Still way too low bro, it has four 30mm cannons, twice the number of cannons of Gepards. The 2S6 is basically two Gepard glued on top of each other so by right 8.3*2 = 16.6br, but since our current max br is only at 12.7, so it needs to be 12.7 bro. The absurdity of russian bias is clearly showing, they are not even hiding it anymore. When we get max br to 13.3 or 13.7 we can move it up again because this is the only vehicle that could chop down all the trees in fields of Normandy and turn it into another braindead open space map like fire arc bro
12 Likes
Sarcasm increases
1- Breach, idler wheel, lfp, etc are no where near “pixel” size.
Entire turret in the case of T-80BVM.
2- Soviet tanks do not have reduced spall.
2a- Spalling is based on material type, ammunition mass, penetration left over, and possibly other factors.
VIDAR and T-80U for example will spall similarly.
However, VIDAR and T-80U will not spall in the same way T-72 and Abrams do.
3- Not a thing. Ammo detonates.
4- Trunnions make hitting more difficult, but that’s it. Type 90 has this as well as other tanks.
1- 2S6 is correctly BR’d. 11.3 would require aircraft of 10.7 to move up to 11.3 as well, which wouldn’t be fair to them.
Other 10km class SPAA of equal capability should be 10.7 - 11.0 as well.
2- Strela is already nerfed.
3- Roland 3 is 9.7 and 10.0…
Gaijin did balance Soviet tanks as they should… on release of the ground vehicles.
The Russian bias claims continue.
so, explain me how a LFP shot only kill the driver and the engine? You are very delusional
The difference is that Type-90 is a giant weak spot, meanwhile breech in russian tanks are one of the main weakspots… You level o logic is amazing.
Its not. Again, there is no similar AA that matches its firepower at the same BR or closer…
Ohh, of course its. A lot nerfed…
Still useless and heavily nerfed.
Problem is neither 2S6 nor Pantsir has direct equivalent on NATO side, not to mention at 11.3 we already got TOR-M1 which has better missiles against targets that flies high enough.
So at this point Tunguska doesn’t need any br increase.
3 Likes
Yes, but tunguska have a very good advantage over TOR. Guns, and a lot of them. TOR is very easy to destroy, just fly low and hit it from close. This is so true the OTOMATIC have returned to its glory times due to the new CAS meta.
NATO could have, if gaijin buffed stingers to their real pull. around 20-22G as already reported in the forums, but they neglected because iglas cant do the same.
Yea but in return it has worse radar and worse missiles which is the main selling point of TOR-M1.
I used Chinese version quite a lot and its better than Tunguska in most cases, especially against maneuvering targets, Tunguska on the other hand is better for close range engagements due to quadruple 30mm’s.
1 Like
Stinger will never be equal to dedicated long range SAM missiles even if they buff it to real values.
The missiles on the 2s6 seem a bit suck, 3-4 seconds after launching it would start having seizures and feel like impossible to lead it to the target. Like it lose all power suddenly
2 Likes
I didn’t have major issues with Tunguska’s missiles in general but I rather use TOR-M1 any day due to how much better missiles it has.
@Tank_Guy
Aiming too low isn’t a fault of the tank you’re firing on.
T-80 breach is a large weak spot, yes.
2S6, OSA, and ASRAD.
2S6 having 2 guns is not a major thing.
That <2km range use case is not anywhere close to common.
Every day, another Russian Bias post like this:
I’ve never seen a Russian tank that didn’t die in a single shot from its LFP except in rare and unless I fired at wrong angle.
1 Like
honestly, you guys are rage bait clowns
Look who is mad now? It’s impossible not to laugh when you see the same things every day on this forum. Pathetic.
1 Like
see the same thing every day and still act like it doesnt exist. Amazing analysis capability. I guess playing a videogame is the best thing you can do.
I’m not ignoring anything; on the contrary, as a player who’s simultaneously grinded both the UK and Russia, I’m saying the things you mentioned are wrong. Now go play in the sand.
Skill issue
7 Likes
Tunguska has quadruple guns, not double.
‘‘I just want to casually one-click any Russian tank anywhere because I’m not interested in learning game mechanics such as lead, shell drop and weakspots. As long as I have to aim even the slightest bit against Russian tanks it’s Russian bias.’’
‘‘The disadvantages Russian tanks suffer in terms of gun depression, reverse speed, acceleration, neutral steering, reload speed, survivability, vertical gun traverse, etc. don’t matter because admitting they have significant drawbacks doesn’t suit my agenda.’’
4 Likes