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
T-72 its quite literally technologically inferior to any MBT that has been actively modernized to fit much better standards even ZTZ99A’s as bad as the LFP is are superior to T72’s cuz they fit better armor composites, new ERA and overall new systems and enchance survivability, something only stuff like T72B3 fits and dosent even fit a part of what stuff like the ZTZ99 has let alone stuff like Leopard 2A6’s(and beyond) and even M1A2 SEP’s does, yeah compared to stuff that is their main competition it is technologically inferior
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
That the arbitrarily poor median performance, is in fact entirely a product of Gaijin’s balancing priorities and that with some reconfiguration it could be brought more closely into line with its counterparts.
Outside of fixing outstanding bug reports.
For the 10.7 105mm M1’s this would entail, reverting the reload rate increase from 12 RPM (5 second reload) back to 10 RPM (6 seconds), and replacing M735 with M774 and making the top round M833.
If we really need an baseline 105mm M1 armed with M774, consider earmarking it as circa '81~'83, prior to M833’s IOC.
120mm armed M1’s also get put back to a 6 second reload, and Moving to the subsequent variant of M829 could be considered (M829A2 & -A3 (and DM53+ etc.) should have their ERA bypass mechanics modeled).
The M1’s Spall reduction techniques (e.g. internal “Plastic” Strike-face & Reverse coating of internal Array composite plates, Dual Hardness plating) fairly modeled.
Do I need to point out that the M120S gets M829A1, the M1128 / Wolfpack gets M900, and the CCVL gets M833 all at 10.3 (or lower in other modes).
M833, M900 and better rounds are in common circulation at that BR in the US tree, let alone 120mm DM33 or 3BM42.
The fact that the Abrams has such a poor round is an outlier, especially considering its armor layout and the fact that threats(even CE, not just KE) it faces even in a full down tier will reliably penetrate the armor at 2km+ (M1IP doesn’t really fix things either considering the BR bump in exchange).
It’s not remarkably faster Forward than a Leopard or T-80, the use of a 105mm gun really holds it back and the 1~1.5 second reload advantage over the larger calibers would be of far less use than actually having a gun that could slightly more reliably penetrate threat armor.
The Valid reason is that there are accepted bug reports on many of these issue that should be fixed, and are awaiting implementation.
And so some degree, the skill ceiling is too high and could use being lowered, to bring the M1s more closely into line with its counterparts. To this end just look at how overrepresented it is in the picks for various Tournaments since their introduction.
Can you please point out to me where I mention “Russian Bias” at all?
If I wanted bias I’d point out that the coming overhaul of the Autoloaders, doesn’t mention any interaction with the Turret ring, even though turret baskets somehow do.
First to the point of why we’re introducing the baskets to the horizontal aiming drives. From a gameplay and design standpoint, the current damage model (without the basket, with more empty space under the turret) penalizes players who hit the center of mass area where there is nothing to damage, even though they did everything right and landed a shot in this area.
~
From our perspective, we want to avoid penalizing the player who managed to land a shot on the enemy first, reducing those frustrating moments of penetrating a vehicle without doing any meaningful damage — even though the round passed through a significant amount of the interior.
So why the difference in treatment here?
1 Like
why its realistic
So would decreasing it a 4 second reload.
The point is that Reload rates (of human loaders) are use as a balancing mechanism, and the advantage of having a fast follow up shot only matters if you don’t disable your opponent with the first shot, which is more likely with worse ammo, and so serves as a counterpoising element.
And to some degree with improved survivability it’s less an issue either, but there needs to be a tradeoff somewhere.
1 Like
which is why i think a 5 second reload is more than fine
You demanding a lot of things that will heavily effect balance or mechanics that doesn’t exist on other vehicles. Like where manual loading for the T-series after loading mechanism fails it should have one why it can’t have one ?
Some of them forwarded as suggestion so there are variety of meanings “accepted bug reports” because “fixing it” might heavily effect balance.
It’s not that difficult to follow the context in this topic trying to deny existance or validity of cope happening here makes you supporter of it.
What’s the difference between after and before the changes ? Only reason it has been added is people throwing tantrum it will bearly effect T-series performance this gives nothing
Do I need to point out that ammo selection and reload rate have been reserved by Gaijin to permit balancing, I can point to numerous cases where this has occurred.
It I’d assume will get one, should such a mechanic be rolled out to Autoloaders in general. Also I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any documentation as to how long a manual reload would take, I guess it would be a while though, and further influenced by which components remained functional.
Due to the use of primary sources as supporting evidence of erroneous behavior, they could only ever be accepted as suggestions. The fact that they have been accepted as such should at very least point to the fact that the arguments made are sound and agree with provided sources. As such there is no further action we can take. So it’s up to gaijin to implement them faithfully. The BR system exists to permit post-facto balancing so why are they so averse to using it for its intended purpose?
It’s so nice to see you admit that you don’t actually have an argument to stand on here and so have devolved to attacking my character.
For the Turret baskets it makes it almost certain that you can’t shoot back since it’s very unlikely for either gun laying drives to survive since they have had their hurt-box significantly expanded dramatically increasing the likelihood that any ambient spall will disable the module.
It’s more so to give the appearance that the introduction of the previous Turret basket and associated “increased module fidelity” were just regular improvement to the models, and not targeted changes made for balancing purposes (I’m pretty sure Gaijin must have some way of mapping hotspots for kills and penetrations onto the Models), otherwise there would be no need to reference it in the response to the changes they made.
Of course, but would you say the same about the Turret basket changes to the Leopards and M1, that it barely did anything?
Well no but there are other things like why some light vehicles with only rifle ammo protection generate same amount of spalling as heavy steel armor.
What ? So you you can disprove that people with pro NATO tech opinion in this topic acting inadequatly without supporting it ?
So what well just leave empty spots on some br. destroying existing sets ? That doesn’t make it better.
Depends first version of it was quite inadequate second is better and doesn’t effect horribly on tank performance.
For majority of times T-series weak point penetretaion will ending up in disabling the vehicle, shots that T series can survive won’t effect the new modules.
At this point there is only a cutout for plates of less than 6mm of RHAe, all others produce spall based on the penetrator’s diameter, and residual penetration.
In what way?
These gaps can always be later backfilled if needed.
Lineups aren’t taken into account as a balancing factor.
Won’t make it worse for the vehicle(s) though.
Linking the turret basket to the Horizontal drive module is completely fictitious. And there was already the erroneously included Sump modeled so its not as if the location was completely bereft of important modules that fulfilled the same functionality.
So, now the abrams and leo 2 is ± same in gameplay, with same problems and same advanteges but abrams have 5sec reload and leo have 6sec reload. How is this balanced if leo and abrams, basicaly, same in lot of aspects?
Found abramses in the same state as Leo’s. You get hi and whenever she’ll penetrates you, turret, hull, lower hull, engine deck just anywhere, it disables your traverse completely. Beyond that, Leo’s and Abramses have other modules that can disable traverse too and it’s so f***** annoying that you can’t fight back after just one mistake.
1 Like
Well this doesn’t make sense since a uranium or tungsten rod should just go trough soft alluminum armor like knife trough butter leaving almost no spalling which would be quite unfair in game but you demanding similar thing for abrams is just not good way to go.
This is not better than devs bug report or some other gaps in tech trees.
No they should be i think there were occasions when devs done balancing around lineups.
So just more work for more work without any valid reason ? This sounds like really bad managment
Adding M833 for 5% pen buff and lowering loading speed for 1 second ? This is not a good trade or giving only dart will give it br. bump and for M1 it has bad protection even against lower br.s is not good option too.