Gaijin doing Gaijin stuff. Maybe because Rh202 is terrible at its BR? A 20mm cannon shooting against heavy tanks like IS-3 isn’t that good if it was classified as light tank, would be more expensive to spawn and wouldn’t worth the waste of spawn points to this specific vehicle. If it was 5.7 or 5.3 same as the SUB-I-II, maybe, just maybe would be worth.
2S38 is the same case, leaving it as SPAA makes the spawn points more cheaper and probably cheaper when using backups.
I think is that’s why.
If they add this logic for auto cannons same would be for the rest. Belt-fed or projectile-fed.
Well that’s the thing… None of the 2S38s contemporaries would be affected much by this as the 2S38 has a unique loading mechanism compared to others. Bushmaster 25/30mm, Oerlikon 25/35mm, Bofors 40/57mm, and OTO 76mm all have the capability to switch ammo types in about 1-3 seconds.
From my current understanding of the 2S38s auto loader it would need to cycle out the 1st stage ammo, cycle the new ammo from the carousel into the first stage ammo rack and then be able to fire the new ammo type.
Having a separate feed in the OTOMATIC does not limit its APFSDS, it’s three-round drum just has to be manually loaded. Also, why is having a separate feed the only requirement?
40mm is still considered “small,” at least going off of this:
A separate feed that does not limit the APFSDS in any way.
I think this strays into “whatabout-ism” territory. If I understand correctly, you suggest that critics of 2S38 are only concerned about this specific vehicle and overlook/don’t care about other ones.
This is not the case for myself or the people I know. Evidently we agree on something, the vehicles you listed are problematic in their own way and I too question their balance.
This game has a lot of balance problems, in fact too many to name, so I don’t think “but other vehicles are overpowered too” is a good argument.
As for why there are more/louder complaints about 2S38 than others? I think it’s due to:
How many there are (you see and die to it often)
Powerful & multi-purpose offensive capability
Inconsistent yet frustrating survivability
Faces ~9.0 MBTs which it can lolpen frontally
Part of insanely strong lineup USSR 10.0
So I can totally understand why there are more discussion about 2S38 since you see it every single battle on both teams (Soviet lineup is that popular) and when half the opposing players are in it at some point.
Meanwhile the AFT09 is seen once in a blue moon and most forget it even exists.
Cause labeling 2S38 as SPAA would be an artificial buff to the 2S38. @SpeclistMain That goes for you as well.
The ONLY people that want 2S38 to be labeled as SPAA are its owners and its supporters that want to spend less Spawn Points spawning it.
“Pre-loaded shells” Isnt modelled on any vehicle atm really. Its just runs on the Warthunder of “ideal scenario” Meaning it assumes the right shell is being loaded at the right time.
That issue tho is seperate from “double feed” On the Otomatic since its not about “pre loaded” Shells, its a seperate feed dedicated for a different set of ammunition.
I say its an observed requirement since being a spaa and having a seperate feed makes the mechanic suddenly apply.
It does, just not how it is modeled in game.
In the use described by matetials it limits APFSDS to 3 shots in the drum before reload from a dedicated ready rack and then from hull ammo.
Gaijin has decided to exclude hull storage capacity, likely because they do not have the tools to model this and it would likely require a rewrite of how Warthunder does ammunition.
Which again, doesn’t mean anything. The Gepard was limited for balance (while keeping it at its BR), but for the OTOMATIC there is no need for the nerf.
Irl the separate feed does not limit the amount of APFSDS it can carry.
They would not need to do that, they would just need to allow APFSDS to be stored in the hull storage. To make it have the 3 round drum, they could just increase the barrel overheat per APFSDS shot: that way it would overheat in 3 rounds, where the cooldown period would stand in for the time needed to load rounds into the loader. If the player shoots only once or twice (so the barrel doesn’t overheat), the cooldown would simulate the amount of time to load a shell into the loader. Additionally, the APFSDS ready rack mechanic would still function as it does now.
And that’s even saying that the separate feed mechanic needs to be implemented. They could just straight up not add it and give it unlimited APFSDS.
Afaik, it could be equipped with them, it just wasn’t operationally. There’s a lot of loadouts in game that would never happen irl, but we can still make them in War Thunder.
Well… Gepard might have been limited by balance, but the way it was limited was by using the seperate feed mechanism.
For equivalence, OTO has a similar feed situation to the Gepard, and it was then also limited when the bug report for it was submited.
Warthunder to my knowledge does not have a system to count the number of shells correctly in the situation that would be required. So thats developing a workaround for a single weaponsystem in the game.
Their solution appears to be a reasonable compromise for what they were probably working with.
Would unrealistically block firing of main feed ammunition. And idk if Warthunder does per ammunition overheat values. Its replacing an innaccurate modeling with a less accurate one.
If one wants to be inconsistent in how they treat the implementation of features in vehicles it is certainly a way to go about it. But in this case Gaijin has seemongly chosen “realism” And gone about implementing it (even if done in a unrealistic way)
The OTOMATIC has a 3 round magazine that then has to be replenished, but it can be replenished though the turret AT rack and the hull ammo storage. It can hold at least 38 APFSDS (9 in turret rack, 3 in magazine, 26 in hull).
Almost all ammo storage in game functions this way, what do you mean? There are very few that are strickly limited to one type of ammo.
They would be 2 independant in some aspects, but also linked ammo pools where an excess of some amount would affect the other, and the amount loaded by one would affect the maximum you could load with the other. Then there is the fact there should be 2 seperate ready racks, in this case in the autoloader cache. Main feed and secondary feed
No ammo situation i am aware of do this. The closest you get are vehicles which have a limit on the number of ATGMs they can carry that still counts towards the main total.
The Gepard has a 40 round magazine that can be replenished and in theory could hold another 680 rounds in the hull.
It is basically the same situation. Noone is disputing the fact the OTO could hold more, but its situation in terms of secondary feed is the same as the Gepard
No, the Gepard could have full APDS belts, it just wasn’t added that way in game because it would have been busted at its BR (compared to its ability to shoot down aircraft). It’s at 8.7 currently, but with its APDS it would be around 9.7-10.0 going off of its penetration. Then when you factor in the fire rate, it would probably go up to like 10.7. It’s AA abilities are not good enough for 10.7 nor 10.0, so they limited it to 40 rounds of APDS.
The OTOMATIC is currently at 11.3, where it’s AA abilities are already not great - but when you factor in that it is literally supposed to fight armored ground vehicles as well (at least not heavy ones/MBTs, usually), the APFSDS limit makes no sense.
“IIRC, there was documentation showing that Gepards never had belts of APDS, only magazines loaded with APDS for when it needed them.”
“Those 40 APDS rounds are enough to engage and kill 2, maybe even 3 tanks at close range, with enough trigger discipline. Just like in real life, this should be a very last defensive act.”
The OTOMATIC is meant to both engage armored targets in attack and self-defense (so NOT what the Gepard was meant to do), and there is no documentation suggesting that the APFSDS count was limited to 12.
There is no consistency between the decision to limit the Gepard to 40 APDS and the decision to limit the OTOMATIC to 12 APFSDS. The OTOMATIC is designed to engage armored ground targets and aerial targets, the Gepard is only meant to defend itself against ground targets.
no the OTOMATIC was a SPAA meant to fullfill the same role as the Gepard or the Marksman system. And in material also been compared to the Seargent York, and its only really marketed in its AA duty, same with the successor systems based on the same concept.
The 3 round is there in case the vehicle has to act in self defence against armored vehicles, same way a Gepard has its stash of APDS in case it needs to defend against armored vehicles. So yeah, Gepard is “meant” to engage armored targets when it has to, thats why it has the belts.
Its defence against air attack, with some capability, like the Gepard, to engage armored targets where it has to.
there is no documentation suggesting the gepard is limited to 40 rounds of APDS either, but both get the same treatment of being limited to the self defence feed ready rack. So that is specifically consistensy in how Warthunder treats vehicles
“The OTOMATIC is intended for: defense of armoured targets and troops against air attacks on the battle field; defence of forces and vital objectives in rear areas; armour engagement in support of own forces and self-defense.”
Keywords: IN SUPPORT OF OWN FORCES AND SELF-DEFENSE
“Powerful APFSDS ammunition enables the OTOMATIC 76/62 AA tank to engage armoured fighting vehicles in attack or self-defence actions.”
Keywords: ATTACK OR SELF-DEFENSE
“The Navy’s Antitank System” by John Larry Baer (staff consultant to the firm that represents Oto Melara): “Unlike small calibers (30-, 35-, or 40-mm.), this system would provide the Army with stand-off capability against vehicles on the ground, or aircraft and helicopters coming in for a strike.”
Keywords: UNLIKE SMALL CALIBERS
International Defense Review 6 1988: “The gun is compatible with the full range of 76mm ammunition developed for the original naval mounting. However, in this land-based application it is envisaged that two principal ammunition types - pre-formed fragment (PFF) and armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) - will be used. The latter, which is still in development, has a muzzle velocity of 1,617m/s and is claimed to be able to penetrate the frontal armour of a Soviet T-62 tank at 1,500m. Effective range against an armoured personnel carrier is greater than 2,200m.”
Please explain how when sources say it is meant for attack and self-defense, it is only meant for self-defense.
