How realistic is it that tanks without automatic loading can be used when you have only two crew members left?
The gunner can simultaneously aim the gun and load the shell. He doesn’t even need to move to the loader’s seat to do this.
Do you think it would be more realistic to consider tanks without automatic loading systems destroyed after losing two crew members?
That is indeed extremely unrealistic but for playability reasons they opted to allow this. Same as with your vision not being impaired when tank’s optics get destroyed.
This change alone would render all MBTs without automatic loading systems completely useless, but for some reason people ignore this.
Interestingly, tanks with automatic loading systems do not suffer from the same unrealistic convention of having to control the tank with only one crew member remaining.
Like dead commander still can use binocular to peek, its like he turns into a ghost and continue his role as commander.
You could make them go to the hangar with only two crew remaining, but that would be a great nerf to dozens of vehicles so I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
You could also make it that you can’t move your turret while reloading and vice versa, with breaks in-between to simulate crew member switching seats.
Yeah WT has some highly unrealistic stuff that in some cases greatly benefit western tanks.
This reloading/aiming at the same time with only two crew left is a really nice example of that.
I understand. It’s just that whenever the topic of NATO equipment being too weak (compare to irl) comes up, I remember this assumption.
If it were removed, the effectiveness of Abrams tanks and other equipment would drop significantly, and this would be entirely realistic.
Logically, I thought about it, but why not allow tanks with automatic loading to be manned by one crew member instead of losing the tank?
Do we get to implement the pyrophoricity of DU penetrators? As they would automatically set the fighting compartment on fire? It would certainly make things more realistic as any unprotected charges would detonate in short order, resulting in instantaneous turret tosses, and at very least ammo fires the majority of the time.
1 Like
They should have gone all out, allowing the ghost commander to still fire the top mounted mg, I mean he technically still working in his ghost form so it makes no sense that he can use binocular but cannot fire the mg. One time I was shooting at air units then the commander got turn into jello by plane mg, so the mounted 50 cal ended up pointing upward almost 90 degree, my tank now getting spotted by everybody and their mothers like some one has died d*** standing on top of the turret. Goddamn annoying I get scouted the entire match
1 Like
Your argument is really good to use when someone complains about autoloaders not being realistically modelled, meanwhile western crew members are super human with more than two hands, being capable of reloading and aiming at the same time.
Blowout panels being open while reloading still isn’t modelled as well.
Maybe if you introduced big pauses between driving and being able to aim, unless gunner has driving controls which I doubt.
That’s not true. There are many misconceptions about this phenomenon. As far as I know, something like this only occurs at speeds above 1700 m/s.
No shell in the game can maintain such a speed after penetrating a tank’s armor, and many are even slower at point-blank range.
That’s right, as is their jamming when the turret’s hydraulics are destroyed.
Yes, something like that, but it would be crazy. From a gameplay perspective, it’s fair, but very crazy.
In my opinion, there are many more strange conventions that should be removed first.
For example: when the commander takes the place of the loader, he inherits his full skill, not half or the basic one.
That is, if your loader is killed and the commander takes his place, the reload will only slow down by the commander’s leadership bonus, which is about 0.1 seconds.
Although in fact it should be reset to the basic skill, because the commander is not a specialist in loading, he should do it less skillfully.
Model this and the fact one guy can’t aim and reload at the same time and you’d still be at net negative when it comes to your vehicle’s strength.
Modelling blowout doors opening and closing would also be negative.
It’s realistic but I don’t think it belongs in WT, as it promotes really passive gameplay.
We don’t need some things, even if they’re perfectly realistic.
China is one of the worst top tier nations…
Wrong. We have less info about Chinese tanks compared to NATO ones. Russians brag about their vehicles but the Chinese do not. This is just a very biased view
???
DOE Handbook Primer on Spontaneous Heating and Pyrophoricity
Uranium in finely divided form is readily ignitable, and uranium scrap from machining operations is subject to spontaneous ignition. This reaction can usually be avoided by storage under dry (without moisture) oil. Grinding dust has been known to ignite even under water, and fires have occurred spontaneously in drums of coarser scrap after prolonged exposure to moist air. Because of uranium’s thermal conductivity, larger pieces generally have to be heated entirely to their ignition temperature before igniting. Moist dust, turnings, and chips react slowly with water to form hydrogen.
Why would it need to be post penetration? Its not as if the penetrator won’t deform (producing fragments, and the needed heat) at all until after it goes though the armor.
I hate to tell you this but it is absolutely modeled in game, alongside blowout panels ceasing to function if the firewall is penetrated (even though they probably should, at least not cause an instant hull loss).
1 Like
Do you have a source for that ?
Do you actually want one?
give me a minute to find the relevant replay.
Not a replay but the actual Gaijin article speaking about this mechanic.