I’ve had all electronics go out on a Leopard 2A6 when some turret basket safety guards caught the fuseboard in the back of the fighting compartment. Damage to the basket can also lead to the electrics going out in the turret, as the electricity is transfered through a contact in the bottom of the basket.
Tell me you aren’t a tanker without telling me you aren’t a tanker. I’ve had half my reservoir pour into my sub turret because part of the turret basket was bent outward and we traversed over the rear to let the driver out. It may not cut the hydraulic line but it sure will pull it out of couplings.
Just some of the quotes I have seen. Yes the basket it to protect the crew but a tanks internal space is limited so you route things in the most efficient way.
Aluminum actually
I think gaijin see some cylinders and thought that must be related to the traverse mechanism so they just make it a whole traverse mechanism
@lurque13 I am fully aware that there are other issues that having a damaged turret basket can cause, but completely disabling the turret isn’t one of them except in extreme circumstances and even then there would surely be redundancy systems. I’m not a tanker, this game is made for 13+ so not everyone is. I have an interest in tanks and armoured warfare, much as many people in this game; but trying to make sure the game is at least accurate and balanced means that giving one nation preferential treatment, like the T-80’s having their autoloader modelled correctly as its own thing, while other nations would be completely messed over by incorrect modelling isn’t balancing, its bias. the whole turret basked being classed as a horizontal drive is not just incorrect, but its also an unfair assessment on how these vehicles would preform, and a huge artificial nerf to any and all nations that have turret basket tanks while the T-80’s benefit from this change.
The real issue here is that, if the abrams and leopard are getting their turret basket modelled as their horizontal drive; then shooting a T-80, T-72 etc in the ammo rack should also disable its horizontal drive, under the exact same principle and modelling errors.
Anyway, back to challenger 2; I’m glad we have evidence to it not having one, but there are still components that need to be modelled for it, including steel/aluminium walls on the interior of the vehicle such as separators, ammo stowage bins etc.
The current state of the IFLK, with the complete disintegration of the projectiles passing through the interception conditions, delivers a lot of fun on large maps.
feels like they gave it the same spall characteristics as apds tbh, you can REALLY feel it coming off of dm43 or the russian/chinese rounds (not sure if they are similar as i have china rather than russia). forget about spall liners, ive always had trouble with its spall.
thats our point, 10.7. but against any of the top tier 120mm or 125mm it acts like 30mm apds rather than the 120mm sabot round it is. If im firing at a russian turret ring and al it takes out is his commander OR gunner and not even the breach there’s something wrong there. Dong get me started on the amount of bmps ive shot centre mass frontally just to have them survive with full functionality apart from egine.
