Yes it does. As long as the OTOMATIC is going to be artificially restricted, there is no reason for any other vehicle to not also be artificially restricted the exact same way.
1 Like
crit=“SpeclistMain, post:88, topic:108982”]
OTOMATIC’s auxiliary magazine in the autoloader → changes the order of ammo within the autoloader
[/quote]
*changes feed source
Either happens magically because Warthunder and it cant do it. Or IRL it cycles to the correct shot
And optimal ready rack configuration allready exists for every vehicle in the game, including the OTO.
Its avertised as an extra feature. What the vehicle is actually used for is up to the people who buy it. Which was noone iirc. In other words its pitched as a SPAA so its probably a SPAA.
I mean that is certainly a thing to advocate for. But other vehicles in the game have similar limitations to the OTO, and as it then logically follows, it also got the limitation.
The logic for why things are the way they are is very simple. If you want Warthunder to break with that logic and give only the OTO full Anti-tank munitions, thats fine, but its also is inconsistent with vehicles like the Gepard.
I think you will find that ive advocated for ammo to be reworked to make hull storage usable.
Why they cant is that there is no system in place to realistically model the ammo feed and storage. Ammo is treated as 1 pool, but here its 2 ammo pools interacting where there should be 2 ready racks
You will ignore why OTO is and 2S38 isnt after ive pointed out why many many times:
Secondary feed
Exactly, its why the Gepard is, and the 2S38 isnt.
The artificial restriction is applied the same way across every vehicle in the game:
It has secondary feed for some ammunition type
criter and it then has to follow that its a SPAA.
In game 2S38 fullfills to my knowledge neither criteria
The M3 & M3A3 use a dual feed mechanism, but nether has access to a pure belt even though it should technically have a one round autoloader and instantly swap between loaded belts.
4 Likes
And if you read what i said. It also is a requirement to be labeled a spaa. Edit: dont conveniently ignore part of the same sentance
Im allready aware there are vehicles like the Amx-50 (TOA100) that have dualfeed. But since its not a spaa it doesn’t get the restriction
Edit:
But if we get the SPAA bradley and its labeled a SPAA, then yes it should get the restriction.
Not an extra feature, a main feature.
For no legitimate reason, yes.
Again, the reasoning for the Gepard’s 40 APDS limit is due to doctrine, but the OTOMATIC’s is due to Gaijin not recognizing that APFSDS ammunition can be stored in the hull. Those are two different reasons.
And I’ve said that functionally the OTOMATIC and 2S38 have the same ready-rack-ammo-switching feature, one is just a hardware implementation and the other is either software or an ahistorical gameplay feature.
Except the Gepard being restricted does not make sense as its APDS limit is based on doctrinal use, and the 2S38 should be limited because it (likely) does not have a ready-rack-ammo-switcher feature IRL.
Of which the Gepard does not, it has a secondary ammo box of AT ammunition for doctrinal (not technical) reasons. The OTOMATIC also does not have a secondary feed (it has an auxiliary magazine) as the AT ammunition is stored within the autoloader and is treated as part of the autoloader in descriptions of the system.
Of which the 2S38 is an SPAA irl.
In game it fulfills none, but at the very least should fit the latter criteria.
1 Like
If it makes you feel better, sure. If only it was advertised as if it was.
Yeah it could be labeled a SPAA in game, but it would still have no limitation because of the main requirement of dual feed.
And the rest is repeating things ive allready responded to
But you haven’t refuted, but ok
do you have any evidence that it has a separated 3 rounds feed like the otomatic?
Functionally, the 2S38 can switch ammo even when ammo is already in the autoloader (idk if this is a real life capability of the vehicle or just a gameplay feature). The OTOMATIC just has a hardware version of the switching-order-of-autoloader-ammo feature that the 2S38 has, which is why I point out the APFSDS limitation on the OTOMATIC makes no sense. I mean why limit the vehicle that actually has the capability to switch ammo, but not the vehicle that afaik can’t irl.
there is a large difference, the otomatic should only be able to shoot 3 apfsds before reloading, for this limitation we need a dual feed mechanic, having an otomatic firing 29 apfsds in a row is just as unrealistic as having an 11 rounds limit.
38*
Technically, or they could just model the two feeds to shoot out of the same barrel (not entirely sure how to the gun code works btw). Although, shooting the APFSDS would be a much better option than having only 12 APFSDS rounds since the OTOMATIC is meant to be fighting armored vehicles (and having such a small number of AT rounds goes completely against the vehicle’s purpose).
the autoloader currently has a 29 rounds capacity, so it can only shoot 29 in a row before reloading if they allow to storage ammo on the hull.
the primary role of the otomatic always was as an anti air, not at fighting armored vehicles, it is pretty clear that the apfsds would have been used as self defense, seen how it has a 3 rounds secondary feed for it. BTW even the name states that it main role, OTOMATIC is an acronyms for OTO main anti-aircraft tank for interception and combat.
It’s because it’s overpowered as shit
Tell me I’m coping though and not making an 10.0 tank for Russia be a railgun with top quality pen and top quality armor with good speed. Sorry that I hit a nerve with pointing out it’s overpowered as hell and is a full BR below where it belongs
Anyone can cherry-pick the advantages of a vehicle whilst conveniently leaving out all of the bad stuff.
It’s just not very convincing as an argument.
If you want to seriously list the Object 292’s attributes, you should also mention the abysmal gun handling characteristics, horrendous reload rate, mediocre reverse speed, lack of thermals, lack of MG and lack of neutral steering.
Oh true, missed the “in a row” part.
The primary role (two-thirds of its purpose) was anti-air, but the other third was fighting armored vehicles.
Oh boy, have you even read any of the thread?
Of which, going off of the above sources, means OTO Main Antiaircraft Tank for Interception [of air vehicles and munitions] and Combat [of ground vehicles].
1 Like
“it can’t look up very fast so it doesn’t belong at 11.7”
stares at the chally’s stabilizer not working anytime it goes on terrain either
“mediocre reverse speed”
true, except same for the challenger. which doesn’t get any of its armor modeled.
“lack of mg” brother you might get one extra kill every fifty because of the MG, and not because you can kill with it, because you can use it to ping a player.
No, the Object 292 not being perfect does not mean I am cherrypicking things, the thing is better than anything in the British tree and is 10.3
Don’t twist my words, that’s clearly not what I said.
And you’re again cherry-picking things here, gun handling characteristics means a lot more than just gun elevation speed.
- The Challenger has -10° of depression, Object 292 has -5°
- The Challenger has 11°/sec vertical traverse, 292 has 2.7°/sec
- Challenger has a 31°/sec turret traverse, 292 has a 24°/sec turret traverse.
- Challenger has a 5 second reload rate, 292 has a 10 second reload rate.
And the Challenger doesn’t even have the best gun handling around, the Leopard 2 and M1’s are quite a bit better still.
Let me take a wild guess here: You’ve never played the Object 292 yourself.
99% of people complaining about Russian MBT’s being too powerful have never played them, ‘‘grass is always greener on the other side’’ and such.
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t think the Object 292 is that good at 11.7 (despite having a really powerful round). The armour at 10.3 is really good, but becomes obsolete (mostly) at 11.7. The gun handling and reload seems to be the worst part about it. I think it would be fine at 10.7 or maybe at 11.0. The Challenger 2 (for the most part) is a better vehicle.
No I didn’t choose to grind the event, I should have
It’s not a “the grass is always greener” it’s literally THE GRASS IS. GREENER.
Brother everyone has seen the clips of Russian tanks being broken as hell by bouncing every shell and then not spalling/detonating constantly. “OH GOD I CAN’T PLAY OVER THIS HILL” most tanks with -10 degrees can barely play on most hills like lmfao. It’s such a miniscule advantage man. I know why you use it to complain, because you can at least say that, but if you’re consistently on hills then go play a different tree (and find it barely works better)
Yet my NATO tanks are sitting on 60-75% winrates with 4.5 - 1 or even 6.5 - 1 K/D ratio’s facing those Russian tanks.
And we’re back to cherry-picking a singular disadvantage whilst disregarding all the other downsides of the vehicle.
1 Like