The ZSU-37-2 is at 7.7 with radar
The Falcon is 8.3 without radar
Why is the 2S38 not 11.3 the same BR as the Otomatic?
- Big difference between 37-2 and Otomatic radar performance
- Former glory of the Falcon (It was 7.7)
- Falcon has more fire power than a 37-2 (ADPS)
- Falcon not fully completed modules gives him more survavability
“Trolly” is a strange way of phrasing in such a broken state it should never have seen live servers. Almost as if there’s no word in russian for Quality Assurance & Quality Control.
1 Like
Why can the 2S38 face the MBT-70?
This MBT was designed in the 70s. It should not be facing APFSDS from 2022. There is no justification for this.
Straight arms and less whining!
Why can the М50 Ontos face the IS-2?
This heavy tank was designed in the 40s. It should not be facing М40А1С from 1955. There is no justification for this.
2 Likes
Recoilless rifles were used during WW2.
Further:
Ontos
Service history
In service 1956–69
IS-2
Service history
In service 1944-1970s
S-60 automatic cannons were used during the Cold War, while the 2S38 has a similar weapon. Deal with it.
M4 Shermans were used until the 90s. By your logic, do we send them to the M1 Abrams?
1 Like
I don’t have an issue with automatic cannons lol I have an issue with the APFSDS round of said smaller caliber having nearly the same penetration as an MBT of the era, this is simply due to increases in technology.
You can look to the Begleit for a cold war comparison, low velocity shells and no thermals / IRST tracking etc. Just a bofors on a light tank and a tow slapped on.
So are you having problems with the projectile? Does the IS-2 have any problems with M50 Ontos shells?
Does the Sherman have any problems with Tiger shells?
There are tanks which were in service at the same time as tanks which can easily penetrate them. The 2S38 has a 50 year technology lead, it’s not equivalent.
And what is the technological advantage? Armor penetration is about 200mm on BR 10.0? Look, Ontos has more than 400 mm of armor penetration on BR 6.7, and that doesn’t bother you. There is, of course, no technological advantage over the tanks of the 40s.
1 Like
APFSDS, which goes through air gapped armor.
It’s a very effective tank, it can even go up in BR to 7.3, I’ve used it with my 7.7 lineup repeatedly.
You’re comparing 6 shots of full penetration versus 48, ignoring the other benefits such as IRST, Proxies, Gen 2 thermals, and technology allowing a crewless turret so you can hull down.
If you believe the Ontos is under BR’d then I would agree with you. If you think the Ontos is a comparable vehicle in performance to the 2S38 then I would disagree vehemently.
What kind of armor does it penetrate? It is effective only against lightly armored vehicles. After the introduction of lining in MBTs, small-caliber APFSDS had big problems when firing into the side.
I don’t see any threads suggesting to raise its BR. There are several threads in a row on the 2S38 with tearful requests to raise its BR. Where are the threads on the M50 Ontos? Do you smell hypocrisy?!
What advantages are there? A second-generation thermal imaging sight? Which of its opponents doesn’t have it at 10.3? The Ontos can also shoot while in cover. And it does so much more effectively due to better gun depression. The Derivation is a huge barn, with the gun practically not tilting downwards. Accordingly, it cannot play from folds of the terrain. The Ontos at its BR has a much better combination of characteristics than the 2S38 at its BR. But your Derivation is unbalanced, you write a bunch of threads about it, while you are silent about the Ontos. And this is just one example. You can also mention the German and Swedish missile tanks, which have a BR of 8.0.
There are none because it is an uncommon and difficult to use tank. It’s at a BR where high pen HEAT rounds start to show up, and there are more prominent vehicles that are talked about there.
The Raketen should be a higher BR, but I believe the Ush is balanced where it is due to it’s bad armour, bad gun handling, poor mobility, and low ammo.
The same can be said about 2S38.
In your opinion, the 2S38 has no problems with armor, mobility and the amount of ammunition?
It is a fairly common tank, and would probably be easier (but not easy) to use compared to the M50.
The 2S38 has 148 rounds, no ready rack, no gun overheating, making its firepower quite good. It does lack armour, but it is usually enough to stop .50s and nothing more. Its mobility is worse than comparable vehicles, but it’s not awfully slow.
How will it be simpler?
What are you talking about? After anti-fragmentation lining appeared in the game, all automatic cannons lost their effectiveness when firing at the side of an MBT. And this applies to 2S38.
He simply does not have armor, so you don’t have to write further about bullets. And its mobility, either at the level of the MBTs with which it usually deals, or worse, which for a light tank without armor and weak armor penetration, which can only penetrate the side armor, is an extremely important parameter.
The M50 has offset barrels, making it difficult to use.
And those are uncommon at its current BR.
I think that the 2S38 should be 0.3 higher than it is, but I can accept its current BR.
It has sighting cartridges, and after five minutes of training at the range, only a stupid person would not understand how to shoot with it.
Everyone who talks about its high efficiency has no experience playing it. Or they have extremely bad statistics on it.