Yea? That’s kinda the point dude. A trained loader (especially if they’ve been through months & months of repetitive ammunition handling) is very unlikely to make a mistake given the limited load that tanks usually carry.
But since his demand was to also model human errors (as such treating them like it’s their first day on the job) it should only be fair to include machine errors & make them happen at the same rate as human ones.
It’s called being impartial.
Besides that, with autoloader types like those found on T-series, failures will occur more often than in Western style bustle loaders, there’s a lot more moving parts ;)
And that is not something that will add benefit to gameplay.
And machine errors are far less likely than human errors. Incident rates of WP autoloaders take upwards of 4000 cycles, while
The entire point of the autoloaders in the “T-series” (whatever the hell that is) is reliability. They explicitly sacrifice reload speed and accessibility for safety and low failure rate.
Vehicles like the M1128 would see repeated failures in under 100 cycles, while others like the Leclerc and similar howitzer-based loaders can go on for 1000-2000 cycles before failure.
I never argued whether it would benefit gameplay or not, so do me a favour and try not changing the goalpost.
Vehicles like the M1128 would see repeated failures in under 100 cycles, while others like the Leclerc and similar howitzer-based loaders can go on for 1000-2000 cycles before failure.
The entire point of the autoloaders in the “T-series” (whatever the hell that is) is reliability. They explicitly sacrifice reload speed and accessibility for safety and low failure rate.
Maybe cause you failed to quote my entire post, thus you were addressing only a part of it and taking it out of context. I re-added that context.
I didn’t know I needed sources to disprove unfounded opinion.
Lets see, normally logic would dictate that the more moving parts there are, the higher probability of failure occuring, so following that train of thought;
carousel type autoloader ramming arm & caousel itself → more moving parts than bustle loaders of tanks like Leclerc or Type 10
But hey, it’s just my opinion that a more complex structure has a “seemingly” higher chance of failure.
Funnier part is that I never gave any numbers as to whether that chance is much higher or much lower for either type, you did, and you pulled them straight out of your bottom - that, I asked for evidence of.
Carousel being hit wouldnt stop it from being moved as the mechanism allowing it to rotate is literally where the memory unit for the rounds is, at the center of the carousel and slightly above it.
To break that you would either have to go explicitly for that, by point you get you most likely just killed the crew already, same with ramming arm, but in that case you most likely killed breach or the crew altogether.
The mechanism that rotates the carousel close to memory unit:
The bigger part in right being memory unit for the carousel to remember positions of various shells, mechanism itself being in the left.
And thats in center of carousel.
I had no reason to quote your entire post, as that wasn’t what I responded to. I took your post portion by portion and gave my pennies.
What logic are you going by? A childish level of equivalency that bigger / more intricate = worse?
Can you explain to me how an RTA84, a 2000 tonne 2-stroke inline engine, can perform duty under load for what would be the equivalent of 460k miles in any normal automobile?
Hell, my I6 4-stroke seemingly can’t make it 1/8 that range, let alone the thousands of hours of runtime, without destroying 2 blocks and 5 heads.
It weighs what… 9000 times less? It has almost half the moving parts, and yknow… inline with 2 reinforcing girdles.
The ramming arm is quite literally a coiled chain, while the carousel is a basic hydraulic motor. It cannot get more reliable than this, especially when compared to some electric autoloaders or much more complex hydraulic loaders like the Leclerc.
So you were just grasping at straws, aight thanks for self-admitting that.
What logic are you going by?
You’re just comparing apples to oranges now instead of simply giving evidence for your claimed repeated failure rates, at this point it’s no longer even worth my time attempting to address this point since it’s clear you’re never going to back it up with anything.
The ramming arm is quite literally a coiled chain, while the carousel is a basic hydraulic motor.
I totallyyy forgor that coiled chains can move by themselves, gosh how could I’ve made such an elementary mistake. What about the fact the projectile has to be actively lifted up & held in place, since the loading operation takes more time thus adding straing to the moving parts, or that there’s something powering that so that it can move? Oh right, we can just discount that.
Considering the vote to add more modules was supported by a majority of voters, I don’t see why autoloaders wouldn’t be one of those included in that list of additional modules.
Well all we can hope for is this to be implemented with the more modules update. A nerf to russian vehicles. Absolutely unbelievable and about time. Their armor is overperforming anyways…
