If getting it into a sheet metal box that hangs in the turret should mean that you can’t turn the turret anymore, then getting hit into a sheet metal box carrying ammo that hangs in the turret should also disable the horizontal drive.
9 Likes
What does the auto loader have to do with horizontal traverse?
2 Likes
he might be referencing the FCS ?
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
oh i see now, he’s referencing the turret basket on nato tanks. And he’s saying that the auto loader is the thing that support the turret and the thing that allows it to turn.
and that russian tank should have the same mechanic as the nato tanks.
2 Likes
I mean, it isnt entirely unreasonable since the main argument for e.g. the floor of the Leopard 2’s basket being part of the modules DM is that it could get stuck through bent metal etc.
The basket of e.g. the T-80 is located inside the carussel and supported via a rotary connector at the bottom. Since the autoloader essentially encases it, the same argument made for the Leopard 2’s / M1 Abrams basket can reasonably be transfered to these autoloader modules, until the basket itself is added.
3 Likes
Okay. Then the turret basket being broken should disable loading.
1 Like
i mean in both case they will be in a disavantage, if you break the turret ring, shooting become hard, and disabling the auto loader doesn’t prevent the individual from shooting, weirdly enough it wouldn’t be a massive disavantage for the russian tanks to have this mechanic, plus there is alot of space between the tank hull and the auto loader while nato tanks relies on the fact that the tank turret basket is sticking to the hull to make it turn so they can place more armor at the place that it would normally be, the real debate is why gaijin haven’t put the armor at the place where the turret ring is supposed to have more armor. Russian tanks are ok in term of mechanic it’s just gaijin that doesn’t know how to model high tier tanks due to the lack of information consisting the armor.
1 Like
what does the basket (spalling protection) have to do with the horizontal drive? A MINOR portion of horizontal is in the basket. In the game the ENTIRE basket controls horizontal apparently. Even with horizontal out Abrams have manual backups.
Turret basket is a spalling protection and protection for the crew member in the turret from the walls of the turret. It has a MINOR hydraulics line for horizontal drive. Even with it out we should have the irl backups for manual (slower) slower turret traverse, but got to artifically nerf nato to boost Russia numbers
oh my necro post, the discussion is dead
This thread needs to be revived in light of the Challenger 2 turret baskets being added.
I think Gaijin made the right call when it comes to the Challenger 2, but it is wild that the same argument from inference (i.e. that since it has a rotating floor linked to the turret that damage to it could theoretically knock out turret traverse), has not been applied to autoloaders.
Soviet autoloaders rotate with the turret. So unless the soviets are using bluetooth to keep the autoloader in sync with the breach, it’s safe to say that there is a physical link somewhere. Applying the same inferential argument used for the Challenger, damaged autoloaders should prevent turret rotation, including damage to both the apparatus and to the carousel.
Soviet autoloaders rotate independently with the turret. They are two separate components.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ettuj6wEgqE?si=mNkTn04v5URoZudy
The carousel rotates independently of the rest of the apparatus, but the rest of the autoloader is locked to the turret.
Also, in non autoloading tanks the turret basket and turret rotate independently from the hull, thus, applying your argument, it makes no sense that damage to the turret basket would lock the turret in sync with the hull.
The presumption is that damage to these independent systems might lock them together.
Ah, no. What the OP (and you I guess) was misunderstanding is that the autoloader status does not impact the turret traverse. It functions separately, unlike a turret basket which is part of the traverse mechanism.
To be clear; the “autoloader” is the machinery behind the breech and the ammo carousel that spins below the “basket”. All the moving parts. So a hit to the autoloader’s hit boxes should not prevent turret traverse.
The basket isn’t part of the traverse mechanism. It’s a part of the turret.
Gaijins argument is that the turret basket can block the traverse because of bent metal stopping the traverse. The same argument can technically be made for something like the 2A5s turret cheecks, if those get hit they can theoritically wedge themselves in a block traverse. A non penetrating hit could deform the turret ring and prevent traverse.
Turret baskets are simply a way for gaijin to cheaply nerf the “inferior” western designs while keeping the hyperdeadly russian tanks of superdestruction and greatness good.
you are totally right
You haven’t understood, this isn’t realism, this is simply adding something to certain tanks to artificially make them worse in order to satisfy the devs’ false illusion of balance. This would be practically the same as what happens with many bug reports, which, since the devs aren’t interested in fixing them because it would improve certain tanks, they prefer to accept the report but forget about it forever, as in the case of the Brenus armor, which has been reported and accepted, but will probably never be fixed.
yeah and for nato vehicles u need to spend 1.5m silverlion and 1m RP to have ace crew for same reload speed…?