to fire ATGMs but that’s all it has, it has very limited ammo.
Nothing unusual to see better vehicles having higher BR.
1 Like
What is better about the LOSAT?
ATGMs is already something you better use on distance. OBj. 775 also has bad accuracy on its ATGMs due to them being early ATGM.
Can you read? This means while if a vehicle for example has ERA helping against CE protection it means it will stop Object 775, but wont stop LOSAT. Same for tanks with composite.
Thats not even a valid point lol. It has its disadvantages at 8.7. Having any thermal is better than having none.
ATGM is already better used at longer ranges, speed only helps that. It has more than enough damage to one tap tanks (probably exception being Leopard 2s), ATGMs are situational and map dependent for both vehicles.
The ZT3A2 has tandem 1000 pen ATGMs at 8.3, should it be 10.3?
Yes having thermals is better but thermals are common at the BR range both vehicles are placed at what relevance does it have?
Maps in War Thunder are generally small and do not support long range engagements. Both vehicles can fire their ATGMs at long range targets, neither can position themselves behind cover to do so. One vehicle has a large target profile with fast ATGMs the other has a small target profile with relatively slow ATGMs while sporting functional armor for its BR range. How is the missile speed relevant when the missile can not engage close targets at all?
Again composite armour exists, it has only one ready to fire ATGM which isnt even KE.
No composite armor in game can beat 1000 pen ATGMs
So it is an advantadge
It doesnt have to be only this vehicle to have it to be an advantage.
Do you play at higher tiers? Fields of Poland maps like? LOSAT ATGMs will be much better than Object 775 ones.
Both vehicles have advantages over the other what necessitates the 1.0 BR difference between the two?
Fields of Poland? The flat terrain which requires you to fully expose your tank to fire? When are you going to find a position to engage a target without instantly being shot?
Good mobility and access to thermals will only help.
I wont continue further on you completely ignore my points lol. Isnt the first time.