I’m doomed… It is realistic.
at least more than for Leo’s that almost only have an empty metal basket.
I wonder how much time we’ll need to see a buff for NATO tanks, and I don’t even think we’ll get something as that for ex-USSR tanks.
5 Likes
Royal Thai Army and U.S. Army launch “Hanuman Guardian 2026”(Mar 9–20). About 1,000 U.S. troops are training with the Royal Thai Army, and 17 Stryker armored vehicles will be transferred to Thailand after the exercise.
4 Likes
The problem is that Gajin is just looking for any excuse to nerf NATO/Western tanks. Damage to the turret basket doesn’t disable traverse, unless the motor or gearing itself is damaged
3 Likes
Yeah, I really don’t like how they do the new modules. They’re nothing more than an unrealistically big target for spall to hit in a damage model that is already unrealistically empty and suitable for spall to spread.
Instead the module should probably be split into multiple parts, the actuators that are actually part of the turret drive and vital to it functioning and the basket itself that should provide an additional obstacle for some spall to catch on. Also when there’s backups they should be separate, we don’t need an “FCS” type situation where the entire control for the gunner is also taken out because the commanders screen (that should be optics, not FCS anyways) was hit.
6 Likes
Gaijin: Don’t care, if you don’t like just leave; if you don’t leave then I has to assume you like it. (They really said this🤦♂️)
1 Like
I’m pretty sure modern turret baskets are designed for the reasons you mentioned, to actually make sure the turret drive doesn’t get hit. I do remember voting for more detailed vehicle modules, but I did it out of principle because I thought it’d be interesting to see. However, I also remember talking to someone about how Gaijin was sure to mess it all up, either on purpose or not, and give USSR/Russian tanks the usual benefit of the doubt.
I’m not too sure, but I’m pretty sure that hitting the turret “basket” of Soviet tanks doesn’t disable the traverse in the same way it does for Western tanks. And now I’m kinda annoyed because I’ve been getting killed frontally by 30 mm autocannon, so now I won’t even be able to fire back
4 Likes
Yeah I did that too, I was hoping we could see the interior modules of tanks more detailed, new components with different and maybe new roles. I thought survivability might be more of a tradeoff where more functions could be assigned to their vital components, but in return we’d get a more filled out interior including more non-vital parts (like most of the turret ring) that can actually catch spall and improve survivability in some cases.
Instead we got overly bloated modules with no purpose than to add a weakpoint, like driver controls that are destroyed for a hit to the glove compartment, FCS that takes out all control input from multiple crew no matter where on the massive multi-part module it’s hit and the worst implementation of a power system I could’ve imagined. All of them only have one thing in common, their only function is “disables X other modules” without anything in return for it being there like actually improved function for the components they represent.
It’s like they only added them to make tanks weaker, not to improve the game or even add realism.
For an example, why is this?
This “Electronic Equipment” disables IRST and LWR. I am not sure if this really is where the IRST would be, but it’s absolutely not where the LWR is and Gaijin even know this. The LWR is even modeled as a separate module (but one that doesn’t tell you what it does).
LWR module
So why not just make the LWR a module directly? It adds a function and a purpose and makes sense. Ideally even split it into different areas of coverage for the sensors themselves so that unless the system at the back is hit it might only affect it partly, but as long as LWR is a universal 360° thing it’s fair to be one big module.
5 Likes
Yeah, it really makes no sense. Granted, adding more detailed modules that the technology of the tank relies on was always going to make it “weaker” by making it more realistic. However, the way Gaijin went about doing it makes no sense. It’s just unrealistic. Like you pointed out, damaging the electronic equipment shouldn’t disable LWR. Maybe that’s a bug report?
Owari da
3 Likes
Is that a different configuration of the double barrel? I would love to use this Type in such lowprofile configuration
2 Likes
The cannons can be raised and lowered.
Personally I’d really like this feature to be bound to the radar on/off key like some sights are so you can switch between low profile and better traverse.
11 Likes
Yes, i would love to see that too. But with the ability to shoot from lower
1 Like
It is, although unfortunately without the recoilless rifles. Gameplay wise it would probably be usable when compared to the Type 60 ATM, but the main issue is that there is no additional missile storage on board.
Realistically, the M24 ATM will still be the most effective Type 64-armed vehicle left to add.
4 Likes
What I see is just another suffered vehicle. The Type 64 MAT is so bad that it can’t even consider as a decent weapon in 3.7
I don’t see anything.🧐
I never found the missile to be the issue, only the poor chassis of the Type 60. Yes the speed is poor, but the penetration and damage is as good as any other early ATGM. Combine that with the mobile chassis as the M24, and it should be somewhat easy to use on oblivious tanks you have flanked yet cannot quite kill with the 75mm.
1 Like
The missile causes the chassis to be the issue and the M24 won’t really fix that. It takes 10 seconds for it to cross just 850 meters, or 11.8 seconds to cross a kilometer, and is incapable of being used at close-range (i.e. within a few hundred meters) due to the launch angle. While the M24 would provide a cannon for it to be somewhat more useful, it would still suffer with the worst ATGMs in the game and, unlike the Type 60 ATM, would have to expose, at the least, its full turret for anywhere between 5 or 10 seconds at normal engagement ranges.
The closest analogue to it is the AMX 13 SS.11, but that has far better missiles and a far better gun at 7.0. The M24 ATM has a possibility of being placed even lower than the Type 60 ATM, since it would honestly probably be a worst ATGM platform, due to it having to expose more of itself, and its cannon would be pretty much useless at range that the Type 64 can actually be used.
The Type 60 ATM Kai would honestly probably be decent since the main problem with the Type 64 carriers is that none of them can withstand any punishment or hide well enough for the long time that it takes for the missile to reach anywhere, which is what the bushed monstrosity would fix lmao.
We need this!!! Any more pictures?
It’s one of the many things Mai_Waffentrager left us with that have yet to be answered, even a source was not provided.
5 Likes
I still disagree, but I won’t deny that the M24 ATM would be subpar at best. Not that I’m a super great player by most metrics, but I very often found that mobility was in fact my greatest enemy when playing the Type 60 ATM. Of course, there were many a frustrating moment with enemies moving behind cover, or noticing me when using the missile at long range, but generally I noticed that I simply wasn’t able to get to advantageous mid-range positions in the first place or reposition to engage even the slowest enemies.
I didn’t have that experience, because even if automotive function doesn’t get taken out, your mobility is often too poor to escape with unless the enemy is using a long reload weapon. Compare that to the SUB-I-II, and I was frequently able to eat shots and live to fight another day.
Again, the missile totally does suck in the speed category, but usually one or two poor characteristics in a vehicle are balanced out in other ways. The Type 60 ATM does not have that luxury, but the M24 ATM will.