Well for Tiger, destroying the floor IS destroying the traverse cause that’s where the traverse mechanism is transferred to the turret.
Ah yes my favourite kind of news. The completely unsourced kind!
1 Like
Sorry, but why are this guys post not already flagged and why is it not already banned? Dude has violated half communities guidelines (political discussion, propaganda + off topic)… I’ve seen people post been flagged for way less…
7 Likes
my post have been removed for less lol
6 Likes
Vatniks get a free pass around here.
5 Likes
Was reading a few documents (excerpt mentioned here) and came across this;
“In essence, I asked the Army to apply to the Bradley the same external fuel storage, spall liner, and ammunition compartment concepts already in practice in the Israeli M-113’s, Merkavas, and the Army’s own M-1 and M-1A1 tanks. In February 1986, the Army agreed to this in principle. However, it took over a year to get a prototype vehicle prepared. Only 6 weeks were required to actually prepare the vehicle. The rest of the year was spent in bureaucratic study, review, and foot-dragging.”
Do we know which variant / program / prototype this could correspond to? It’s not the baseline A1 as they begin deliveries in August of '85.
Bro, the more I listen to people that play NATO tanks, the more I get the feeling that they don’t understand. The basics of how the Russian T-72 series works-Amma, be real, this entire post just looks like a NATO cope.
You do get that none of said NATO tanks are using their optimal ammo, yes? For example the baseline M1 is using M774 a shell that turns up at 9.0 at 10.7. when it could still receive M833 or M900(-A1).
To put it in terms of Russian items it would be like the T-80B being arbitrarily constrained to having access to 3BM15 as its best round, instead of 3BM46; and still being at 10.7.
There are well documented issues, and bug reports that Gaijin have sat on for “unknown” reasons, that have persisted though numerous major updates, and even entire overhauls that would go a fair way to shoring up erroneous weakness that apparently are just gaming conventions, that we;ve got to deal with.
4 Likes
Best T-80B round is mango tho, its T-80U that have 3BM46 and not 3BM42. And also sits entire BR higher.
What your point here ? Giving one the best performing tank the best round in the br. without valid reason is just nonsense is not going to happen and represent it as example of russian bias is just childish.
It’s pretty simple. The T-72 works poorly.
It’s a vastly technologically inferior platform. That aside, the fundamental flaws of the carousel autoloader will forever keep the tanks substandard no matter how many shiny widgets and bricks of ERA you slap on it.
As this is a game, it doesn’t really matter how unrealistically good the tank is in game. Not really the point either. The point is, and always has been, that the NATO tanks are given unrealistic standards for changing them in game.
2 Likes
Oh, trust me, you don’t need to tell me that America is restrained by its ammunition; Russia is as well. Russia’s best round is the 3BM60, which is one of the worst rounds at the top tier
1 Like
Bro, I swear to god you’re trying to rage bait me.
Having such a limited viewpoint of what the T-72 represents and how it’s supposed to be used and how it is being used in actual combat and saying it’s bad is borderline stupid. I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m just saying what I see.
And please enlighten me in what aspect is a T-72 technologically inferior with the fundamental flaws?
It goes off and maybe the turret lands on some enemy infantry, or takes out a low flying helicopter
Its the same with the Leopard 2A5 to 7
I made a red arrow to show where the turret drive is. Its electrical. Directly atteached to the turret ring with one power cable leading up to it. There are no hydraulic pipes or similar on the ground plate. Its just for the crew to stand upon, without any technical significance regarding turret traverse. Ingame however: A single spall fragment hitting that floor plate offs the whole turret.
I have to say that I didn’t really played German MBTs after this change. I tested it a couple of matches and quickly found out that even horribly bad hits make you defenseless, while other tanks don’t have this mechanic. Especially russian tanks are still traversing and shot you after hit into the side below the turret.
3 Likes
The engine generates poor power and the vehicle is underpowered compared to NATO designs. It has a tactically useless reverse speed. The autoloader is much slower than those in use on NATO and Japanese tanks. The reliance on external armor indicates an inability to produce effective internal armor (which the historical record corroborates). The overall gun handling is poor with a slower traverse and elevation than western counterparts. The gun is manufactured to less exacting standards leading to reduced accuracy. The layered approach to crew survivability (the ONION as it is famously known) is limited to it’s small stature and armor. Most importantly surviving post penetration damage is vastly inferior to western designs. It’s a sixty year old design and has aged poorly due to it’s small size (preventing the efficient application of newer technologies) poor technological level (the engine is crap and has never truly been updated as an example) and fundamental flaw of the carousel loader (speed and survivability are inherently substandard) mean that despite all the updates it will never be a competitive tanks to NATO, Israeli, Japanese, or Korean designs.
The turret basket stopping turret traverse is grossly unrealistic for virtually every modern tank. There may be an exception out there but the purpose of the basket has nothing to do with the traverse of the turret. It’s one of the most head-scratching things Gaijin has ever done. I can only presume it is a balancing mechanic. Because for certain it isn’t realistic.
2 Likes
Its indeed an artificial balance move. Leopard family and Abrams had a smooth playstyle, relying on mobility and good damage resistance. Now they’re easy to neutralize. Its a huge downgrade. Espcially cause all other MBT families don’t have this modeled. Despite every tank has a ground plate for the crew to stand upon. It seems to be a tailored nerf. They even stopped the introduction of this mechanic after Ger and US got it added. I guess its cause of the war, they needed to do something to get their T-series going again. I’ve seen news documentaries where they used War Thunder in ru classrooms for mil preparation classes. Maybe it was even a demand from ‘above’ and it wasn’t up to Gajin. Who knows… I’m playing war games for a long time now, but I never had such a specific nerf for one faction. Its usually “all or none” for most other games.
3 Likes
I don’t really BLAME Gaijin for being so pro Russia from a TECHNICAL point of view. It’s their home country and they want it to look its best. In many ways I don’t even mind (Except the Soyuz in Naval, it is beyond the pale and ruined the mode for me). What I mind is that the obfuscation about “needing valid documents to make changes.” That’s clearly such a blatant lie that it’s insulting.
No, actually, the T-72’s engine produces enough power. When it comes to power-to-weight, the T-72 is on par with the Abrams. The T-72 has 4 hp/t less than the Abrams. which is really not that noticeable.
That is a valid point. I agree the T-72 reverse gear is borderline miserable.
True, however, when it comes to human loaders, as the majority of the NATO tanks have those, the T-72 performs better with a faster reload while on the move on uneven terrain.
Well, you see, that’s the problem: you don’t understand how the Russian military works. I agree the era is slightly worse than actual composite armor; however, it’s much cheaper then to produce an entire New Hall.And as you can see as an example of a German tank, they use external armor, such as add-on composite screens on the turret.
I’m sorry, but that’s just straight-up bullshit. I don’t know if you’re comparing current tanks in service or if you’re comparing a Soviet tank stockpile.
That is true; however, we don’t know how less accurate it is than the NATO gun. Plus, you can ask on any tanker in a service that when you’re engaging another tank, you’re not shooting weak spots; you are shooting until that shit starts burning or changes shape.
I agree when it comes to penetration, the Russian tanks don’t really have all that much survivability. That’s why they placed a lot of fuel tanks around to try and eat the spall.
I just want you to subjectively take a look at the T-90M as a further evolution of the T-72 and tell me how it performs worse in an Eastern European conflict area.
And I can tell you right now it doesn’t perform worse; if anything, it does perform better when you look at the straight-up combat use. Compared to NATO counterparts, it performs better.
But I have to point out one thing: when you’re looking at Russian tanks, I noticed that you’re judging them by NATO standards, but they’re not designed to be used. They do fall short of NATO standards because NATO tactics are just not what the tank was designed to do. And if you look at the tactics that the T-72 is meant to be used with, you can see that the T-72 is actually a pretty good design, and you can see why the engineers made those compromises.
And just in case so people don’t get me wrong I’m talking about modern t72/ 90s