88 weirdness?

[sascha]

Just tested the Flak36 at longer ranges. Penetration seems mostly ok if you hit the right spots. However: Accuracy of the 88 seems much lower than what one would expect.

We tried three different targets:

Stu

Sherm76

M10

88 was setup as level as possible on the RR-track just N of Venlo. Targets were sitting out in the open at 2500 and 2000m, directly facing the AT-gun . The 88 seemed deployed in a stable/flat position, although I'm not sure if RR-tracks have the same "flatness" as a road, so this might be a factor that influenced our results.

76mm seemed virtually invincible from 2500m. Lower hull, upper hull and turret front were impossible to penetrate at that range. Rear side shot worked on the first hit and blew up the tank.

Stuart took a few rounds without any noticeable damage. Only the fourth or fifth hit blew it up.

Last victim was an M10 at 2000m. Front hull could not be penetrated at that range. After Balthzar (who was in the 88 at this time) had expended almost his entire ammo, he managed to finally kill me with a turret shot.

What was more interesting however was the inaccuracy of the gun at these ranges. Waiting 15 seconds between shots to let the gun stabilize, the rounds would still go pretty wild. With me shooting, it was something like every 5th or 4th shot landing on target. When Balthzar started firing *faster* his accuracy actually increased and he could hit targets more reliably. And that was at 2000m where the 88, historically, had an accuracy of 87% (in training - 50% in combat).

Not trying to start any conspiracy-theories, just reporting what we found out in this not-very-scientific test-firing.. Plus of course the range-finder on the 88 (and the StuG) seems bugged in the beta: It will only accept values of 100s of meters.

S.

Edited May 8, 2016 by sascha