It’s the Swedish 2S38 in can do everything but it’s the best at nothing. It will handle well in nearly every realistic situation.
Well, I’m downloading MSFS 2020 so I have time to do some things.
The facts:
Round: RDFLT. The round difference from RDFLT to 2S38 is identical to that of 2S38 to Strf 9040C. So any claim between RDFLT to 2S38 is a claim between 2S38 to Strf 9040C in terms of round comparison. In reality it’s all about 20% differences.
Strf 9040C “suffers” cause it faces Abrams and Type 90s where it easily pens the turret rings. If those turret rings were fixed Strf 9040C performance would lower.
Optics/sight: RDFLT. 2x minimum zoom vs 4x.
Thermal Generation: 2S38. Gen 2+ vs gen 1 [should be no thermals on RDFLT].
Armor: Doesn’t matter, these are light tanks at APFSDS BRs.
Size [survivability]: RDFLT.
Top speed: 2S38.
Mobility: RDFLT.
Here you go @Ion_Protogen
In ground matches fastest to 40 and 50kph is usually what matters. Especially since RDFLT will obviosuly win against 2S38 to 60kph and beyond due to 2S38 slowing down significantly passed 47kph.
30kph: RDFLT: 3 seconds vs 4 seconds.
40kph: RDFLT: 6 seconds vs 7 seconds.
50kph: RDFLT: 12 seconds vs 14 seconds.
Neutral steer 360: Tied: 8 seconds vs 8 seconds.
I can see why you chose not to supply evidence to your post’s false claims.
Zero maps are above 10,000 meters in size making the laser rangefinder difference pointless.
Rate of fire only matters against aircraft at these speeds as for ground vehicles your slowest part is waiting for the muzzle smoke to dissipate.
If and when RDFLT loses its thermals I say it should go to ~11.0.
Slightly more mobile than 2S38 while firing a notably better round.
And Strf 9040C should drop by 0.3.
Oh, and since I don’t own RDFLT, here’s evidence that 2S38 was not in my lineup to make it perform better in the tests:
3 Likes
they should add a tag for all posts talking about the 2s38 at this point
If only it had a higher capacity ready-rack or faster reload of said rack… I find playing 40mm autocannons quite fun but once you face multiple enemies you realize it’s weakness.
What “false claims” did I make? I literally just compared the stats of both vehicles and used info from Spookston’s videos on the RDF/LT and HSTV-L.
Yes you are right that the RDF/LT should lose its thermals because gaijin did not model the sight that gave it it’s thermals. And by the way the 2s38 has gen 3, not gen 2. The reason I brought up armor is not irrelevant as yes both of them are easily killed by main cannons and autocannons the RDF/LT can be killed by 7.62 machine guns to the side. While the 2s38 has trouble even being .50 cal’ed in the crew compartment from the side. The 2s38 has a better overall sight as it has a higher zoom, better thermals as mentioned above, better IRST, the laser rangefinder thing was just something I found weird and mentioned not knowing it was because of the sight. And about speed, a 1-2 second difference in acceleration is not enough to warrant a 1.3 BR difference. The round for the RDF/LT is incorrect, and should have equal penetration and performance as M774, but currently it has 70mm less flat penetration, 80mm less at 30*, and 50 less at 60*. Not to mention that they simply called it “XM885,” despite there being 2 rounds under the generic term “XM885.” The issue with the ammo is that while XM885 Delta 3 penetrates more than 3ubm22 it also faces more heavily armored opponents, meaning that its penetration increase is negligible at best, and against the more heavily armored opponents with tougher sides it will often take 2-3 rounds to actually penetrate the tank and do significant damage due to how medium caliber APFSDS-T performs. This gives the tank a window of opportunity to not only turn it’s turret but also hull to face the RDF/LT either head on or at a significant angle to where the RDF/LT will have trouble penetrating. “Just shoot the mantlet or gun” you may say, but XM885 is so weak that it cannot even damage the majority of gun mantlets or takes several shots to sufficiently damage a barrel. The barrel smoke for the 2s38 is negligible at worst, as the target suffers much more from visibility loss.
Did I miss anything?
Okay I am going to put this counterargument I have seen to rest. Armor does in fact matter at top tier, especially for light tanks.
Early in the tech trees light tanks are very weak to .50 cals and other hmg’s, even in the front. But as a player goes further down the tech tree it becomes more important to have protection against hmg’s as more and more tanks begin to have them. This eventually will come to top tier where every single tank has either a .50 cal or that nation’s equivalent or a 14.5mm. Thankfully gaijin fixed the armor currently in game and the side armor is no longer vulnerable to 7.62mm coaxial
This brings us to the RDF/LT and 2s38. Many of you have said that the increase in armor doesn’t matter, well just take a look at some photos I took and how they hold up.
The first 2 images are of the RDF/LT in a side on. One is a picture of where I shot, and the second is the damage.
As you can see, nearly both crew members in the front were killed, meaning one more bullet would kill both and destroy the vehicle. If you have not managed to turn your RDF/LT towards the enemy or either disable/kill the enemy you will be .50 cal’ed to death. Now let’s place some pictures of the 2s38 in the same format.
The tank has clearly suffered quite a bit of damage as shown, clearly the extra armor does not make a difference.
And by the way Alvis, the muzzle smoke doesn’t matter much. Just go into the gunner sight and it is essentially gone. I’ll try to put up a video of me spamming at the test drive Abrams but it may not upload, I may only be able to upload short clips or screenshots.
So the video was too big so this is the best you all will be getting. This was after 30 rounds straight by the way.
This thread seriously reminds me of that guy who almost never played Ground Sim yet try to give their opinion in it
how about you actually buy them both. play both of them until you hit 200 battles. and re-post your opinion on different thread?
You don’t need 200 battles to give an opinion on a vehicle. Sure more battles help, but after 100 you probably won’t change your opinions unless you change as a player.
If the RDF/LT continues to either not have things such as appliqué armor or have XM885 fixed I will not be buying a rushed, cashgrab, and a-historically nerfed vehicle for 70 dollars when I already have the HSTV-L. And I may not have been the one to play the vehicle, but I have seen other’s reactions and opinions and come to the conclusion that the vehicle is just not worth it right now.
Well, the point is this dude come into conclusion based on written stats and “deep research” in test drive. this is that kind of guy that dont know anything but act all smart
if you dont like it, dont buy it as simple as that. stop being a killjoy for other people that enjoys it
you want to talks about “missing” stuff on vehicles? 2S38 missing its IFF, 2S25 missing its LWR, T-90M missing its APS, SU-33 missing all of its surface guided munitions, all but only one CV90 variants still missing its APU and other electronics, Merkava mk3 raam segol missing its APS i can still go
The APS isn’t missing. It is intentionally not modeled because of how it functions IRL.
This sounds like exactly the type of thing someone who didn’t know what they were talking about would say.
You’ve literally listed every single possible thing that could be interpreted as a disadvantage and most aren’t even true or relevant, while attempting to dismiss or not mentioning any advantages. This is the definition of bad faith argument.
1 Like
So then lower the HSTV-L and its sibling. That’s kind of the issue. The 2S38 performs better than both of them but enjoys a lower BR. Either increase the 2S38s BR or lower its counterpart.
How exactly is the HSTV-L worse than the 2S38?
2 Likes
Sure put it 10.3 same as 2S38 but remove/debuff round, optics, mobility
exactly i’ve been saying that over and over. this guy has absolutely no idea what he is saying
do you have a 2S38 before we continue?