May just be a personal bias - I was playing them and loving it.
I was just explaining it to you just incase you didn’t know, I haven’t read the argument enough to understand whats going on here.
Okay, i’ve read the argument now.
Marders are largely free kills - Everyone knows why.
The XM246 is considered a better Gepard because it doesn’t face the XM800T and does infact face Germany, which has the most light tanks around that BR. While the Gepard gets APDS and better mobility, the XM246 is far more tanky due to the extra modules it has and has a better turret traverse. I think they’re equal.
The Luchs is garbage, no need to explain.
The Type 87 RCV (P) is wheeled, and has poor handling and gun handling compared to the XM800T. Its also almost never played out.
As for the Wiesel, it doesn’t face Germany, doesn’t have a STAB, and is easily .50’d compared to the XM800T which is .50cal resistant, Not proof, resistant.
All in all, the XM246 should be the same BR as the Gepard, and the XM800T is fine at 8.3 considering it just faces more lights and less heavies.
2 Likes
Same. Thats just been my experience in killing them, specificly referring to the Merkava 4s that is. I do have a Merkava 3 but I don’t consider my time with it indicative of the 4s and such due to the entire hull re-design and all the changes made.
I do very much so fear for the Merkavas for when they get the same turret basket nerfs like the M1s and Leopards, that void space sometimes seems to save the crew, having a massive basket might end up guaranteeing spall ending up somewhere near the turret crew.
No problem, but yes, I am indeed aware of the post pen meme that is the 35mm KDA API, namely in it’s ability to cause cupolas to implode like a dying star.
Odd then that marders are still played and commonly do well.
Competing nations and lineups are not used in vehicle balancing only performance metrics.
In the case of interior modules, the only tangible difference between both vehicles is that the XM246 carries it’s ammo in the turret while the Gepard carries it in it’s turret basket, both are boxes with 5mm of armor present.
The placement of the guns on the 246 may also be considered better placement armor wise, but the Gepard does have the FCR in the same position.
I will agree that the 246 does sport overall better armor due to it being on a M48 hull and having 25.4 mm RHA all over the turret with 6.6mm HHRA ontop of it, although, this only fully protects it from HMG fire.
However, I do think that the lack of APDS heavily harms the 246 in ground combat situations and it’s vastly inferior radar search volume harms it’s awareness compared to the Gepard.
I’ve seen it do quite well at 7.3, it’s biggest issue is, as stated, its girth.
All RH202 mounts sport the same performance, the XM800T’s M139 mount is indeed better but the base RH202 mount’s performance is already high enough for it to not be a tangible difference. The stabilizer is what matters the most, but that alone I dont see as being enough to put a 1.0 BR difference between the weapons.
Already spoken at length about it’s mobility so I wont repeat that.
Still the case that vehicles are not balanced against what nations they can fight or their lineups, only vehicle performance. Still sports the same standard RH202 mount. It is overall easier to .50 than the XM800T, yes, but thats only out to range, around 300 meters. At gremlin tank ranges where you would be .50ing one of these things, neither’s armor really can do much against .50s, you might bounce at higher angles on the sides of the XM800T, but it’s entire front volume is not going to do much, just like the Wiesel.
As of now, the XM246, to me, either needs the KDA APDS, or needs to get it’s AHEAD styled proxy rounds, the PGZ09 already gets similar rounds at 8.3 as well.
XM800T wise, I would have vastly less interest in it at 8.3 due to the M3 CFV already existing in my 8.3 lineups and being largely a superior pick.
All my Squadmates hate to fight it.
With the other “Rats” there are no such problems or atleast they dont talk about in any way or form like the XM800T
1 Like
theres good reason for that significantly higher punch amount.
RARDEN shells are massive compared to most 30 and 25mm peers, being near the same in dimension to the shells fired by the A10s gatling gun, famed for shredding the hell out of whatever it shoots.
it makes sense that the bushmaster 30mm apfsds just about beats it out.
this is now getting off topic so either dm me or end here now that is shown why
1 Like
And the one on the Puma is a 30x173mm shell like the GAU-8
theres a good chance that the mauser gun on puma has been screwed over then, its likely not far off from the RARDEN/Oerlikon KCB in its power unless its a very different APDS they are using to model
The bushmaster 30mm is 30x173. It should dog on less advanced AP ammo
3 Likes
yes, the gau 8s ammo is standardised across NATO, RARDEN was a step in that direction with its success however is of course older than the standardisation
there will be improvements in ammunition over time however I don’t know if there’s been revisions to the RARDENs APDS and if they are using that revision or how any other similar guns are chosen to be modelled. especially as APDS is meant to be the step to the real ammunition on other chainguns
when we are looking at bores so small the difference between a good APDS and APFSDS is not going to be the night and day of our MBTs, accuracy will be better but penetration not so much
I have a feeling that modern NATO guns are getting screwed over as the mauser and modern 30mm bushmaster are all similar size shells but much newer, especially as the 30mm bush can use RARDEN ammunition with small modification. Have to wonder if this is like the issue with HVAP/APCR where they are all based on a russian shell which is inferior to western peers in core sizing.
this is off topic fully now we should go over to a thread where this is relevant
Well, your “explanation” is just this looks bigger, is just wrong, the image that you post shows it, there is very little difference in size between the 30×170, 30×173 and the 30x165.
I doesnt buddy, there is no justification for your argument that the rarden to pen 20 mm more… again the core is the same diameter (in game) as both the 30x165 and the 30×173, while the fist whights the same and has almost the same muzzle velocity and the 30 mm bushmaster, whights like 50% less while having a v^2, over 50% higher, there is no way that the rarden pens 20mm more with almost the same knietic energy, same core diameter and same ammo density, youre just being delulu.
Btw size comparation between the russian 30mm and the 30x 173, not sure how the 30mm of the rarden is “massive” compared with the other 30mm…
1 Like
You’re going to have the same effect as when the M18 was first added. It’s seen as particularly annoying but that’s it, but because people don’t wanna learn how to fight it. (Or just be aware) they want the thing to be stuffed into an area where it can’t succeed.
It’s different construction process for Russian APDS though.
RARDEN uses a Tungsten core
Russian 3UBR8 30mm does not, it uses a structural steel penetrator.
So no, penetration values shouldn’t be similar.
My opinion
Where Do WE EVEN BEGIN? That there in a ERA which they didn’t inhabit? That they should even have access to APFDS or any form of 100mm pen belts? OH oh don’t even begin about Cold war rats being at 6.7 and below, Like i can’t do justice to HOW MUCH I HATE THEM
Where do you even get that caim? 3ubr8 uses a tungten core, the ubr6 is the one that uses structural steel…
1 Like
You are correct the article conflated both types as the same only mentioning that 3UBR8 main difference was the plastic housing.
It does seem like it is almost a direct copy of the Rarden L14A3 and should have similar penetration and spalling.
I can only assume it doesn’t for a gameplay reasons.