Brain said Begleit, reflexes typed PUMA.
How about we compare it to ATGMs from its own BR range and not 8.3
RBS-56 is a top down with 510mm of pen which easily pens the roof.
Tow-2A / Tow-2B can both deal with the PUMA if you aim carefully and one is tandem.
9M123 has 0 issues killing the PUMA.
Spike has issues not because of its bad pen (which is wrong) but mainly cause you cant aim it.
This would only apply if there wasn’t an RHA plate separating the crew from the engine… oh wait there is, and it produces enough spall to KO at least 2 crew members.
If they do eat a shell, it’s mostly because of volumetric, not because the engines are so adept at eating spall.
But aight, i’ll do tests against the Puma :)
1 Like
Gimme ~3 1\2 hours
I’ll tell you why that kind of situations happening everyday. The players who play PUMA, they played at least hundreds of hours to get the vehicle. Unlike 2S38 owners who just pay to use it.
And you are still keep telling me about PUMA’s survivability against 30mm cannons. I told you, it never works against MBT’s shells or ATGMs. To IFVs in this game, survivability is not a great part of it.
Mobility and firepower is the main part.
1 Like
I don’t think there’s any difference between two people using a vehicle?
Most people who spend the full 8000+ GE on the 2S38 are also people who already have thousands of hours played.
I bought the Chinese T-69IIG premium when I unlocked the Chinese ZTZ-59D1 in the regular tech tree, at the time when they were both 8.7, to bolster a lineup. And I have difficulties understanding how there’s a difference? You’re both playing and learning a new vehicle.
…You do realize that there has been a whole new devblog about new mechanics precisely because IFVs are so survivable…?
You clearly don’t understand how to use the PUMA. For example - you do realize you could sit side-on in a corner, with your front behind the wall, and only your unmanned turret showing - and you’d be extremely hard to kill? FOR ANYTHING. (The 2S38 would not be able to do this, and it would be instantly destroyed because of the carousel)
It’s not like the PUMA’s layout and characteristics don’t apply to MBT cannons. Hell - an MBT whiffing a shot into your empty hull is an MBT which you can easily disable by shooting his barrel and tracks promptly while he is reloading… An IFV can just spray into your hull and then your gun to disable you shooting back in a span of a second.
The Chinese QN506 has the same layout as the PUMA and I do that all the time. Or you could just learn the maps, and find positions where you can use your gun depression (that I don’t have in the QN506, for example), to be extremely difficult to kill?
Again. STOP blaming the vehicles. You’re the one at fault.
The dev blog is try to disappear all kinds of ways that did not make sense in the real life. Not only about IFV’s survivability, all the armored vehicle’s survivability when they got penetrated.
Showing my empty spot to the enemy is effective as you say. But it is effective when I also can penetrate enemy’s armor.
Shoot the barrel? Have you ever fight with MBT with this vehicle in 500-1000m range?
Thousands of hours? Show me the stats. I can’t believe those newbies played thousands of hours. Maybe they lost all their memories if its truth.
Dont shoot at him… retreat and try to flank it or get closer.
Premiums, especially of the big three, are very commonly purchased by inexperienced players who simply want to buy their way to top tier (Or assume that there’s a pay to win element in the game). There is a reason skill levels drop like a stone the second you reach that 10.0ish Rank VII premium block.
You’re also neglecting one of the largest advantages the 2S38 has over it’s 10.0 contemporaries, it’s ability to engage targets frontally. Every single 10.0ish MBT can either be penned through the mantlet, or the turret ring by the 2S38. Meanwhile, the 9040s and the PUMA either require pixel perfect aim on things like the turret ring, or shots on the LFP for a couple of them (Ariete and Type 96). It’s also able to cut through side armor at a much harsher angle, meaning rushing an MBT on reload and sneaking a shot through side armor is much more consistent.
This makes the 2S38 much more flexible. The PUMA and 9040 absolutely require sideshots to work against a massive portion of what they fight. Encountering an MBT frontally (Which is very common, even on the flanks given their huge speed advantages at this tier) is basically a death sentence for them. It’s not ideal for the 2S38 either, but with good reactions you can potentially win the fight, or at least disable your opponent and get away.
This sets up the catch 22 of the autocannon lights at this tier. You need side armor to exploit, so you have to play aggresively, except you’re slower than a lot of the MBTs at this tier, so you get caught out too easily, so you have to play defensively, but then you don’t get side armor, so you need to play… The 2S38 at least has the ability to play aggressively more successfully.
That’s on top of it’s other advantages (IRST with working proxy, faster turret, APHE for better shell economy on the flanks, etc).
3 Likes
Strf 9040C has a nearly identical frontal performance due to turret rings being 50mm on nearly everything for some reason.
IRT with proxy fuse is 9.3 in capability, below 10.0.
APCBC is 8.3 with only laser range finder, at most 9.3.
1 Like
most turret rings are identical in armor because the bearings that are used for that are ISO standardised and above a certain size they just stop changing most of the dimensions in the bearing which results in most tanks having the same thickness of bearing for the turret
It can get through, but the 2S38 is more consistent about it. On the Abrams in particular, the driver’s optics will block the direct shot from the 9040C, while the 2S38 can go right through. Meanwhile, the other 9040s and the PUMA have tiny, inconsistent shots against the same turret ring.
Doesn’t change the fact that these are capabilities that the 2S38 has that the other autocannon 10.0s lack, with the singular exception of the Lvkv9040C, which sacrifices the good APFSDS round (As well as gaining a RADAR dome that can be seen from orbit) for IRST + Proxy.
1 Like
Literally everything you’ve written regarding the 2S38 has been debunked by both me and others in the “2S38 to 11.0” thread.
1 Like
Nothing was debunked, people had simply given up on arguing with you, each for their reasons. However, it’s your belief in the end :p
3 Likes
It’s not a belief if each and every point I made was completely founded on things found in the game itself.
You know - objective numbers. Reality.
The only difference is that I don’t cave when people don’t agree with me, unlike most of the people trying to imply the 2S38 is some unstoppable force deserving the same BR as the HSTV-L. Most of them stopped the moment my arguments started getting any support.
You’re welcome to continue the rapport here, considering it is deeply related to the thread.
EDIT: I’ve literally said nothing wrong, so I’m not going to edit anything in this post. I can only say that flagging posts that disagree with you, just because they disagree with you, is extremely sad.
There was little to no objectivity to most of your arguments that I attempted to address. You disregarded most arguments based on your belief that “those statistics are irrelevant because they don’t apply to the scenario I’m describing”.
Most of them stopped the moment my arguments started getting any support.
Most of them stopped because you’re a douche, not because your arguments held any water.
That aside, apart from a few people, I don’t think most even argued that 2S38 is unstoppable or better than the HSTV-L (or that it needs to be at 11.3).
You’re absolutely welcome to quote the exact paragraph that I said where you believe this applies - so that it may be debunked. Only exact quotes. If you make strawmen of my arguments, you’re making a concession.
Lol.
You yourself even stated that horizontal rotation speed was irrelevant in the context of your argument:
And it even includes the douche part :o
Holding the most weight =/= the only relevant thing.
It’s literally an aspect of the English language that you keep implying means something else rather than what it actually means, so I’ll say/imply it for the third time now. Hopefully it’s the charm.