as module it will. chatgpt is wrong. it even tries to prove that it wouldnt be able to do so
TBH, for T-72 even slightly autoloader move in wrong way(after mines for example) gonna just jamm it, probably with entire turret
So, you are basically saying Leos and Abrams are nerfed?
Gaijin shouldn’t make such a mechanic unless EVERYONE gets it.
You don’t want the “nerf” while others should just shut up and accept it?
Talk about hypocrisy dude.
3 Likes
I think that the loss of hydraulic/electric drives should just slow the turret rotation, same as if you turn the engine off and let the battery drain, I’m pretty sure MBTs still have manual traverse for it the powered system is damages, or even simply maintenance so you can move the turret without starting the tank.
it would probably help if the FCS for MBTs was split into sections so you didn’t lose everything at once, also an all round increase to the durability of systems/ baskets/auto loaders and an increase to repair speed, currently a single piece of spall with disable the auto loader/ basket and its an instant 45sec repair even with an experted crew.
I also think the reason that the M1 and L2 are the only ones with they system implemented is due to them being the 2 tanks that tent to be decently armoured and large enough to not be disabled from a single shot, all other MBTs are either very compact making it easy to do a lot of damage with a single pen, like the T-series, especially now with the auto loader modeled or the Leclerc.
Or they have no armour worth mentioning like the Ariete and would just get bullied by auto cannons if they had modules added.
Or both like the Type 10/ 90.
And then there is the Challenger… that thing doesn’t need any more issues…
Now before the pitch fork gang comes for me over the Abrams… yes if you shot trap it under the gun you can 1 tap it or at least destroy both the engine and breech leaving it helpless. However if you angle it or just straight up put it side on it becomes near imposable to both immobilize it and disable its gun, meaning that it can either run away and repair or shoot back. I believe that is what they where trying to “fix” with the addition of the extra modules.
I do think they over did it though and it needs to be dialed back to a more reasonable level where it can be applied to other tanks as well.
do you think that’s good enough evidence to get them to stop whining about turret baskets enough to get them to big report missing modules on the T-Tanks
Ah yes, me when the community points out the unfairness in Gaijins decision makes us the “whiners” while Russian mains continue to be hand held like a orphan adopted into a wealthy family - a great example would be the totally real Kh-38MT.
I love it when Russian mains with the power of Joseph Stalin, Lenin and the Last Khan forge the obviously most bias statement in human existence, you guys are honestly larger deniers than Turkish people which in themselves hold the title for the biggest deniers in human history.
The drive in and of itself is in the turret, the generator system is in the hull; in short, the T-80 doesn’t have a turret basket, but it does lack a hydraulic system in the damage model
The issue isn’t the turret basket which bare in mind nobody I’ve been aware of have been complaining stating that it should be introduced onto the BVM or B3, that’s something you’ve randomly concluded naively.
The issue is the inconsistent treatment of vehicles in-game, nations like China, America, Germany previously, Israel and Italy suffer from (and probably Britain as well). You’ve continuously failed to acknowledge this painting a narrative that Russia isn’t a favoured nation and that everyone who doesn’t say this are “whiners”.
The damage model is only 20% of the issue on hand
An example is the lack of spall liners on ALL Chinese MBTs, incorrect reload for Chinese MBTs and incorrect armour layout/model for Chinese MBTs.
The T-90M was literally planned to be the only vehicle with a spall liner, I wonder why
10 Likes
as far as i have seen on the russian/soviet T-series tanks dont have a turret basket in the same way as on the abrams/leopard 2.
the T-80/T-64 with the MZ autoloader looks like its integrated in to the turret and functions in a way like a turret basket when looking at it in pictures.
and for the T-90/T-72 with the AZ autoloader it looks like it just lacks a turret basket overall
Im 100% sure that i can’t it’s happened so many times were i can’t fire but it may just be a glitch for me
Even if the turret basket is destroyed on the leo or abrams they should still be able to turn the turret
1 Like
Yes that true
Detailed modules first started out as a way to actually do damage to light tanks that had huge empty spaces in them. Like the rear of the 2S38 for example and so on. Then the idea was moved to MBTs. But there is a huge difference in western tank design compared to the T-series. And that is the sheer size of the tanks. NATO MBTs are much larger and have more empty spaces compared to the T-series. As long as you penetrated a T-series tank you would almost always take out either 1 crew member or a critical component because of how small, cramped and compact the tanks are. Now Im not saying they should never get theose additional modules but I dont think russian or chinese MBTs are a top priority in that regard.
2 Likes
My guy, the Abrams is unrealistically modeled, there’s plenty proof about that, the best tank in this game is literally T90M and Leopard 2A7, the Abrams is falling behind significantly
We’re complaining about the same things, you’re not special
The Abrams are missing turret basket shield, spall liners, and the hydraulic pump is its reservoir, and its front plate is still the wrong values.
The only bias in this game is ERA being way more effective than they are in real life.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9pd3QSYFMjsV
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EvjP1MWQxsF4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/D7Lu15maFWni
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YCmfAEiaPZSq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/TjLQ9HW9YFNT
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/y5gA3ftXMmsa
1 Like
Gameplay wise, the Abrams is as cramped, if not more, than T-series… sure, the tank is bigger and more ergonomical in real life; but that has no gameplay impact. You can easily kill 3-4 crew members in a single shot because they are so cramped.
7 Likes
Nobody is denying this. However, Abrams is at least the third best tank at top tier and does not need further buffs at the moment. Most tanks have far more bug issues than Abrams tank. You’re the one who is “specially complaining” - you are asking for a nerf to the worst top tier tanks in the game, just so the ones you play can get ahead even more.
Also, the Abrams does not have spall liners, this is proven.
It doesn’t matter whether a tank is perceived as better or worse; if a tank has modelling mistakes, these need to be corrected.
I insist; this is not about “buffing” or “nerfing”. War Thunder isn’t an arcade shooter like Counter Strike where assets are artificially buffed/nerfed to alter their gameplay performance, or at least that’s what Gaijin claims.
All vehicles, each and every single one, should be depicted as correctly and accurately as possible, just as officially advertised.
Imagine if there was a bug that made Tiger I’s front armor be 70mm thick, and, when someone asked for it to be fixed to its real 102mm, people got angry because “Tiger is actually among the best tanks, it needs no buffs, just let it keep the 70mm thick front armor”. For example.
1 Like
You are basically a forum troll at this point. Claiming the Abrams is as cramped as Soviet MBTs is stupid. Not less so is comparing only the exact frontal view, and cherry picking spots in the protection analysis. Nobody who has ever played top tier thinks that the Abrams is equally or less survivable than the Soviet tanks; nor do they regard those spots as consistent one-shots.
Shameless lies.
2 Likes
Frontally yeah it looks more cramped cause you have an extra crew member, but a good shot takes out both.Take a look from the sides though. Shooting the sides of abrams or leopards before turret baskets were added could leave them with 2 or 3 crew members surviving and just shooting you back. It was more evident with the leopards as they have spall liners but you get the point. Massive empty spaces from a side aspect is what gaijin is trying to fill with electronics and what not, started out slowly with light tanks, now you have MBTs. I just think the T-series isnt a huge priority compared to leopards. Same thing goes for the 2S38, the community got so fed up with that thing it was the first light tank to receive the detailed models.
2 Likes
This is not a simple fix involving a change of a single line of code. You’re asking for the modelling of multiple top tier tanks, a difficult and lengthy task, knowing that this will divert resources from fixes which are actually needed. As I said, arguing in bad faith.
Wait, let me…
And this is just in terms of crew. Now add the hydraulic pump, hydraulic lines, FCS and turret basket to the equation.
Seems quite consistent to me. I have several hundred screenshots one-shotting Abrams frontally through their ring and glacis. Maybe I will do a compilation if I feel like scrolling through the thousands of screenshots I have lmao. Or maybe I will just play a few matches against America today and share just how fragile the Abrams are in real time.
Dude. Implementing the T-Series’ FCSs would literally not even require additional modelling, as @AlvisWisla pointed out. All that would need to be done is label the gunner optics as FCS and that would literally be it. Who here is arguing in bad faith?
3 Likes
It very much does, this pump is actually an reservoir for fluid, the actual pump is behind with the engine, what happens if they shoot this? you cant turn, which is highly unrealistic, because the turret drive can be turned manually.
and yes, the M1 Abrams tank does have a spall liner, It’s an integral part of the tank’s armor protection, designed to prevent spalling (fragments of the armor) from injuring the crew when the tank is hit. This liner is typically made of Kevlar or other composite materials and is located behind the main armor plating.
1 Like
Proceeds to show the same pictures from earlier which I have already shut down as meaningless.
If you played each nation equally, you would have tens of thousands of screenshots for T-series tanks. Do you think people will listen to you just because you have big numbers?
The Abrams’ optics are labelled “Gunner optics” and not FCS. Why don’t we fix the Abrams as well? It’s wrong according to your standards.
