Which is why i suggested the 9040C to move up as thats its closest contemporary. They are the most similar in nearly their respective role gameplay wise, both have similar mobility, both have similar survivability, one has far greater pen but slower fire rate, the 9040 only has a ready rack of 24 vs the 200 the 2S38 has, the 2S38 can lock aivraft the 9040’s cant, they both have HE-VT. compared to other IFV’s they match up the closest.
Looks at the Desert Warrior at 10.0.
Why is the 2S38 only a single BR higher?
Eh, I agree with FA2 getting 9M stock, but I remember stock grind with the AV-8B+ being a breeze.
Could be different now as it is going up and it will have big competition with the F-16s
If 2S38 and 9040C move up one could easily demand Freccia to move up to 11.0 for example, as it offers many benefits over those two. Same goes for vehicles under those, as one could demand a vehicle like BMP-3 or Begleit to move up as well.
It’s pretty much a never ending circle until you actually add more BR steps.
I wasnt intially thinking about the AV-8B+ but jsut for fairness sake.
Harrier II airframe can hold its own in a gunfight and has a very good A2G loadout for an easy stock grind. I imagine its quite a bit easier than the FA2
Probably for the same reason T-80U is only a single BR step lower than 2A7, compression.
1 Like
And thats fine, some could argue for the Freccia to go up. Again its a fantasy idea to expect gaijin to properly decompress the game, moving both the 2S38 and 9040C up isnt going to hurt them.
The guy was out turning my Milan magically, a MILAN.
I don’t think it’s that unrealistic for Gaijin to add 12.7 for ground. Those two extra steps would really help higher and top tier.
Yeah it’s a bit nuts to think the T-80Us are only one br below the Leo 2a7s
The only difference in the M4A3E2 (76) W from a standard M4 Sherman is the British put a 17 pounder gun in the turret so that it could defeat the frontal armor of a Tiger 1 it could not defeat the sloped armor of a Tiger 2 and it did not have 101 mm of frontal armor it had 63 mm again historical inaccuracy
Would prob be better if they did 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, etc
They would be a great addition the problem is we’ve needed proper decompression for how long? We had to force them to do it with air multiple times.
1 Like
Yeah, this is 75% of the problem
do you have proof of the inaccuracy?
… What ever you’ve smoked I’d like some holy
You are describing the Sherman Firefly, the Sherman Firefly never received a US designation as it never entered US service. In British service they were designated Sherman IC or VC depending on if a M4A1 or M4A4 chassis was used.
The M4A3E2 was an “Assault tank”/Heavy Tank designed in March/April 1944, and was to be delivered in August 1944. The first prototypes were provided in June 1944. A total of 254 E2 were produced, 250 were shipped to Europe.
Some were field modified for 76mm guns.
This isn’t hard information to find.
(oh and ps, then even field modded E8s with extra armour)
3 Likes
Nope! Just excessive Cope and an inability to use a search engine.
A massive skill issue if you ask me
2 Likes
I don’t even know how someone believes this. The 76 Jumbo does not look British at all
2 Likes
7/10 ragebait, very confident, provides an absolutely wild and false take, and even better the bait isn’t that obvious.
-3 points because the topic isn’t that contraversial, well it isn’t really a topic at all, just completely false. Could gain 3 points for putting in something political.
Otherwise great content
4 Likes
This dude only plays ground arcade, what do you expect
1 Like