Would the otomatic be as effective against ground based armored targets as it is in wargame?
Would the otomatic be as effective against ground based armored targets as it is in wargame?
Would the otomatic be as effective against ground based armored targets as it is in wargame?
Its a fucking videogame OP
Your point?
In some ways better, in others worse. It can fire its gun at ground targets without having the radar on, but its anti vehicle munitions would likely be limited in availability per vehicle to make room for more anti air shells. Using a system like this against ground targets is really a last resort self defense measure, its meant to fight aircraft and artillery shells.
give me 5 guys on motorcycles with javelins and M240s and ill give you better fire support than the otomatic or the shilka
Give them rat masks and call them "Biker mice from Bakhmut"
sure, to an extent. it's a glass cannon in wargame just like it would be in real life. problem is wargame is autistic, and real life isn't.
>problem is wargame is autistic, and real life isn't.
War is incredibly autistic and always has been
Only at its most beautiful.
Wargame SHORAD units are very effective against ground units for some reason.
I remember using the Stormer to slaughter entire BMP rushes
Well that is quite realistic, anything bigger than a .50 can shred BMP's
Right, the FCS isn't set up for easily engaging ground targets, otherwise Autocannons like that are bigger and more overkill than IFV cannons
We just witnessed an uncontested helli drop on airport by the VDV and AA being left out in the open turned off. I used to think Wargame was unrealistic until I saw this war
I'm amazed how well my teammates simulated actual command behavior in a lost game.
>Armor deck fast-moving through occupied towns; BLUFOR victory is certain when T-62Ms begin arriving.
>Naval deck sent their biggest ship with no escort.
>The support deck draining any FOB left unlocked
>The deck using VDV and Spetsnaz as regular infantry, runs out of infantry
>The guy marching hundreds of conscripts and <15pt vehicles across open fields to their death
>The absentee ASF player
>A one-eyed man among the blind, too busy raging in chat
Higher profile, will be hit more easily by enemy armor. Weaker AT ammunition/projectiles than dedicated AT guns like an MBT. Weaker frontal armor. The range and accuracy could be helped by the radar though, so maybe that's a plus.
Militaries have used things like ZSU-57s and Shilkas for ground support in a ton of wars now. This would be a similar thing, good on paper against a lot of threats but very vulnerable to anything even mildly anti tank in nature
Probably. 75mm APDSFS at short range would pen everything in Ukraine besides the most modern MBT from the front.
But the tomato is really ahead of it's time with it's ability to shoot down all sorts of incoming flying treaths.
It would be great hunting down lancets and shaeeds as well as plane launched missiles and low flying helicopter and planes.
It this conflict it would definitely have had it's time to shine being better than the ghepard in range.
The nice thing about the otomatic is that it has 2 drums of ammo so it can switch between anti armor and anti air proxy fused (good for most soft targets) at a push of a button.
I wonder how badly it would damage the external systems of a tank? As in, would it blind the tank enough to render it unable to fight back? Or would the crew realise it's just making a lot of noise and mess and return fire? Depends entirely on the tank's systems and how the Oto' is aimed. I also don't know why I'm asking these questions, it's not like anyone has an answer.
Reminder that the Brazilians are considering putting the Otomatic gun on a CV90 hull and using that as their new fire support light tank.
Lulu's not fucking around when it comes to illegal logging.
*removing natives for state subsidized logging
>state subsidized logging
Honestly they aint bad. Indigenas in Brazil are the most protoypical normie people on earth. They're not dumb just absolutely straightforward and blunt. Give them access to cheap land to build the properties on, a blanket business license and a billion grams of protein powder and they act like your average Brazilian gymcel.
I WILL BE VINDICATED
If any euros are interested, the OTO 76 had a self-contained deck mount developed too. Wouldn't take much to mount it to a Boxer or Tatra chassis, and the radar is datalinked now instead of individually equipped which eliminates a big source of cost and risk.
anon
first thing, that "proposal" is just some crackpipe dream from some writer for a military magazine iirc
and that's not even an OTOMATIC turret, hell it's not even a 76mm gun
it's an artistic liberty based on the HITFIST 60 turret, which was a mechanised brigade support turret OTO proposed in the 80s/90s equipped with an autoloaded 60mm gun equipped with APDSFS and proxy fuzed HE
Lulu? I'm going to leave. Fucking "Lulu", what an idiot.
Italy fucking sucks in Warthunder. I fucking hate the zigger so fucking much man. The balance team is so fucking dumb I HATE ZIGGERS I HATE ZIGGERS FIX ITALY!!!!!
Stop playing it. I haven't played in months. Feels great. Highly reccomended.
this, you will never walk away from a war thunder session feeling happy or entertained outside of 1.0-2.7 BR
Go play a proper tank game
Saw a vid by some youtuber a while ago pointing out that Ziggers in that game at a certain tier have an AA vehicle that can shoot guides missiles at enemy planes still taking off in their spawn. Meanwhile literally every other nation either has it's AA range nerfed from reality, or simply doesn't have a dedicated land AA vehicle that has much reach due to doctrinal differences.
>Warthunder
>unironically complaining about a larper shitty game
Gaijin cant into (no soviet-crap) gearboxs, sights, armor, engines, (realistic) FM/DM/SM, shells, TEAMWORK, 'game realistic' situational awarness (soviet coffins with perfect panoramic visibility), no bullshit crew performance.
The in-game content is just filler to gaijin.
In wargame KE rounds have a multiplier that increases their penetration at short distances, this allows tanks to penetrate tanks they should not really be able to, although I suppose it could account for weakspots ect.
sort of, but it would be a kind of last resort self defense measure (just like in wargame, you don't want your rare precious AA going up against enemy vehicles normally)
Yes (with caveats), but it's real strength isn't in direct fire. It has a high-elevation, high precision gun in an era of drone spotting and guided, extended-range artillery. A very potent combination, especially in cases where destructiveness of traditional 6" HE isn't necessary - HEAT on a ballistic trajectory versus roof armor, or rapidly putting shells into individual fighting positions. All that, on top of the valuable SHORAD+CIWS capability.
Watching NATO countries copy Best Korean weapons is just pathetic, can't they think of a origional design?
Given their history of using naval AA on ground armor i would not be suprised to see a Oto on a Chomaho chassis in the near future.
Anon I'm pretty sure the basic OTO 76 design predates South Korea as a country
I said Best Korea not Worst Korea and it was a joke, the DPRK obviously stole the Oto not the otherway around.
Somehow I whiffed that, yeah
It's a literal ship cannon on a tank chasis it's going to be effective against almost everything
How does one even get into Red Dragon? As soon as the match begins I start panicking.
yes.
but if you are using anti air for ground support you are either retarded or in a shit situation
It wouldn't be good against tanks but the shear mass of a 76mm round is going to hurt APCs and IFVs. Many of the AA rounds would also be effective against infantry. I don't think the HE rounds carry enough HE to bust bunkers.
TL;DR Bad against tanks and bunkers, good against everything else.