Regardless, having played stuff with turret baskets, it does take out the turret drive, but often also stops a fatal shot’s spalling. So it’s a bit nicer than the autoloader which might stop a fatal round, or might just go up in flames. Sure, it sucks to lose the turret drive, and it does feel a bit rough to if you can’t shoot and the T tank you just shot out the autoloader of can get 1 more shot off but I feel a bit better with the basket than the autoloader.
My stats are a bit shoddy, but I play like a muppet if I think the success could be amusing
No, I completely agree, and am trying to drill into these thick headed individuals. (Also, that was me being sarcastic, hard to do on the internet, I know)
Aye, I figured you agreed, but I just wonder how many of these folk have lost the turret drive where otherwise they would have lost the tank. Admittedly, bit hard to tell as it is incredibly easy to overextend, but would be an exercise they’d benefit from considering.
Advocating for equal changes when the nations are already imbalanced does not increase balance. Why is this not apparent to you?
Imagine this situation in real life. You see multiple charities donating to the homeless and starving. Then you criticize them and start a protest demanding they donate to everybody, including billionaires, too, because that is “equal” in your eyes. Somehow they listen to you. The result? Hundreds of starving people die of malnourishment while a few hundred billionaires add pocket change to their wallets. Great job.
These are not “mechanics” per se, but modelling principles. Modelling vehicles takes a lot of time and effort. There are far more important modelling errors which should be addressed first. For example, the vast majority of helicopters currently lack internal modules; Gaijin has made it so that any hit to any part of the fuselage has a chance to completely disable the weapons systems of the helicopter (result: a slightly yellow fuselage frequently makes it useless).
What you are doing is simply virtue signaling. You hide your bias and intentions behind the facade of equality.
Cry me a river, you act like the massive auto loader in the T-Tanks isn’t a huge issue too
Russian vehicles get a constant reload regardless the amount of crew they have, the NATO equivalent to said autoloader is a loader which without one drastically increases your reload rate. The autoloader module also increases survivability to a stupid level for said T-series vehicles as it prevents shrapnel from destroying charges.
This is still inexcusable however, Russian vehicles are yet to receive a detailed damage model with the exception of VERY FEW vehicles.
The amount of times I’ve placed a excellent shot on a T-series vehicle with M829A2 and only damaged their autoloader is incredibly frustrating.
Whilst the first platforms to trial this should have been the Abrams and Leopards, the trial run has well since exceeded any sense of calling it a trial run. At this point, a detailed damage model should be implemented across the board, in the interests of fairness.*
At present, we’ve seen that it works and it isn’t all that problematic. So it is about time we work on providing detailed models across the trees. You can point to your tree of interest missing stuff, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t want a detailed model in the interests of balance, especially as anything we could remotely call a trial period has elapsed. We’re missing armour and agility on leclercs, but we’re still alright with a more detailed model. Missing a bunch of rubbish on chally, still should get more detail to the damage model. Might even bring in the missing features if they are inclined to create detailed damage models.
Short and long of it, even if you’re annoyed at missing stuff, should still want parity on damage models across the board. Doesn’t necessarily mean the same, but we should have more detail especially after the introduction of detailed models to a few select tanks.
*I don’t like Americans, or the American tree. I would gladly see them knee capped if I had my way, but I also reckon we should keep a relatively sane position on balancing damage models and not let personal desires influence it to the point we can’t have reasonable discussions on it. Leopards were a good trial platform as it hit a number of trees.
Okay; yet again, your loader gets turned into chunky salsa and you can still load, my autoloader gets turned into scrap and I can’t reload at all
Checkmate - not just my loader is taken out but my massive f*cking horizontal as well which is the same size as Israel and Palestine put together with the addition of Moscow and maybe New York.
The autoloader module only prevents you from reloading, it still allows you to fire the munition you’ve already got loaded which 99% of the time will be a killing shot anyways - the Abrams horizontal nearly ALWAYS prevents you from returning fire.
I dunno, but it seems to me most the Russian tanks at the higher echelons have pretty well modeled internals, all we’re really missing is dedicated FCS stuff and electronics, but from memory that’s located pretty near the turret drive so taking that out effectively does the job of both. Admittedly, it has been a while since I’ve investigated how they put together t tanks.
In my experience, the autoloader is 50/50 on if it stops the round or turns you into a soviet space program. 122, as my most familiar example with a turret basket, is far more likely to survive the round to retreat and repair. Sure, if you’re at point blank, the advantage goes to the russian tank, but at range it holds pretty comfortably in favour of just about anyone else.
I agree that the lacking internal modules of high tier tanks should all be fixed. What I am concerned with is only the ideal order in which to fix the innumerable modelling errors in War Thunder as a whole. In this respect, I think that the full modelling of internal modules on other top tier tanks is relatively low-priority (given the current balance situation at top tier).
Anyways, not that this argument matters too much, because WT devs have their own priorities largely independent of player demands.
I dunno, but it seems to me most the Russian tanks at the higher echelons have pretty well modeled internals
Not to the standard of the Abrams at least -
T-series tanks don’t have the same issue as shown in the video, only both the Leopard 2 and ESPECIALLY (hard emphasis) the Abrams have a hydraulic pump.
I got a comfortable KDR of 3 with the Abrams, it’s a issue with the vehicle rather than the individual
You can’t expect much from Gaijin when the community only asked for more modules or a way to counter tanks with empty spaces without giving details, without looking ahead but only to their noses and the only ‘problem’ at the time.
If the people that had voice to ask for a solution (more modules) they had to give the entire plan. You don’t give a empty blueprint to a building company expecting that they prevent future mistakes. I belive that when the modules were first introduced it was a chance to return and rethink the situation, no one took a place to talk and Gaijin leaved it running.
I am more or less certain any of that equipment relevant to the turret operations is not in the lower hull. However, as I am not 100% I will defer to @Zyranovos as they appear knowledgeable on the topic. To my knowledge, all the equipment for the turret’s actuation is more or less on top of the turret ring/drive.
On the video you tried to hit a 2S38, not a Type 16 and as I said “tried” because you missed because of the slope jump.
Regarding the modules comparison to an Western main battle tank to an Eastern main battle tank is, despite losing the turret horizontal drive mechanism you still have some chances to survive and if the scenario is in your favor, reply to the enemy due to the crew placement,
The situation is the same for Eastern main battle tanks however you don’t have a spare crewmember to replace the knocked out commander and gunner in the situation you shown in your video.
