Why is it so unreasonable to bring up ahistorical turret traverse in a discussion on how Gaijin is holding US turret traverse to historical documents?
Germany & China also have the M41.
They do
But…other nations have the same vehicles…you brought up Germany…for no reason. I would say, in an unreasonable way.
I brought up the fact that Germany fetes brought up in a thread about US tanks getting a historical buff and you went on about Germany.
How many other vehicles in game use turret drives that depend on engine RPM for power?
Man, you wanna move the goal post, that’s fine.
This hate boner is still confusing to me.
See, now you’re deflecting. If no other nation’s tanks have rpm dependent turret drives, why would I bring them up?
Panther A got its turret turn rate also lowered due to the engine governor.
There are no tanks (US-Tanks aswell) which have a lower turret turn rate with lower engine rpm for example while the engine is idle the turret turns slower.
I believe the point he is making is that the Panther A should have a powered traverse entirely dependent on the current engine RPM, and not just the maximum achievable like it is now.
20º/s should only be achievable if the engine at that moment was running at 2500 RPM, much like how 24º/s was achievable with the engine running at 3000 RPM. With that said, the Panther A’s turret traverse is always 20º/s, even if the engine is idling.
My guess is that it is simply a limitation of the current game engine. It likely would require quite a bit of code work to add a mechanic where the turret traverse of a tank increases to a certain maximum depending on engine RPM, but most important of all it would be a niche mechanic that would only be applied to stuff like Panthers and not many other tanks.
1 Like
Not only panthers had a hydraulic turret drive. M3 Stuarts, M5 Stuarts, M24 Chaffee and many british tanks (Challenger, Chruchill, Mathilda 2 etc.) had them too.
Turret turn rate doesn’t matter for tanks that much simply because they fight on much larger distance in real life.
Hills affect turret turn rate aswell.
BTW Panthers seem to have an average value aswell. Source is wikipedia and should be taken with a grain of salt
Thus the turret could be rotated 360 degrees at up to 6º/second in low gear independent of engine rpm (same as on early production versions), or up to 19º/second with the high speed setting and engine at 2000 rpm, and at over 36º/second at the maximum allowable engine speed of 3000 rpm.
Ingame panther has 20°/s
1 Like
Lots of tanks have hydraulic turret traverse. Even the Shermans, M26, and the M41 apparently has an “electric-hydraulic” powered traverse. All this is according to Hunnicutt.
However, it is my understanding that at least the US tanks had an additional, auxiliary generator/motor that allows systems to be powered independently from the main engine, including turret traverse systems.
Edit: That is not to say that I have a problem with the Panthers or other tanks having a turret traverse that isn’t tied to engine RPM, because I really don’t. I only have problems with situations like this where a change is requested under realistic pretenses (“M41 should have a maximum 24º/s turret traverse”) only for the sources that are being used to not actually conform to the change that is requested (the sources state that the M41’s turret will complete a full 360º turn in at least 15 seconds, to an average of 24º/s).
2 Likes
How am I deflecting? Are you saying no vehicles besides the US have unhistorical nerfs?
No, I’m saying German tanks with RPM dependent traverse drives don’t get held to absolute historical performance.
Gaijin has a habit of fideling with US tanks in response to some pretty selective research.
Anyone else still remembers when Gaijin randomly lowered almost every Shermans horsepower? Then how it took a whole year to change back?
Anyways, from my understanding the whole point of the M41A1 was specifically for the higher traverse rate. This is just yet another issue that has US players scrounging for documents so that maybe Gaijin can fix or change back in a year or five.
M4A2 (76) were not lowered, but M4A1 (76) and M4A3 (76) were. A3 (76) is currently back to the actual horsepower it should have, and even though the A1 (76) doesn’t have the maximum horsepower it could have (it’s modeled with the R-975-C1, 400 hp, instead of the R-975-C4, 460 or 485 hp), it is one of, if not perhaps the best 4.7 tank.
1 Like
Bug reporting is often trying to convince mods that just because they don’t understand doesn’t mean the report is wrong.
1 Like
I ain’t gonna talk bad about employees.
You can imagine my thoughts if you want tho.
Well, the report was invalid anyway. There is no “minimum” traverse rate for tanks in WT.
Crew skills and module reduce the maximum traverse rate but a historical minimum value plays no role for the game.
That gunner skill affects the traverse rate is entirely a game design decision.
In-game traverse rate equals reaction time, so by that logic a trained gunner will put the gun faster on target.
1 Like
Yeah but it’s like dealing with children.
War Thunder is a big mess of historical accurate values and values with no logic behind them.
You can look at something and everyone would say: “Wait a minute, that can’t be right”, yet it’s not changed unless some document is provided that says otherwise.
It’s kinda infuriating when on one hand they want historical accurate values but on the other don’t bother with obvious wrong ones.
1 Like
I pointed out that the Italian StuG III G weights 24.35 tons while the German StuG III G only achieves this weight when equipped with the additional track armor and the side armor skirts, both of which the Italian StuG lack. The German StuG III G weights 23.9 tons without additional track armor (still has side armor skirts).
Somehow I need a god damn document to point out that this is blatantly inconsistent?
Not to mention that I specifically pointed out another bug report of a similar nature, one on the Japanese M4A3 (76), which weighted 32.9 tons while the US M4A3 (76) only reached this weight with additional track armor which, much like the Italian StuG III G, is lacking on the Japanese M4A3 (76), yet this bug report was passed to the developers without needing any sources. In fact, it is just fixed, the Japanese M4A3 (76) now has the correct weight.
3 Likes