Oh they know its wrong, they just dont care.
4 Likes
Definetly a marketing lie
1 Like
Of course, Challenger 3 will get them.
Spoiler
Regarding Challenger 2, there is a manual that details the internal structure of the hull, which shows the rotational structure associated with the bottom of the hull and the tank turret, but considering that there may be confidentiality issues, I will not show it here.
i cant believe it. finaly a non issue irl that is in favour of the challenger in game…
People cry for realism then when its implemented half assed it breaks the game.
exhibit A - Aim120s.
exhibit B - Leopard 2a7 vs CR3 TD xD
Who wants to bet the fake cr3 is going to get it despite being a chally 2.
2 Likes
Haha, as long as Gaijin does not cancel and continue to add “realistic” structures to the tanks in the game, he will get them one day. There is no need to bet that you just need to review Smin’s reply in this regard, unless you think Gaijin is lying. Of course, my personal position is that I don’t want any tank to suffer this kind of treatment. It’s just an objective statement of the current situation.
Turret ring identify as turret basket for EVERYONE(except rusia)
-Gaijin E
4 Likes
yeah thats the main concern here. The turret basket should be structural steel a best and deffo not the horizontal drive at all. even if a hole was punched in the turret basket by say a AP round, I HIGHLY doubt that would stop the traverse in any way or form; keeping in mind there have been reported cases of people literally losing their lives to turrets traversing when traveling between the turret and crew compartments due to them being… caught in the movement lets say… which tells me there’s intense torque in those enough to end someone’s life; so a bit of dented thin steel wouldn’t infringe that movement at all if it can do that sort of damage to a human. Gaijin should be making turret baskets structural steel, the same as other random component in vehicles that would SEEM useless but would act as spawl catchers, ie, seats, firewalls, weapon holders, hatches, hydraulic rams, pistons, boxes, wires, etc etc.
1 Like
Hydraulic leaks and damage to couplings. Leopard mount the electric boards under the turret and reports have shown they have lost power by catching them.
Yes modelling the whole thing instead of individual components is a mistake.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Sometimes I get this thread on the “Suggested Topics” section and I am reminded that this tank is ingame lmfao
3 Likes
Its genuinely getting stupid now tbh man isnt it.
The CR3 TD is infact getting yet another nerf as well xD
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Still no ready rack fixes
2 Likes
What are they doing to it now?
“We can find no evidence the challenger 3 TD was ever loaded with fuel, therefore all fuel as been removed from the vehicle”
“We do not believe that the loader has two arms, therefore the reload rate has been quadrupled”
Or is it they’re removing its LWS?
9 Likes
it has a turret basket, with confirmation from pictures, so later down the road it’ll end up getting that.
Love how L27A1 is so anemic you are putting multiple shots into a tank that DM-53 would just OHK.
L27A1 is pretty tragic right now
1 Like