I 100% agree that doing this is unfair. The Turret basket has nothing to do with the aiming drives. I will say if this going to be added give the Abrams its DU armor and its M829A3/4 super sabot to balance it out, but they wont cause that will make the Abrams series too “over powered”.
1 Like
the 292 never had Kontakt-1 ERA. Yes the hull of the 292 is the T-80BV hull, but it never got ERA.
1 Like
Of course, everyone has their own personal preferences, but we must strive to preserve the game’s identity
With several similar games out there, in order for WT to maintain its unique characteristics, one must fully understand that e-sports elements and WoT like mechanics , systems should be largely eliminated.
They said they saw no value to add M829A3 cause there was no real difference from A2. Same thing said about a certain missile but here we are.
1 Like
This whole message is a nothing salad. Preserve the game’s identity? The turret basket nerf hurts that. People played war thunder because it was an arcady military vehicle sim. Turret baskets controlling the turret drive is straight fictitious something in the realms of WoT which is something you want to contrast.
M829A3/4 are the super sabot. they have a like a capped tip to help pen the the armor on the russian t series like the UBH armore on the t72b3.
So chinese and russian MBTs getting modules is fine but currently empty hulls of western MBTs to be filled with modules is bad. Typical hypocrisy of haha u nerfed tanks we hate with modules but pls dont do it for the ones we play.
1 Like
There is nothing there to hit on the M1 / Leo that would actually meaningfully impact critical systems. Which is why nothing was there previously, and the Hydraulic reservoir that is (currently) modeled on the M1 is erroneously included and is not actually part of the (highly) pressurized side of the loop unless the aux pump is operating (as per documentation attached to the refenced report below).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9pd3QSYFMjsV
I don’t know about you but the carousel autoloader on the various T-XX series members is a slight bit more important to the functioning of critical systems, like the gun. And it is questionable if the Turret could rotate out of alignment with a non-functional rammer, as would be the case with a damaged autoloading module.
Also if you were to hit the “empty space” there is a good chance to hit the crew of the M1 / Leo, so it’s not as if absolutely nothing is there, maybe just aim, just that little bit higher.
4 Likes
Of all things to happen it’s only going to get worse.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/75boeQ8Rw2EG
1 Like
To be fair, “same thing about certain missile” was said in the context of existing by that time jets (MiG-29SMT and Su-27SM)
The problem is not having more detailed modules. That’s amazing. Tanks are enormous vehicles filled with complex machinery, they aren’t hollow boxes.
The problem is Gaijin creating additional fictional weaknesses, like the turret baskets being a part of the traverse mechanism when they should not be such thing.
We voted for detailed modules to get turret baskets that would function exactly what they were made for: crew comfort AND spall protection.
Turret baskets were suppossed to make these tanks slightly more survivable- not significantly less.
1 Like
I saw someone arguing “if you guys want Realistic armor 292 should have contact-1
Sure ? And why don’t you give Abrams and Leo actual armor data (From ESIM test )
I mean, except for the mantlet, Leopard is spot on.
War Thunder’s mantlet is underperforming, but SB’s one is overestimated it.
I’ve seen schematics of it, and it’s more like 448mm LOS (without the wedge part). I won’t share because I’m afraid I will be banned, since apparently now literally everything is considered forbidden content, hahahah.
Regarding the Abrams, those values are probably what we can expect from SEPv3.
1 Like
It is the same situation for the Russian tanks, it is not just a Nato issue if you’re basing it off the Esim test, in game it says 607, on the esim test it shows 1050KE, I didn’t test the turret since the base T90 and the T90A are slightly different but the hull is the same. I am all for realistic armor values but that means russian ones need to get buffed too which people don’t want to admit (The test was with the 3BM60 round, one of the lower penning darts as well)
1 Like
People really need to stop taking Steel Beasts as reference…
In the majority of instances, their values are extremely overestimated and inflated- both when it comes to protection and when it comes to penetration- although sometimes they are more sensible than War Thunder’s extremely underestimated values.
Most of the times, real armors are a middle ground between Steel Beasts’ overestimated values and War Thunder’s underestimated ones. Sometimes a mix of both.
Also- that section where it says 1050mm KE is because it’s counting the extra protection provided by the fuel tank, which War Thunder does not show on the armor viewer.
Also, in the armor viewer, you are shooting from a higher point- T-90A’s LOS KE os 620mm, not 607!
2 Likes
tbh thats just random numbers
in the armor viewer it may be like 1 degree higher, you can very clearly tell the tank is leveled with the camera, but that was my point to the post I was replying to, I was showing him that the armor values from his test also benefit the Russian tanks which is why I was referring to the russian ones also needing a buff, even the 800mm KE section in the middle isn’t correct in game, it says 800, but in game It was sitting around 680, It’s all fun and games until the Russians get something better too, like armor upgrades haha. However do I believe the armor values are correct both on the Nato pictures and the Russian one? No, I do not.
yeah i dont agree with any of yall, steel beast isnt a source for numbers, that’s what docs are for